Great Britain: Republic or Monarchy?

[el_slapper]

(.../...) (and down with the french )

Chaaaaaaaaaaaaarge!!! let's not let this insult stay unpunished and this time, don't let the roastbeefs fire in first

Nah, frankly, a president/king for the decorum & a full-time man for the real power, whatever the name of its function, THAT is good.

[thrashaholic]

The monarchy is a living embodiment of Britain's history, its traditions, its culture. To remove it would be to remove an integral connection we have with our past. To replace the Queen with a slimy politician president would be akin to knocking down stonehenge, knocking down all of our castles, knocking down our monuments and building a concrete monstrosity like a car-park in their place. We'd be waterring down our culture for no real purpose (as the anti-monarchists have readily admitted: the monarch has no real power, thus an elected president would have no need to have any power - the difference would be that we'd have to elect him/her, so they'd have political alligances, and that they wouldn't be rooted in our culture at all).

The cost arguments, in terms of money alone, are a fallacy. The real cost would be to the people of this country, and dare I say to the people of the world, as we'd have an institution so steeped intradition, a living history if you will, destroyed and replaced by a generic one-size-fits-all make-a-quick-buck psuedo-culture of rubbish television, disgusting fast-food and anonymous presidents.

The anti-monarchists arguments seem steeped in jealousy, that they can't be the monarch, and in racism, that a family have to live in this country for over 250 years to truly be British (although the Queen can, of course, trace her lineage back to Edward the Confessor, the last 'English' king, and there have been both considerable Welsh and Scottish influences on the family...). I say it's a good thing the general populace can't get their hands on the role of head of state: the charisteristics of ruthlessness and deceit endemic in politicians are precisely the qualities you don't want in the head of state.

The royal family, and the aristocracy in general, may be an anachronism, but they are a charming anachronism. This reason alone justifies their existence. Now that the fuedal system has gone, they can't do any harm, only remind us of our history and what it truly means to be British.

[Mouzafphaerre]

The monarchy is a living embodiment of Britain's history, its traditions, its culture. To remove it would be to remove an integral connection we have with our past. To replace the Queen with a slimy politician president would be akin to knocking down stonehenge, knocking down all of our castles, knocking down our monuments and building a concrete monstrosity like a car-park in their place. We'd be waterring down our culture for no real purpose (as the anti-monarchists have readily admitted: the monarch has no real power, thus an elected president would have no need to have any power - the difference would be that we'd have to elect him/her, so they'd have political alligances, and that they wouldn't be rooted in our culture at all).

The cost arguments, in terms of money alone, are a fallacy. The real cost would be to the people of this country, and dare I say to the people of the world, as we'd have an institution so steeped intradition, a living history if you will, destroyed and replaced by a generic one-size-fits-all make-a-quick-buck psuedo-culture of rubbish television, disgusting fast-food and anonymous presidents.

The anti-monarchists arguments seem steeped in jealousy, that they can't be the monarch, and in racism, that a family have to live in this country for over 250 years to truly be British (although the Queen can, of course, trace her lineage back to Edward the Confessor, the last 'English' king, and there have been both considerable Welsh and Scottish influences on the family...). I say it's a good thing the general populace can't get their hands on the role of head of state: the charisteristics of ruthlessness and deceit endemic in politicians are precisely the qualities you don't want in the head of state.

The royal family, and the aristocracy in general, may be an anachronism, but they are a charming anachronism. This reason alone justifies their existence. Now that the fuedal system has gone, they can't do any harm, only remind us of our history and what it truly means to be British.

.

.