Should the brit monarchy be abolished

Should the Britsh monarchy be abolished. Write your true opinions.

 

No, it should not be abolished.

 

I assume you would have a referendum first.

 

Please vote I am writing an essay. For my PhD

 

I voted for that monarchy should be abolished, but I think that is what is most humane for the royals because they are slaves. They are wealthy and powerful and have many liberties, but they are still property of the state, and the British people are merely keeping them as pets. Well, you asked for true opinion.

 

As long as the Royals continue to attract gullible tourists to spend their cash over here, while they gawp at their palaces and castles, they can stay. The Queen has no real powers outside those demanded by Parliamentary courtesy, and in any case these are mostly ceremonial.

 

Unlike the United States, that spends every minute of every hour of every day of every year deciding who will be the next President to further damage the lives of everyone.

At least the British monarchy is not much more that a figurehead. It can't do the damage in 20 years that an American President can do in one day.

 

I think a monarchy can be a good thing, assuming that it has no power at all. I'd keep it.

 

Monarchy justifies racism, as it sets one person as better than others with regard to human rights. Abolish it.

 

Wealthy yes, but powerful? they have no power politically or militarily. their only duties are ceremonial. and the 'british people' show great adoration of them (on the whole)

 

Britain doesn't have a constitution does it?

the royals are not elected by the people so that is undemocratic so how can they lecture others on democracy?

can the queen dissolve parliament?

can the queen ever be tried in a British court?

what about all their wealth? what do they own and how did they earn it?

should their wealth be used to feed the poor and build hospitals?

 

Britain doesn't need a constitution. It hasn't had one for 2000 years ans won't need one for a further 2000 years.

How many countries have a monarchy that wasn't elected? How many countries have a means of government that wasn't elected? Do the majority of citizens of Great Britain want to get rid of the monarchy? Not that I have noticed. Unlike the US where the Republicans wanted to get rid of Obama, even before his first term, let alone his second. Yet, both countries have a system that works for the majority.

The Queen can dissolve parliament but it would probably be the end of the monarchy if she did, which she won't because parliament was elected by the people and she is well aware of that.

For what reason would one want the Queen tried in a British court? As it happens, she can't because she is the court but if you looked for a reason to try her, you wouldn't find one in 100 years.

Her wealth? Arrived from plundering, as did the wealth from most nations. Do you want to turn back the clock?

She pays her taxes like everyone else. She didn't have to. She chose to do so.

Should their wealth be used for the benefit of the country? Probably.

But so should Bill Gates wealth. Has anyone called for him to give it up and build hospitals.

I know you aren't an American but it's the best response I can give.

 

Seems to work for the Brits so I say leave it as it is.

 

first you must specify the method to abolish

 

I ardently oppose monarchy yet this is a decision to be made by the people of the United Kingdom.

In the event its abolition is set into motion I feel that it would be best to wait until Her Majesty passes.

 

There was only one time Britain was ruled solely by Parliament and where the Monarchy was stripped of all power, when Oliver Cromwell and his Rump Parliament governed over Britain. All this happened after a long and bloody civil war, and the Monarchy deposed. Not good times for the British people.

Today, the British Monarchy doesn't have all that much power but one has to consider how the head of state will be elected, who will be the head of state, what powers will the head of have and what model of government will Britain take on. Does Britain need a head of state when it has an elected Prime Minister?



In 1999 Australia had a referendum to become a republic. The first time in history that ousting a Monarchy would be determined by vote rather than revolution. The then conservative Howard government put three models forward, two were too complicated, one too close to the American model. Australians still want to retain the Westminster form of government, so Australia voted no.

What's even more interesting is that within the Australian Republican Movement, you have members who sit on either side of the political divide. Malcolm Turnbull for example, right wing politician was once the leader of the Australian Republican Movement.



If the Monarchy is disposed, what will happen to the British Commonwealth? Will it also be dissolved, when you consider over 25% of the world's population are members of the British Commonwealth. How will other countries react if the British Monarchy is abolished? What if a country or countries reject the abolition of the British Monarchy? Too many unanswered questions.

The abolition of the British Monarchy can never be an instant event like a revolution, it will have to take time over many years or even decades. The British monarchy has influence over too many people, and not just British.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not only the choice of the people of the UK, but the entire British Commonwealth.

I'm not a Monarchist, but I like the 'Old Girl'. She was very gracious when Australia was looking to become a republic.

 

Orf with their heads.

 

well I am a monarchist. I live in two constitutional monarchies and think they work

 

I'm not a monarchist, but I also believe constitutional monarchies work. Look at the top ten nations in terms of democracy and human development index,, seven or eight are constitutional monarchies. Countries like the Scandinavian countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc.

 

I guess that's the most important reason I am a monarchist. but there is the connection thru my mothers family whose parents came from the old country pre WWI , Bristol and Edinburgh. I guess , like your favourite football team, loyalty comes from who you watched as a kid! lol

 

It already does. The Queen has extensive holdings in London. She is paid a set sum each year for those properties. The government sub lets them and pockets the profits. It is suggested she draws as little as 10% of the properties retail values

 

Well I consider myself a soft Monarchist. Given how strong the Westminster system is, I see little reason to change it. The Queen herself is a very interesting person, but suffers greatly from many of the myths that surround her. Chiefly the lifestyle she maintains, the opulence is mainly in the public eye. Away in private she is quiet the penny pincher and even continued to do repairs on her personal Landrover till she was nearly 70.

During WW2 her father decreed the Royal household lived on the same rations as the people. He refused government requests to evacuate London and insisted he go through the blitz with his people.

 

Australians generally want to retain the Westminster system of government and shudder at the thought of an American style of government.

 

its the same here. I shudder even travelling thru that place these days

 

Being a monarchist and a reactionary; I believe the British monarch should be given much more power.