Abolish the monarchy!

[9sublime]

Over £36m was paid out to the Queen alone in 2004

79% of people believe that it has lost touch with society

it is unacceptable that the British tax payer should be paying £75,000,000 a year to support one of the richest families in Britain which could pay for 75,000 of the poorest students, fund 25 new secondary schools, or pay for the running of an entire hospital.

Last year, additional expenses for a £200,000 wardrobe and a £50,000 well, both for Buckingham Palace were made to the tax payer.

It may generate income form tourism, but this would increase to unprecedented levels if we were to abolish the monarchy and open up all the palaces as museums, hotels or restaurants.

These are just a few facts and figures I found in a few minutes. I could find many more. Its an outdated and costly thing and its only purpose now seems to be to fill up sleazy tabloids.

[vyo476]

Uh...well...go for it, then.

:D

[9sublime]

I was hoping for a bit of discussion on it...

[palerider]

It's good to be the queen.

We had the same problem with a king back in the early days of our nation. Kings and queens are just too high maintenance so we told our king to find some other suckers to tax the hell out of and then we invented the democrat party to tax the hell out of us.

[vyo476]

I was hoping for a bit of discussion on it...

Well, your first post was pretty damn convincing.

I remember talking with a man the last time I visited London who said he didn't mind the Queen's salary because that money was used on the upkeep of London's various parks. Beyond that extremely general statement I have no personal experience with the whole thing, and I don't even know how true what he said was.

Beyond whether or not you should "overthrow the monarchy" there are a few other, bigger questions. Most notably, how do you envision this "overthrowing" proceeding and what do you expect Britain would look like in the aftermath?

[9sublime]

Thats the problem, I don't have a clue how to feasibly go about it. Sure, I could make a website, hand out leaflets, get on the local radio maybe, and could hook up with some other organizations that are doing the same thing but in the end are we ever going to weild the power to change such a huge (but ultimatley expensive and useless) part of our nations history.

75,000,000 towards the upkeep of Londons parks by the way? I don't think we would be spending that much if we abolished the monarchy and paid for them straight out of tax anyway.

[numinus]

I was hoping for a bit of discussion on it...

They won't give up their monarchy for the same reason that america won't give up mtv.

Duh.

[9sublime]

MTV doesn't cost 75,000,000 to the tax payer for no good reason. It just churns out crappy material for 75,000,000 emoronics (excluding Dirty Sanchez, and Southpark).

[numinus]

MTV doesn't cost 75,000,000 to the tax payer for no good reason. It just churns out crappy material for 75,000,000 emoronics (excluding Dirty Sanchez, and Southpark).

Exactly the point.

Financial remuneration isn't the only reason why we do the things we do.

[9sublime]

Are you saying that its OK to fork out that kind of money just for the sake of pointless tradition?

[numinus]

Are you saying that its OK to fork out that kind of money just for the sake of pointless tradition?

Of course!

A large part of your identity consists of the people who went before you.

[9sublime]

Who for? The tourists? Keep the palaces and castles open to the public, and get their upkeep payed for privatley.

This money could go to so many more worthwhile causes.

[numinus]

Who for? The tourists? Keep the palaces and castles open to the public, and get their upkeep payed for privatley.

This money could go to so many more worthwhile causes.

For some people, maintaining a national identity is a worthwhile cause. Imagine ancient egypt without the pyramids, or ancient greece without the ruins of the acropolis. Not quite the same, is it?

[9sublime]

But do the ruins of the acropolis cost the taxpayer that obscene amount of money every year funding an already filthy rich family?

[vyo476]

For some people, maintaining a national identity is a worthwhile cause. Imagine ancient egypt without the pyramids, or ancient greece without the ruins of the acropolis. Not quite the same, is it?

Imagine Ancient Egypt without slavery.

Imagine Ancient Greece without human sacrifice.

[numinus]

But do the ruins of the acropolis cost the taxpayer that obscene amount of money every year funding an already filthy rich family?

National identity comes in many forms - including human institutions.

[numinus]

Imagine Ancient Egypt without slavery.

Imagine Ancient Greece without human sacrifice.

Precisely!

There is a need to maintain a national identity so that we may learn from the wisdom and folly of those who preceded us.

[Bunz]

I understand that it is expensive. Is there a direct salary paid to the queen? I have never been to the UK but would like to go some time and I would like to check out the palaces etc. I would think that the royal family would have enough money privately where a salary would be unnecessary.
Also there is a certain amount of prestige that the queen brings to the UK. I mean she isnt my queen so you can do with the royal family what you want. What would all the royal watchers find thier own lives?

[vyo476]

Precisely!

There is a need to maintain a national identity so that we may learn from the wisdom and folly of those who preceded us.

I really hope you're being sarcastic here, because it seems like you're saying that the Brits ought to maintain their monarchy so that someday someone can learn from their mistake.

[Bunz]

I really hope you're being sarcastic here, because it seems like you're saying that the Brits ought to maintain their monarchy so that someday someone can learn from their mistake.

Either way, I think his point is valid. He did mention wisdom and FOLLY.

[9sublime]

Niminus, empathise with the British taxpayer. 75,000,000 is payed to the royal family, when they are already worth millions upon millions and rake in their own income at the same time!

Would you want to pay that for the sake of tradition? We could save some of our NHS from the ****ter, help the slums in London a bit, just generally help the people of Britain, not a Royal Family nobody associates with.

[numinus]

I really hope you're being sarcastic here, because it seems like you're saying that the Brits ought to maintain their monarchy so that someday someone can learn from their mistake.

No.

I am saying that the brits see in their monarchy a part of their national identity.

How much do you think should a national identity cost, eh? If its worth dying for, it certainly is worth far more than 75,000,000 pounds, don't you think?

[numinus]

Niminus, empathise with the British taxpayer. 75,000,000 is payed to the royal family, when they are already worth millions upon millions and rake in their own income at the same time!

The brits have one of the richest and most powerful nation in the world. I'm quite sure they are more than capable of taking care of themselves without my empathy.

Would you want to pay that for the sake of tradition? We could save some of our NHS from the ****ter, help the slums in London a bit, just generally help the people of Britain, not a Royal Family nobody associates with.

Imagine yourself waking up one morning with no past or sense of identity. How much would you pay just to get these back, hmm?

[9sublime]

I dont count the monarchy as anything to do with my past identity, and I never thought it was worth dying for.

[numinus]

I dont count the monarchy as anything to do with my past identity, and I never thought it was worth dying for.

National identity isn't worth dying for??!!

And is there any way to talk about the national identity of the brits without any mention of its monarchy?

Are you even aware that a nationality is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT provided in the universal declaration of human rights?

[9sublime]

Just because we abolish the monarchy doesn't mean it never existed Numinus.

[dahermit]

I am not from the UK so I will not give an unsolicited opinion. Nevertheless, I have heard that the majority of tourists visit the UK to view the trappings of the Monarchy. Therefore, it seems logical that if more money is made on the tourist trade via monarchy, than is spent on supporting the monarchy, it would seem prudent to keep it in place for the sake of the tourist dollar.

[9sublime]

Yes, I understand that. But spending a furthuer 75,000,000 of tax payers money is bang out of order.

Anyway, the tourist industry would benefit even more if the monarchy was abolished and the castles, palaces and private grounds were sold off and opened up to the public.

I feel no love or attachment to the monarchy. They have never done anything for me, or any of the (at least) last 5 generations except spend our money and make the front pages of the tabloids.

[numinus]

Just because we abolish the monarchy doesn't mean it never existed Numinus.

It is already abolished for all intents and purposes. The monarchy doesn't have any political power. What we are talking about is an institution maintained for national identity.

Frankly speaking, I do not understand this overwhelming need on your part to destroy on the sole basis of some practical utility. There are lots of things in this world that exist without any discernable practical utility. That is human culture. That is one of the things that makes us what we are.

[9sublime]

It is already abolished for all intents and purposes. The monarchy doesn't have any political power. What we are talking about is an institution maintained for national identity.

Frankly speaking, I do not understand this overwhelming need on your part to destroy on the sole basis of some practical utility. There are lots of things in this world that exist without any discernable practical utility. That is human culture. That is one of the things that makes us what we are.

Because I don't want to be ruled over by something that has absoloutley no purpose or power except to spend my money and make the tabloids.

If I wanted that I would get a bunch of half interesting celebrities in the palace.

[numinus]

Because I don't want to be ruled over by something that has absoloutley no purpose or power except to spend my money and make the tabloids.

If I wanted that I would get a bunch of half interesting celebrities in the palace.

That's what you want, eh? There's an easier way to get it. Give up your british citizenship.

[vyo476]

That's what you want, eh? There's an easier way to get it. Give up your british citizenship.

So do you not believe in any malleability in government?

[numinus]

So do you not believe in any malleability in government?

Of course I do - by popular initiatives. Reconstituting society because an angry segment of it wants to scrimp on 75 million pounds is a bit extreme, no?

[vyo476]

Of course I do - by popular initiatives. Reconstituting society because an angry segment of it wants to scrimp on 75 million pounds is a bit extreme, no?

Not if you ask me, especially if one is living in an inflated economy. I don't know offhand how things are over in Britain right now but the last time I was there prices were damn high.

Don't forget, the national identity is about as malleable as the government - perhaps even more so. If the people aren't identifying with the monarchy anymore, it should be allowed to pass into history.

Once upon a time, all Americans were British citizens. We rejected that national identity and instead chose to forge our own. The situation our "cousins" are in now is, obviously, a bit different, but the underlying principle is still there: when you don't identify with your national identity, change is in the air.

And if the initiative to remove the monarchy fails, so what? It fails. It's not like 9sublime is talking about fermenting a revolution or anything. If the people want to "scrimp" (nice diction) on those seventy-five million pounds, let 'em. I don't see that restyling their country from the "United Kingdom" to the "United British Republics" or whatever would kill their society's sense of identity.

[9sublime]

Of course I do - by popular initiatives. Reconstituting society because an angry segment of it wants to scrimp on 75 million pounds is a bit extreme, no?

79% of people believe that it has lost touch with society. Thats some way to a popular initiative.

75,000,000 a year numinus, not to mention the fact they make their own income and are stinking rich to start with. Straight from the pocket of the taxpayer, for what? National identity? I have hundreds of other things I would rather call my national identity.

[numinus]

Not if you ask me, especially if one is living in an inflated economy. I don't know offhand how things are over in Britain right now but the last time I was there prices were damn high.

Don't forget, the national identity is about as malleable as the government - perhaps even more so. If the people aren't identifying with the monarchy anymore, it should be allowed to pass into history.

Once upon a time, all Americans were British citizens. We rejected that national identity and instead chose to forge our own. The situation our "cousins" are in now is, obviously, a bit different, but the underlying principle is still there: when you don't identify with your national identity, change is in the air.

And if the initiative to remove the monarchy fails, so what? It fails. It's not like 9sublime is talking about fermenting a revolution or anything. If the people want to "scrimp" (nice diction) on those seventy-five million pounds, let 'em. I don't see that restyling their country from the "United Kingdom" to the "United British Republics" or whatever would kill their society's sense of identity.

Exactly!

Remove the monarchy because it no longer serves to foster a common national identity - NOT because it costs the national coffers 75 million pounds.

Capice?

[numinus]

79% of people believe that it has lost touch with society. Thats some way to a popular initiative.

Opinion polls are NOT popular initiatives. If it were, then why not let gallup decide the next president of the us, no?

75,000,000 a year numinus, not to mention the fact they make their own income and are stinking rich to start with. Straight from the pocket of the taxpayer, for what? National identity? I have hundreds of other things I would rather call my national identity.

It's a bargain, if you ask me.

If you are familiar with financial statements, you would notice that goodwill has monetary value. If something as intangible as goodwill is a valid commodity according to generally accepted accounting principles, why not national identity, hmmm?

[9sublime]

A bargain? Maybe we can start splashing that sort of money out as soon as every other thing that is funded by the state is running flawlessly.

[numinus]

A bargain? Maybe we can start splashing that sort of money out as soon as every other thing that is funded by the state is running flawlessly.

You are comparing the fiscal activity of an entire nation to your household finances?? It doesn't work that way, you know. National budgets are decided annually - and is itself, an act of legislature. You do not decide things like that as an after-thought.

And a bargain implies an exchange of value. As I suggested, there are intangibles that are ascribed with value - goodwill for instance.

[9sublime]

Goodwill with taxypayers money is fine, as long as it does something to help someone who is needy, or is going toward a useful cause. Paying the royal family obscene amounts of money isnt really helping anyone as they are a useless piece of memrobilia of a time gone by, and they are hardly needy.

[vyo476]

Exactly!

Remove the monarchy because it no longer serves to foster a common national identity - NOT because it costs the national coffers 75 million pounds.

Capice?

All right. I can get behind that.

[numinus]

Goodwill with taxypayers money is fine, as long as it does something to help someone who is needy, or is going toward a useful cause. Paying the royal family obscene amounts of money isnt really helping anyone as they are a useless piece of memrobilia of a time gone by, and they are hardly needy.

It serves a people plenty to have a distinct national identity. How much more do I need to say that before you give yourself leave to understand?

I do not think it is healthy for government to give hand-outs regularly to the 'needy' among its citizens. The christian paternalistic ethic isn't really a valid political or economic system.

Goodwill IS a marketable commodity. The state can very well invest in private corporations whose total assets and owner's equity include goodwill.

[9sublime]

The monarchy is the last thing me, and I think I can safely say, the youth, associate themselves with.

Many things actually mean something to my national identity... UK hip hop and drum n bass... british films... the Queen deserves nothing. shes done nothing for her fame. the monarchy could have been abolished before it became a tabloid festival, and it could have retained some respect.

[numinus]

The monarchy is the last thing me, and I think I can safely say, the youth, associate themselves with.

All the more reason to support the institution. You can't claim nationality without appreciating the national paternity from which it derives. Nationality is a basic HUMAN RIGHT in whatever sense you wish to view it.

Many things actually mean something to my national identity... UK hip hop and drum n bass... british films... the Queen deserves nothing. shes done nothing for her fame. the monarchy could have been abolished before it became a tabloid festival, and it could have retained some respect.

You are a profoundly confused individual if you equate hip hop with a national identity.

Unfortunately for you, few people share your sentiments.

[9sublime]

All the more reason to support the institution? The words of a true conservative... times change.

Haha you miss my point. I don't associate hip hop with my national identity, but I like it more, admire it more, think it serves more purpose and has more value that the Queen.

Whether or not I agree nationality is a basic human right, I still like to have a nationality, but I don't see the queen as the key to my nationality.

[numinus]

All the more reason to support the institution? The words of a true conservative... times change.

I'm not saying the dynamics of human society doesn't.

Haha you miss my point. I don't associate hip hop with my national identity, but I like it more, admire it more, think it serves more purpose and has more value that the Queen.

Nor am I disputing that. That's obvious enough.

Whether or not I agree nationality is a basic human right, I still like to have a nationality, but I don't see the queen as the key to my nationality.

Humanity does not need your leave to declare and uphold the universal declaration of human rights - nor do your countrymen.

Your nationality is a PATRIMONY. Like all patrimony, there is nothing you can do to change it.

[9sublime]

Well... uh... there is something we could do to change it. We could... and this is a bit of stretch for you I'm sure, just abolish the thing.

I'm sure the country would carry on with very little bother. Maybe the tabloids would have to report a decent story, the old people would have another thing to whine and reminiss about, we would have to reallocate a couple of £million, open up the palaces etc. and watch the tourist industry boom.

[numinus]

Well... uh... there is something we could do to change it. We could... and this is a bit of stretch for you I'm sure, just abolish the thing.

I'm sure the country would carry on with very little bother. Maybe the tabloids would have to report a decent story, the old people would have another thing to whine and reminiss about, we would have to reallocate a couple of £million, open up the palaces etc. and watch the tourist industry boom.

Do you even understand the word patrimony?

And you say you can change it, eh?

Unbelievable!

[vyo476]

It occurs to me that the two of you are barely speaking the same language here.

[9sublime]

I understand the term patrimony, and it just doesn't apply to the monarchy anymore. How about I tell you that the US never officially broke away from England because England once ruled it? Its absurdity. Its called a (without sounding like a 14 year old wearing a che guevara emblazened tshirt) revolution in the modern sense of the word to change something about or around you.

[numinus]

I understand the term patrimony, and it just doesn't apply to the monarchy anymore. How about I tell you that the US never officially broke away from England because England once ruled it? Its absurdity. Its called a (without sounding like a 14 year old wearing a che guevara emblazened tshirt) revolution in the modern sense of the word to change something about or around you.

And did the us break away from its european PATRIMONY as well? Or latin america from its spanish PATRIMONY? Or vietnam from its french PATRIMONY? Or shanghai from its PORTUGESE patrimony?

Is it even possible to erase one's cultural heritage and identity by a political action?

Hmmmm?

[9sublime]

Is it even possible to erase one's cultural heritage and identity by a political action?



I like to think it does something along those lines. Your heritage means what you want it to mean, your identity is what you make it.

[numinus]

I like to think it does something along those lines. Your heritage means what you want it to mean, your identity is what you make it.

Human culture is not some disjointed thing that exist in isolation from its historical origins. The sooner you understand this, the better.

[9sublime]

Well I'm sorry but this is just a funamental disagreement we seem to have.