Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is the Monarchy an Anachronism

Grakkle

Grakkle

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 6, 2006
624
2
Earth
All right, fellow commonwealth guys and gals: is the Monarchy an expensive absurdity, or do we benefit from having a queen?

I'm a firm supporter of the royals myself. I think it's rather cool, and makes us seem different from the yanks, eh?
 
I believe they serve a purpose of sorts. I'm just glad that they have to pay taxes like everyone else now. I don't, however, believe that Canada needs to continue the charade that we are still colony. IMO of course.:D
 
I like 'em. There's always a debate as to whether we (Australia) should become a republic but I think we'd lose some of our romance. Plus it'd cost a bundle to initiate and run.
 
mad jew said:
I like 'em. There's always a debate as to whether we (Australia) should become a republic but I think we'd lose some of our romance. Plus it'd cost a bundle to initiate and run.
Click to expand...

Important consideration, that!;) But I think it's true - they do add a bit of romance to public life. I mean, look at the States - they have Bush, and they don't even have the queen to counter his absurdity!
 
mad jew said:
I like 'em. There's always a debate as to whether we (Australia) should become a republic but I think we'd lose some of our romance. Plus it'd cost a bundle to initiate and run.
Click to expand...

MultiM said:
I believe they serve a purpose of sorts. I'm just glad that they have to pay taxes like everyone else now. I don't, however, believe that Canada needs to continue the charade that we are still colony. IMO of course.:D
Click to expand...

Nothing personal to your respective countries, but putting the queen and such on your money is just too creepy. It's like you're still ruled by her and whatnot. I mean, it's like you are too scared to tell her to go away. Very disappointing indeed. (and MJ - after you do that, maybe you can get her flag off of yours...)
 
nbs2 said:
Nothing personal to your respective countries, but putting the queen and such on your money is just too creepy. It's like you're still ruled by her and whatnot. I mean, it's like you are too scared to tell her to go away. Very disappointing indeed. (and MJ - after you do that, maybe you can get her flag off of yours...)
Click to expand...

Scared of the queen? We like her, that's why we have her on our money! It's not any weirder than having dead presidents on your money.
 
Keep 'em I say. Somebody has to keep a watch over the colonies.

It's not like Tony Blair, Stephen Harper or little Johnny Howard have any clue since becoming Bush's lapdogs. :rolleyes:

* NOTE: I'm a Brit currently working and living in Toronto and having lived and worked in Sydney feel qualified to make the above statement *
 
Can't say I'm fussed either way really.

In terms of republicanism, sure independence and all that but meh, we're independent anyway.

The royals seem to do a lot of charity work etc, so why stop them?

Plus there's got to be something to fill the tabloids and trashy magazines with. Just this week I read that Prince Andrew has started dying his hair because he suddenly went grey. :p
 
I think the world is a better place with the Monarchies. Of course, I do not have to support them. But, they are a romantic tie to the past. Some still believe in 'divine right', although perhaps less so in Europe.

I was in Great Britain when the Queen Mother was celebrating her 90th birthday. I was actually able to see her (part of an adoring crowd). She was absolutely captivating.

I know the people of Great Britain are often in debate as to whether the monarchy should be preserved. "Questions for the Prime Minister" is one of my favorite programs. It is often debated there. I hope they can always see fit to keep it. Admittedly, the 'crown' is not what it once was, but it is a symbol that defines a nation. As such, I believe it is still of value.
 
I am an American, but I think that the british Monarchy is a good thing. It helps to preserve some of the older culture, that seems to be being lost over most of europe.
 
As long as they don't interfere with politics or the general running of Commonwealth countries they can stay where they are.
 
Yet, doesn't the crown represent the era of colonialism that expanded and crushed the native peoples of Asia and Africa and South America and Australia, and North America? I suppose Antarctica got off kind of lucky there.

Additionally, I doubt that the jewels came from UK soil....I'd venture many of them came from colonies that even today are still developing. With all the talk of reparations of Jewish valuables and others who have had so much taken from them - what about the many British colonies?
 
nbs2 said:
Yet, doesn't the crown represent the era of colonialism that expanded and crushed the native peoples of Asia and Africa and South America and Australia, and North America? I suppose Antarctica got off kind of lucky there.

Additionally, I doubt that the jewels came from UK soil....I'd venture many of them came from colonies that even today are still developing. With all the talk of reparations of Jewish valuables and others who have had so much taken from them - what about the many British colonies?
Click to expand...

True enough, unfortunately most of human history seems to be based on theft. But it's hardly the preserve of the royals - what about American history, with its supposedly democratic, non-hierarchical goals?

As a matter of fact, Canada's record of treatment of the First Nations (Native Americans) though shameful enough, is much, much better than their treatment by the American government.

Also, slavery was abolished in the British empire more than thirty years before it was abolished in the US. Repression of native and non-European peoples was far worse in America overall, and for a longer period.
 
I've got no problem with it, the queen doesn't interfere in our politics (she's not allowed to) and for all intents and purposes we basically are a republic with the PM as our head of state. Now, in actuality the Queen is our head of state with the Governor-General as her representative but that's really all ceremonial duties. I very much doubt a G-G would ever exercise his/her full powers again after what happened in 1975.

We put the queen on the money because she is our head of state - it's no different from the americans putting presidents on their money except that all the presidents on the US money are dead. When Big Ears takes over we'll have him on the money.

Yeah, there are some bad connotations with the monarchy from the colonial era etc but hell, they've been going for nearly a thousand years - there's going to be some really bad stuff in there somewhere. Becoming a republic is something I'm not sure I support at the moment - it would be ceremonial at best, cost a bloody fortune to implement and because of how it all went down last time would give out politicians even more of a stage to feed us all with crap from both sides.

I reckon anything that keeps the pollies out of the limelight has got to be good.
 
it's an anachronism, sure. But I happen to like it. The royals are a tangible connection to the past. I'm an American, and I would love to see the descendants of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et. al. featured more prominently in the national discussion, if only to remind us of who we are and where we come from.
 
Grakkle said:
True enough, unfortunately most of human history seems to be based on theft. But it's hardly the preserve of the royals - what about American history, with its supposedly democratic, non-hierarchical goals?

As a matter of fact, Canada's record of treatment of the First Nations (Native Americans) though shameful enough, is much, much better than their treatment by the American government.

Also, slavery was abolished in the British empire more than thirty years before it was abolished in the US. Repression of native and non-European peoples was far worse in America overall, and for a longer period.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. The exploitation of others is an unfortunate way to gain wealth and build empires. I cannot find too many examples in history where this is not true. America has developed a unique neocolonialism. It does not usually include direct invasion and enslavement. Instead, we use proxies to do our dirty work. Corporate America is every bit despotic as the classical European colonialists. However, we do not use conquistadors. We send the CIA and Jerry Fallwell.
 
SMM said:
You are absolutely correct. The exploitation of others is an unfortunate way to gain wealth and build empires. I cannot find too many examples in history where this is not true. America has developed a unique neocolonialism. It does not usually include direct invasion and enslavement. Instead, we use proxies to do our dirty work. Corporate America is every bit despotic as the classical European colonialists. However, we do not use conquistadors. We send the CIA and Jerry Fallwell.
Click to expand...

Well it's the natural thing to do, right...that way people don't know who to lynch.
 
Chundles said:
I very much doubt a G-G would ever exercise his/her full powers again after what happened in 1975.
Click to expand...
I just read a summary of what happened.

You people (Canada, Australia, etc) have somebody who can single handedly destroy your government, and the concern among most is that any American president (clinton for the reps, bush for the dems) would try to set up a some sort of unilateral control on the government?:eek: I mean, they guy isn't even elected by any meaning of the term. I was beginning to understand the points all of you are making about the cost of a changeover, but it feels too much like you're waiting for something like the recent electric crisis here in Maryland - too much reaction to something that you knew would happen instead of proactively dealing with it.
 
nbs2 said:
I just read a summary of what happened.

You people (Canada, Australia, etc) have somebody who can single handedly destroy your government:eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah but the finer points of tradition and etiquette prevent that from happening. The GG who did dissolve the parliament did so on the advice of the opposition leader after the PM Gough Whitlam refused to call an election on the basis of a double dissolution when senate blocked numerous supply bills.

The real controversy happened when the GG installed the opposition leader as acting PM. The election was held and Gough was defeated in a landslide.

The dismissal remains as a black mark on a system that generally works very well. Because of the controversy the role of GG and those appointed to it (by the PM) have since been less political and more suited to be the ceremonial head of state as was always meant to be.

Keeping the monarchy isn't going to cause some massive disaster, it's not going to render the community impotent in terms of power, the system isn't broken so spending all that money just isn't really necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back