How would you respond?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

"The Queen represents the commemorative powers of state, whilst the Prime Minister represents the efficient powers of state. The Prime Minister having real power to affect change and the Queen acting as a figure head and representative of the country and her people. As is tradition, she wears a crown, a reminder of our history and what it represents. The crown is not a source of enjoyment, it is heavy to remind her of her duties. Furthermore, the crown represents our nation as much as she does and a crown is an impressive and effective symbol. The Queen and her family have made cutbacks in their expenses over the years and actually bring in more revenue to the country then they cost the tax-payers. She is our representative and she does so perfectly."

Excerpt from an argument concerning how illogical it is to have someone wearing a £10,000,000 hat and reciting a speech on austerity.

How would you respond?

[jookyle]

I don't know how many people who aren't nationalist historians are going to see the Queen as representing anything other than a figure head tourist attraction. It sounds like this statement was made by someone who still believes in "God,Queen, and Country". I know quite a few people who live in the UK, none of whom you could consider a communist or anything like that and they all have expressed their distaste for the continued existence of the royal family.

[thriller]

The Queen represents a political hold over from the feudal era. The Prime Minister represents the efficient powers of the bourgeois control. The crown is a symbol that shows how all the best results of labor go to one family (and one individual in the case of the Queen owning the crown). A representative, in this political context, means someone who is elected or chosen by a group of people. Not someone who has a certain bloodline. They may have made cutbacks, but they provide absolutely no productive value whatsoever to society. They contribute nothing to society other than being something to gawk at. They would provide the same benefits to society if they were dead and a statue of them was put in Trafalgar Square.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The queen represents nothing but butchery and genocide. God won't save the queen/

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'm so glad I live in America where the only tradition we have concerning a monarchy is telling one to fuck off.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, it's been a little while since the last royal wedding (alas! what to do for entertainment?), but I'm still always fond of showing morons like the person you're arguing with this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0MtpQcMcpU).

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Thank you all for your comments, they were very helpful! :)

[Blake's Baby]

"God save the queen 'cause tourists are Money" said Johnny Rotten of the sex pistols from the song Anarchy in the UK ...

Actually, it's the song God Save the Queen. But never mind.:cool:

[robbo203]

The crown is not a source of enjoyment, it is heavy to remind her of her duties.


In which case we would be showing christian compassion and a sense of humanitarian concern by removing such a heavy and burdensome object from poor old Betty's aging head.

She really ought not to be doing such things at her time in life. Granted she has a lived a life on state welfare, sponging off society But, you know, you can't hold that against her indefinitely! She should be allowed to go about doing things like any other normal pensioner of her age without the constant attentions of those pesky paparazzi - like going on "senior citizen" coach trips to Eastbourne or tending to her "growbag" tomatoes on the terrace of her fifth floor council flat in Balham

So c'mon y'all - give the 'ol dear a break. She deserves our sympathy, after all

[LeonJWilliams]

"The Queen represents the commemorative powers of state, whilst the Prime Minister represents the efficient powers of state. The Prime Minister having real power to affect change and the Queen acting as a figure head and representative of the country and her people. As is tradition, she wears a crown, a reminder of our history and what it represents. The crown is not a source of enjoyment, it is heavy to remind her of her duties. Furthermore, the crown represents our nation as much as she does and a crown is an impressive and effective symbol. The Queen and her family have made cutbacks in their expenses over the years and actually bring in more revenue to the country then they cost the tax-payers. She is our representative and she does so perfectly."

Excerpt from an argument concerning how illogical it is to have someone wearing a £10,000,000 hat and reciting a speech on austerity.

How would you respond?

The quoted part is actually largely true. As for the part about the monarchy costing the tax-payers less than they bring in for the country, well, that is debatable to say the least!

You can't argue against facts, the problem with the monarchy is that it is undemocratic. This should be the focus of any monarchy related argument/debate.
We as tax payers have no choice but to fund their lives and lifestyles.

It is also worth noting that unfortunately the majority of the British public support the monarchy, as do/did Australia when they said no to getting rid of them.

Of course as some people have posted any leftist is staunchly opposed to the monarchy (like me) but the UK is a conservative country, the way things are progressing the Conservatives and UKIP could be in coalition together come the next general election!

Tough times.

[Red Commissar]

The thing that bugs me about this is that it goes back to the case that the Queen is just a figurehead and does not have the power to affect change. This is true to an effect, but the royal family AFAIK does have their own group of "experts" who advise the government and provide their own input.

And of course there's the rather infamous case of the Australian constitutional crisis, where the Queen used her "ceremonial" position to dissolve the government, acting through the Governor-General of Australia, when the government in power at the time was introducing laws that came into conflict with the opposition, creating a deadlock. This provided the pretext to dissolve the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

That is, frankly, a rather extraordinary power to have and goes beyond merely being a figurehead to look nice for tourism and cultural purposes. This is similar to the powers of Presidents in countries where they act as a head of state with little "power- say like Italy or Germany where they are tasked with accepting resignations and tasking a party to form a government. However one could make an argument that those are at least "elected", albeit indirectly.

[LeonJWilliams]

Yes and indeed it gets worse, the BBC reported today that the Queen sit in on a cabinet meeting. The first time a monarch has done so in peace time since 1781.

Hope this doesn't set a precedent.

(I don't think I can post the link as I am a new member)

[helot]

I don't think we should ignore the Royal Family's role as landowners.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Yes and indeed it gets worse, the BBC reported today that the Queen sit in on a cabinet meeting. The first time a monarch has done so in peace time since 1781.

Hope this doesn't set a precedent.

(I don't think I can post the link as I am a new member)

I doubt a precedent is being set, just a tedious photo-op.

And cabinet meetings are largely ceremonial, little actual discussion of serious issues or key decisions made (at least, that's what my anti-politician prejudice leads me to believe)

[GerrardWinstanley]

"The Queen represents the commemorative powers of state, whilst the Prime Minister represents the efficient powers of state. The Prime Minister having real power to affect change and the Queen acting as a figure head and representative of the country and her people. As is tradition, she wears a crown, a reminder of our history and what it represents. The crown is not a source of enjoyment, it is heavy to remind her of her duties. Furthermore, the crown represents our nation as much as she does and a crown is an impressive and effective symbol.I think this begs the question; if such were the case, then does a nation really want to be represented by something completely hereditary and not at all democratic or meritocratic?
The Queen and her family have made cutbacks in their expenses over the years and actually bring in more revenue to the country then they cost the tax-payers. She is our representative and she does so perfectly."I see no convincing argument for why the treasury would lose at least every penny in revenue that it would have saved by (a) ditching an opulent, expensive monarchy (b) dispensing of the unspeakably corrupt peerage and honours system that accompanies it (which gives a motley crew bankers, monopolists, asset strippers, media moguls and child rapists the distinction of a knighthood or £900,000pa "job" in the House of Lords, who then go on to defraud the taxpayer with false expenses claims on top of that).