The Monarchy versus Presidency

[Lad]

Long live the Queen! I'm a royalist so let's hear the US folks argue why a President is best!

Look at her in all her glory. I love it - watch the clip. All those lovely traditions - just hundreds of years of old.
Prince Philip is 85 - looking very well there too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6147766.stm

[DodgeFB]

[quote=Lad]
Long live the Queen! I'm a royalist so let's hear the US folks argue why a President is best!

Look at her in all her glory. I love it - watch the clip. All those lovely traditions - just hundreds of years of old.
Prince Philip is 85 - looking very well there too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6147766.stm
[/quote]
I am not going to argue why a President is best. As time goes on I don't think either of them earn their money.

[appleton]

The Queen serves a major role in society. She is a major tourist attraction and spends lots of taxpayers money.

Joy

[Luke]

As far as public image, the queen takes it hands down. For one thing, it seems to me it's the PM that gets the heat all the time, not the royalty! At least, that's my impression from this side of the pond. As far as leadership I really don't know; it depends on the person.

[appleton]

You are correct Luke

(Before anyone says anything about that comment. That's just my written opinion. In my eyes he is correct 8-))

[Lass]

The Queen is superb. The monarchy very possibly isn't. But it's not a perfect world. I really would not like to see Britain become a Republic; we would have to lose the little national pride we have left to go that far. I don't mean blind national pride, but just plain respect for, and loyalty to, our long history.

[Lad]

The monarchy is centuries old. Many people watching our celebrations or occasions don't realise that down to the tiniest detail there has been a running tradition for hundreds of years. Most date back to the 1600s around Charles I and Charles II, but some are older still.

I think the monarchy is stable. Presidents change, the monarchy is always there. The monarchy is quite predictable and can be trained, reared etc while a president can't.
The monarchy in the UK is a massive tourist attraction and the Queen is probably considered more important to international guests than the Prime Minister. They certainly get treated to a whole bunch of things the PM cannot provide. Despite the anti-monarchy brigade trumping on the expenses - the facts are the revenue the Queen draws in exceeds the revenue spent on the monarchy.

The Royal family are often looked upon as a dependable leadership. As already said the PM's come and they go, but the Queen remains at the post. The Queen can lead the nation in a way the PM cannot and despite her role as governing the UK basically now defunct, she is very central to the running of the country.

[Luke]

In world history we've just started into early English heritage, with kings like Alfred the Great, Canute the Dane, William the Conqueror. Those were fairly stable when they weren't fighting between themselves for the throne. It's the Middle Age kings that got booted by their citizens that seem to me to have been more unstable than our republic is today. Today we wait a few years and then remove them from office by votes; then England (and France and a lot of other countries of course) just booted them. In my understanding it really was a people-controlled government in a limited kinda way. If enough of us don't like this king, we invite another guy to be our king and don't fight for the one we have when he tries to keep his throne. Then we call it the Glorious Revolution. I'm not saying English history is bad, or anything of that kind, I just don't see the monarchy's long-past history as being as stable as it is today.

[appleton]

The monarchy is centuries old. Many people watching our celebrations or occasions don't realise that down to the tiniest detail there has been a running tradition for hundreds of years. Most date back to the 1600s around Charles I and Charles II, but some are older still.

The monarchy are indeed century years old. Wasn't the first king cnut back in 1016?

However I think the monarchy is just outdated mantle piece history. Doesn't mean we still cannot keep them though. One problem I have with the monarchy is that it doesn't seem very democratic. You can't choose your king or queen. Yet when one is chosen you are expected to respect and worship that person. Quite frankly that person has to earn that respect and do something really special for me to call her by her royal header (Her majesty). The only people I can see who deserves that respect and worship is my parents and family.

So why should I respect a few inbreeds that are pasted in the newspaper every week. They are just like any other family to me. I will hold the door open for them and respect them to a certain extent but hang me by the head I will not call anyone I do not know "Their majesty".

The Royal family are often looked upon as a dependable leadership.

What do they lead? We all insult Tony Blair but he and the government are doing more important work then the queen and her family are.

I know lots of countrys have a monarchy these days but it just does not seem very democratic. I catch the jist of Luke's post a bit.

Matt

[Lass]

For me, the term "Her Majesty" is not implying importance to the monarch him/herself as a person, but as head of state, as representing the United Kingdom. The National Anthem could be said to be glorifying the king/queen, but I think that's only in his/her capacity as a figure representing the nation and the people. I'm perfectly happy with "Her Majesty" as a title for the monarch - at present anyway. Somehow, I think the next monarch's faults and failing will obliterate any kind of leadership image.