|
| 23 Feb 2014 08:06 AM |
The Monarch is part of British Culture, the Queen has pretty much no power at all, she has the final say on a few things like war but other than that, pretty much no power. The Queen and the royal family are respected. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Feb 2014 05:10 PM |
@street
You know you're technically under a monarchy if you live if Greenland. The Danish monarchy is still around. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 03:40 PM |
| Yea but there is a Major diffrence, it effects people in Denmark, but Greenland is effectively still a colony, queen Magrathe or whatever she's called Barely visits greenland : / (Don't blame me for not knowing her name, honestly, i Barely know anything about Denmark) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:43 PM |
| Greenland has received more autonomy in the past 15 years or so, though. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:50 PM |
| Zach i wouldn't know, i honestly don't pay attention to the news, and we're basically the same as the Faroe Islands as far as i know, we have the same ammount of Independence, Denmark still Handles in Important things. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Celestus
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 14873 |
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:50 PM |
Yes the aristocracy should be abolished. The money brought in by the monarchy itself really has no gain when factoring in the money spent on it. Most tourists who have came to explore the aristocracy only really visit the landmarks, castles etc. This probably would not be affected much, whether or not we had a monarchy - the castles remain, and examples from all over Europe where monarchies no longer exist still have plenty of tourism based on such landmarks.
As for tradition, I'm not really interested in preserving a tradition of inheritable inequality, do I want to execute them all? Certainly not, I just want them to be forgotten about, no power and furthermore have what is not theirs taken away. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:52 PM |
| Do you think Greenland should or could be independent? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:54 PM |
@Celestus
They're still going to be a wealthy and influential family regardless. They'll still have their land and possessions and would actually make even more money than when they were related to the government. British taxes would be slightly higher since they make money off the monarchy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:55 PM |
well, I don't really know, Greenland has Oil but the countries population are strongly against digging for it, so our economy would be crap since all we really export are.. Well mostly just meat and food to places like Canada Etc. But, much of the population wouldn't care either way, the country is largely independent anyway so if we were independent, it wouldn't majorly change our lives.
I guess i wouldn't mind either way |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:57 PM |
| You guys have uranium too, but I suppose it would be better to stay as a Danish protectorate then since they actually provide Greenland with defense. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:59 PM |
| Also 94% of Greenland's exports are fish. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:59 PM |
| Yea, but the Population are strongly against digging for it, Greenland is already in Danger and many of the towns in the Mainland are prone to flash floods from Glacial meltwater so you can see why the Population would be against it, the only way you'd get uranium and Oil there is if you invaded the country and with it's Uranium and Oil, it would probably be prone to Invasion if independent in the future. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Celestus
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 14873 |
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 06:59 PM |
'They're still going to be a wealthy and influential family regardless. They'll still have their land and possessions and would actually make even more money than when they were related to the government.'
Not with a couple of acts of Parliament. As for relation to the Government, they don't really have one (other than ceremonial) and it doesn't affect them financially in any way.
'British taxes would be slightly higher since they make money off the monarchy.'
Any proof of this? Most points I've seen argue that the monarchy actually costs money. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 07:08 PM |
@Celestus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
"Not with a couple of acts of Parliament." So, what? Steal their possessions because Parliament says so?
"As for relation to the Government, they don't really have one (other than ceremonial)" Yeah that's sort of what I meant, ceremonial.
"it doesn't affect them financially in any way. Any proof of this? Most points I've seen argue that the monarchy actually costs money."
It certainly does affect them financially. The monarchy has an agreement to give all profits to Parliament from their lands, as in the farms, etc. that they own. These profits outdo the costs of the royal family. Therefore, without monarchy support, Parliament makes less money so they have to tax the population more. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Feb 2014 07:11 PM |
| However, the monarchy does have certain leftover powers I disagree with (even though my opinion hardly matters, I'm American.), such as the monarch having say in if they go to war. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Feb 2014 06:52 AM |
| Monarchy isn't that bad since revolutions against leaders that aren't that bad aren't common anymore. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Celestus
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 14873 |
|
|
| 25 Feb 2014 02:04 PM |
'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw
'"Not with a couple of acts of Parliament." So, what? Steal their possessions because Parliament says so?'
Yes, Parliament is sovereign. Because Parliament has been democratically elected, they are able to repossess / nationalise any assets owned by any individual. So if Parliament says so, it is so, that is probably one of the most fundamental principles of British politics - parliamentary democracy, if you don't know that already you don't have a great understanding of British politics. Be careful when using the word 'steal', what is seen as stealing would be the modern day aristocracies ancestors forcefully claiming land in brutal ways as their own.
'"it doesn't affect them financially in any way. Any proof of this? Most points I've seen argue that the monarchy actually costs money."
It certainly does affect them financially. The monarchy has an agreement to give all profits to Parliament from their lands, as in the farms, etc. that they own. These profits outdo the costs of the royal family. Therefore, without monarchy support, Parliament makes less money so they have to tax the population more.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Celestus
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 14873 |
|
|
| 25 Feb 2014 02:05 PM |
| *parliamentary sovereignity |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Feb 2014 02:51 PM |
@Celestus
After seeing that video, I agree with you that the monarchy should probably be ousted, or at least, a better compromise in which British Parliament profits from the monarchy to better the country. However, this is a decision that the citizens and parliament of the UK have to make themselves, and I won't have a part in that. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Celestus
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 14873 |
|
|
| 25 Feb 2014 02:58 PM |
| Well at least you are not ignorant in changing your opinion. And I sympathise with your previous view, I watched the exact same video you linked to me a while back and I fell for it. Not long ago I was in favour of the monarchy, not radically so but I just saw no disadvantage in it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Feb 2014 04:55 PM |
The UK is no more of a monarchy than America is a monarchy. The King or Queen might be referred to a monarch because that's what we Europeans have always referred to the highest in power. America purposefully changed it to be "President" because monarchs are associated with having full and total power. But the monarch of the UK doesn't. The UK's monarch is limited in power. They're pretty much the president.
Even the President of the US has executive order. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Feb 2014 05:47 PM |
@Nuclear
The president is elected... the monarch is born. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Feb 2014 06:38 PM |
"The president is elected... the monarch is born."
Who cares? Parliament is where all the power lies. Same with the US. The president doesn't hold that much power. What's more important is Congress. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Feb 2014 07:28 PM |
| The Constitution lays out the US government so that the Supreme Court, Congress, and Presidency aren't more powerful than one another. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|