Debate  permalink

can we have a vote

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 107
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by reddude88 (U3853737) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    who here thinks we should still have a monarchy.
    i vote no.
    i don't think we should have the house of lords either and i think it is inevitable that both these things will be abolished in the future.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by U11947611 (U11947611) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    I vote we should keep the Monarchy. I'll post my reasons when you post yours.


    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by reddude88 (U3853737) on Thursday, 29th May 2008

    it's embarrassing, old-fashioned, it promotes nationalism, and the monarchy get treated so well and get hundreds of acres of land and don't have to pay taxes just because of the family theye were born into (which is luck)! no tourists come to this country because of the monarchy anymore. time for it to go, we should follow nepal.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by blackmushroom (U8615596) on Friday, 30th May 2008

    whoop whoop! yes to monarcy!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by JamSarnie (U11439403) on Saturday, 31st May 2008

    I agree with you reddude88.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by U11947611 (U11947611) on Monday, 2nd June 2008

    Reddude88,

    I don't really see why it's embarrassing. They portray themselves well and convey superb relations with foreign countries.

    I'll give you old-fashioned but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

    Nationalism is only bad if you allow it to become racism. Nationalism generated by the Monarchy is far different from the type BNP wish to create.

    The Monarchy do pay income tax now, albeit they don't have to pay inheritance tax. The money they contribute to the treasury far surpasses any money we spend on them.

    How do you possibly know that no tourists visit the country for the Monarchy?

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Natalie (U9441750) on Monday, 2nd June 2008

    No to the monarchy. My reason, basically they are a glorified tourist attraction and figure head. I personally think that we should become a republic like that of America and the rest of the world.It's embarrassing. We are beyond the times of 'God save the Queen' yest no one will admit to it they just tiptoe around the issue. When she leaves the throne, I think that should be the end of it smiley - smiley

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Graciie468 (U12185175) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    The Monarchy..
    Although it seems very discriminating towards normal evryday working class citizens Its about the only last piece of culture we have left in this country and we should be proud that out of evrything this country has ballsed up atleast we have a ounze of culture left!

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by reddude88 (U3853737) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    U11947611,

    firstly, you have not given me any reasons as to why we should have a monarchy.

    secondly. they are involved in a few controversies, and also, it is embarrassing that they make the news so often. what have they done to earn their status as celebrities. quite frankly, i don't care about their private lives or prince harry's career in the army.

    thirdly, old-fashioned doesn't always mean bad, but in this case it does. in the 21st century, every country in the world should be a democratic republic.

    furthermore, i bet i could garuntee that 99 per cent, if not 100 per cent of nationalists are racist. in my opinion nationalism basically is racism. i hear the odd racist comment at school now and then and quite often when people make a racist comment they talk about the queen and national pride. i admit that the BNP and the monarchy are different types of nationalism, but at the end of the day they both promote racism.

    also, one of my main point was that the monarchy get special treatment and get hundreds of acres of land to live in just because of the family they were born into. is that fair?

    and finally, obviously some people visit this country because of the monarchy but i know a lot of people who live abroad and have come here as tourists but didn't even mention the monarchy or buckingham palace. if the monarchy were abolished buckingham palace could still be made into some sort of tourist attraction. there are far more interesting places to go to nowadays, like the o2 arena, the south bank, a park, canary wharf, river thames, london eye, sports events, restaurants, pubs, clubs, the theatre, the cinema etc.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by indiangyal_lovinArT4£v@_ (U12203237) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    totally agree with your comment on keeping a monarchy

    why not have one?

    they dont do bad things do they?

    and they want the best for England

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by octoparrot (U10596886) on Thursday, 5th June 2008

    "the monarchy get treated so well and get hundreds of acres of land and don't have to pay taxes"

    I couldnt agree more. the NHS is failing the crime rates are through the roof, and what do we do? we throw millions of hard earned tax payors money at a silly little tourist atraction.

    its so unfair.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by brigid101 (U8801925) on Thursday, 5th June 2008

    absolutely yes.
    im not in love with the royals but i dont hate them either.
    theyre part of britain and part of our culture.
    why shouldnt we have them?

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Queenie (U12238219) on Saturday, 7th June 2008

    I do not think that the Monarchy (capital m needed or not?) is part of the "culture".

    I refuse to start a debate within a debate about what culture is, but I believe that since we can go everyday without referencing the Monarchy, without knowing anything about it, without even knowing it exists, then it lies outside of cultural matters.

    I reckon that Buckingham Palace should be kept as a sort of historic monument, like the Tower of London, "In the past, England used to have a Queen! And here is where she lived..." but I do not think that the Monarch themselves need to be kept. Did you know that the Monarch cannot actually say "no" to any bill put forward from the Parliament? And at state opening, the speech is written for them?

    I really think we need to put aside our fond, and arguably nationalist thoughts regarding the monarchy and think about what benefits the population are receiving. I strongly agree with the long-standing argument that the Royal Family have done NOTHING to deserve their place. Why on earth should any one family have so much money when there are so many other, better causes?

    At one time in history, the monarch was needed to visit other countries to "keep the peace" but surely we are better off letting the Prime Minister do that, someone who we all vote in to govern us rather than someone who just happened to be born to the right parents?

    As for the racism and BNP comments, I reckon that should be a separate debate, I have so many more views on those subjects but they don't seem as relevant to this discussion!

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Balthazar (U12024148) on Saturday, 7th June 2008

    Several pointers here:

    The monarchy have almost no options in how they live their lives. They are basicaly a lower class of citizen which lives in opulent surroundings. They can't choose what to do as a career, they have a strict timetable to stick to. They can't just take a day off. They're at the mercy at ministers. THe monarch has to sign agreements they don't moraly agree with.
    Ordinary people have the option to become almost whatever they want to be. The only options for the royal family are the armed forces etc. They can't become professional, artists, musicians, sportsmen/women, politicians, lawyers etc. They're completely trapped.

    The monarchy is one of the biggest parts of British culture. I myself am a patriot and in some ways a Nationalist. However, some of my best friends are French, Indian, Irish and Arabic.
    So anyone who calls me a racist would be lying through their teeth.

    The house of lords is an important part of government.
    I agree more with life peers. For example, The Rt. Hon. Baroness Thatcher is a life peer. She was one of the greatest Prime Ministers of the 20th Century, and now she is a Lord. Without the Lord's, we'd have all sorts of unjust laws forced upon us by the various governments/parties.
    Although Tony Blair managed to twist the system to pass a few laws without their consent.

    Just face it, both are part of our national identity. Eventually the hereditary peers will disappear, and be replaced by deserving life peers.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by U11947611 (U11947611) on Saturday, 7th June 2008

    Reddude88,

    Some of my reasons as to why we should keep the Monarchy:
    - It's a longstanding tradition that holds both historical and cultural values to our country.
    - As the Monarchy retains political neutrality they serve as much better foreign ambassadors than a President ever could.
    - The Monarchy is a source of strength for a lot of people in times of crisis. Just looking back at the death of Princess Diana shows you how valued she was to some.
    - Putting it bluntly. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.


    The fact they make the news so often is more of an attack on our celebrity obsessed media. I doubt the Royal Family wish to have their private lives spread across the front page of tabloid.

    A Democratic Republic isn't necessarily the best choice. Saying every country should be one is somewhat ignorant as every country is different, be it culturally, economically or politically.

    Ok, prove to me that 99% of nationalists are racist. Saying all nationalists are racist is discriminatory in itself and verging on hypocrisy.

    They also get put straight into the spotlight whether they want to be or not. Everything they do is scrutinised. Is that fair?

    I know a lot of people who live abroad and admire the Monarchy. This little debate could go on forever.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Henny (Host) (U11824583) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008

    Did you know that this thread has been chosen for Debate of the Week? There's loads more information about the monarchy and how it works here:

    www.bbc.co.uk/school...

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by JamSarnie (U11439403) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    reddude88, i STILL agree with everything you said!

    I would like to see how the monarchy would cope in the real world. I know what the job entails, and I still think it's extremely easy and that the WHOLE royal family is undeserving.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by x-x-babyaash-x-x (U11702735) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    'what have they done to earn their status as celebrities. quite frankly, i don't care about their private lives or prince harry's career in the army.'

    Completely agree. There are HUNDREDS of other soldiers who are fighting the same war as Prince Harry but they don't get a lengthy 20 minute interview into their lovelife. I mean, if the princes want to have a girlfriend, why draw all this unnecessary attention to it? I feel like telling them that we have far better things to do than listen to them drone on about their love life.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Crimson (U12134395) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    Hi crimson chin
    We should keep monarchy as it is someting we can hold our head high about and be proud of in such dull times.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 1.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Apollo (U12275583) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008

    There is no questioning the fact that we should have a monarchy.

    Old fashioned is something they could be said to be. However we have lost enough of our culture due to globalisation and immigration which is perfectly acceptable and we have little control over these things eventually happening. So why not keep the culture and tradition we can and keep the monarchy?

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by piratefranky (U12277082) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008

    I think that the monarchy gives us our country something to be proud of. How many countires can you think of that have a monarchy?

    The press changes peoples minds of the monarchy practically every week! One moment everyone is supposed to love them and the next something has been dug out from the past to make them look terrible!

    I think that it represents this country and because of this we should be proud of our monarchy and proud of our country.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by reddude88 (U3853737) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008

    U11947611,
    typically conservative - its all about tradition. well things ned to change to keep up with the times. the fact that its a longstanding tradition doesn't mean it should exist today. i believe it is morally wrong and that overrules what you have said.
    i completely disagree that they serve as better foreign ambassadors than any president could. and they don't really retain political neutrality, we all know that most of them, if not all of them would vote conservative if they could.
    i don't know anyone who turns to the monarchy at a time of crisis. diana was a good woman, but she shouln't have to be a member of one particular family to gain recognition for what she did.
    i believe that as long as our country has a monarchy it will be "slightly dented".

    that was probably an attack on our celebrity obsessed media, but its another example of the embarrassment it causes to have a monarchy.

    i believe a democratic republic is the best choice, how is having that point of view ignorant. every country can still have their cultural differences etc, if it is a democratic republic.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by reddude88 (U3853737) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008

    U11947611,

    sorry i didn't get round to finishing last time.

    every nationalist i know is racist. you know that they are, don't try and deny it. nationalism is very similar to fascism, enough said. therefore i am actually tring to prevent discrimination and am not being hypocritical.

    this point about th monarchy being put into the spotlight wouldn't exist if we didn't have a monarchy.

    and as for your last point, its very simple - i believe it is worng to admire the monarchy (obviously). what can i say, its about point of view. but the fact is that less and less people come to this country as tourists because of the monarchy. the monarchy is slowly dying out.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Ellie*___=) (U11157092) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008

    Definately. I vote yes. Having a monarchy is what makes Great Britain different and original. It seperates us from other countries and makes us unique. smiley - smiley

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by username100 (U12282870) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008

    "The Queen formally appoints the Prime Minister, who she has the official power to remove in an emergency."

    This is a good point; although we may not have seen it exercised, somebody who has the power to remove the PM is a good thing in emergency, in case of corruption etc.

    On the whole I vote no to having a monarchy. If Britain is a democracy then there is no real need for one.
    However, the Queen is head of the Commonwealth which is another positive thing, so if the monarchy was dissolved then who would take her place? I'm sure she doesn't 'run' the Commonwealth but even so.

    How would we get rid of the monarchy anyway?

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Sadie-ki-ki (U12222818) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008

    What is your problem with the House of Lords? This discussion seems to be overwhelmingly weighted towards the monarchy side of the debate.
    The stereotypical image of the Lords is that it is 'the best club in London', full of rich old toffs who were born into the aristocracy. However, I don't think that many people are aware that it has been significantly reformed in the past decade. There used to be over 600 'hereditary' (that's what the people who inherit their place in the Lords are called) peers, but that number has been cut to 92. The other numbers are made up from the Law lords-the most senior judges in the country, and bishops, senior religious leaders, as well as 'life peers'. These are people who are given a seat in the Lords for their lifetime, because of specific achievements or expertise. This makes the House of Lords a hugely efficient scrutinising body for the government, and it is wrong to suggest that they should be abolished.
    Some people have a problem with the fact that they are not democratically elected-well I put forward that if it were, it would lose it's status as an important body and would simply replicate the House of Commons. It is very important to have the House of Lords...you are surely aware that legislation passed through commons must also pass though Lords, which means that the government can not simply pass outrageeous laws without anyone to check the process. To abolish the Lords would be to threaten the nature of democracy in the UK.

    Now the monarchy. You state that tourists don't care about the monarchy...then why is the tower of London and the jewels such a popular attraction...in fact the most popular attraction (paid for) in London? (source: The times supplement Sunday 8th June 2008) Why are there 100s upon 100s of people outside the gate of Buckingham palace each day in the Summer for the changing of the guard?
    Sure, it's not remotely meritocratic in it's approach, but the monarchy is an important part of the United Kingdom. The monarch themselves is the ceremonial figurehead of the country, but is no threat seeing as the powers of royal prerogative in actual fact lie with the Prime Minister. The very nature of ruling the country is defined by the term 'constitutional monarchy', the system which works today (you might not agree here, but most likely it's because it's run by the wrong person at present *cough* Gordon Brown *cough*) and has evolved over the years since the Glorious revolution to be the best possibly suited system to Great Britain.
    On a light-hearted note, who would open our public buildings/swimming pools/schools if the monarchy/royal family wasn't there? I certainly wouldn't want anyone with serious responsibilities (ie. a president) to neglect his job to carry out such duties smiley - winkeye

    In short, to axe these two staple institutions of British government would be disasterous.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by U11947611 (U11947611) on Wednesday, 11th June 2008

    You all speak as if they want the media attention. It's not their fault the press write about everything they do.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 1.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 19.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by starflicks (U11817621) on Thursday, 12th June 2008

    Well the queen use to have a job but now she dosent the gov took that from her so I think not!

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by U11947611 (U11947611) on Thursday, 12th June 2008

    Reddude88,

    Keep up with the times? We're not exactly the only country with a Monarchy. Just to name a few, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Japan are all constitutional monarchies. I'm sure the United Kingdom will eventually become a Democratic Republic, but that will be when it is suited the most. At this moment in time, it isn't.

    You believe the Monarchy is morally wrong, henceforth my arguments are completely worthless? What is the point of this debate then? I think a lot of things are morally wrong, but it doesn't stop them happening.

    Maybe ignorant wasn't the right word to use. You must realise that not every country wants the same thing.

    Every nationalist you know is racist? How many do you know? I'll overestimate at about 50. Now let's say 25% of the United Kingdom is nationalist, definite underestimate, so that's 15 million nationalists. You know 50 of them which is about 0.0000003% of our underestimated value. That makes all nationalists racists? Saying that a nationalist is a fascist is the same as me saying a liberal is a communist. You are trying to prevent discrimination by being discriminatory yourself, hence you are being hypocritical.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by JamSarnie (U11439403) on Thursday, 12th June 2008

    The Monarchy is a source of strength for a lot of people in times of crisis. Just looking back at the death of Princess Diana shows you how valued she was to some.  

    One of the reasons she was valued was the fact that she wasn't like the monarchy- she changed it, and people WANT it to change.+

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by x-x-babyaash-x-x (U11702735) on Thursday, 12th June 2008

    'How many countires can you think of that have a monarchy?'

    Bahrain, Belgium, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, the Netherlands (Holland), Norway, Oman, Qatar, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Sadie-ki-ki (U12222818) on Friday, 13th June 2008

    I love that bit of maths-based argument-destruction smiley - winkeye
    Right, you know me, on these boards. I am a nationalist, in that I am proud to be British, I value our traditions and our culture, and I recognise the great achievements made by my fellow britons-Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen to name but a few in the literary area, as well as many more.
    I most certainly am not racist. I do not consider myself superior to others because I'm white and have blonde hair. There is nothing wrong with black/mixed race/indian/chinese/romanys etc.

    I reckon I just proved the statement that all nationalists you 'know' are racists to be incorrect.

    As already stated...denouncing all nationalists as racists and being disdainful of them because of this means that YOU are using discrimination.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Darkflamerpunkboy (U11761755) on Monday, 16th June 2008

    The house of lords is only there to slow down the house of commons, and stops them passing extreme laws which is always a good idea
    Id quite like to replace them with a supreme court but thats by the by

    The queen is what makes us british and generates a lot of income,

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Sadie-ki-ki (U12222818) on Monday, 16th June 2008

    The purpose of the soon-to-be supreme court will simply be to take the role of the house of lords as the highest court in the UK away so they have more time to concentrate on legislation issues. A supreme court doesn't check laws before they are passed either...it only has the power to declare present laws unconstitutional, like the US supreme court did with the various jim crow laws. It didn't stop them being enacted in the first place.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by creamcheese (U12365622) on Monday, 16th June 2008

    i think that i the most riduculous thing i have ever heard!!!!!!!!! why on earth would you want to abolish the monarcy??

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by hello (U12369459) on Tuesday, 17th June 2008

    i dont think it is right if this country is free no one should be ruling over us not even the queen

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by octoparrot (U10596886) on Tuesday, 17th June 2008

    "i think that i the most riduculous thing i have ever heard!!!!!!!!! why on earth would you want to abolish the monarcy??"

    because they eat up millions of the taxpayers money for doing nothing for anyone.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by U11947611 (U11947611) on Wednesday, 18th June 2008

    Octoparrot,

    I think we all now know that they pay more into the treasury than they take out.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by reddude88 (U3853737) on Tuesday, 24th June 2008

    'Keep up with the times? We're not exactly the only country with a Monarchy. Just to name a few, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Japan are all constitutional monarchies.'

    well i think that they need to keep up with the times as well then.

    'I'm sure the United Kingdom will eventually become a Democratic Republic, but that will be when it is suited the most. At this moment in time, it isn't.'

    why not?

    'You believe the Monarchy is morally wrong, henceforth my arguments are completely worthless? What is the point of this debate then?'

    i am simply saying that in my view, what i said overrules what you said - simple as that. that's what debates often come down to.

    'I think a lot of things are morally wrong, but it doesn't stop them happening'

    what's that got do with anything? even if its not going to make much of a difference you can still oppose or supoort something.

    'Maybe ignorant wasn't the right word to use. You must realise that not every country wants the same thing.'

    I realise that, i am simply stating my point of view.

    'Every nationalist you know is racist? How many do you know? I'll overestimate at about 50. Now let's say 25% of the United Kingdom is nationalist, definite underestimate, so that's 15 million nationalists. You know 50 of them which is about 0.0000003% of our underestimated value. That makes all nationalists racists? Saying that a nationalist is a fascist is the same as me saying a liberal is a communist. You are trying to prevent discrimination by being discriminatory yourself, hence you are being hypocritical.'

    i know about 5 nationalists, but i often here people make racist comments alongside nationalist comments.
    did you seriously say that 25% of the UK are nationalists. many people may agree with the odd nationalist idea but that doesn't make them nationalist. if 25% of the UK are nationalists then why do the BNP get significantly less than 25% of the vote at a general election. why do we have a left-wing government if there are so many nationalists? also, i did not say that nationalism is very similar to fascism to prove a point and was not making it up - if you study politics and look at the political spectrum, you'll see that nationalism is very similar to fascism, where as liberalism isn't so similar to communism (although now you mention it they're probably not as different as you think).



    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by reddude88 (U3853737) on Wednesday, 25th June 2008

    'The stereotypical image of the Lords is that it is 'the best club in London', full of rich old toffs who were born into the aristocracy.'

    This stereotype exists for a reason. The house of lords does contain some of these types - too many. Some people do very little to earn their way into the house of lords.

    'Some people have a problem with the fact that they are not democratically elected-well I put forward that if it were, it would lose it's status as an important body and would simply replicate the House of Commons. It is very important to have the House of Lords...you are surely aware that legislation passed through commons must also pass though Lords, which means that the government can not simply pass outrageeous laws without anyone to check the process. To abolish the Lords would be to threaten the nature of democracy in the UK.'

    It should be replaced.

    'Now the monarchy. You state that tourists don't care about the monarchy...then why is the tower of London and the jewels such a popular attraction...in fact the most popular attraction (paid for) in London? (source: The times supplement Sunday 8th June 2008) Why are there 100s upon 100s of people outside the gate of Buckingham palace each day in the Summer for the changing of the guard?'

    All these things could still be tourist attractions without a monarchy.

    ' the monarchy is an important part of the United Kingdom'

    How?

    'On a light-hearted note, who would open our public buildings/swimming pools/schools if the monarchy/royal family wasn't there? I certainly wouldn't want anyone with serious responsibilities (ie. a president) to neglect his job to carry out such duties'

    someone who has earned their way to power and/or fame.

    the monarchy is only important if your living before the 20th century.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by reddude88 (U3853737) on Wednesday, 25th June 2008

    'The queen is what makes us british'

    no she isn't. she gives us a repuatation as posh tea-drinking snobs. no offence but these are the kind of nationalist statements that really annoy me.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by bbysarah (U12394189) on Thursday, 26th June 2008

    u tell me first ye





    sarah x smiley - smiley

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by U11947611 (U11947611) on Thursday, 26th June 2008

    Reddude88,

    What is the point in "keeping up with the times" when there is no real reason to do so. Considering the USA and France are both Republics neither of them have portrayed any reason for us to do the same thing. Britain won't become a Republic yet because the majority of people are in favour of the Monarchy.

    "what I said simply overrules what you said" That is delightful. Debates rarely fall to that standard.

    Yes I seriously said that 25% of the UK are nationalists. Contrary to what you believe nationalism doesn't have to be extreme. It is nationalist to love your country. Hence why the BNP don't gain 25% of the vote. Labour is hardly Left-Wing, it just sits in the middle. The political spectrum is completely black and white, in reality politics is far from that.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by BlackoutGurl (U10690364) on Friday, 27th June 2008

    Yeh, without it our postage stamp would look boring. haha, lol.
    I think it's important, otherwise the PM would just do whatever he likes, at least he has to check some stuff by old queenie...

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Sadie-ki-ki (U12222818) on Saturday, 28th June 2008

    reddude, if you want to have a debate you'd do better to consider all aspects of my argument. Intersting that you comment on an assertion generally made about the lords, yet ignore all of my explanation as to why it is incorrect. This doesn't give your argument any credibility. You simple state 'it should be replaced'...why? Justification for your views?

    How exactly could a guards strolling around for no particular reason be a tourist attraction. They are paid army men, to have them wander around not doing anything would be pointless. Don't be so narrow minded as to believe that foreigners are stupid enough not to realise that they, without the queen, would just be performing a pointless task. They are there to guard the queen, that's what make it a tourist attraction.
    Likewise, with the tower of london. The royal connections which are still alive and thriving is what makes it so popular.
    Notice my comment "on a light-hearted note". Maybe you coincidentally mis-read that too, to justify your pointless assertion afterwards.
    I explained why the monarchy is an important part of the united kingdom in my OP. You seem to be developing a trend for quoting out of context and obviously not reading properly/maybe you're (notice the use of the correct form there by the way, you seem chronically unable to use correct grammar - "if your living..." to that I say: If my living what?) just too scared to deal with proper arguments in an intelligent way.
    This isn't personally attacking you, It's a problem that exists all over SL. People replying, trying to have a proper debate, and failing miserably because they don't give due consideration to the opposition's arguments, and naively try to use their quotes to back up own opinions when in fact they are used in the wrong context.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by U12525680 (U12525680) on Monday, 30th June 2008

    I don't agree with you because this country is now a shadow of its former self. The only thing true british people can be proud of is roast beef and the queen. I know Brits shouldn't be proud of things like slavery and such, but the queen is the head of the Commonwealth, which has helped countless people all over the world and she is a national symbol to Brits, Australians and other African countries. Please give me your opinions on my views as I like to hear other peoples views too.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

Need help with registering on the new message boards?

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is pre-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.