• Welcome to ResetEra 2.0! Guests should now be able to save their dark or light theme preferences, found on the left sidebar.

Abolish the Monarchy - Shaun

Mar 13, 2018
932
0
#1
So Shaun made a response video to fellow youtuber CGL Grey (who for once isn't an alt-righter) defending the monarchy. Shaun made his take on why the monarchy should be abolished.


So what do you guys from UKEra think?
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,244
0
29
New Jersey
#3
shaun is one of the coolest dudes of all time

And as for the content of the video, from a US perspective, yeah i agree with him. Even if you want to be rich or be born into a life of money, being treated as literally above others from an official social perspective just because centuries ago your family subjugated others just rings sour to me.

We have enough of a hard time with elite oligarchs trying to destroy and take from the downtrodden. We dont need to worship them as gods and literal kings too
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,244
0
London
#5
Yeah, they should be entirely removed from any semblance of power or government-provided wealth. And we should get the proper income from the royal properties.
 
Oct 27, 2017
428
0
#7
The issue with removing the monarchy is that it inevitably leads to disagreements about what a new system of Government should look like.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,693
0
#9
From a political perspective absolutely but otherwise they are a net positive for the UK. The royals are just puppets who put on a show to please people and bring in tourists.
 
Oct 27, 2017
775
0
#10
Another great video by shaun.

If the UK changed up it's consitution that would be something great, I'm a huge proponent of electoral reform and a common talking point is not just the monarchy but also the House of Lords to be replaced with a second elected question (My main question would be how would the second chamber work and what would they do?). As for the Royal Household, they can just maintain the historical sites, they don't need the Queen or King to be there, I doubt tourists actually care, it's just the pomp and circumstance.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,244
0
London
#11
Get rid of them and England loses a LOT of tourism money.

Which we’re going to need after this Brexit bollocks,
Pretty sure the French royal properties get plenty of tourists. I think the Palace of Varsaille brings in more revenue than Buckingham Palace, because it's open year round and isn't squatted on by some old biddy most of the year.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,679
0
London
#12
Yeah I want rid so the executive can finally be reformed properly, if not, at minimum there should be elections every so often to confirm people want the monarchy to continue
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,244
0
29
New Jersey
#14
Get rid of them and England loses a LOT of tourism money.

Which we’re going to need after this Brexit bollocks,
Do you REALLY need a money grubbing historical fossil for people to come to the UK, is that REALLY true?

The issue with removing the monarchy is that it inevitably leads to disagreements about what a new system of Government should look like.
I may sound stupid saying this, but...how feasible would it be to have the goverment the UK has now...just without the royal family. I mean they mostly operate on a functional government without the royal family anyways correct?
 
Oct 26, 2017
794
0
#16
No person should inherit a position of power just because he has born.

Putting this in simple language, you shouldn't be head of state just because you won Uterus Lottery
 
Oct 28, 2017
782
0
Scotland
#21
The issue with removing the monarchy is that it inevitably leads to disagreements about what a new system of Government should look like.
This was my train of thought previously. With the current shitshow laying bare many of our constitutional weaknesses, however, I think we do need a complete reboot of our entire system.
 
Jan 8, 2018
181
0
#23
Too much riff-raff in here trying to overthrow our blessed Ruler. Long may she reign!

Royalty does not waste time on the opinions of filthy peasants!

/s
 

Eldy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
881
0
24
Maryland
#24
The royal family being a tourism boost is a common assertion but the actual evidence is inconclusive and most versions of the argument implicitly assume that tourists will be uninterested in visiting sites like Buckingham Palace without a royal family living there, despite palaces in formerly monarchical countries like France and China seeing more visitors than their counterparts in the UK. Not that royal sites are the main attraction for tourists in the UK even with an active royal family.

The other thing that always bothered me about Grey's video on the subject (which is 7.5 years old now; damn) is that he acts like abolition of the monarchy would not also entail nationalization of the crown estate because ... reasons ... even though that's generally how transitioning away from being a monarchy works.
 

Uzzy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,693
0
31
#25
This was my train of thought previously. With the current shitshow laying bare many of our constitutional weaknesses, however, I think we do need a complete reboot of our entire system.
Yup. A proper reform package of the UK Constitution would be welcomed, especially in light of the fundamental problems that have been laid bare these past few years.

Just on its own, abolishing the monarchy is in that 'eh, whatever' part of my mind. I wouldn't defend them if it happened, but I'm not going to campaign for them to go. It'd probably just lead to more problems right now, and they're politically harmless.

The other thing that always bothered me about Grey's video on the subject (which is 7.5 years old now; damn) is that he acts like abolition of the monarchy would not also entail nationalization of the crown estate because ... reasons ... even though that's generally how transitioning away from being a monarchy works.
You can't just arbitrarily seize their property though, so there would need to be some sort of settlement. That'd be costly even for just the Crown Estate, let alone the still privately owned land.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
782
0
Scotland
#26
lol they're symbolic
I think his point is, how do we fill that symbolic gap? Do we have an elected, figurehead President in that role? Does the PM formally absorb Royal Perogative powers? Do we use the opportunity to massively re-jig a legislative system that's not had any major changes since 1911, when the House of Lords' secondary status was confirmed? What happens to the Lords without a peerage system?
 
Oct 27, 2017
548
0
#27
I fail to see where's the line between inheriting say, a billion dollars, or a crown.
Actually, the crown seems to come with major hassles and shit.

If you want to go down that road - "It's wrong because it's hereditary" - Let's get down to billion+ inheritances first, please.

I mean, i watched the video, and it doesn't really make any sense. He has a problem with anyone inherediting massive wealth, not with the royals in particular, so why single them out?
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
4,870
0
#29
Yeah we have a monarchy in The Netherlands too. It's ancient nonsense. Like religion.
But the alternatives aren't so great either. It's more of a symbolic function right now. But it still costs a shitload of money.
It makes no sense, but i kinda like parts of it.
 
Oct 28, 2017
297
0
#30
Don’t mind the Royals. They’re a nice distraction from the absolute shit show of politics we have.

Also, I don’t think we should get rid of the House of Lords either, as it has been made abundantly clear that having everything governed by a majority rules government leads to the absolute bollocks we have with Brexit. Having elected people in the Lords likely would have had whatever Theresa twat face going through completely unchallenged as the Will of the People seems to enjoy destroying itself.
 

Eldy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
881
0
24
Maryland
#31
I think his point is, how do we fill that symbolic gap? Do we have an elected, figurehead President in that role? Does the PM formally absorb Royal Perogative powers? Do we use the opportunity to massively re-jig a legislative system that's not had any major changes since 1911, when the House of Lords' secondary status was confirmed? What happens to the Lords without a peerage system?
I would imagine that if the monarchy is ever abolished it would be part of a raft of constitutional changes that also abolish the Peerage. Having the a Queen without having Lords is possible, but the reverse strikes me as rather silly (though it's sort of happened in some European countries where formerly aristocratic families keep using titles). Having a ceremonial president like Germany, among other parliamentary republics, is probably the most likely outcome, though you don't truly need a single person to serve as head of state. The Swiss get along fine without one.

ETA: Missed this, sorry.

You can't just arbitrarily seize their property though, so there would need to be some sort of settlement. That'd be costly even for just the Crown Estate, let alone the still privately owned land.
The crown estate is not normal privately-owned land. It's in a weird grey area because of the duality of the monarch as head of state and the royal family as a group of individual citizens. Abolishing the monarchy would involve a lot of constitutional and legal changes, further making this an exceptional case.
 

Stinkles

343 Industries
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
7,497
0
#32
Aristocrats in the UK are even more objectionable and the House of Lords is an outrageous concept even as defanged as it is. Turn it into a non political body of highly qualified non political experts on specifics like law, economics, the sciences and so on.
 
Oct 28, 2017
782
0
Scotland
#34
I would imagine that if the monarchy is ever abolished it would be part of a raft of constitutional changes that also abolish the Peerage. Having the a Queen without having Lords is possible, but the reverse strikes me as rather silly (though it's sort of happened in some European countries where formerly aristocratic families keep using titles). Having a ceremonial president like Germany, among other parliamentary republics, is probably the most likely outcome, though you don't truly need a single person to serve as head of state. The Swiss get along fine without one.
Absolutely - those reforms would be needed though. One thing getting rid of the Monarchy would highlight is the silly amount of power the PM in some areas has thanks to Royal Perogative. I know at the moment the Queen basically has to do what she's told there, but if that's just transferred wholesale it would get rid of that symbolic separation.

Imagine if the PM could still call the election at will (if the law hadn't changed a few years back)
 

Uzzy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,693
0
31
#35
I would imagine that if the monarchy is ever abolished it would be part of a raft of constitutional changes that also abolish the Peerage. Having the a Queen without having Lords is possible, but the reverse strikes me as rather silly (though it's sort of happened in some European countries where formerly aristocratic families keep using titles). Having a ceremonial president like Germany, among other parliamentary republics, is probably the most likely outcome, though you don't truly need a single person to serve as head of state. The Swiss get along fine without one.
So who gets the Royal Prerogative powers? The PM? Because if laws can be passed by Parliament entirely on it's own, and Parliament is entirely sovereign, we've got an even more powerful elected dictatorship and unlike Germany we don't have a written constitution so theoretically anything could be passed.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,732
0
London
#38
So who gets the Royal Prerogative powers? The PM? Because if laws can be passed by Parliament entirely on it's own, and Parliament is entirely sovereign, we've got an even more powerful elected dictatorship and unlike Germany we don't have a written constitution so theoretically anything could be passed.
About time that we should write one.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,353
0
Narzarick
#41
Do you mean CGP Grey? He is alt right???

Edit: Oh you were saying CGP Grey ISN'T alt right. Awesome, cause I really like that guys videos and would hate if I had to drop him
 
Last edited:

Eldy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
881
0
24
Maryland
#42
So who gets the Royal Prerogative powers? The PM? Because if laws can be passed by Parliament entirely on it's own, and Parliament is entirely sovereign, we've got an even more powerful elected dictatorship; and unlike Germany we don't have a written constitution so anything could be passed.
Using the fact that the UK does not presently have a written constitution as an argument against the workability of a (highly unlikely) hypothetical scenario that would only be possible with sweeping constitutional changes--probably including the adoption of a formal constitution regardless of what form the new head of state takes--is kind of weird.
 
Nov 3, 2017
1,248
0
#43
The Queen/Monarchy/Commonwealth embody stability in a world where politicians, governments come and go, not everything can be measured in dollars and cents.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,679
0
London
#44
You can't just arbitrarily seize their property though, so there would need to be some sort of settlement. That'd be costly even for just the Crown Estate, let alone the still privately owned land.
Balmoral maybe not, the rest of it is theirs because of politics, if we're at the point of abolishing the monarchy the settlement will be they don't need to pay the trillion in debt the state/crown owes.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,525
0
#45
User Banned (5 Days): Inappropriate generalizations surrounding gender
No... It’s a great distraction for wives, mothers, sisters, and girlfriends.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,936
0
North Jackson High
#47
The issue with removing the monarchy is that it inevitably leads to disagreements about what a new system of Government should look like.
This is a solved problem with many other Westminster systems, very few of whom use actual monarchs (the other British-style constitutional monarchies are Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Lesotho, Tonga, and Japan, with other monarchies existing where the king has more power). You just have an elected and mostly-powerless President.
 
Oct 28, 2017
952
0
#49
Getting rid of them wouldn't be a smart move. We earn more money from them than we spend on them. It's beneficial to have them from a purely economical point of view. Culturally they're all icons in their own regards and their various charities and projects help a lot of people that wouldn't have had the help without them


Don’t “excuse me”. Explain your offense.
Guess? Yikes