Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Should Great Britain abolish its monarchy?

  1. Yes

    27 vote(s)
  2. No

    23 vote(s)
  1. Feb 27, 2005 #1
    Should the monarchy in Great Britain be abolished?

    1. Yes
    2. No

    We were talking about this in my government class and I wanted to know what other people thought. :smile:
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 27, 2005 #2
    I don't see the harm in keeping a figure-head. Its such a part of the history of Great Britain.
  4. Feb 27, 2005 #3
    Waste of money and energy. Get rid of her.
  5. Feb 27, 2005 #4
    Can a "don't care at all" option be added perchance? Because I mean it doesn't really matter to me what happens from this side of the pond, we already decided we don't like British monarchs 200+ years ago. :wink:
  6. Feb 27, 2005 #5
    Great Britain is an island. Perhaps you meant Britain or the United Kingdom.
  7. Feb 27, 2005 #6
    i assume the poll is about the united kingdom of great britain & northern ireland :rolleyes:

    anyway, whether GBR gets rid of the queen/king, nothing much will change. the structure of the government wouldn't change, and a president would likely cost just the same. the only difference would be that heredity wouldn't decide who becomes head of state.
  8. Feb 28, 2005 #7
    Get rid of the monarchy, it's been degraded to celebrity status, what with the paparazzi running all over him, I mean could you see the attention what's his face got when he wore the nazi costume to a party. How low has our society sunk that that gets more coverage than the ukranian elections.
  9. Feb 28, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ditch it ... a thing of the past and not in any good sense.
  10. Feb 28, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I was wondering about the British Monarchy while listening to 'God Save the King' in the movie "The Bridge on the River Kwai". I was thinking that it should be about the people and country, not an individual who is given an arbitrary status with some artificial superiority. The King or Queen of England is not England, the People are England.

    I grew up singing "God Save the Queen" as a child in school, until I moved to the US. As an adult, I would not wish to sing such an anthem.

    Royalty should be dismantled - it has no place in a just and equitable society. Other European nations such as Germany and France have removed their royalties.
  11. Feb 28, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I voted no. It provides endless innocent fun for us in the US. And as for the cost, in the nineteenth century, Queen Victoria owned London, by inheritance from her ancestor, William the Conquerer. Disraeli tricked her into exchanging that for an allowance.
  12. Feb 28, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I voted yes, since there were only two choices.

    It's a pretty trivial matter as to whether the monarchy is abolished for the UK. In the US, the Royal Family seems to be something to fill the gossip magazines.

    Abolishing the monarchy would probably have a greater impact on the British Channel Islands than the UK. Not only is Elizabeth queen of the United Kingdom, she's also the Duchess of Normandy. The islands aren't part of the Britain and exist as territories of the Royal Family. The islands belonged to William the Conqueror along with Normandy. Normandy wound up joining the rest of France, but the Queen is still recognized as the official leader of each of the separate islands, even if they rarely meddle in local affairs (each island generally tends to its own affairs separately from the other islands).
  13. Feb 28, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For fegg's sake, can people PLEASE learn the difference between England, Great Britain, and the UK!

    Much as I hate everything the Royal Family stands for, as long as the Royal Family generate more revenue from American tourism than they consume from the public, it's a good thing to keep.
  14. Feb 28, 2005 #13
    I don't think England, or Great Britain, or The United Kingdom, or regular old Britain, or anythink else you brits might wanna call your land, should get rid of the concept of their Monarchy alltogether; I just think it's about time that the family who holds the throne to be changed.

    Perhaps, since they no longer have too much political clout in America, and they're from Ireland (which is close enough), the Kennedy family should stage a coup and become the new royal family of Great Britain.

    I wonder, if a coup was attempted, would the British public rise up and defend their royalty, would they help the coup, would they just watch the tele and laugh about it?

    And brewnog, can you explain the difference between Britain, Great Britain, The United Kingdom, and England, for us petty Americans?
  15. Feb 28, 2005 #14
    • People often confuse the names for this country, and frequently make mistakes in using them. United Kingdom, UK, and Britain are all proper terms for the entire nation, although the term Britain is also often used when talking about the island of Great Britain. The use of the term Great Britain to refer to the entire nation is now outdated; the term Great Britain, properly used, refers only to the island of Great Britain, which does not include Northern Ireland. The term England should never be used to describe Britain, because England is only one part of the island. It is always correct to call people from England, Scotland, or Wales British, although people from England may also properly be called English, people from Scotland Scottish, and people from Wales Welsh.

      Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Here is a map showing England, Scotland, and Wales:
    http://www.drc-gb.org/open4all/service/open4all_presentation/Image4.jpg [Broken]

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Mar 1, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For all you petty Americans (or should that be United States of Americans?)

    Good work hitssquad.

    In order of size:

    British Isles: Used colloquially, not a political term. Includes England, Scotland, Wales, ALL of Ireland, as well as the other pissy little islands (Orkneys, Shetlands, Angelsey, Channel Islands etc)

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island: The proper, political name for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland along with pissy islands.

    Great Britain: Just the big, main island, comprising of England, Scotland & Wales, not a political term. By this definition, the Irish could take exception to being called British.

    England, Scotland and Wales. Wales is a principality. There are also Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories, but nobody wants to know about those, and nobody really knows where they all are anyway.

    I've had an irritated thing about this ever since I saw Mrs Doubtfire, where she told the little kids that England was an island. Dumb wench!

    Wasteofo2: I reckon if you guys staged some kind of monster coup, we really would just sit back and watch the fireworks, so long as you didn't try and mess with the actual governing of our country. Bring it on!
  17. Mar 1, 2005 #16
    We're Americans, it's that simple. We live in States, and collectively, we form The United States of America, and thus as a group, we're Americans.
    Why do you all insist on having so many damned names?

    Why can't it all be The United Kingdom, and then just everything else just be called England, Ireland, Scotland, Whales, and whatever else. Why do you need all these semi-communal semi-exclusive terms?

    I think if Americans stage a coup of the british crown, that would be our first matter of business, making the naming system just like the USA's. Then we'd abolish the roundabout system and liberate Canada.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2005
  18. Mar 1, 2005 #17
    The avoirdupois pound of flesh, dearly bought

    One problem there would be that the nation of Ireland (which geographically encompasses the island of Ireland plus a few other tiny islands and minus the geographically one-sixth of the island of Ireland claimed politically by the UK as Northern Ireland) wants to remain a nation separate from that of the UK.

    Perhaps for the same reason that they thought 12 inches to a foot and 16 avoirdupois ounces or 7000 grains or 0.45359237 kilograms to a pound would be good ideas.
  19. Mar 2, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Technically, Canadians and Argentinians are American, too.

    While it's somewhat outdated, the concept of the US is that I'm a Coloradan, while someone from Virginia is a Virginian, someone from Indiana is a ... uh ... Hoosier?, someone from Connecticut is a ... :uhh: .... :confused: .

    Each state kept it's individual identity, hence the debate over state's rights vs. the federal government.
  20. Mar 2, 2005 #19
    Yeah I do not really like being called an American. Because as BobG said, Canadians, Mexicans, everybody on this side is an American. However, what are you going to call us? United Statesians?
  21. Mar 2, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Absolutely, where have you been for the past 20 years, Wasteofo2?

    Hey, for all scientific and engineering purposes, we're metric now. The Americans are the ones who insist on using pounds and feet, they just call them 'British Units' so that they're not the ones who look stupid :tongue2:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook