Register
OK, so all the hullibalo of the wedding today got me wondering about the position of the monarchy of Britain in the modern era.
Do any of the Britishsubjects citizens here have an opinions on whether or not there should be a change in style of government in Britain.
Granted I was born into a republic and therefore with republican ideals, I (in all seriousness) don't understand a monarchy or its support.
Do any of the British
Granted I was born into a republic and therefore with republican ideals, I (in all seriousness) don't understand a monarchy or its support.
I'm spending a year dead for tax reasons.
Joined: 20th June 2010
Location: United Queendom
Posts: 1017
Personally I like the monarchy, apart from being traditional to this country it is, at the end of the day, a part of who we are and always have been. The royal family are not really involved in politics, and the money they generate in terms of tourism revenue, etc. I would imagine outweighs any cost that are incurred by the general taxpayer (which from what I understand, isn't as huge as people think)
- they're not doing anyone any harm. I don't see the need for change. I'm proud of Britain and it's history (we did some amazing things. Some not to be proud of but that's nothing unique) and I don't see what gives our generation the right to change a thousand + years of history.
- they're not doing anyone any harm. I don't see the need for change. I'm proud of Britain and it's history (we did some amazing things. Some not to be proud of but that's nothing unique) and I don't see what gives our generation the right to change a thousand + years of history.
Well on the cost side of things, its actually more than initially meets the eye. The number I often hear is something like £40 million a year. But that's what is net taken out of the exchequer to cover costs. But what is often overlooked is that the family gives the income received at their various estates (through tourism etc as you pointed out) but that is public land, not theirs. So that money is the governments/peoples anyway, so when the royal public relations office say they give that money up, its not like they have a choice in the manner, since it wasn't theirs to begin with. When you look at it that way, tourism wouldn't be affected if a republic was established because the same gardens, residences etc still belong to the state. That figure also doesn't include the security which such a large family receives for each of its members.
The cost element isn't what would bother me most (as any government style will incur costs). One is the unelected nature by which the ruling family is decided. There are simply a certain family that is automatically entitled to a job for life which pays them more a year than the average family gets in their life, they're housing is guaranteed for life, they're security is guaranteed for life and their cost of living is guaranteed for life. They can choose to rescind that role in the state, but no one outside that family can apply for it.
To say that the Royal family is not a political entity, at least from an outside view, doesn't seem accurate. The control the formation and dissolution of the government. Whether this particular occupier of the throne chooses to involve herself in the day to day politics is not the issue, the potential for future occupiers to abuse this power is there. For example in the event of a government being formed with a political party who is opposed to the monarchy and part of that parties agenda is to put forward a referendum to remove the monarchy, the potential is there for the monarch to refuse to accept that formation of the government. Also the behaviour of certain individuals from the Windsor clan have been far from non-political, especially the heir to the throne.
But even if they were the most angelic of family in the world, there is no way to know what their future generations would be like. Constitutions are not written (or at least shouldn't be written) to fit the situations at the time, they should be written with checks and balances throughout to ensure that no matter who ever is in power, they alone cannot prevent something or do something which would drastically alter the course of the state and if they do, they will then be accountable to the people through elections. But the monarchs have no such mechanism for accountability.
Lastly I'm not attacking family itself. In most cases after a monarchy is replaced by a republic, the family still remains wealthy and within the public eye if they so choose. Even in the case of the France, there are still members of the Bourbon's arsing around the place doing whatever a family does with brick loads of money
The cost element isn't what would bother me most (as any government style will incur costs). One is the unelected nature by which the ruling family is decided. There are simply a certain family that is automatically entitled to a job for life which pays them more a year than the average family gets in their life, they're housing is guaranteed for life, they're security is guaranteed for life and their cost of living is guaranteed for life. They can choose to rescind that role in the state, but no one outside that family can apply for it.
To say that the Royal family is not a political entity, at least from an outside view, doesn't seem accurate. The control the formation and dissolution of the government. Whether this particular occupier of the throne chooses to involve herself in the day to day politics is not the issue, the potential for future occupiers to abuse this power is there. For example in the event of a government being formed with a political party who is opposed to the monarchy and part of that parties agenda is to put forward a referendum to remove the monarchy, the potential is there for the monarch to refuse to accept that formation of the government. Also the behaviour of certain individuals from the Windsor clan have been far from non-political, especially the heir to the throne.
But even if they were the most angelic of family in the world, there is no way to know what their future generations would be like. Constitutions are not written (or at least shouldn't be written) to fit the situations at the time, they should be written with checks and balances throughout to ensure that no matter who ever is in power, they alone cannot prevent something or do something which would drastically alter the course of the state and if they do, they will then be accountable to the people through elections. But the monarchs have no such mechanism for accountability.
Lastly I'm not attacking family itself. In most cases after a monarchy is replaced by a republic, the family still remains wealthy and within the public eye if they so choose. Even in the case of the France, there are still members of the Bourbon's arsing around the place doing whatever a family does with brick loads of money
Help a water polo player out
Masked Hero of filesheep.
Joined: 18th October 2010
Location: Along the Watchtower.
Posts: 115
Prince William is balding hence why you like him, King.
Quote
Well on the cost side of things, its actually more than initially meets the eye. The number I often hear is something like £40 million a year. But that's what is net taken out of the exchequer to cover costs. But what is often overlooked is that the family gives the income received at their various estates (through tourism etc as you pointed out) but that is public land, not theirs. So that money is the governments/peoples anyway, so when the royal public relations office say they give that money up, its not like they have a choice in the manner, since it wasn't theirs to begin with. When you look at it that way, tourism wouldn't be affected if a republic was established because the same gardens, residences etc still belong to the state. That figure also doesn't include the security which such a large family receives for each of its members.
This is true but, are you talking of removing the royal family and not having a queen? That would have something of an impact on people's views of England internationally and I actually think it would despirit a lot of the people of this country, believe it or not there are still a large majority of royalists in this country.
Would you like some toast?
Quote
The cost element isn't what would bother me most (as any government style will incur costs). One is the unelected nature by which the ruling family is decided. There are simply a certain family that is automatically entitled to a job for life which pays them more a year than the average family gets in their life, they're housing is guaranteed for life, they're security is guaranteed for life and their cost of living is guaranteed for life. They can choose to rescind that role in the state, but no one outside that family can apply for it.
To say that the Royal family is not a political entity, at least from an outside view, doesn't seem accurate. The control the formation and dissolution of the government. Whether this particular occupier of the throne chooses to involve herself in the day to day politics is not the issue, the potential for future occupiers to abuse this power is there. For example in the event of a government being formed with a political party who is opposed to the monarchy and part of that parties agenda is to put forward a referendum to remove the monarchy, the potential is there for the monarch to refuse to accept that formation of the government. Also the behaviour of certain individuals from the Windsor clan have been far from non-political, especially the heir to the throne.
The royal family haven't excersied their right to any powers for a long, long time have they not? For some reason I was always under the impression the queen effectively had no power and that her fuctions are purely ceremonial or a formality?
I think it would reflect well on Britain internationally, Kings and Queens are from another era as far as I'm concerned and I know a lot of people in the world agree, there are no other major countries in the world which maintain a monarchy. I do accept that there are a lot of people in Britain which still want a monarch, buts the root of the matter for me. I'd love to know why. I don't understand it.
As for official powers, you're right, they are mainly ceremonial, but they still exert power none the less. They are the head of state. A head of state who remains in such a position, without any accountability. The majority of powers were transferred to parliament and the Prime Minister (which was dangerous,and still is, there are many powers that were transferred to the Prime Minister which should be in the hands of Parliament) a minor distinction but important none the less
As for official powers, you're right, they are mainly ceremonial, but they still exert power none the less. They are the head of state. A head of state who remains in such a position, without any accountability. The majority of powers were transferred to parliament and the Prime Minister (which was dangerous,and still is, there are many powers that were transferred to the Prime Minister which should be in the hands of Parliament) a minor distinction but important none the less
Help a water polo player out
His men will follow him anywhere, but only out of curiosity.
Joined: 24th October 2010
Location:
Posts: 245
I've visited Parliament with a college group an you'd be amazed just how much "Tradition" involving the Royalty is still wrapped up in everyday goings on at that place.
I found it what I'd call a very Tory atmosphere off general snobbery, full off people whose job roles was shit like keeping "commoners" (an actual term used between ministers when refering to pretty much anyone who isn't them or royalty.) from certain parts off the building, not because their in use but because only members affiliated with Royalty could get in. Thats rooms in the centre off Government used for the exclusive use off Royalty, could be wrong but the word "Exclusive" doesn't sound amazingly democratic too me.
Some off the shit they do there seems downright pagan to me. Just google British parliament traditions to see how many inbred little ceromonies there are a year between the Queen and Ministers.
Kings and Queens to us in todays world should be about as relevant as the pharohs are too running present day egypt. Their a throw back to a class system which should be eradicated, an the best way to do that is cut it off at the head.
Yea so in short, If free from retribution. I'd gladly pop everyone of the inbred fuckers personly.
I found it what I'd call a very Tory atmosphere off general snobbery, full off people whose job roles was shit like keeping "commoners" (an actual term used between ministers when refering to pretty much anyone who isn't them or royalty.) from certain parts off the building, not because their in use but because only members affiliated with Royalty could get in. Thats rooms in the centre off Government used for the exclusive use off Royalty, could be wrong but the word "Exclusive" doesn't sound amazingly democratic too me.
Some off the shit they do there seems downright pagan to me. Just google British parliament traditions to see how many inbred little ceromonies there are a year between the Queen and Ministers.
Kings and Queens to us in todays world should be about as relevant as the pharohs are too running present day egypt. Their a throw back to a class system which should be eradicated, an the best way to do that is cut it off at the head.
Yea so in short, If free from retribution. I'd gladly pop everyone of the inbred fuckers personly.
Fuck your Honda Civic I've a horse outside...
What confuses me, is why do they deserve to be treated with utmost respect and reverence, as though they are gods from the heavens.
What is the psychology behind this? Most of them are ordinary working people who have not been given any special advantages due to birth, yet they support the royal family that have been born with loads of advantages just by birth, just by being born into a family line.
I see parallels with religion and royal family, and can't help thinking there must be some sort of psychological force or forces behind both of them - like some sort desire to revere something higher than themselves - even if there are no good qualities to warrant this.
But what has the royal family done? What is so special about them? What are there achievements? I don't know any of them, but I know their ancestors came to power by force and violence. I also know there are many talented people who have achieved a lot, like scientists who have never got as much respect as the royals, and to me this doesn't make any sense.
I think the royal family should be abolished, and that England should become a republic, this should lead to a more fair society, where people are treated by merit rather than birth, and less class division and more equality.
I am disgusted how ordinary, working-class people are venerating a family just because of their birth, rather for what they have done. Its very sad.
Personally I like the monarchy, apart from being traditional to this country it is, at the end of the day, a part of who we are and always have been. The royal family are not really involved in politics, and the money they generate in terms of tourism revenue, etc. I would imagine outweighs any cost that are incurred by the general taxpayer (which from what I understand, isn't as huge as people think)
- they're not doing anyone any harm. I don't see the need for change. I'm proud of Britain and it's history (we did some amazing things. Some not to be proud of but that's nothing unique) and I don't see what gives our generation the right to change a thousand + years of history.
You say that royal family is about patriotism, history and British values, but what is stopping people from being patriotic without the royal family? The French and Americans are very patriotic and value their history and culture without a royal family, and I don't see how having a royal family means a country has more history, culture or patriotic feelings.
What is the psychology behind this? Most of them are ordinary working people who have not been given any special advantages due to birth, yet they support the royal family that have been born with loads of advantages just by birth, just by being born into a family line.
I see parallels with religion and royal family, and can't help thinking there must be some sort of psychological force or forces behind both of them - like some sort desire to revere something higher than themselves - even if there are no good qualities to warrant this.
But what has the royal family done? What is so special about them? What are there achievements? I don't know any of them, but I know their ancestors came to power by force and violence. I also know there are many talented people who have achieved a lot, like scientists who have never got as much respect as the royals, and to me this doesn't make any sense.
I think the royal family should be abolished, and that England should become a republic, this should lead to a more fair society, where people are treated by merit rather than birth, and less class division and more equality.
I am disgusted how ordinary, working-class people are venerating a family just because of their birth, rather for what they have done. Its very sad.
Quote by FileTrekker
Personally I like the monarchy, apart from being traditional to this country it is, at the end of the day, a part of who we are and always have been. The royal family are not really involved in politics, and the money they generate in terms of tourism revenue, etc. I would imagine outweighs any cost that are incurred by the general taxpayer (which from what I understand, isn't as huge as people think)
- they're not doing anyone any harm. I don't see the need for change. I'm proud of Britain and it's history (we did some amazing things. Some not to be proud of but that's nothing unique) and I don't see what gives our generation the right to change a thousand + years of history.
You say that royal family is about patriotism, history and British values, but what is stopping people from being patriotic without the royal family? The French and Americans are very patriotic and value their history and culture without a royal family, and I don't see how having a royal family means a country has more history, culture or patriotic feelings.
I agree with royalty being outdated, all the cool countries now choose their leaders based on whoever has the coolest commercials.
Help a water polo player out