Poll: Do you like the (British) royal family?

Angerwing

Kid makes a post...
Jun 1, 2009
1,734
0
41
Australian 19 year old male, and I have four words to say:

Queen's Birthday Public Holiday.

Fuck yes.
 

Drago-Morph

New member
Mar 28, 2010
284
0
0
Generic Gamer said:
AccursedTheory said:
I'm still unclear what their continued existence offers.

What exactly do they do?
They're fantastic ambassadors for our country and a massive tourist draw. They're also a theoretical limit on our Government because at any time the queen can dissolve parliament. In addition they're just a little sentimental something that our country does.

They're also classy as fuck and at times hilarious so yeah, I love 'em!
That . . . seems like it would be threatening to a country's stability.

 

Hoplon

Jabbering Fool
Mar 31, 2010
1,840
0
0
It's actually a hypothetical limit, not even theoretical.

usually the monarch has to have it requested of them to dissolve parliament, rather than it being their decison
 

Drago-Morph

New member
Mar 28, 2010
284
0
0
Generic Gamer said:
Drago-Morph said:
That . . . seems like it would be threatening to a country's stability.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6329207.ece

It's very limited as a power goes and I don't think a member of the royal family would actually do it. It's kind of a one-shot thing, the Queen will never have real political power in the UK but she can in theory dissolve parliament...but to do so would effectively destroy the Royal Family.

Basically as far as coups go the two groups have spent ages (centuries) working each other into a stalemate, I don't know if you're American but I've noticed a lot of people unfamiliar with our Royal Family are assuming that all of their 'powers' are something they can use whenever they feel like it. The fact of it is that they're not in charge any more and they're not independently wealthy, almost all of their power and influence is the country's and can be withdrawn by parliament at any time. they're mostly of use as a diplomatic corps now, they have no chance of taking charge and they wouldn't try.

Oh, another nice feature is that all of our armed forces answer to the Queen so she can countermand anything she feels is wrong. She could only realistically do it once but it's a nice safeguard against fascism.
I was aware that that Crown and Parliament have been wearing each other down for a while, but when I read what I quoted first I thought that the Royal Family had more power than I had assumed. It's reassuring that there's little chance of the country going batshit insane.

Also, I am indeed American.
 

dagens24

New member
Mar 20, 2004
879
0
0
Fuck the monarchy. The concept of hereditary rule is such a disgrace to the fundamental concepts of freedom. And yes, I'm aware they are figure heads, but it's still a celebration of an ancient and barbaric counter-democratic system.
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.

dogstile said:
However I am actually interested in the royal wedding. A day off? Fuck yeah! Royal wedding drinking game anyone?
Drink a shot every time the cameras show the Queen?
 

Drago-Morph

New member
Mar 28, 2010
284
0
0
Quaxar said:
I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.
Actually, I think most people will agree with that. The best dictator is better than the best democracy. The trouble comes from the fact that a bad dictator is infinitely worse than a bad democracy.
 

Harbinger_

New member
Jan 8, 2009
1,050
0
0
I don't see the reason for any fascination to be had for them or anything that they do. They are essentially in my opinion nothing more than a family of politicians who have always stayed in power. Nothing more and nothing less.
 

Dogstile

New member
Jan 17, 2009
5,093
0
0
Quaxar said:
I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.

dogstile said:
However I am actually interested in the royal wedding. A day off? Fuck yeah! Royal wedding drinking game anyone?
Drink a shot every time the cameras show the Queen?
Their are a few other rules, theirs a facebook group for it if you have an account.

Safe to say, I will be suitably pished
 

Wintermoot

New member
Aug 20, 2009
6,563
0
0
(not from the UK) don,t care for them only think they are overpayed
Jim Grim said:
I don't like the fact that there IS a royal family, it's so pointless and expensive, and I think they are far too revered by somewhat unhinged/patriotic people. The family themselves? Don't know them.
I agree the Dutch Royalties get payed millions of euro,s a year (and don,t have too pay taxes).
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
Drago-Morph said:
Quaxar said:
I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.
Actually, I think most people will agree with that. The best dictator is better than the best democracy. The trouble comes from the fact that a bad dictator is infinitely worse than a bad democracy.
Well yeah, that's for granted.
Someone should bring the idea of a double-monarchy like Sparta back up. Actually, I think someone should try the whole Spartan concept again (minus the slave-hunting and the religious animal sacrifices), that seemed like a reasonable system.
 

GWarface

New member
Jun 3, 2010
472
0
0
I care about them just as much as i care for the danish royal family..

Not a single fuck..

But i do like that the danish monarchy is the oldest in the world..
Other than that, i couldnt care less about some famous people you have to respect, just because you have to.. I dont like inbreeding and i especially dont like secret societies.. So yeah... Fuck the royals..
 

Drago-Morph

New member
Mar 28, 2010
284
0
0
Quaxar said:
Drago-Morph said:
Quaxar said:
I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.
Actually, I think most people will agree with that. The best dictator is better than the best democracy. The trouble comes from the fact that a bad dictator is infinitely worse than a bad democracy.
Well yeah, that's for granted.
Someone should bring the idea of a double-monarchy like Sparta back up. Actually, I think someone should try the whole Spartan concept again (minus the slave-hunting and the religious animal sacrifices), that seemed like a reasonable system.
You're right, dropping infants off cliffs at random does seem reasonable.

Then again, I hate children, so what do I know.
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
Drago-Morph said:
Quaxar said:
Drago-Morph said:
Quaxar said:
I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.
Actually, I think most people will agree with that. The best dictator is better than the best democracy. The trouble comes from the fact that a bad dictator is infinitely worse than a bad democracy.
Well yeah, that's for granted.
Someone should bring the idea of a double-monarchy like Sparta back up. Actually, I think someone should try the whole Spartan concept again (minus the slave-hunting and the religious animal sacrifices), that seemed like a reasonable system.
You're right, dropping infants off cliffs at random does seem reasonable.

Then again, I hate children, so what do I know.
Uhm, forgot that. So minus that too. Just apply reason to what you take.
Y'know... use the the political system, not the crazy shit.
 

placebodreams

New member
Apr 15, 2009
28
0
0
JediHunter4
[/quote] As i said to someone else they bring more money in than they are given, most of it is travel costs on official dutys, they are also insanely rich from their own money, they also do a fuck load of work for charity and the country, seriously all of the money they are given is published and reasons given as is the report that says they bring in more money than they are given and all the work they do is also well publicised!

Seriously what is with all this serious lack of knowledge, there is really no excuse for not knowing it if your British.[/quote]

I refer you to my last point that they're an outdated relic of a bygone era. I'm not trying to force the argument that they're 'wasting' taxpayer money, I'm aware that alot of their work is entirely legit. My main problem is that they represent an archaic time that's long gone. The continued maintinence of a Royal Family (in my humble opinion) hinders the social development of our country by repeatedly trying to dragging us back to a time when Royalty actually mattered. There are cheaper, eqaully functional alternative to a monarchy and I believe it's a shame that there is far too much vested in the British Royal family to ever see their position evolve into something that better matches the modern, progressive society we're trying to be.

EDIT: Not sure why the quote function messed up, apologies for presentation.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
Cpt Corallis said:
PhiMed said:
Evidence of their arrogance? Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that they've set up an entire set of special rules and protocols for meeting them that they still expect people of ACTUAL accomplishment to observe? That's pretty arrogant. And besides, the entire NOTION of royalty is that their BLOOD makes them special. What other evidence do you need? The fact that a democracy of any kind can continue to support such a notion is baffling to me.

And you're completely mis-stating my position. If I actually held the position that you claim I do, you'd be correct to refute me.

My position is this: Their position in society, their job, their role that dictates 90% of their behavior is based entirely on the actions of their genocidal ancestors. Suggesting that all wealthy white people in the Southern US are descended from slave owners is not only untrue (the population in the US is much more mobile, both in terms of geography and demographics than you're suggesting), but a poor comparison even if it were true. There isn't an entire publicly-funded institution dedicated to celebrating how awesome slavery was, so... NOT THE SAME THING. The descendants of slave owners don't inhabit areas where they still have slaves so that people can come and ooh and ahh, so... NOT THE SAME THING. The descendants of slave owners don't insist that all black people address them as "master", so... NOT THE SAME THING.

People can and have renounced their royal positions, so any difficulty royals experience as a result of their position (boo hoo hoo) once they reach the age of accountability is COMPLETELY self-inflicted because of a wish to retain their status and wealth.

I don't "hate them because of the actions of their ancestors". I hate the institution of which they are a part. Because they have chosen not to renounce it, I judge them for participating in it. I don't hate them at all, and certainly not for their ancestors' actions. I judge them for their own.
Those "Special rules" seem pretty much like table manners to me. Formal Table manners I will grant you, but i would say that they would be rather similar regardless of which head of state you are having dinner with. Bar possibly Silvio Berlusconi. They are traditions within that office, the same way that you thank people when they leave a party or you shake hands with someone that you have just met.

As for those who have renounced their royal positions: Do you think they can just suddenly flip a switch and be not a royal? They have been raised their entire lives in those surroundings. That has a severe effect on who they are and how they act. In addition, from their position as royalty, they can do more to bring about change than someone else. If William Windsor from london speaks out against human rights outrages, it has less of an effect than His Royal Highness Prince William speaking out. I agree that this is wrong. But that does not mean that their current actions do not have benefits. The Royal family today is not the same as it was 300 years ago.

My argument is that while considering that the institutions which give them power are unfair, it is perfectly possible to see that any royal is capable of performing actions which are to the best interests of others.
The very first line in that article I linked: "Meeting royalty is not like meeting other dignitaries."

It's not like table manners. It's just not.

"Don't speak unless spoken to?" Eat me. You're a parasite by trade.

"Never let your back face the queen?" I don't recognize your authority, so I will immediately turn my back to you.

If anyone else demanded these things, including rulers of other nations, people would laugh at them.

The tobacco industry donates a lot of money to charity, but that doesn't make them a "good" institution.