(16 Year Old UK Resident) Would overthrow them given the chance. I pretty much view them as very successful benefit thieves that we for some reason are considered subservient to.
Poll: Do you like the (British) royal family?
- Thread starter Ilikemilkshake
- Start date
I have no reason to like or not like them soooooo...yeah.
I guess I do. Oh, and I'm from the U.S.A.
I guess I do. Oh, and I'm from the U.S.A.
well i wasent gonna say anything Without the right Answer, because i Honestly dont know off the top of my Head Which parts of the world Still Consider itself a British Colony, Besides Canada And Now Australiabrendonnelly said:Hence the union jack on our flagPigeon_Grenade said:as far as i remember Australia is also part of the British empirCarlMinez said:So did australia right?Pigeon_Grenade said:
Anyway, I've always been interested in british culture. Been in London twice
I am against their very existence. Even though I live in another country (Canada), my tax dollars are still used to pay for their "representative", the fucking useless Governor General.
Get a job, you useless inbred fucks.
Get a job, you useless inbred fucks.
You know me far too well! :O, I guess I'm picking stuff up from Constitutional Law after all.Generic Gamer said:
Yes, as Commander in Chief of our Armed Services, I would give my right arm to see her driving a jewel encrusted Challenger 2 across Libya, with some shit scared generals following behind with her corgis. She does have some fabulous gear too... ^_^.
I could also imagine her steering the Ark Royal though a warzone, that was until we sold it, I'll have to wait till the HMS QE is launched for that to come true!
Now that i think about it the fact that EVERY tv channel here wants to show the wedding as well as about 10 shows each about the wedding, they have given me a reason to not like them, even though it isn't their fault
I know it's the "cool", rebellious, teenage thing to say that you hate the Royal Family, but they really are kind of just taking up space. I've heard the argument that they put in a lot of hard work as the British heads of state, but that work is not nearly matched by the obscene amount of money poured into them. World class education, social graces that would make Mr. Rogers blush and 200 years of inbreeding are all kind of wasted when you note that they don't actually produce anything overly worthwhile (in my opinion). Neither do I admittedly, but I'm not on a £35 million(ish) per annum budget. Perhpas I'm badly misinformed but the idea of any monarchy as a whole strikes me as painfully outdated and is just us sad Britons clinging to the age of Imperialism.
They earn us a great deal of money in terms of tourism and such.
They are also part of out heritage and tradition. It's a shame the Queen (bless her cotton socks) doesn't have much power when it comes to parliament.
Also, the Queen could strip an engine down and rebuild it? During the WW2 she saw service although she never actually served in the front line.
They are also part of out heritage and tradition. It's a shame the Queen (bless her cotton socks) doesn't have much power when it comes to parliament.
Also, the Queen could strip an engine down and rebuild it? During the WW2 she saw service although she never actually served in the front line.
Their fame comes from the fact that they are directly descended from the people who did all of the things I named. Royalty is what it is. A group of people, related to each other, who believe they're better than the entire rest of the world because of the gametes from which they sprang, and act accordingly.Wadders said:Lol calm down pal, you're only a few centuries behind the times.PhiMed said:
The royals don't represent any of those things any more (well, maybe inherited wealth, I'll give you that
Since when did you hear our current Royals exploiting the poor, killing anyone, or having anything to do with rape? They've kinda changed their image since all that went on. Yes they are famous just because they've been born into a family, but it's not exactly their fault is it?
And why would a democracy use public funds to subsidise them? Well, they dont cost a massive amount in the grand scheme of things (I think 62p a year per taxpayer) and they bring tourism to the country, they have roles as ambassadors or whatever, and they dont really do anyone any harm.
Youre hating something that exists in the past. Which is fair enough I guess if the royals were really like that I'd thate them too.
Piss on all of them.
[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689[/link]jawakiller said:
Constitutional monarchy, m'dear.
Rather than kill the monarch (cos we tried it and it didn't stick) Parliament decided to keep them as stabilising 'figureheads' whilst removing all power. At the time it was just an attempt to prevent civil war but, as you can see, they stuck around.
In modern times the monarchy has become like a brand and tourist attraction, and they arguably bring in more revenue than they cost to maintain.
As for how the politics works, no wonder you don't understand it, because it's brain meltingly complicated. Instead of being invented in one go, our system has been gradually evolving to fit its purpose for hundreds of years, leaving the UK with weird quirks (such as a monarch and no codified constitution) and a messy fusion of powers.
In a nutshell, the monarch represents the country as Head of State and is supposedly completely apolitical. This means that their status as 'national symbol' isn't tainted by party politics, unlike other systems where the leader of the government is beholden to a certain political party. The monarch has symbolic powers, but no actual power; whilst the Prime Minister (nominally a first-among-equals) has very little pomp attached, but actually runs the country.
Despite this, I'm all for getting rid of them, but it won't happen. This is because it would require a massive shake up of our political system, and there are too many powerful vested interests in keeping things the way they are.