Poll: Do you like the British Royal Family?

GonvilleBromhead

New member
Dec 19, 2010
284
0
0
I like the Royal Family. Yes, it makes no logical sense - but that's the point. We're logical as far as we need to be (having an elected head of government who actually runs the country), but that addition of whimsy. It's like republican mathematics compared to royalist music; the former is logical, beautiful perhaps, but dull, earnest, and leads to the head of your country being hated by half the population. The former, however, is a hell of a lot more fun. The cost argument is irrelevant - the President of the US costs 20 times as much as the Royal Family, and the French President about three times us much (I wouldn't be surprised if the British Prime Minister costs more than the Royal Family). The "democracy" argument falls flat due to the fact that the majority of British people, according to every opinion poll I have seen, favour the Royal Family - which rather makes abolishing them strike me as being anti-democratic.

The Royal's add a hint of dignity to the otherwise undignified world of politics, and a sense of wonder. Using my Royalist Music versus Republican Maths, well I'd rather listen to some music than a man spouting quadratic equations.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
DisturbiaWolf13 said:
J Tyran said:
look at the massive revival of the pottery industry
Oh now I know you're joking.

No increase in tourism is worth elevating these people above everyone else.

"Hey, you there. You and you're family can live in palaces so that people will come from all over to look at you in the palaces!"
That isn't the only reason though, they are also still around for tradition. Around 1000 years of of it, I think its worth maintaining culture and heritage considering the amount of money they bring into to the country as well. They have no power so do not impact on the government much, apart from ceremonial duties of course.

The Monarchy is a big part of our history, no Monarchy and we will lose a huge part of our living heritage. All the official ceremonies would stop, things like the changing of the guard and opening Parliament would be all be considered history instead of several hundred years of living heritage.

As this sudden out pouring of global scrutiny and good will show people around the world still have a great respect for that millenniums worth of history and tradition, we would lose those global ambassadors.

As one person put it "Parliaments come and go and so do members of the cabinet but Monarchs are on the throne for decades and provide a kind of stability in global relations[footnote]paraphrased[/footnote]".
 

Da Orky Man

Yeah, that's me
Apr 24, 2011
2,107
0
0
More or less the same as most here. I'm basically indifferent to them, but they're a net gain in moneys, they give tourism a boost and give comedians yet another source of material, so I see no reason to abolish it.
 

SquidSponge

New member
Apr 29, 2013
75
0
0
To quote How I Met Your Mother, "nothing good happens after 2am". Also, I shouldn't write on forums when I'm in a bad mood. So I'd like to apologise for my 3am sleep-deprived bile. Now, that aside, I'd like to add while I hate the presence and idea of a monarchy, I actually don't dislike (most of) the Royals as people - I judge them as individuals based on merit, like I do everyone else (some of you may notice a theme in my political views). Actually for Harry I have a certain amount of respect, as he serves active duty in the military - I actually have some sympathy for him, given that he chose to do this despite the huge target on his back due to lineage alone. A questionable career choice, therefore, but he had no more control over his own genealogy than did I or anyone else. Likewise, none of them can so much as take a dump without 16 tabloids reporting about it, so I figure that earns some sympathy too. The media should bloody well leave them alone, especially that poor baby.

As for a certain argument that the monarchy prevents the government from going power-mad, I have to say that, with respect, you've got it arse-backwards. Giving more power to a smaller number of people whose positions are decided by something as arbitrary as bloodline is in no way less likely to go wrong than disseminating power over (relatively) larger numbers, each of whom is elected in some way and thus has a much less stable position from which to "run amok". That's pretty much the point of democracy (other than throwing out the "divine right to rule" crap), even if it is far from perfect. You might also notice that a "power-crazed" dictatorship is a dictatorship, not a democracy. As in, a democratic leader is elected, whereas a dictator seizes or persuades their way into ultimate authority then sets arbitrary rules like, idunno, bloodline, regarding how succession is decided. You might say that a dictatorship is the rule of one single person, a mono-archy if you will. Maybe after a few centuries legitimises the whole thing we might find a contraction for that word, it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Regarding the balance of profitability, I've seen arguments in both directions picking each other apart, and while I remain skeptical that they bring in more than they cost I'll now concede that I don't know enough to pass judgement. My point in posting that video was more along the lines of "don't believe everything you hear from a YouTube video".

So to clarify, my issue here is that no-one should get special privelages (eg tax breaks) based on heredity alone in a fair and just society to which I think we should aspire (and, indeed, that this nation already claims to be). Unlike some people, where I see injustice I see a problem that needs to be fixed, not an uncomfortable truth to be tolerated or ignored. To risk repeating myself, treat 'em like normal people, no more and no less, for better and for worse, and I'll mostly be happy. And I don't want to hear about them unless they do something remarkable. Probably not even then, to be honest. Successfully figuring out how to utilise their reproductive organs does not count as "something important", just to be clear.
 

Vareoth

New member
Mar 14, 2012
254
0
0
They seem to be quite competent, generally speaking. At least more so than most politicians I've seen. Then again, I consider myself somewhat of a royalist when it comes to the Dutch monarchy. So I might be a bit biased.
 

Willinium

New member
Jun 2, 2011
323
0
0
Honestly as an American? I really like the idea of living in a monarchy. In a monarch-ed ruled land you have a leader that you can trust to be responsible with their power as they have it for life and several generations down as well. The Royal family now the Windsor dynesty(is that the right word?)seem to be good responsible even headed heads of state with several of the family(i believe at least) have military experience.
 

DSK-

New member
May 13, 2010
2,431
0
0
English, and God bless the Queen!

They (the Royal Family) bring in a crap load of money tourism wise, and the Queen/Prince of Ediburgh to a lot in the way of international politics - the Queen is also a very busy Grandmother at the ripe old age of 87 (I wonder if she will get to write a letter to herself at 100?)

The Queen should usurp the Government. Fuck it, it'd make a change if nothing else - better than the current twats in power.

[Added]

Also, it's worth noting that the Queen served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service in WW2 and Prince Andrew flew helicopters in the Falklands War.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
odolwa99 said:
though not a member of the IRA, knew people who claimed to be.
People claiming to be in the IRA typically where not, members of the paramilitary groups would always trumpet their Republican or Unionist values but they kept their other affiliations quiet. Both groups where at risk of being found by the authorities and locked up permanently without charge, informants, the RUC and intelligence agencies like armies 14 Intelligence Company and MI5 where there (even undercover SAS in the most hostile areas). Not only that they where always on guard for paramilitaries from the other side, they would drag people off and torture and murder them.

Being a member of such a group is not exactly something you go around telling anyone that isn't a member or respected sympathiser.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Mycroft Holmes said:
Royalty is important because it is the right way to set up a country. A president is just a person that doesn't really matter; that is why people try to kill them all the time. We have had 4 presidents assassinated and pretty much every president has had people try to kill them. But royalty is more important and better than most normal people, they have a degree of dignity that makes assassins step back and say 'lets not do this;' because killing them is something different where they see the majesty of royalty before them and they are too in awe to try and kill them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=royal+assasination&title=Special%3ASearch

And need we remind you of French Revolution "Let's behead the king and queen" or the Russian Revolution "Let's shoot the adolescent princess in her f***ing head"?

Those are even MORE bold statements against monarchy than individual assassins, because revolutions are powered by a whackload of people.
thats like 2 kills in like 2 hundred thousand years of history. and both were done by groups of people who were known to be communists who dont care about human life at all no matter who it is. also they never killed the princess theres a whole movie about it called Anastasia that i saw.
 

RyQ_TMC

New member
Apr 24, 2009
1,002
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
also they never killed the princess theres a whole movie about it called Anastasia that i saw.
Yeah... I'm pretty sure you're joking by now.

OT, again: I don't quite understand the idea that a hereditary monarch is inherently more objective than an elected politician. That assumption has been presented by quite a few posters in this thread, but what is it based on? True, they don't have to jockey for popular support in elections (and thus might be inclined to shoot down populist ideas bad for the country), but I don't see what would keep them from believing in a specific ideology and acting accordingly.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
lacktheknack said:
Mycroft Holmes said:
Royalty is important because it is the right way to set up a country. A president is just a person that doesn't really matter; that is why people try to kill them all the time. We have had 4 presidents assassinated and pretty much every president has had people try to kill them. But royalty is more important and better than most normal people, they have a degree of dignity that makes assassins step back and say 'lets not do this;' because killing them is something different where they see the majesty of royalty before them and they are too in awe to try and kill them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=royal+assasination&title=Special%3ASearch

And need we remind you of French Revolution "Let's behead the king and queen" or the Russian Revolution "Let's shoot the adolescent princess in her f***ing head"?

Those are even MORE bold statements against monarchy than individual assassins, because revolutions are powered by a whackload of people.
thats like 2 kills in like 2 hundred thousand years of history. and both were done by groups of people who were known to be communists who dont care about human life at all no matter who it is. also they never killed the princess theres a whole movie about it called Anastasia that i saw.
You... you can't discriminate fact from fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Anastasia_Nikolaevna_of_Russia

That's a very, very bad thing.
 

Zack Alklazaris

New member
Oct 6, 2011
1,938
0
0
I don't hate them I just honestly don't care about them. Sure I'm concerned for their well being as much as I would be for any stranger, but I just don't really get into the whole celebrity worship thing.
 

Mcupobob

New member
Jun 29, 2009
3,449
0
0
I consider myself 100% and steadfastly without question, indifferent to the British Royal family. All I want is for American news channels to get over the fact that they squirted out a kid. I get it why they are doing it and why the British are happy about it. I think I read somewhere(don't quote me on this) that the royal baby brought in like something 302 million in Tourism.
 

odolwa99

New member
May 11, 2013
32
0
0
J Tyran said:
odolwa99 said:
though not a member of the IRA, knew people who claimed to be.
People claiming to be in the IRA typically where not, members of the paramilitary groups would always trumpet their Republican or Unionist values but they kept their other affiliations quiet. Both groups where at risk of being found by the authorities and locked up permanently without charge, informants, the RUC and intelligence agencies like armies 14 Intelligence Company and MI5 where there (even undercover SAS in the most hostile areas). Not only that they where always on guard for paramilitaries from the other side, they would drag people off and torture and murder them.

Being a member of such a group is not exactly something you go around telling anyone that isn't a member or respected sympathiser.
Likely it was hearsay. But as you indicate, people had strong opinions and may have wanted to show support vocally. The British military almost certainly had eyes and ears all over the country, but a few chance words between mostly elderly men in a pub or work place in the South would go unnoticed.

In any case, this is all starting to sound like a Monty Python routine. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,296
903
118
Country
United Kingdom
Binnsyboy said:
They do take a small amount off in taxation, but it's a ridiculously low amount per person per year. What you pay the Royals in a year is roughly what you'd spend on a trip to the shop to buy yourself a tasty treat or something. And the reason the Royals receive a tax payment is because they give us the Crown Estate, which they have the legal right to take the rent for back at any point. Them having the Crown Estate means the government (by Royal choice) gets all its rent, not private landowners. And it should be noted that the net rent from the Crown Estate is several times that which the Royals are given in tax money per year. So by this last point alone, we're hugely profiting directly from the Royal family.
Again. No. I'm going to repeat this until it sinks in, because it's a stupid argument.

The queen does not "own" the crown estate any more than she "owns" the treasury, or the revenue service, or the prison system, or any other government institution which theoretically belongs to her. In theory, yes, in practice, no.

Back when people were hitting each other with swords, the treasury and other institutions which existed back then were the literal property of the monarch. People paid taxes directly to the monarch, and the monarch owned that money to spend as they saw fit. Over time, as the peasants got uppity and started demanding weird shit like rights, the monarch was forced to renounce more and more control over these institutions to parliament. It never ceased to be the monarch's property, in fact no government institution in our country has ever ceased to be the personal property of the monarch. Even parliament originated as an institution raised privately by the monarch to advice them on policy.

People make a massive show about how the monarch "willingly" gives up the crown estate. They don't. The monarch owns the crown estate, but they no longer have any legal right to control it, just like every other part of the government. They could not ask for it back at this stage, just as they could not order specific prisoners to be released from the prison system or demand a bigger share of tax revenue.

J Tyran said:
That isn't the only reason though, they are also still around for tradition.
Well, that's all well and good for Anglicans, isn't it.

My family, however, faced centuries of religious persecution because of your "tradition" and because they believed in the radical notion that noone is marked out by God as especially fit to rule.

That's my "tradition", I like it better than yours.
 

wolfyrik

New member
Jun 18, 2012
131
0
0
Megalodon said:
wolfyrik said:
Edward the viii, is a good example. That guy wanted to help the poor and marry a woman he loved. Edward was outspoken on the rights of the masses and he was kicked out by the politicians for his trouble.
The result; the weak willed, pointless, useless shower that now inhabits the throne and enthralls inbred idiots across the nation. They're not something to be proud, they are something to be ashamed of and embarrassed by.
Edward VIII was a royal to be proud of.
Just wondering, did you know about Edward VIII's connection to the Nazi party? He wasn't really anyone to look up to.
Single Shot said:
Firstly. Britain had already had a civil war by the time of King George III and the land in question was given to him as part of the deal that ended the war and installed what would slowly become our democratic system. So that video is false, the land is legitimately and legally owned by the Royal family.
Slight point of pedantry here, but the Civil Wars (technically there were 2) ended with the execution of Charles I and the abolition of the monarchy. While I don't know for certain, Charles II would have acquired the old royal lands during the resoration after Cromwell's death, when it was deceided to ignore the preceding 19 years. There was no deal to give him back land, just to be King again like his father and grandfather.

OT: Don't care about them, just wish the media would shut up about them.
If this is accurate, which I doubt since there was a lot of support for Edward VIII in Britain at the time and ruining his image was first and foremost on the political "to do List", then all it shows is that there have been no worthy royals. If it's true that Edward was a sympethiser, that doesn't make the useless remainders any less worthless. It just means the entire family have been a total shower and haven't had even one good example, among them.
 

wolfyrik

New member
Jun 18, 2012
131
0
0
evilthecat said:
Binnsyboy said:
They do take a small amount off in taxation, but it's a ridiculously low amount per person per year. What you pay the Royals in a year is roughly what you'd spend on a trip to the shop to buy yourself a tasty treat or something. And the reason the Royals receive a tax payment is because they give us the Crown Estate, which they have the legal right to take the rent for back at any point. Them having the Crown Estate means the government (by Royal choice) gets all its rent, not private landowners. And it should be noted that the net rent from the Crown Estate is several times that which the Royals are given in tax money per year. So by this last point alone, we're hugely profiting directly from the Royal family.
Again. No. I'm going to repeat this until it sinks in, because it's a stupid argument.

The queen does not "own" the crown estate any more than she "owns" the treasury, or the revenue service, or the prison system, or any other government institution which theoretically belongs to her. In theory, yes, in practice, no.

Back when people were hitting each other with swords, the treasury and other institutions which existed back then were the literal property of the monarch. People paid taxes directly to the monarch, and the monarch owned that money to spend as they saw fit. Over time, as the peasants got uppity and started demanding weird shit like rights, the monarch was forced to renounce more and more control over these institutions to parliament. It never ceased to be the monarch's property, in fact no government institution in our country has ever ceased to be the personal property of the monarch. Even parliament originated as an institution raised privately by the monarch to advice them on policy.

People make a massive show about how the monarch "willingly" gives up the crown estate. They don't. The monarch owns the crown estate, but they no longer have any legal right to control it, just like every other part of the government. They could not ask for it back at this stage, just as they could not order specific prisoners to be released from the prison system or demand a bigger share of tax revenue.

J Tyran said:
That isn't the only reason though, they are also still around for tradition.
Well, that's all well and good for Anglicans, isn't it.

My family, however, faced centuries of religious persecution because of your "tradition" and because they believed in the radical notion that noone is marked out by God as especially fit to rule.

That's my "tradition", I like it better than yours.
Quaker, Leveller? Just curious now.
 

wolfyrik

New member
Jun 18, 2012
131
0
0
Mcupobob said:
I consider myself 100% and steadfastly without question, indifferent to the British Royal family. All I want is for American news channels to get over the fact that they squirted out a kid. I get it why they are doing it and why the British are happy about it. I think I read somewhere(don't quote me on this) that the royal baby brought in like something 302 million in Tourism.
I guarentee you, "the british" are not happy about it....

As for the tourism thing, I'm pretty sure that's royalist spin and general media exaggeration. Anyone who came over to the country, did so for other reasons and possibly just thought they'd have a look in the meantime. Anyone from Britain who made an effort to make a holiday of it, needs slapping about the face and neck.
 
Sep 3, 2011
332
0
0
No and i hate the very idea of a royality in anyway, they are a joke and i wish they would go away to stop making our people look like dumbasses to the rest of the world