Poll: Do you like the British Royal Family?

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,906
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
You know what, let me actually go through this in detail.

The royal family brings in loads in tourism!

What is being argued here is that the "mystique" of having a functioning monarchy persuades people to visit the UK when they otherwise wouldn't. That may or may not be true and is largely impossible to quantify. But let's think about it anyway.

The UK is 8th in the most popular international tourist destinations. 6 of the 7 countries above it do not have an active monarchy. What they tend to have is actual attractions people want to visit, or a cultural significance which marks them out. Heck, Germany gets more tourists than the UK. France gets almost 3 times as many tourists as the UK. Austria gets almost as many tourists as the UK with a fraction of the population. These places don't have monarchies, they don't sell themselves on the basis of having monarchies. They sell themselves as places with interesting history, beautiful cities and buildings and actual things to do. Spain gets almost twice as many tourists as the UK and do you ever see its monarchy in the international news or on promotional material? No. It sells itself on the basis that it has a great climate, natural beauty, good beaches and interesting history and culture. These are things people actually care about.

In the UK, we have many things which are attractive to tourists. Moreover, we speak English (the most widely spoken language on Earth). This endless insistence that "oh, it's the monarchy who brings everyone here" is frankly not doing us justice. People aren't spending thousands and flying halfway around the world solely because of a small family of people they won't actually see, they're doing it because there's actual reason to do so.

A lifelong head of state has more responsibility than an elected one

Tell you what, why don't we compromise.

Instead of an elected head of state, we can just pick an unelected senior civil servant or diplomat and make them head of state for life. How does that sound?

Because that would still be more democratic than the system we have. For one, we could pretty much guarantee that the head of state would be competent because they would have had to be to reach the position from which they were selected.

If that thought creeps you out, maybe you should think long and hard about the system we actually do have, which is far more arbitrary and demands far less competence from the person who is representing our country overseas. Speaking of which..

A monarch is more highly respected internationally than a representative would be

Let's be honest here.

Those trips the queen (and her family) makes overseas. Do you think they sit around and discuss actual political issues? Do you think they actually talk about anything of importance to the country? Do you think anyone seriously questions the queen on anything? Do you think anyone actually expects her to do anything beyond show up and be the queen?

Whether or not the queen is respected, whether or not the heads of state of other nations actually like her is irrelevant because she herself is not an elected representative or professional diplomat. Frankly, we could pick some actor or musician who is doing well internationally and send them over to buy foreign heads of state a nice steak dinner and it would fulfill much the same function.

The reason we assume the queen is competent and well liked is because we tend to separate the ceremonial aspects of international diplomacy (in which everyone is meticulously polite and little of importance is done) from the practical aspects, which are actually difficult and need to be handled by a representative.

The monarchy keeps the government stable

And that's a good thing?

What has kept the government stable in the UK, what still keeps it stable to this day to some degree, is the class system. We retained an upper class for far longer than many countries, because as a monarchy we maintained the idea for far longer that "good breeding" made some people naturally better than others. Countries which abandoned this had to reinvent their class systems, often resulting in greater social mobility. When all you need to be "the right sort of person" is money, it's possible to better yourself. In Britain, until very recently, it was impossible for a person to fully shrug off the legacy of their class background, even if they had financially bettered themselves.

To this day, our political system (and indeed the top levels of virtually every important aspect of our society) are full of people from a very particular social background. That's why our government is comparatively stable, because regardless of which party is in power it is generally composed of and represents the views of the same socio-political group. If you think that is a good thing, then fine. As someone who feels that social mobility is an important part of representative democracy and that anyone, irrespective of background, should be able to aspire to political office, I don't.

Captcha: keep calm
 

CannibalCorpses

New member
Aug 21, 2011
987
0
0
Yeah, i love the monarchy. Whilst 2.5 million people are written off as shirkers because they don't work and have their incomes tied to a 1% increase due to lack of public funds...the monarchy gets a 10% increase and never has to do a days fucking work in their lives. They get to eat swan while i'm lucky if i can afford beans on toast...fuck 'em all!

I'm a northerner if you hadn't guessed...we don't like to be called British because that lumps us in with the shandy drinking southerners. I despise everything about elitist priveledge and the monarchy is the worst of that all rolled into 1 inbred monster.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
I'm eh about them, some of them seem like nice enough (or normal enough) people. What I don't like is that they're all over the news for doing things any other person would barely get a second look for, and what I like even less than that is all the Queen-worshipping that becomes apparent whenever they're mentioned (in Australia, btw). I'm one of those of that just wishes we'd cut ties with Britain, make a new flag and get on with the business of being our own country. And to go a step further, I've had debates with constitutional monarchists, and they describe those in favour of a republic as out to undermine the cultural fabric of Australia, and their main arguments were that I was being disrespectful to soldiers who fought and died under the flag (because once you mention disrespecting the military you get the high ground), and that most pro-republics are minorities who are just racist bigots who hate Britain (now there's some delicious irony). Then again, maybe I just met a bad bunch.

EDIT: Although for Britain, I would recommend keeping them, they're a massive tourist attraction and worth far more than they cost.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,465
3,005
118
Willinium said:
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.
Yes, well, about that...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/spain-king-juan-carlos-hunting
 

DeltaWolfson

New member
May 9, 2011
186
0
0
It is their Country so her-ray for them if the feel like being proud of the Royal family. But pardon me for my next statement. Ahem... THIS IS AMERICA (if your in america reading this, if not disregard this statement) We won this land from the Brits so we should give nothing more than a flaming pile of dog poop in a bag to them, cause I hate how everyone in America gives so much damned attention to Royal family. Sarcasm in 3...2..1. OMG! They just had a baby lets waste all of our news resources on following this case! Lets tell every one who doesn't care about it on every form of news so everyone will know. End Sarcasm. Personally yes congrats on the kid and the wedding good for you just don't WASTE 2 FLIPPING MONTHS OF ARE AIR TIME TALKING ABOUT BOTH THE WEDDING AND THE BABY. This is were it gets real, It's not just the Brits i have a grip with I will sound hypocritical here but here it goes I just hate how much time, money and effort that america puts in to celebrity in general. Yeah they made a amazing movie, yeah the made a instant hit, just now a days it seems like 85% of the news is about celebrity are we really that boring come on were America we can do much better than that Lets talk about things that matter like fixing the country, the economic crisis and please get are monkey ear of a president off his lazy rear end and make him listen to people (--->not Justin Berber on his iphone during congress meetings (<-- Probably just fiction but seems legit) I know, I got off track but here is my final answer. In Short, NON-BRITISH, AND NO!
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
lacktheknack said:
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.
wikipedia is known pretty widely that any1 can edit it whenever they want. thats like not historians or experts so im supposed to trust someone random guy that could be you editing it instead of people who have degrees in history of anastasiology? that would be dumb of me if i listened to wikipedia. also you dont think that the communists who conquered russia would try to hide the information that the royal line is still alive? they want to prevent the people from being able to rebuild the right way in russia instead of having to rely on them so it is in their best interest to lie about it. like stalin would edit people out of photos cus that is the kind of stuff the communists do to lie to people because they will go to any length. so they tried to lie about killing the royal line off by doing stuff like editing wikipedia so that people go to look at it and dont think about the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia so they get fooled. i respect your opinion but you should respect what i know to be true as well
 

Pigeon_Grenade

New member
May 29, 2008
1,163
0
0
I am from Canada, Like The Queen, Dont know Much About her children Besides maybe Charles(Air farce Live used to Do Jokes on how When he becomes king, Postage will go up because Each Ear will take up a Stamp)- also dont really care about him at all, His Sons Are Interesting though
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
lacktheknack said:
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.
wikipedia is known pretty widely that any1 can edit it whenever they want. thats like not historians or experts so im supposed to trust someone random guy that could be you editing it instead of people who have degrees in history of anastasiology? that would be dumb of me if i listened to wikipedia. also you dont think that the communists who conquered russia would try to hide the information that the royal line is still alive? they want to prevent the people from being able to rebuild the right way in russia instead of having to rely on them so it is in their best interest to lie about it. like stalin would edit people out of photos cus that is the kind of stuff the communists do to lie to people because they will go to any length. so they tried to lie about killing the royal line off by doing stuff like editing wikipedia so that people go to look at it and dont think about the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia so they get fooled. i respect your opinion but you should respect what i know to be true as well
Wikipedia edits have to get by several people before they're approved.

And anyhow, they cited it.

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Resurrection-Romanovs-Anastasia-Anderson/dp/0470444983

Also, I don't respect "what [you] know to be true" because it's completely false. I don't understand how you can hold on to your views at all.

Fine. Let's look at Burma.

http://www.davidgagne.net/2004/11/22/curious-deaths-of-some-burmese-kings/

Thienhko, Narathihapate, and Tabinshweti were all killed by someone.

And elsewhere, we have...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regicide#Other_regicides

Look at this stuff. Regicide is a huge staple of history. I know you don't like Wikipedia, because you erroneously think it's full of misinformation, so why don't you Google some of those names instead? If your insane logic had any merit, all of them would be false.

AND FURTHERMORE, look in holy texts such as the Bible. The Bible's recount of Jewish history and geneology is generally thought to be surprisingly accurate, and king after king after king after king after king gets assassinated in there.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,906
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
wolfyrik said:
Quaker, Leveller? Just curious now.
I'm completely secular. However, one half of my family is Quaker.

My point is that people get overly caught up in the notion that British national identity is rooted in a shared sense of "tradition", and that this tradition is exemplified by the monarch. For quite a large chunk of the country, however, their ancestors were actually excluded from full participation in society precisely because they did not believe the monarch to be God's representative on Earth.

Pretending that we're all one nation because we're all united under the monarch is just insulting to me. We're one nation because we're united in our acceptance of common laws and values, many of which I personally recognize as the religious values my ancestors would have held. The belief that everyone is born equal and free. The belief that your character, your abilities and your achievements are what determine your worth. In Britain, we have a long history and a long tradition which goes far beyond hollow loyalty to the monarch.

To be blunt, I think if you have nothing to be proud of in your country beyond the limited achievements of a single family of extremely privileged people, then your country is clearly contemptible and you have shown it contempt by finding no other source of value in it.
 

Willinium

New member
Jun 2, 2011
323
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Willinium said:
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.
Yes, well, about that...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/spain-king-juan-carlos-hunting
Correct me if I am wrong but is this not the king that was born and raised under the reign of Franchisco Fraco, raised to fully never expect that he would ever rule and thus was not raised or instilled with the knowledge and responciblity to be a good king?
 

ChocoROID

New member
Feb 3, 2013
6
0
0
I'm British and like everyone i know who is under 50, I couldn't give a rats tail.

They are tax payer funded, but they don't 'do' anything.
The queen literally signs off on everything the government does. She has no power.
She is a basically VERY expensive tourist attraction.

Any non Brits reading, I promise on behalf of most of us. We don't give a damn about our queen.
 

The Cheezy One

Christian. Take that from me.
Dec 13, 2008
1,912
0
0
I think they're harmless, and it doesn't hurt me (British) to have them around. Getting rid of the monarchy would mostly just be the actions of people who want to make change for the sake of change.

What annoys me is when people complain that they cost the taxpayer money. We'll skim over the fact that as soon as people start referring to 'the taxpayer' in their argument, I switch off mentally because it's generally a load of hypocritical nonsense dressed up in a strange form of defensiveness, and head straight to the facts.

The Royal Family pays tax, other than the Queen and the Prince of Wales:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family#Taxation
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11099/response/33193/attach/html/2/1624%2009%20response%202%20July%202009.pdf.html

They cost 'the taxpayer' 52p (~0.80USD) a year:
http://news.sky.com/story/955117/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost

I then usually offer someone £1 to not complain for 2 years. They without fail turn it down.

I'm not a Royalist. I like the British Royal Family (at least the part that don't act like celebrities) because I grew up with them. And yes, I do pay tax. Most of all though, I like the Queen. She is dignified and intelligent, but with a sense of humour about her - remember the opening to the London Olympic games? In the future, my opinion may change. With a different monarch, I might be a bit more wary about the power that comes with the position (I studied law, I know what they can do and do do.) The Queen has a lot of potential power, such as to dissolve Parliament, she's just smart enough to know it would be a bad idea to do so. But for the moment, I think they are worth the cost.
 

SquidSponge

New member
Apr 29, 2013
75
0
0
evilthecat said:
[Snip - see page 7, post 244]
EDIT:
Completely missed the point here, should read, not just skim the bold titles. I guess my points stand so I'll leave this post here, but I'm technically agreeing with the fellow.

The royal family brings in loads in tourism!
Impossible to prove. Seriously, look at this entire thread. Royalists say yes, republicans say no, and neither one can conclusively prove their case by any means short of abolishing the monarchy and looking at the figures, say, 100 years down the line. Which I'd totally be up for, but it's not very practical. I'm gonna call this one a draw.

A lifelong head of state has more responsibility than an elected one
This statement taken literally, I'll agree with. But is that a good thing? Is it truly relevant? The real argument here is whether the identity of one's ancestors has the slightest f*cking thing to do with competence. I say, what a load of, uh, "hot air". Best way to do it is on merit, elected officials is what we do simply because it's better than the alternative, but lineage is utterly absurd. But I suspect royalists/republicans are at an impasse on this matter.

A monarch is more highly respected internationally than a representative would be
Let's be honest here.
Nope.
What, don't believe me? Check the top of this page. See the survey there? Those two categories labeled "Non-British, and..."? Judging by their balance, evidence would tend to contradict you here.
Besides, if you're telling me Prince bloody Philip's casual racism is a good trait in a diplomat, then regrettably my response must be laughter. And before you tell me he only married into the family, remember that he was chosen by the royal family, knowing that his words and actions would be taken to represent all of them. David Cameron is, ahem, "far from being in my good books", and Milliband and Clegg aren't much better, but at least they don't make gaffes of nearly the same magnitude when the world is watching. And when 53% of your own country and 73% of everyone else (at time of writing) says bloodline is not an acceptable way to choose diplomatic officials, you've kinda got a problem. Am I saying our real diplomats' selection method is perfect? No, but it's a damn sight better than genealogy. As for the argument that they don't actually do anything of import on these diplomatic functions - what's the sodding point then? It is therefore a waste of everyone's time and money to ship them and their entire entourage over to another country at best, and at worst an annoyance to endure just to indulge our absurd and quaint "traditions" before the grown-ups can get down to the real work.

The monarchy keeps the government stable
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but I think you're actually making an argument against monarchy? Most people these days will agree that equality is always good, therefore obtaining the most egalitarian society as possible is a worthy goal. Having a family that will always be treated more favourably than others, receiving special tax breaks and having privileges that will always be denied to the rest simply for having the right parents (for example a royal family), is reminiscent of a wasteful caste system (ie, permissive of zero social mobility) that frankly I think our culture should have recognised and outgrown by now. Because that's basically what having a royal family is - a caste system, just with only a fraction of a percent of the population in the upper caste. Social mobility is great, and as far as my limited sociological knowledge tells me, it's never been higher, but while the lower "caste" can move around within that level, as long as there's a royal family there will always be that last step above that no-one else can reach - regardless of ability, hard work or wealth, their social mobility will hit a glass ceiling and stops dead.

Again, judgement based on merit good, discrimination based on parentage bad. The central point of all my arguments is equality - the same as my opinions regarding race, gender, etc. A British citizen should be a British citizen, no more and no less, until their own (not their parents') words and actions change that.
 

hazydawn

New member
Jan 11, 2013
237
0
0
ChaplainOrion said:
I was waiting for someone to post this. Besides think of all the money that the UK is going to generate off the newborn buzz!
"It's still their land."
Fucking rediculous. How did they get this land? Through the exploitation of the masses centuries ago. They should be disowned and send into exile.
 

Kushan101

New member
Apr 28, 2009
138
0
0
Colour-Scientist said:
Well, I don't know them personally but they just seem like harmless rich people nowadays.

I'm Irish so obviously there have been historical issues with the British monarchy but they aren't REALLY a monarchy anymore.
As far as I know, it's more like a ceremonial position, like the Irish Presidency. They have to rubber stamp everything but, in reality, they're just there to smile and cut ribbons.

They're just there to draw tourists. They don't seem to really DO anything apart from say "hello" at Christmas, wave at the plebs and eat swans.
Pretty much it, from a practical point of view. Would you rather ANOTHER layer of politicians who rubber stamp everything? If we got rid of the monarchy, we'd have to have a president as well as a prime minister. Great. More public school boys. At least this particular layer of government brings in shitloads of tourism money.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,465
3,005
118
Willinium said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
Willinium said:
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.
Yes, well, about that...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/spain-king-juan-carlos-hunting
Correct me if I am wrong but is this not the king that was born and raised under the reign of Franchisco Fraco, raised to fully never expect that he would ever rule and thus was not raised or instilled with the knowledge and responciblity to be a good king?
Correct me if I am wrong, but does that not go to show that monarchy is as weak and faulty a system as any other, and there's nothing inherently "responsible" about it?
And that would be "Francisco Franco".