Poll: Do you like the British Royal Family?

[Mycroft Holmes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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.

 

[Dominic Crossman]

Nah, fucking leeches living off taxpayers.

I wouldn't have put it so bluntly but yeah, pretty much this. (British)

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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".

 

[Shpongled]

I like having a monarchy. Even if they did cost more than they bring in, i still wouldn't want to see them go, they're part of our cultural heritage, they;re part of our history.

To me getting rid of them would be like bulldozing over Edinburgh castle and replacing it with a block of flats. Sure, the flats might be a bit more useful but they're a fucking eyesore.

 

[BristolBerserker]

I'm British and I support the royal family because they are a part of our culture, our history and I believe our future. Why? Because everyone pretty much agrees that politicians are not particularly popular (except Boris, he's awesome) so to have a head of state to represent us who is not politically motivated is a good idea. The monarchy also helps bring tourists to the country and money to the economy. The whole royal family also cost British taxpayers less than an American president costs theirs. There are more reasons but I can't be arsed to write any more except to say that people wanting to make the UK a republic tend to be dicks.

 

[Syphous]

I get their existence, it's part of British culture and heritage. However I am American, with no British blood running in my veins. So I have no opinion of the royal family, therefore I chose "don't like".

 

[J Tyran]

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.

I wasn't referring to the Monarchs position as head of the Church of England, I presume your family is Catholic though. My own feelings about that whole mess probably mirror yours to some degree if that's right, that situation went on for about 400 years too long. The thing to remember though is that neither side is blameless in the origins of that dispute and neither side is blameless in the continuation of the dispute, its just that over the last 400 years something that should have been a largely secular matter got dressed up in vicar and priests clothing.

The only real sign of it in the Royal family in living memory was how Charles was banned from publicly courting and marrying Camilla.

 

[roguewriter]

Non-British and Yes. I just think there is something inherently very cool about a Royal ancestry that goes back almost, what, a thousand years? I know a few Brits, and most of them don't really make a fuss, but they take pride in all the good things the Royals represent.

They have problems with laws and whatnot, just like me here with some things in America, but they direct their dislike or flat out hate at the Prime Minister or Parliament. The Royals are just kind of bragging rights to them. National Pride, that kind of thing. While I think they're alright (and wish 'em all the best with the new baby and so on) I'm quite proud to have a President and a government founded on the concepts of by the people, for the people, etc, etc.

And, no, I don't care if some people don't believe that exists anymore.

 

[blaize2010]

Maybe there should be a 'neutral' option?

I consider 'neutral' to be under the heading 'don't like' as in 'don't care for'.

'Don't like' doesn't mean the same as 'I hate' in this case.

Sorry for the lack of clarification.

Sorry, but that's entirely wrong. Neutral doesn't mean hate. Hate is a vehement, active dislike, neutral is more along the lines of, "I don't want to brutally murder them, but I also don't want to give them my money." Or something like that. Anyway, there's no case where logically don't care for means hate.

Also, I could do without them, but I live across the pond so I really have no experience or knowledge to base my opinion on other than thinking that royal families are outdated and archaic.

 

[J Tyran]

Also, I could do without them, but I live across the pond so I really have no experience or knowledge to base my opinion on other than thinking that royal families are outdated and archaic.

Lots of countries keep outdated and archaic things around, you know like 200 year old documents. Luckily for us this particular outdated and archaic thing doesn't impact the running of government all that much.

 

[Tallim]

I'm not particularly bothered either way to be honest. One thing I do find bemusing though is how the USA media are way more obsessed with our monarchy than ours is :/