Poll: Do you like the British Royal Family?

[DanielBrown]

I'm a Swede and am indifferent. They aren't important to me in any way, so I see no reason to care. Our own royal family is much more fun. The only ones I like is our crown princess and her husband, the others are like amusing cartoon characters.

Intresting to see how many are saying the British royal family is leeching of the people though. Watch this video.

 

[VondeVon]

To me, 'don't like' isn't the same as 'neutral'. I don't like seafood, I'm not neutral about seafood.

Royalty is a shiny bauble and - like the expensive-to-maintain but pretty architecture of the past, are worth keeping around from a cultural perspective.

Although, I very firmly believe that all Royals, unless in service as a sort of social and political public relations position, should get a job to support themselves the same as everyone else. Or live off the same welfare level as non-royals...

Edit:

Intresting to see how many are saying the British royal family is leeching of the people though. Watch this video.

Huh. I had no idea. Ignorance, baby! Why don't they teach this stuff in school? Because they don't want us to know...

 

[zxvcasdfqwerzxcv]

I'm Irish living in London, and I have no qualms with the Royal Family. If anything, they are a positive force in the country economically, bringing in vast amounts of wealth through their lands and through tourism. They also contribute vast amounts of money to various good charities. We might tire of the endless and banal media coverage, but that is the fault of the British/international media, not the Royal Family themselves. I think Elizabeth II has been a great monarch who has always reigned with dignity. In particular, her visit to Ireland in 2011 went a long way to repair relations between Ireland and the UK.

 

[Zeckt]

At first I thought they were a stupid waste of money till I learned just how much money they actually bring in and all the good things they do with that money, so they have my respect. I still won't give them the time of day though, it's enough to know they still exist. I have my own life to live.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I wasn't referring to the Monarchs position as head of the Church of England, I presume your family is Catholic though.

Actually, I was referring to the persecution of non-Anglicans in general, which continued until the 19th century. Half my family is Quaker though, so it's slightly more directly relevant in the sense that the Quakers, from very early on, held a religious principle that everyone was born equal and that there should thus be no kings.

And I don't see how "both sides aren't blameless" works. When Catholic monarchs established Catholicism, non-Catholics were persecuted. When Anglican monarchs established Anglicanism, non Anglicans were persecuted. The problem is the establishment itself, which is essentially the root of the monarchy. We raise these people up because they are supposedly chosen by God to rule, and that inevitably means their God, not necessarily yours.

That divine right is what a monarch is. That is all that makes a monarch a monarch. It is what was affirmed when Elizabeth II was anointed at her coronation, and it's the same thing that will be affirmed when Charles is anointed at his coronation.

The fact that we are willing to deny it in our everyday lives doesn't make it any less the basis for the monarchy.

Intresting to see how many are saying the British royal family is leeching of the people though. Watch this video.

I really should just make a proper counter to that video.

Huh. I had no idea. Ignorance, baby! Why don't they teach this stuff in school? Because they don't want us to know...

Or alternately, because it's not actually true, and you shouldn't believe everything you watch on youtube.

The monarch theoretically "owns" the crown estate, but they have no legal control over it any more. The monarch also theoretically "owns" the treasury, the revenue service, the prison system, in fact every part of the government, but again they have no control over it.

This is simply a consequence of being a constitutional monarchy, a state which is by nature contradictory. All our public institutions were at one point literal property of the monarch. However, that ownership has now become theoretical because it does not entail any of the usual rights of ownership. The monarch could not take back the crown estate any more than she could demand all prisoners be released from the prison system or just take all the country's tax revenue and stuff it in a Swiss bank account somewhere.

 

[Angie7F]

I only read 50% of the posts here because there were 8 pages to read and I could read them all.

The OP stated that they were talking to Japanese people.
I am Japanese, and I have to point out that we have Emperors and their family in japan too.
So for the Japanese, i am sure it is easy to understand or not question the existence of a royal family.

Most Japanese people are neutral or in favor of the imperial family and we follow their weddings and birth and death too.
Of course not many people are too open about it because if you do too much then you become right wing...

I also grew up in Australia which is one of the commonwealth so it just seems so natural to be following the news about royal families.
I actually cant imagine being in a country that doesnt have some sort of "family" that symbolizes their country.

 

[Edl01]

Well I don't hate them, but I defanitly can't say that I like them either. Why would I like/dislike someone whom I don't even know?

 

[ninjaRiv]

I find them annoying and pointless, just like any other reality TV star (because that is essentially all they are). The people I dislike more are supporters of the real family. Royalists, I think they're called? The ones who buy all the plates and tell me just how great they think the royals are. They always have that smug look on their face. A smug look that comes form nowhere, since they have absolutely no reason to look smug...

I mean, this whole birth thing's been ridiculous... Woman gives birth. Woo. That happens A LOT.

 

[GamerAddict7796]

I'm Irish and live in the North of Ireland, so going by that it goes without saying, I hate the royal family, but also because as a republican, I find the idea of a monarchy nowadays to be outdated and backward, mostly because they contribute nothing to society, they're just a bunch of tax dodgers who live off taxpayer's money

1. The Queen DOES pay tax. £10 million per year
2. Why would she need pay taxes anyway when the tax goes to the Queen?

 

[Gameguy20100]

Needs more options.
I'm British and...
I mean, it's a little annoying people won't shut up about them when something happens in their lives. But you sort of learn to live with it here.

Welcome to my world.

I don't really mind the royals They haven't done anything to me so I just kinda ignore them

 

[xmbts]

Well I've never met them. They have a nice front lawn though.

 

[SquidSponge]

[Snip - see page 7, post 244]

snip

Uh dude... did you read what you're quoting? It feels like you only read the bold because he was refuting those points one by one.

I mean I agree with you. But I also agree with him because he wasn't supporting those points, he was attacking them.

Uhm. You're absolutely right. How stupid do I feel right now? I'm gonna go sit in a corner facing a wall in shame now. I extend my apologies to Mr. thecat.

 

[VondeVon]

Huh. I had no idea. Ignorance, baby! Why don't they teach this stuff in school? Because they don't want us to know...

Or alternately, because it's not actually true, and you shouldn't believe everything you watch on youtube.

The monarch theoretically "owns" the crown estate, but they have no legal control over it any more. The monarch also theoretically "owns" the treasury, the revenue service, the prison system, in fact every part of the government, but again they have no control over it.

This is simply a consequence of being a constitutional monarchy, a state which is by nature contradictory. All our public institutions were at one point literal property of the monarch. However, that ownership has now become theoretical because it does not entail any of the usual rights of ownership. The monarch could not take back the crown estate any more than she could demand all prisoners be released from the prison system or just take all the country's tax revenue and stuff it in a Swiss bank account somewhere.

Isn't legal control all they have? 'Theoretically' being the same as 'technically'?

There's the understanding that if they attempted to exercise the rights they theoretically have, parliament would refuse - at which point we assume and expect there to be some grumbling and a new legal agreement hammered out in court but, equally technically/theoretically, the Crown could call for royalists to take up arms?

Or, if the Crown does own all that land and each King or Queen renews the agreement 'for their lifetime' of trading taxes for support payments, then the next King or Queen could decide not to and cut public funding whilst essentially become a shiny capitalist family like the Trumps?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I don't know. I've never met them. I do mind that my tax money goes towards them visiting my country and not even stopping to say hi in Saskatchewan though. Besides that, I'm sure they're normal people. Normal, filthy rich people.

 

[J Tyran]

I wasn't referring to the Monarchs position as head of the Church of England, I presume your family is Catholic though.

Actually, I was referring to the persecution of non-Anglicans in general, which continued until the 19th century. Half my family is Quaker though, so it's slightly more directly relevant in the sense that the Quakers, from very early on, held a religious principle that everyone was born equal and that there should thus be no kings.

And I don't see how "both sides aren't blameless" works. When Catholic monarchs established Catholicism, non-Catholics were persecuted. When Anglican monarchs established Anglicanism, non Anglicans were persecuted. The problem is the establishment itself, which is essentially the root of the monarchy. We raise these people up because they are supposedly chosen by God to rule, and that inevitably means their God, not necessarily yours.

That divine right is what a monarch is. That is all that makes a monarch a monarch. It is what was affirmed when Elizabeth II was anointed at her coronation, and it's the same thing that will be affirmed when Charles is anointed at his coronation.

The fact that we are willing to deny it in our everyday lives doesn't make it any less the basis for the monarchy.

Its no longer the basis of the Monarchy though, the Queen is head of the Anglican church as a figurehead only. The average member the laity has more power simply because they can attend Synod meetings and vote on policy, when I say both sides are not blameless I point towards the way members of one religion or another have stirred up trouble and often treated with national but secular enemies to try and get their own way. Sometimes even moderate Monarchs have ended up having to take steps.

The Whole divine right to rule is dead though, even traditional titles like Defender of the Faith will soon become Defender of Faith if Prince Charles gets his own way when he takes the throne.

 

[Madcat75]

I hate the Royal Family, they are the head of the English and the source of the opression of the Welsh people for hundreds of years, only when the Royal Family is gone will the Welsh people finally get their freedom and end the English opression.

CYMRU AM BYTH!!! WALES FOREVER!!!

FE GODWN NI ETO!!! WE SHALL RISE AGAIN!!!

 

[ChocoROID]

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

not to pick on your post personally (rather to use it as emblematic of a pov and an assertion) but as was pointed out in comments in the Guardian when it tried airing its republican credentials in recent days polling has consistently shown that only about 17% of the UK population entertain the idea of abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic.

17%

meaning 83% are nominally in favour of the status quo.

there are actually few "issues", if any, on which British public are as united.

so "you" should really stop using "we"...

I would ask who took part in this poll? I'd love to see the information please.

If it's a guardian readers poll, then I don't accept the information considering the general target demographic of guardian readers is, *ahem, a little more aged. A growing minority compared to the total population.
Although you do say 'abolish' the monarchy, I wouldn't say many people have anywhere near that extreme of a view, just a simple case of don't give a damn, Perhaps it's the company I keep, but I personally only know of one.

Do you know particularly many? It would interest me to know what categories you fall under. Because of course the majority of people that i know are 20-30 lower - middle class.
I'm not sure many of them read the guardian, online of in paper.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The Whole divine right to rule is dead though, even traditional titles like Defender of the Faith will soon become Defender of Faith if Prince Charles gets his own way when he takes the throne.

However, he'll still be anointed. Otherwise he wouldn't be king.

The anointing is the most important part of the coronation, because it signifies that the monarch is the heir to Christ in the sense of being a representative of God on earth. That's what makes them a king, not the act of having a tastelessly gaudy hat put on their head.

I realize this kind of contradicts the argument which follows (which is in essence that ceremonial things are not important when the law says otherwise) but we have never legislated away the fact that the monarch is supposedly elevated to their position by God's will. That's kind of why they're there and you're not.

Or, if the Crown does own all that land and each King or Queen renews the agreement 'for their lifetime' of trading taxes for support payments, then the next King or Queen could decide not to and cut public funding whilst essentially become a shiny capitalist family like the Trumps?

In the event that happened, the property owned by the crown estate would still belong the crown estate commission. The monarch would not be able to sell or collect revenue from the lands except as dictated by the relevant acts of parliament, which dictate that only a small proportion of the crown estate's revenue goes to the monarch. In essence, nothing would change. There's absolutely no point in the monarch doing that.

The act of each monarch surrendering revenue from the crown estate ceased to actually mean anything a long time ago. The monarch legally cannot collect revenue from the crown estate, and hasn't been able to for 50 years.

Ultimately though, yeah.. If we removed the royal family from the position of head of state, they'd likely end up rich. I don't particularly begrudge them that or see it as a problem. It's likely that people would also continue to find them interesting and see them as important, and that's fine too. What's not fine, at least for me, is having a hereditary, religiously mandated head of state in 2013.

 

[General Vagueness]

the people; I don't care about them one way or the other unless they do something to stand out (like Princess Diana and her charity work)
the institution; I dislike it

 

[Random Argument Man]

Well, I'm french canadian. "We" pay when the family wants to visit. It's been in talks to actually cut out ties with the queen. However, there are still diehard Pro-Royal family in Canada. A good deal of them are english.