Poll: Do you like the British Royal Family?

SquidSponge

New member
Apr 29, 2013
75
0
0
Master of the Skies said:
SquidSponge said:
evilthecat said:
[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

New member
Dec 30, 2009
686
0
0
evilthecat said:
VondeVon said:
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

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,836
0
0
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

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
evilthecat said:
J Tyran said:
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

New member
May 7, 2010
185
0
0
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

New member
Feb 3, 2013
6
0
0
Sleekit said:
ChocoROID said:
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

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
J Tyran said:
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.

VondeVon said:
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

New member
Feb 24, 2009
677
0
0
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

New member
May 21, 2008
6,011
0
0
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.
 

VondeVon

New member
Dec 30, 2009
686
0
0
evilthecat said:
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.
I admit to being a bit confused. From what I understand, the crown estate commission is just a group of people whose job it is to organise the lands and investments, like a bunch of managers who are appointed by the Queen but are accountable to parliament.

I strolled over to wiki which said "Traditionally, each subsequent monarch has agreed to this formality as part of the ritual of their accession" (and also "Every succeeding sovereign... renewed the arrangement made between George III and parliament and the practice was, by the nineteenth century, recognised as "an integral part of the Constitution [which] would be difficult to abandon") which suggests to me that beyond tradition (and the hassle of causing such financial upset), they DO have the legal right to say 'actually, no, sorry, I'm not going to renew this agreement', at which point they would essentially rent their land out like any non-royal land-owner would...

I'm not citing wiki as an indisputable source, but unless it's outright wrong... It seems like I might be right. The current Queen can't collect rent because she's already renewed the agreement, but the next Monarch could decline to renew it and start rolling in the cash.
 

VondeVon

New member
Dec 30, 2009
686
0
0
ChocoROID said:
Sleekit said:
ChocoROID said:
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.
Polls buck the heck out of me. One small sample should not be translated into a representation of the entire country. We have the internet and social identification numbers, it should not be that hard for people to register and polls to actually say '60% of the population said yay, 20% said nay, 20% declined to take part'.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
VondeVon said:
I admit to being a bit confused. From what I understand, the crown estate commission is just a group of people whose job it is to organise the lands and investments, like a bunch of managers who are appointed by the Queen but are accountable to parliament.
Spot on, it's a statutory corporation accountable to the government. It's conduct, however, is controlled by specific acts of parliament. There are many things which a normal corporation could do which the CEC couldn't.

VondeVon said:
I strolled over to wiki which said "Traditionally, each subsequent monarch has agreed to this formality as part of the ritual of their accession" (and also "Every succeeding sovereign... renewed the arrangement made between George III and parliament and the practice was, by the nineteenth century, recognised as "an integral part of the Constitution [which] would be difficult to abandon") which suggests to me that beyond tradition (and the hassle of causing such financial upset), they DO have the legal right to say 'actually, no, sorry, I'm not going to renew this agreement', at which point they would essentially rent their land out like any non-royal land-owner would.
The first thing to recognize is that the agreement between George III and parliament was specifically that the monarch would no longer have to pay the running costs of parliament out of their own pocket. Cancelling that agreement, if it were actually possibly without fucking up the entire basis of the political system, would be financially catastrophic for the monarch as they would arguably become personally liable for much of the expenditure and cost of parliament, i.e. billions of pounds.

I believe what is being referred to is not the fact that parliament would suffer any loss. It is in law that they get most of the revenue (85%, as of this year) from the crown estate. I believe problem is that such a move would effectively tear up the basic fundamentals of the British constitutional monarchy. It would undermine the entire relationship between parliament and monarch which is at the heart of the legitimacy of our political system, which I have to say is one reason why that system utterly sucks and needs to be reformed. Frankly, the revenue of the crown estate would be the least of anyone's concerns in such a situation.

The crown estate commission would still be governed by existing acts of parliament restricting its behaviour, because those acts were consented to by the monarch. Unless the commission willingly surrendered their portfolio to the monarch, the monarch would not be entitled to a greater share of the profits than they currently are because the amount the monarch receives is written in law.
 

Growley

New member
Aug 17, 2012
14
0
0
It's harmless tradition, which brings in more money than it costs (to the UK). I see no issue with it.

I put 'like' purely because I enjoy that little bit of heritage.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Sleekit said:
like them ? sure.

the thing about the British monarchy is its insidious.

let me explain;

you will see a little baby in your media at some point soon and most of you international folks probably won't see much of said chap until he gets married or someone dies...

but in Britain we will see him grow up from a baby into a child, into teenager, into a young adult, into a man.

we will (almost) see his first steps to his last.

whether we are "interested" or not.

and that does a curious thing; you think you know them.

they become as familiar as maybe one of of your childrens friends.

they are always "around", you hear who they are going out with, you hear when they get in trouble, you hear their exam results, you see them grow up, you get tossed an invite (of sorts) to their wedding and you hear when they have babys...

and when you know (or think you know) a person personally you care about them.

and the modern monarchy plays a looooong game in that respect.

but most of the world doesn't see it bar big events.

this is why you can barely find an adult republican in the UK who doesn't caveat their republican stance with a fleeting acknowledgement of partial affection or appreciation for the royal family.
But is this really so different from any celebrity? I'm not British, so I'm legitimately curious. I talked to a British man about this once, and he got offended when someone criticized the royalty for not really doing anything. He replied that they give millions to charity, at which point I mentioned that all that money was tax payer money. So are they like celebrities, or are they more like part of England national heritage?
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
J Tyran said:
blaize2010 said:
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.
... are you referring to the constitution? The Constitution only forms the absolute basic skeleton of our government, and was specifically designed to change over time. The first ten amendments guarantee citizens basic rights, and other amendments added later corrected mistakes in the original document (like the existence of slavery). The Constitution is one of the most brilliant, and influential government documents in human history. There's a reason it succeeded where other republic forms of government failed: it's flexible. The Constitution has only had a positive influence on the American government, and is still very relevant. It's a lot of things, but it's not "archaic."
 

wolfyrik

New member
Jun 18, 2012
131
0
0
evilthecat said:
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.
Hear, hear.

Pretty much sums up the place. Even our democracy is embarrassing. The House of Commons has been completely over-run by rich Etonians who have absolutely no idea what life is like in the real world. You know things are bad when the few sensible ideas and actual issues of the country are being raised by the House of Lords. With every major political party being run by the same few corrupt groups of people, who are all influenced by the lobbying of rich corporations and banks the people, it makes no difference who people vote for. The left over minor political parties are mostly a joke. We have BNP (Bigots Nobodies and Perverts), The Green Party who are seen as hippies with no real base or experience, UKIP who are right wing jerks who'd kick out our immigrants and limit ties with Europe and the strongest candidate among them all; the Monster Raving Looney Party.

Hell, our leaders are so out of touch and embarrassing, that a certain prime minister (Tony Blair for those who can't guess) once praised a creationist school. That really is how sad and pathetic things have been.

Go England.....
 

Raikas

New member
Sep 4, 2012
640
0
0
I live in Canada so the British royals are on our money, but I don't feel strongly about them one way or the other.

I can see the arguments for having our own head of state and the arguments for sticking with the history (even if it involves all that problematic colonial stuff). From a more UK-centric perspective (I have in-laws over there - my mother-in-law thinks very highly of Prince Charles for whatever reason) the royals seem to be good for tourism, so even if they cost money they're also bringing money in. And as a Belgian citizen, I'd add that at least they're more entertaining than those royals - does anyone really care about the new king? I certainly don't, and I don't think that's exclusively due to the fact that I don't live there.
 

VondeVon

New member
Dec 30, 2009
686
0
0
evilthecat said:
The first thing to recognize is that the agreement between George III and parliament was specifically that the monarch would no longer have to pay the running costs of parliament out of their own pocket. Cancelling that agreement, if it were actually possibly without fucking up the entire basis of the political system, would be financially catastrophic for the monarch as they would arguably become personally liable for much of the expenditure and cost of parliament, i.e. billions of pounds.
Interesting. I hadn't considered that to renounce one meant renouncing the other. So if the Crown were ever to be dissolved, the most legal, non-destructive way would be for the nation to buy their land from them, one bit at a time...

The crown estate commission would still be governed by existing acts of parliament restricting its behaviour, because those acts were consented to by the monarch. Unless the commission willingly surrendered their portfolio to the monarch, the monarch would not be entitled to a greater share of the profits than they currently are because the amount the monarch receives is written in law.
...unless... the NEXT monarch said 'no' and everything reverted back to how it used to be?
 

A BigCup of Tea

New member
Nov 19, 2009
471
0
0
i couldn't care less about the royal family and whether they're having a baby or whatever is happening, i have my own problems to deal with, why do i care if one of the royal family got caught with no clothes on in Vegas (or whatever and wherever it was)