Should the UK have a Royal Family?

[Handbag1992]

I'm against the monarchy for many reasons( although I'm not British, so this is probably not my call). Is that your giving money to people because they are the offspring of the previous ruler, who were the rulers because they were the offspring of the previous ruler, who were the rulers because they were the offspring of the previous rulers....


( I know that the monarchy doesn't actually rule, but I'm trying to make a point here)

Why do the monarchy deserve the money any more than anyone else? why don't you give £40 million pounds a year to a poor family living in poverty, and make them the monarchy. Or some war hero, who was disabled fighting. Or a group of doctors who work day and night saving peoples lives.

Did you watch the video? It was very informative. The reason they get the £40 million is because they're giving up the £200 million. When you voluntarily give that much to the government each year, I'm sure they'll give you £40 million back.

OT: I always liked the idea of having a royal family, but them having no power. Their direct contribution to our national wealth however, was not something I was aware of.

 

[Woodsey]

I don't really care either way. They seem to bring in more money than they cost, and their existence provides jobs, and they have no real political power.

 

[Jacco]

I'm American so I can't really comment of the societal consequences but I will say this:

If abolishing the royal family keeps anymore weddings from happening that EVERYONE AND THEIR MOTHER WATCHES and that all the news outlets talk only about for a month, then yes, I am in full support.

 

[orangeban]

Well, I had constructed an entire essay to reply to this thread, but someone posted a video that sums it all up anyway. All I'll add is that the Royal Family is the glue that sticks the Commonwealth together (for those not in the know, the Commonwealth is a trading alliance group thing made up of Britain and her former colonies, only the USA isn't allowed in becase fuck you and your revolutions (for some reason that doesn't apply to India, despite the fact they also revolted)).
The thing that holds the countries in the commonwealth together is the Queen, most commonwealth countries still have her as head of state (that's why Canada has her head on their currency). Britain and most countries in the Commonwealth benefit greatly from the enhanced trading oppurtunities and diplomatic privileges (diplomacy almost always goes better when your are in some kind of club together, see the EU, the Commonwealth, NATO (even the UN but some many are in that club the effect sort of dilutes.))

 

[dex-dex]

you will not be able to get rid of her easily.

That was very interesting. Thank you for posting that.

no problem! It's what I do!

I'll admit, when I first entered this thread I was thinking "well, I think it's nice to have a royal family (we have one here in Sweden as well) but I don't think there's any way to defend having one."

And then you came along and proved me wrong. Kudos, my dear lady. Kudos.

Being Canadian, our Royal Family that we acknowledge is the Queen even though she does not live here permanently, she has many hectare of land that is hers. She is like a nice aunt. Many think why she owns the land even though she very rarely comes to Canada. and it could be used for something. Britain is still a huge influence on how the country is run. Now we don't need to go to Britain to confirm federal laws.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

There we go, we make plenty of money off them, way more than enough to discount any dipshit socialists who think they're still actually in charge.

I call shenanigans!

I'm a socialist and even I would rather have the Queen than not have her, even if she did lose money. The royal family are an icon of Britain and British rule for the past thousand or so years. She may be an expense, but for a nationalist (yes, it's an awkward combination after Hitler ruined the name) she and they are a treasure.

I hope you were saying dipshit socialist as some socialists who are fools and not all socialists are fools by default.

 

[Phototoxin]

Royal family is fine ... but its all the lords ladies and counts and viscounts and so on that get their stipends which is annoying..

 

[StBishop]

I'd die for our monarch. So yeah I'm a fan.

If someone tried to remove the Monarchy they'd have a big fight on their hands and I don't think they'd win to be honest. Obviously there may come a time when the UK needs to change to GB&NI and lose the whole "Kingdom" part, but I certainly hope it's not in my life time.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

I think more people should listen to David Icke and start believing that the Monarchy are a bunch of evil shapeshifting reptilian aliens.

Not that I'm being entirely serious, but fuck the Monarchy.

 

[orangeban]

I'm American so I can't really comment of the societal consequences but I will say this:

If abolishing the royal family keeps anymore weddings from happening that EVERYONE AND THEIR MOTHER WATCHES and that all the news outlets talk only about for a month, then yes, I am in full support.

You say that and it is a pain having everyone reporting on it, but think of all the lovely money it brought in for Britain (and America and Germany and everywhere else, since they reported it in their newspapers and TV channels and more viewers means more money, and more money for the company means they get taxed harder so you end up benefiting.) Mmmm, lovely lovely money.

 

[Terramax]

The video posted only seems to care about the financial side of things.

It talks about the land that the royal family 'owns', but it's worth mentioning that the royal family only own it through invading England and stealing the land from the British, before exploiting the people for hundreds of years.

Think of the millions of British people through history who've died needlessly for wars the Royal Family have waged against other countries, or even British people executed simply for not believing in the same religion as the King or Queen at the time.

Also, think of the people in other countries who've suffered in history due to the royal families' bloody campaign to rule the world. Some wars and atrocities even today across the world can arguably be linked to the decisions and actions the family have made in the past.

As for the tourism debate, as stated countless times before, France has done pretty well for itself without a royal family (along with plenty of other countries). And I'm going to take a guess that many Americans don't go to the UK instead of France because the Monarchies are still being used, but because America has had more of a fascination with the UK, and they're generally happier to be in a country that speaks the same language and share rather similar cultures. But I guess that's up to Americans to say.

And, yes, whilst the Queen herself may not be a significant threat towards other nations, key members of the royal family have taken political positions which arguably they wouldn't have had otherwise, which raises moral questions. Should people from a sheltered background be allowed to represent the country of England? Will they act in the interested of the country if they perhaps don't really understand the needs and wishes of the average person in the UK?

The Royal Family debate isn't just about money, but what they have represented in the past and what they represent today.

EDIT: It's only after writing all this I saw the reply video posted by Lusty. I think that says it all better than I could.

 

[Mullahgrrl]

I'm against the monarchy for many reasons( although I'm not British, so this is probably not my call). Is that your giving money to people because they are the offspring of the previous ruler, who were the rulers because they were the offspring of the previous ruler, who were the rulers because they were the offspring of the previous rulers....


( I know that the monarchy doesn't actually rule, but I'm trying to make a point here)

Why do the monarchy deserve the money any more than anyone else? why don't you give £40 million pounds a year to a poor family living in poverty, and make them the monarchy. Or some war hero, who was disabled fighting. Or a group of doctors who work day and night saving peoples lives.

Did you watch the video? It was very informative. The reason they get the £40 million is because they're giving up the £200 million. When you voluntarily give that much to the government each year, I'm sure they'll give you £40 million back.

OT: I always liked the idea of having a royal family, but them having no power. Their direct contribution to our national wealth however, was not something I was aware of.

Didnt you watch the other video? those numbers are bogus.

Anyway, the only reason I could think of for having a monarchy is that it might have the dialectic boon of no one being able to have the highest position in society, and thus everyone will be encouraged to strive for the betterment of all rather than just themselves.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

They bring tourist money. Simple as. Way more than they're spending.

How exactly do they attract tourists? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make alot of sense to me.
OT: No, I don't think so, but then again I'm an Irish nationalist and socialist. However, I don't see why they get paid for anything (especially at over a million pound a year), but I would accept the idea of them living with no expense, if they sold alot of their land, and did more than what ever the f*ck they do now. I'd still be opposed to the monarchy (powerless or not, they still have more rights than the average citizen), but that be because of my beliefs and morals, which I'm not going to claim are completely correct, and force upon others.

 

[lucaf]

The video posted only seems to care about the financial side of things.

It talks about the land that the royal family 'owns', but it's worth mentioning that the royal family only own it through invading England and stealing the land from the British, before exploiting the people for hundreds of years.

Think of the millions of British people through history who've died needlessly for wars the Royal Family have waged against other countries, or even British people executed simply for not believing in the same religion as the King or Queen at the time.

Also, think of the people in other countries who've suffered in history due to the royal families' bloody campaign to rule the world. Some wars and atrocities even today across the world can arguably be linked to the decisions and actions the family have made in the past.

As for the tourism debate, as stated countless times before, France has done pretty well for itself without a royal family (along with plenty of other countries). And I'm going to take a guess that many Americans don't go to the UK instead of France because the Monarchies are still being used, but because America has had more of a fascination with the UK, and they're generally happier to be in a country that speaks the same language and share rather similar cultures. But I guess that's up to Americans to say.

And, yes, whilst the Queen herself may not be a significant threat towards other nations, key members of the royal family have taken political positions which arguably they wouldn't have had otherwise, which raises moral questions. Should people from a sheltered background be allowed to represent the country of England? Will they act in the interested of the country if they perhaps don't really understand the needs and wishes of the average person in the UK?

The Royal Family debate isn't just about money, but what they have represented in the past and what they represent today.

by invading britain? you mean when the normans took over from the saxon kings, or when the saxons took over from the british kings there beforehand? yes the monarchy has done bad things in the past, but so has pretty much every governing organisation in the world. you can't get rid of them for things they did hundreds of years ago.

 

[Sylocat]

Having an apolitical figurehead as a monarch while power is delegated to elected officials can be much more useful than people think.

Authoritarians have itchy knees, they need to genuflect to something. They like people to set above themselves and treat as an incarnation of the country and its values... and if nobody else will do, they'll elevate someone who is less suitable, who is supposed to be first among equals and nothing more.

One of the enormous problems in the USA is that authoritarians place too much respect upon the OFFICE of the President, but in a constitutional monarchy, the traditional figurehead is useful for taking all that ridiculous idolatry in a purely symbolic manner. Worship the Queen all you like, it won't give her the power to do any real damage to the country.

Prime Ministers, on the other hand, can and do steer the country in the wrong direction, just like Presidents can and do in the USA. But nobody worships the Prime Minister in the UK; nobody says, "Well, he IS the Prime Minister..." in that Mia-Farrow-in-Rosemary's-Baby voice, the way they say, "Well, he IS the President..." in the USA. There's no tradition of automatic respect - indeed, it is almost ASSUMED that the PM will be a crooked bastard.

It is a useful anti-corruption tool (not singlehandedly infallible, of course, but valuable) for the Head of State and the Head of Government to be two different people.

That, and the tourist money that the monarchs bring in.

 

[Da Orky Man]

A question I will put forward to everyone who thinks they should go - when was the last time the royals actually went against Parliament on an actually important matter?
Not for a long time. They bring in much more money than they spend, they serve as a willing punchbag, important for diplomatic functions etc.

EDIT: The bloke above me has the right idea. Go read his post.

 

[Macrobstar]

Except you haven't. Every time I see that bloody video I really wish someone would post the response to it. So here it is:


And the financials aren't the point anyway! I would much rather sacrifice the money they [don't actually] make and live in a proper democracy with an elected house of Lords, separation of church and state, no more Lords Templar etc etc etc.

The tourism thing is nonsense as well. If we turfed the Royals out of Buckingham Palace and Windsor, and opened up the stunning royal collections of art that for some reason no one is allowed to see, we'd make a fortune.

Happily I think it won't take too many years of King Charles to convince everyone to get rid of them.

Wow what a **** that guy in the video is, didn't really do anything to refute the original videos arguments, but mainly explained the arguments that his side was already spouting

 

[Dimitriov]

Just a thought, but if you tried to depose the Queen wouldn't that be grounds for a declaration of war, it would seem to require it in fact, by the other countries of the commonwealth? As a Canadian, and admittedly a monarchist, I would certainly fight for the monarch.