Should the UK have a Royal Family?

[zehydra]

Royal family = tons and tons of income for the UK. Doesnt matter is they are a useless symbol of an old system, they are worth a lot of money so they will stay.

WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Tourism would INCREASE if we turfed the Royals out of their palaces and other publicly funded buildings. Nobody gives a shit about the Royal family, it's the buildings and their contents that provide tourism.

More or less. I toured the UK back in 2005, and we checked out a number of places, including Windsor Castle, although I don't think the Queen was in England at the time anyway...

 

[Bebus]

It says poll twice but I see no poll...

Anyway, yes. It is a great part of our cultural heritage and the queen always provides us with the feeling of eternal wisdom; her annual speech always transcends day to day politics and gives a good grounding to what is really important.

If you are one for the cynical side of things, the figures are not certain but the royal family brings in more state cash than it costs.

They have very, very few actual powers (mostly figurehead type duties) and should they ever overstep their mark parliament has the power to remove them.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

 

[lucaf]

Guy Fawkes and Oliver Cromwell had the right idea. Maybe just a little too extreme though.

It will be a day to celebrate when we finally get our shit together and kick the royal family out of our government.

out of our government? they don't actually have any effect on our government, I think you missed the party

Nope all laws have to be signed by Elizabeth for them to become laws. Of course she would be immediately abdicated if she refused. She still has a role.

She is also considered to be the head of state. Which is rediculous.

it is nothing but a symbolic role, and that is what the monarchy is; a symbol

and actually it isn't ridiculous to have them as head of state. the head of state represents the nation, and it is better to have that in the hands of a powerless figurehead than in the government. I say that because firstly having an elected head of state means a large part of the country didn't vote for them and so cannot rally around them (which is pretty much the point of a head of state). and secondly because it means the government don't get that national symbolism to validate their actions. think of how much more respect the position of president in the US has over the prime minister in the UK

 

[oktalist]

As far as Im aware the royal family is now just a figure head, they hold little to no authority over political standing.

That's true, they have no independent political power, but they do embody controversial government powers like the Royal Prerogative, which allows a government to, in the name of the monarch, do a number of things which would otherwise require a vote in parliament, like declare war, create new laws, or evict people from crown dependencies (e.g. the Diego Garcia islanders). This is still a live issue.

They do not bring in tourist money. Their houses bring in tourist money.

Good point, and I agree. The problem, though, is that their houses still belong to them. If they were not the monarchy, they would be private citizens, and they would still own all their sweet-ass houses. You can argue about whether their property was aquired lawfully, though.

And they'd still be the monarchs of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on.

She isn't the head of state.

Yes, she is.

they can also represent our country without being tainted by whatever idiocy our government is currently perpetrating.

So they enable our politicians to do more idiotic things than they might otherwise do. That might not be such a good thing.

Better to have them than a president.

Monarchy and president are not the only two options.

a permanent civil service which sits in parallel to the electoral system in which members are hired and promoted internally on the basis of merit and are sworn to serve The Crown representing ALL the people of the nation.

The crown doesn't represent the people, it represents the government. And who says we can't have an apolitical civil service without a monarchy?

Win. "Sometimes it's better to be right than it is to be good at making videos."

So, dex-dex's video was wrong about its sums and very wrong about how many tourists our living monarchy attracts versus France's dead monarchy. Imagine if we could make Buckingham Palace a world-class museum like the Palais de Louvre. I bet there are many times more people who would pay to see that rather than some silly queen.

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

Republics like France and Spain have similarly excellent relations with most of their former colonies.

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?

It might actually be treason, which still carries the death penalty.

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

Yes, but why does the apolitical figurehead have to own lots of ill-gotten land and treasure and be selected by heredity?

 

[zehydra]

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

The second video whines about lack of taxes, but doesn't say what would happen if we start taxing them. The royals would probably dissolve the agreement, leaving us with significantly less money than we get from them now.

Also, they're immune from inheritance tax because they don't own much of what people think they do. What gets transferred from monarch to monarch tends to belong to the country but is cared for by the Royals.

There is absolutely no reason that a small bunch of privileged few who happened to be born lucky (that's the only requirement to be a Royal) should own all these lands.

This. I'm not British, so it's really not my call, but this poster has provided a really good reason why it makes little sense to celebrate the English monarchy.

If anything like the English Monarchy happened here in the US, I would be completely against it.

In general, I'm also against anything considered "patriotic" or "part of a nation's heritage" that runs in direct conflict with the interests of its populace.

 

[Baradiel]

The British Monarchy has no real power. I like to think of them as the country's pets. They look nice, and are well trained and do as we say. People come round to see them, and our neighbours recognise us when we take them out for a walk.

Just occasionally, though, they shit on the carpet.

-

Analogy aside, Id like to keep them because of the tradition. I'm not religious, so the "Divine Right of Rule" doesn't wash with me. Thing is, they aren't trying to rule. Its all pomp and ceremony, and is part of our national identity. They cause discussion and debate, moments of national joy (not from me personally, but...) and are instantly recognisable around the world.

Oh, and then theres the financial side of things. Tourism money vastly outweighs what they spend (a paltry £20 million, compared to the £500 million last time I checked) and while tourism would still be high if they just disappeared, because of their buildings and shit, moments like the Royal Wedding boosted the economy loads (then to be wiped out by the riots, ofcourse).

As long as they don't start telling me how to live my life, and stay as figureheads and nothing more, I'd like them to stay.

 

[Handbag1992]

There is absolutely no reason that a small bunch of privileged few who happened to be born lucky (that's the only requirement to be a Royal) should own all these lands. They should be seized and redistributed as the government sees fit.

Why?

For what reason and under which law could the government seize 1/6th of the worlds land? (Yes that's how much she owns)

 

[SnipeHunter11]

Whether you think that the monarchy should or shouldn't be removed is largely irrelevant. To remove them and install something like a president would require a rewrite of the constitution, if I'm not mistaken. That's hard enough to do when your country has no constitution to begin with, or when you're creating a new entity like the EU. But to remove your current constitution, and try to implement a new one? Yeah. Good luck getting anything like that through the house of commons, much less the house of lords.

 

[WildFire15]

I have no overwhelming problem with the Royals. They still represent something that makes the UK special and without them we'd be nothing but the gloomy, miserable collection of whiners some people seem to want us to be.
I've only seen the Queen and Prince Philip once and I didn't even know they were coming until I found the city centre filled with barriers and people. I tried getting a picture of the Queen but Prince Philip always ended up in the way.

 

[Baradiel]

also the money the royal family has and spends could go along way helping those in need in the UK.

No. Just... no.

The Queen's family gets a pension of £20 million a year. Thats it. They bring in several hundred million every year from tourism.

They actually own very little property. Most of the royal estates are owned by the national trust, so the country already HAS access to these.

Even if we stopped paying the Royal family and put the money back in the system, it'd be a single drop in a ocean.

 

[Treblaine]

I'd be sorry to see the Monarchy go, but I notice a lot of people wouldn't, and that many people have to have a reason. As far as I can tell, the Queen is a well-recognised head of state, brings lots of tourists' money and part of our national identity.
What do you think?

Yes for tourism and "peacock's tail"

The peacock's tail is an analogy to the strange evolutionary trait of peackocks to have hugely extravagant tail feathers. How can such features be evolutionary favourable? By the logic that only the must successful individuals could AFFORD the energy and inconvenience that is vital in courting ritual to show what virile partners they would make.

By extension, what would the world think of Britain if we apparently got so desperate for money we were willign to sell off the family silver.

Things like Will and Kate are ambassadors for the United Kingdom and not complete louts, William is a helicopter pilot for the British Army were he actually serves.

Other Princes have been instrumental tools OF the Prime Minister to have dialogue with other monarchical governments and even organisations that have leaders who fancy themselves emperors. Rich oil sheiks would much rather negotiate terms of exploiting oil rights with the British government via someone like Prince Andrew than some government bureaucrat.

Royal Formality may not matter within the UK, but it DOES matter around the world!

Keep em around but IF they don't pull their weight then they better realise then they'll get the chop (not literally... this time).

 

[AngryMongoose]

I wouldn't mind but they're used as a political tool, and that's just not cricket. Just take a look at the timing of royal events, and who's invited.

 

[Dusty Fred]

I think there are more important issues facing the UK than the merits of having/maintaining/abolishing the monarchy. We're on an economic knife-edge; public debt is going to be a simmering problem for at least another generation, maybe two; the armed forces are being whittled down to little more than one part-timer with a stick; we have massive problems of social decay, especially in inner cities; our parliament is detatched and unresponsive; Worksops driving examiners refuse to pass me...

I think we should focus on some of this serious short-/medium-term crap and worry about the monarchy in happier times. It's been around for thousands of years, we can leave it a little longer before debating it's future.

 

[Treblaine]

I think there is some benefit to separate the "glitz" from the "power"

The President of the United States of America is an imposing title and office, but they simultaneously have to represent the power and the distinction of the United States. The White House is a palace to American power yet at the same time it is headquarters to the executive.

It's easy to have Buckingham Palace for tourists and Downing Street for Politics. Tourists on the left, Journalists on the right.

Though I can see the appeal of the centrality of the

PS: anyone notice how Downing street struggles to live up to the presidential status it now has. In the past 10 Downing Street was purely the HOME of the Prime Minister, the idea of journalists camping outside demanding answers to pertinent issues was absolutely appalling 100 years ago. in the past when the Prime Minister had anything to say everyone knew just to fucking wait till he announced it to the House of Commons

It's apparent when David Cameron had to make his big announcement about the "fightback" against the looting spree, they had to precariously bring out a little portable podium for him to stand in front of. What if it started raining? It's such an ad-hoc arrangement, yet the 10 Downing Street is the de-facto centre of the Executive Branch, it is the closest to the voice of power, closer even than Westminster.

I personally thing that Downing Street needs some serious renovation for some REAL atrium for addressing the press, somewhere inside a bit more like the White House's press room. I doesn't bode well to keep people waiting outside in the harsh elements with poor access to power and communications - especially when these are the very people who are transmitting your word to the people you don't want them in an unfavourable mood.

I suggest buying up all the houses on the street and incorporating them into a press and welcoming area.