Printable View
I think the royal family are pointless really, all there good for is getting in the media through pestering paparazzi and occasionally attend events around the country, the Queen can be seen as an ambassador for the country i guess, generally speaking though i'd hate all the cameras, all they are is a group of posh people who to me make no difference or evoke any patriotism at all, any of the Brit's here think the royal family is necessary?
Im unsure ion this issue tbh....
As a youngster i would have happily removed them in a heartbeat, but as i get older my view towards them mellows..
a few advantadges...
head of state who isn't a politician, Queen E may not be all that but at least she isn't Blair or Thatcher
tourism, im not sure how much the royal family attracts alone (it could be argued they come for the fancy royal buildings but im sure the royals help)
Queen E, i think she ain't half bad, almost any royal would be disliked by me because of thier position, but she does her duty and stays out of politics entirely, my view could (probably will) change after E goes....
and now the disadvantadges
Waste of money
unelected head of state, so you could end up with any old nutter
not a true democracy...
In the end i think i will support the abolishment of the monarchy after E goes but whilst she's there she's doing a good enough job to keep me relatively happy....
I don't think it makes a real difference in this day and age. perhaps an advantage can bee seen that the Queen is the head of the commonwealth and is still monarch over a couple of nations including Canada and Australia and this in some way does untie us and bring about a much better friendship with those country's.
On the other hand the royal family is that much of a joke these days that it probably wont be around to much longer anyway. Must be pretty depressing being a Windsor knowing less than 100 years ago your mother and father would of ruled over a quarter of the world whilst you are seen now simply as a paparazzi prize.
I still don't see why all those die hard people in favour of a British republic hate them so much though. It isn't like the queen has any legislative power. Yes I know she could technically disband parliament but that really is never going to happen is it.
Nobody needs a royal family.
Basically, we use ours as a marketing tool. King and Queen goes on a trip with powerpoint slides, while our merchants wait in the backroom ready to pounce on the dazzled foreigners.
But I really doubt our country would fall apart or even notice it if we turned republic.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Need? Of course not. Many countries function well without royals, even -- at least arguably -- the USA.
Do they generate more value (sense of traditions, identity, tourism, ceremonial executive function) then they cost? If so, not a bad deal.
Expensive? I doubt they cost more than most Presidents do. And as they're not there for a few years the need to act like grasping ***** isn't present.
Not a true democracy? Currently the PM is Brown. He wasn't elected for the job. We therefore don't have a "proper" democracy. Nor do we ever, as having the option to vote for under 10 persons for a arbitrary area of the UK isn't democratic.
I don't think that the monarch should be completely out of all politics. Doing so leaves the floor open to the current incumbents who are only interested in getting power in the next election, and then ensuring that their own "retirement" will be as full of as many cushy jobs as they can.
Personally I like the Royals. I've certainly not seen a system that functions better than they do, and many that are a lot worse.
~:smoking:
1) You are neither more or less free with or without a monarch alongside an elected body. In Germany, for example, we do not even vote for our President.
2) Cost is irrelevant. We spend a fortune on our President here, whereas I believe our royals are both wealthy and self-sufficient.
3) A monarch lends an important sense of tradition and dignity to a country.
4) A monarch is an important symbol of the nation.
5) A monarch is, at least in theory, non-partisan.
6) A monarch can be an important safeguard of a constitution or democracy.
7) A monarch is raised from birth for their job. A President has other training instead.
8) A monarch is a perfect diplomatic representative.
Once nice thing about having royals, however useless they might be: It prevents the President/Prime Minister from attempting to embody the state. 'Cause the job is already taken by them royal peoples.
I'm trying to think of a quick, pithy way to explain what I mean by "embody the state," and I'm coming up blank. If you don't understand what I mean, just move on to the next post and pretend you saw nothing at all here.
I'm pretty sure the whole cost issue really isn't real.
I'm not 100% sure as I'm not Australian but isn't one of the reasons why Australians voted to keep the queen as head of state because of the cost of switching to a presidential system and after that the upkeep of a president would be even higher?
Might not be right though but that's what I gathered.
Wow, that's really Mediaeval, Lemur. Kings and queens stopped truely being embodiments of the state at the end of the Renaissance.
Personally, I'm a monarchist and I don't like the idea of a Republic, it feels somehow hollow. I can't justify that at all.
Phillipvs, is it so very medieval? I live in the U.S., where the spirit of America is embodied by Tom Cruise and Mickey Mouse. And maybe Ronald McDonald. That's our royalty. Is it so very wrong to gaze wistfully on the fusty, musty House of Windsor and wish we could buy laminated tea sets instead of Entertainment Weekly? Is that so wrong?!?!
Yes, absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
No. No you do not. No modern liberal Democracy does.
a monarch isn't just someone who sits on the throne in britain, they are intimately tied into 800 years of constitutional structure, and if you tear that down without serious thought as to the alternative then you risk revolution a generation down the line, and even if you do give it serious thought have you actually made anything better?
i am a monarchist because i see no better alternative from a governance standpoint, and i recognise the benefit of the ties with history.
I have recently become a Royalist for two reasons, I do not like the Commons and see it as a threat to my liberty, the Monarch is a good check upon that. Secondly, a sense of, well I'm not sure tbh, but a sense of belonging? Identity? Which in modern Britain is being torn asunder as quick as possible.
We don't need a royal family, although they're not any harm either. I just hope Charles doesn't get too noisy and want to start influencing decisions in the running of the country.
Tradition that our ancestors have shed their blood to protect the existence of the Royal family is good enough reason for me to respect and protect them although I am not British.
In my country, we've had the good old emperor from the same family for what? 2000 years? I know thats a rare case but, thats something worthy of respect. Not because the emperors kept on getting on the thrown but because, no body in the past has ever tried if not, succeeded in overthrowing our royal family. And I don't plan to make my generation be the first.
So from my point of view, I don't want the Brits stopping the whole Royal family thing and making us feel like a loner.
Personally I'd prefer the Royals any day of the week to Brown and his corrupt little party. I'd rather be ruled by a real bunch of stinking rich toffs than a bunch of aspiring to be ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Monarchies are a relict of feudal times, and I generally dislike monarchs. I don't believe it helps revenues from tourism. I don't think more people would rush to visit Versailles or Schönbrunn if France or Austria were monarchies. When I was in US I went to see the Capitol, when I was in UK I went to see the Buckingham Palace, when I was in France I went to see Versailles. All three are powerful symbols of their countries. US is a republic, France is a republic that used to be a monarchy and Britain is still a monarchy.
In British case, they've had a monarchy for a long time and unless the royal family **** up something royally, I understand why most don't want to change it. But, I just don't like when someone has right to a position by virtue of birth, no matter how trivial or ceremonial the position is. It just rubs the wrong way...
I believe that they do, though revenue has little to do with why I support a monarchy. Certain ceremonies would simply not exist without a Royal Family, ceremonies which have people booking hotel rooms, flying British Airways, and sampling the local food and alcohol. It is an excellent stimulus for the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
In this particular case, I don't think any Royal Family would get me to eat English food. I'll take good ol' republican French or Italian, even Russian, any day :laugh4:
I'm glad France's one was kicked out of any power position.
Hmmm...... *tries to figure out what country has been ruled by the same dynasty for 2000 years*Quote:
Originally Posted by 187Beefyz
Care to give the answer? :sweatdrop:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Japan I would imagine..
i would have said the same.
What? Didn't that guy get his head chopped off at the end of WWII?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru
I don't think he did.... Japan is my best guess as well, i can't think of anyone else...
I think 'Len' Hirohito died about 1984.
Do we need a Monarch? I'm no big fan but when you look at the alternatives, as in 'Yo Blair!' I'm glad that Madge can at least eat with her mouth shut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No, I belive he just lost his divine status. ie before and during the war the emperor was a living god (or decended from gods). After the war he became a "regular" person (or human).