UK: Do we even need a Royal family?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru

Japan I would imagine..

---

Wow, I didn't realise, but according to wiki they go back to 660BC...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

---

I feel the same way about our royal family. As soon as they start thinking they're more than just antiqued furniture, they're out.

The Royal Family's power only rests as far as their status as celebrities allows their influence to be heard.

I say they are no harm. A bunch of fine ornamental fools who we uphold with our taxes in return for being able to boast to gullible American tourists about. Part of our culture really - and it attracts tourists, more importantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H

The Royal Family's power only rests as far as their status as celebrities allows their influence to be heard.

I say they are no harm. A bunch of fine ornamental fools who we uphold with our taxes in return for being able to boast to gullible American tourists about. Part of our culture really - and it attracts tourists, more importantly.

---

I wonder what kind of tourist would be interested in seeing the British Royal Family, but heh, people are weird I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caraveloto

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.

---

seconded :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I wonder what kind of tourist would be interested in seeing the British Royal Family, but heh, people are weird I guess.

---

Well indeed, but Buckingham palace is plagued by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H

Well indeed, but Buckingham palace is plagued by them.

---

Hardly because of the current royal family. They think of the of the current royal family when they visit Buckingham palace about as much as tourists in France think of Sarkozy when they visit Versailles...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Hardly because of the current royal family. They think of the of the current royal family when they visit Buckingham palace about as much as tourists in France think of Sarkozy when they visit Versailles...

---

I think Princes William and Harry garner significant attention. Also, if you will recall the massive attention the Queen got when she visited the USA a couple of years ago, I would say certain classes of people have a fascination with the whole package, including today's Royals. Incidentally, Zara Philips is considered something of a heroine.

My opinion is that tourists do not visit Buckingham Palace for the History. I think they visit it because of the prestige surrounding the current Royal family.

Originally Posted by Caraveloto View Post
"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 777Ares777

seconded :yes:

---

thirded. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

thirded. :yes:

---

Ummm...

Fourthded?

Huzzah!!!

What is the point of feeding and pampering one single family in the most extravagant way?

We are facing a recession. People lose their jobs, their houses. People go hungry.

Instead of spending money to make the Queens royal behind fatter we could use the money to save several families.

We kicked our own monarchs out by the way. They weren't even Greek (Germans and they never bothered to marry a local 'native' :P ) anyway and in any case a king in the country that gave birth to democracy is an insult.






The only form of Royal Pampering I approve is the one where you provide a person or royal blood with food,drink and women beyond his wildest dreams for a year and you sacrifice him to your Gods at the end of the year. It brings good luck and ensures a good harvest :elephant::whip: :barrel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Instead of spending money to make the Queens royal behind fatter we could use the money to save several families.

---

Ask yourself two questions:

1) How much money does having a Royal Family bring in tourist and media revenue?
2) How much of the money that the Queen uses (and that her family uses, for that matter) is her own money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Ask yourself two questions:

1) How much money does having a Royal Family bring in tourist and media revenue?
2) How much of the money that the Queen uses (and that her family uses, for that matter) is her own money?

---

1. In my country? 0.00 euros

(In the case of the UK the Royals can still create touristic revenue without spending money on them. They ll just need to cut down on having 10 butlers each and will have to eat less cucumber sandwiches)

2. Her own money? Money originating from public property that remained under her control for no good reason you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

What is the point of feeding and pampering one single family in the most extravagant way?

We are facing a recession. People lose their jobs, their houses. People go hungry.

Instead of spending money to make the Queens royal behind fatter we could use the money to save several families.

We kicked our own monarchs out by the way. They weren't even Greek (Germans and they never bothered to marry a local 'native' :P ) anyway and in any case a king in the country that gave birth to democracy is an insult.

The only form of Royal Pampering I approve is the one where you provide a person or royal blood with food,drink and women beyond his wildest dreams for a year and you sacrifice him to your Gods at the end of the year. It brings good luck and ensures a good harvest :elephant::whip: :barrel:

---

Your Royal Family was Danish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

1. In my country? 0.00 euros

(In the case of the UK the Royals can still create touristic revenue without spending money on them. They ll just need to cut down on having 10 butlers each and will have to eat less cucumber sandwiches)

---

The Royals are actually quite cheep all in all, they have a smaller staff than many presidents and their landed holding mean that they are very rich, which makes them largely self supporting

Quote:

---

2. Her own money? Money originating from public property that remained under her control for no good reason you mean?

---

No, the money and property which she inherrited from her father, unless of course you believe that the state should take everything from you when you die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Your Royal Family was Danish.

---

Glucksburg is in Germany although indeed they have Danish ancestry


Who cares though...


As His Political Incorectness Prince Phillip would say 'they come from some place somewhere up north where they were still eating each other when Pericles was giving speeches in Pnyka'

(No offence to German or Danish people or northerners in general)

That sums it up really well.

:elephant::whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Glucksburg is in Germany although indeed they have Danish ancestry

---

The House has German and Danish, but their descent is marked largely from Christian III, King of Denmark, to my knowledge.

Quote:

---

As His Political Incorectness Prince Phillip would say 'they come from some place somewhere up north where they were still eating each other when Pericles was giving speeches in Pnyka'

---

You do know that Prince Phillip was the fifth child of Prince Andrew, who was a member of the House of Glücksburg, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H

I think Princes William and Harry garner significant attention. Also, if you will recall the massive attention the Queen got when she visited the USA a couple of years ago, I would say certain classes of people have a fascination with the whole package, including today's Royals. Incidentally, Zara Philips is considered something of a heroine.

My opinion is that tourists do not visit Buckingham Palace for the History. I think they visit it because of the prestige surrounding the current Royal family.

---

I do not know who Zara Philips is, sorry.

So the queen got the attention when she visited USA once. US president gets the attention anywhere he goes and he is not a monarch, but ok, I agree somewhat with you that royal families get some extra media attention. Problem is, that media attention could also bring potential scandals and hurt the image of the country...

As I've said already, I don't think that being a monarchy brings so much more revenues from tourism, and tourism is my trade, btw... When I visited all those places, I thought of queen Elizabeth, queen Victoria, Henry V, Henry VIII etc... and not about present British monarch. I'm not even sure what her name is. Elizabeth, maybe?

The point of being a monarchy is in symbolism and I'm not sure how good of a symbol that is. Someone holds a high position in a country because he/she was born into it and not because it was earned.

Also, having a head of state that isn't allowed to practice politics, means that those parts have to be done by someone else, which again gives more power to that corrupt government you've been talking about...

Of course, in British case, there are other, more practical benefits, like queen of UK is also a head of state of 16 other countries and head of the commonwealth. In British case, it may be best to keep it until some drastic changes, but doesn't change my general dislike of monarchies and what they symbolize...

Zara Philips is Princess Anne's daughter. The Princess Royal is bottom of the rung of HM the Queen's children. So she, and her kids, get shafted on spiffy titles.


But on the subject of royals here is a pic that always makes my head spin. :laugh4:

EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. Please host it yourself. BG

George V of Great Britain and Czar Nicholas II of Russia. And they look more alike than my borther and I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I do not know who Zara Philips is, sorry.

So the queen got the attention when she visited USA once. US president gets the attention anywhere he goes and he is not a monarch, but ok, I agree somewhat with you that royal families get some extra media attention. Problem is, that media attention could also bring potential scandals and hurt the image of the country...

As I've said already, I don't think that being a monarchy brings so much more revenues from tourism, and tourism is my trade, btw... When I visited all those places, I thought of queen Elizabeth, queen Victoria, Henry V, Henry VIII etc... and not about present British monarch. I'm not even sure what her name is. Elizabeth, maybe?

The point of being a monarchy is in symbolism and I'm not sure how good of a symbol that is. Someone holds a high position in a country because he/she was born into it and not because it was earned.

Also, having a head of state that isn't allowed to practice politics, means that those parts have to be done by someone else, which again gives more power to that corrupt government you've been talking about...

Of course, in British case, there are other, more practical benefits, like queen of UK is also a head of state of 16 other countries and head of the commonwealth. In British case, it may be best to keep it until some drastic changes, but doesn't change my general dislike of monarchies and what they symbolize...

---

the monarchy is also intimately tied in to 600+ years of constitutional arrangements, you cannot just remove her without giving serious thought to how a future form of governance should function, and even then i doubt you will come up with anything better than what already exists. it as after all the product of 600+ years of refinement.

Yes, disband the Royal Family. Then the UK will be one step closer to being the 52nd state of the United States of America.

Think im joking? Only a matter of time before you start calling the "boot" of the car by its proper name (trunk). Or drive in the right seat.

been happening for 50 years at least, an RAF airbase is properly called an airstation.

We haven't started calling our Garrisons "Forts" yet though. Anyway, I thought RAFs were general reffered to as "Airfields". In point of fact they're usually just reffered to as RAF-, same for the Navy, HMS-, though the Marines have RMB-.

in may indeed be airfield, but i believe they were originally called air-stations, something that has faded with the prevalence of amercan culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The House has German and Danish, but their descent is marked largely from Christian III, King of Denmark, to my knowledge.



You do know that Prince Phillip was the fifth child of Prince Andrew, who was a member of the House of Glücksburg, right?

---

Yep. Sad isnt it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Yep. Sad isnt it?

---

What? That he married the Queen and sacrificed a glittering naval career?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

in may indeed be airfield, but i believe they were originally called air-stations, something that has faded with the prevalence of amercan culture.

---

The word you are struggling for is aerodrome.

Is an Ekatarinburg solution required?

By jingo man, we don't shoot down our royals, it's just not cricket old bean. No, we rather they lost their head. Much more fun. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Yep. Sad isnt it?

---

No, not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

---

The reason Australia voted to keep the monarchy is because the referendum and public debate was hijacked by a devoted monarchist and put a flawed question to the people, splitting the republican vote.

Rather than doing the sensible thing of running a series of plebiscites, first asking do you want a republic (for which there is over 50% support), then sorting out the implications that would have on the constitution/government forms, the monarchist movement managed to get just a single question, asking do you want a republic with form x. This split the republican vote allowing the monarchists to win the referendum.

Cost is not a serious impost - everything costs money, contextually the cost of having a president vs. having a monarchy is souch small change that it may as well be a non-event.