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).
Wow, I didn't realise, but according to wiki they go back to 660BC...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
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
I wonder what kind of tourist would be interested in seeing the British Royal Family, but heh, people are weird I guess.
seconded :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caraveloto
Well indeed, but Buckingham palace is plagued by them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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."
thirded. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by 777Ares777
Ummm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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:
Ask yourself two questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
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 eurosQuote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
(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?
Your Royal Family was Danish.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
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 supportingQuote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
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:
2. Her own money? Money originating from public property that remained under her control for no good reason you mean?
Glucksburg is in Germany although indeed they have Danish ancestryQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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:
The House has German and Danish, but their descent is marked largely from Christian III, King of Denmark, to my knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
You do know that Prince Phillip was the fifth child of Prince Andrew, who was a member of the House of Glücksburg, right?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'
I do not know who Zara Philips is, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
Yep. Sad isnt it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
What? That he married the Queen and sacrificed a glittering naval career?Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
The word you are struggling for is aerodrome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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:
No, not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
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.
Gah! Beaten to it again!Quote:
Originally Posted by Productivity
55% support was the latest poll IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Productivity
No, I m sure the queen was a fine piece of :daisy: when she was young :elephant::whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Its just that the man is a walking joke.
I hate it when the media say he is 'Greek'. Not a drop of Greek blood in him whatsoever. German/Danish inbred dude with a whole lot of Altzheimers. Plain and simple.
I was amazed you hadn't posted about that yet TBH.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
If you (and anyone else interested in Australian constitutional politics) haven't seen it allready you may be interested in this.
He was born at Mon Repos on Kerkyra. That makes him a Greek. I know that the mainland Greeks look upon Corfiats as a bit simple* but last time I looked it was still in Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
*As is Phil. :laugh4:
Phil is awesome, i have a great deal of respect for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Never! They play cricket over there u know!Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Actually I do know. Still Greek though. :laugh4:
I honestly think it's an act. He's worked out he can insult people with impunity and he constantly tries to outdo himself, he's not simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
http://www.allgreatquotes.com/prince...p_quotes.shtml
I couldn't resist posting this :elephant::whip:
Marvellous stuff. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
You know, if Devastatin' Dave wasn't so blisteringly American, on reading those quotes I'd begin to wonder at the possibilities...
Truly hilarious :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
I now love Prince Philip
Prince Philip of Greece, rich enough to say what he wants. :smash::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Brilliant! :laugh4:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822574.stm
Maybe he was high again? :laugh4:
Ugh, the sensibilities of the amoral British press, how pathetic.
I love how the press are so often the first to bash the Royal family for unseemly behaviour while keeping us in the dark about their chums in the City.
Interesting how that is on the front page, but on the sidebar there are much more important stories. For example:Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
-British climbers die in the Alps
-Saudi tanker crew 'safe and well'
-Biden and Karzai in Kabul meeting
-Obama plan 'could create 4m jobs'
-Games will 'eclipse' other media
Recent events have made me to believe that there is a genetic cause. There seems to be a hereditary effect...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7822574.stm
I would like to encourage the scientific community to try to locate this so-called 'Prince Philip gene' in an effort to assist the poor victims of this Royal ailment so they can live a normal life.
:elephant::whip:
Isn't that the same article?Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
And so what? How is it anyone's business? Have you never said anything silly?
i would like to see the Phil gene spliced into every human being, it would increase the sum total of human backbone by a considerable amount!Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos