The Royals

[Mafiabob]

.....

[Highgate]

Can't see how people can justify any country having a royal family in this day and age. If history teaches us anything, it's that royals were a pretty ruthless, greedy and brutal bunch, they had to be to survive i suppose, but why celebrate that legacy?  It's hypocritical and counterproductive to try an build an equal, fair, non-discriminatory society...and then place hereditary 'divine' privilege right at it's core. That's just my view however and I'd expect any sizeable poll to show that the British public is in favour of retaining the royals.  I won't vote here, as I wouldn't be voting in a referendum. 

[Mostyn6]

the Royals get away with all sorts of evil and avoid prosecution as it's deemed harmful to tourism to the nation if they are held accountable.

[Stive Pesley]

I've yet to hear a good argument for them staying. The main arguments you hear (tradition, tourism etc) would still be there if you removed all the wealth and privilege. They could still function as a nominal Royal Family without that stuff. Nobody ever says "we should keep them because I enjoy having a hugely privileged, wealthy head of state that keeps me in servitude"

[ilkleyram]

I think we should keep them because I enjoy having a hugely privileged, wealthy head of state that keeps me in servitude.

[Stive Pesley]

1 minute ago, ilkleyram said:

I think we should keep them because I enjoy having a hugely privileged, wealthy head of state that keeps me in servitude.

I meant to say "nobody sane" ever says that

[ariotofmyown]

I always thought the royals were pretty much a national joke until they started using taxpayers money to pay PR firms to continually tell us how great they are. Now they seem really popular.

I love the Doug Stanhope joke about the royals, where Brits tell him it's ok that we kneel in front of her when she knights people as "she hasn't got any real power".

[Tony Le Mesmer]

I'd vote for them to be ousted. Nothing against them personally just that it's 2016 and the whole shebang is totally unacceptable.

As a side story, when I was a little bit younger I applied to join the army as a dog handler. Passed all the tests, interviews and the like and as part of the process they wanted me to swear allegiance to the queen and I refused to do it. Just as I would refuse to bow in deference if I ever met her.

She's a nice enough lady and I respect her but like me, she's just another human being. No better or worse.

Equals don't submit. We're all equals.

Needless to say I didn't end up joining the armed forces. I would have served my country and countrymen but not 'Queen and country'.

There are some really amiable royals, I like prince harry but on the other side there are some real boneheads.

That's not the issue though. The issue is that the system is deeply unfair.

[Sexydadbod]

Scrap the national anthem too. The queen doesn't need saving from anybody as she has enough protection 

[WhiteHorseRam]

I am a big-time Royalist. I think we actually need her more than ever as our elected politicians are currently so s%%te.

I often think people who are anti Royal are really actually anti very rich people, and you will never get rid of those in our system. All rich developed countries have someone on the rich list, oligarchs etc. At least she knows how to behave.

If we had no Queen we would still need a Head of State, as having a combined Head and CEO (Prime Minister person) can be iffy power-wise. Also, would still have a big spend on a stately home, helicopters and cars, people talking into their sleeves.

Anyway, I am going to take the corgis up the road. God Save the Queen.

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

I think we should keep them because I enjoy having a hugely privileged, wealthy head of state that keeps me in servitude.

Indeed. Our relationship to the head of state is the complete reverse of a republic.

In a republic they have citizens who are served by the president. 

In Britain we are not citizens, we are subjects (read 'servants') of the monarch.

In the 21st century.

[jono]

I am with Whitehorse on this 

The queen is a head of state and despite all the trappings I reckon running her family is probably a lot cheaper than running a presidential office. Bottom line she has to do what parliament says anyway. 

Who would we get as a president ? Would they be full of moral rectitude, uncorruptable, decent, loyal, strong, dutiful  ? 

I struggle to think of anyone in the current political picture that would get anywhere close to any one of those qualities.

God save the queen !

Now if you want me to reform the house of lords and make it an elected house then I am all for it, but HMQ is an example to everyone in power the world over on how to do it pretty well. Charles is a thoughtful man and I see no reason to think he won't carry on the tradition with an equivalent level of decency.

 

[Bridgford Ram]

I have always felt anti-royal and believed them to be a drain on our countries resources.  I have also used the argument that tourists would still visit Buckingham Palace whether we had a current royal family or not.  However I once had a discussion about it with my best mate (who I couldn't believe was a Royal) and we ended up both thinking that we should probably have a Royal Family but a dramatically slimmed down version of direct decendents / heirs to the throne instead of various cousins etc.  Money saved could then be put to good use in rebuilding our country.

[Stive Pesley]

7 minutes ago, Bridgford Ram said:

I have always felt anti-royal and believed them to be a drain on our countries resources.  I have also used the argument that tourists would still visit Buckingham Palace whether we had a current royal family or not.  However I once had a discussion about it with my best mate (who I couldn't believe was a Royal) and we ended up both thinking that we should probably have a Royal Family but a dramatically slimmed down version of direct decendents / heirs to the throne instead of various cousins etc.  Money saved could then be put to good use in rebuilding our country.

Sounds like a sensible compromise that I suspect most wouldn't disagree with. I actually hope that once Diana's kids are running the show they might actually see some sense and drag the monarchy into the 21st century in this way. How can they not see how grotesque the current state of affairs is.

We're spending millions of taxpayer's money on renovating Royal Property. Announced the same day as Children In Need, where we will all be brow-beaten into "giving what we can" to help those that the system can't help because "there is no money"

[Sith Happens]

Must admit just read that we are spending 369 million on buckingham palace, my first thought is its a lot.

Then i thoughts we the taxpayer have coughed up 700 million to give west ham a new stadium and think the royal family is a bargain...lets get rid of west ham first thanks.

[jono]

4 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Sounds like a sensible compromise that I suspect most wouldn't disagree with. I actually hope that once Diana's kids are running the show they might actually see some sense and drag the monarchy into the 21st century in this way. How can they not see how grotesque the current state of affairs is.

We're spending millions of taxpayer's money on renovating Royal Property. Announced the same day as Children In Need, where we will all be brow-beaten into "giving what we can" to help those that the system can't help because "there is no money"

Stive .. I understand the sentiments but if the property wasn't Royal it would still need renovating. I suspect our queen excesses are pretty small beer next to the presidents of many major nations. 

There will always be the poor the desperate and the needy, just as there will always be an elite. I honestly believe our best shot a decent society that retains a degree of personal freedom is to work with what we have and try to make it better. Ripping it up never works because human nature is what it is, primarily selfish. You can't legislate that out of what we are unless you want to have a police force the same size as the general population . That wouldn't work either because the police would be subject to the forces of human nature as well. 

Slowly slowly we are learning to be kinder as a society and technology is making it harder for the elite to hide to worst of their excesses. 

Still, having said all that, we need idealists like you to keep the realists like me and the elite (not me, but it would be nice )  on the right track ! Mind you .. I rather like the idea of being a benevolent dictator  

 

[Gritstone Ram]

Keep them. Anyone that doesn't should be thrown in the tower. All this Republic crap is a load of rubbish. We tried without them some 300 years ago and that didn't work. 

If we had a vote for a President what power would they have? Why go through all that crap? 

 

[Highgate]

16 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Sounds like a sensible compromise that I suspect most wouldn't disagree with. I actually hope that once Diana's kids are running the show they might actually see some sense and drag the monarchy into the 21st century in this way. How can they not see how grotesque the current state of affairs is.

As much as appreciate the instinct to compromise on something that isn't that crucial after all (now that the monarchy have been relieved of almost all their power), isn't it more likely that the monarchy just doesn't belong in the 21st century?

[eddie]

Up against the wall, bop bop bop.

[jono]

2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

As much as appreciate the instinct to compromise on something that isn't that crucial after all (now that the monarchy have been relieved of almost all their power), isn't it more likely that the monarchy just doesn't belong in the 21st century?

But Highgate ... What does belong in the 21st century ? A focus group that takes views via a tick box customer satisfaction survey run by xyz on behalf of the presidents office ? Or straw polls of snap chat users opinions of the moment ? Or respondents to Jeremy Corbyn/Theresa Mays Twitter feed ? 

Somehwere society need an anchor. I have yet to see a better example.

we are chatting here about the monarchy and its alleged fitness for purpose ... While right now in Sheffield .. The highly democratic local council has decided to chop some trees down on a residential street. It's not very popular locally so they decided to get the police to knock on the doors of people's homes at 5.00 AM demanding that cars in the street be moved and if not they were towed away. Those who protested in their PJ's got arrested using laws designed to prevent aggressive industrial picketing. .... I know which guardians of the law I find rather more fit for purpose and it isn't a self important, power abusing, website operating, Twitter feeding, service user providing 21st century  local council.