Jump to content

The Royals


Mafiabob

How would you vote if there was a referendum on keeping the royal family?  

85 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 hours ago, Highgate said:

Take countries like Germany (who knows the president of Germany's name?), Finland, Ireland, Greece or Austria for example.  They may have a little residual power on paper but they don't use it and are in practice just a figurehead, just existing to be a symbol of state and to relieve the prime minister of ceremonial duties. They are quite distinct from countries like France, which are semi-presidential systems and the president has a lot of powers.

The fact of the matter is, the role of the president can be set out and defined by parliament.  In the UK, seeing as the presidency would be a new office it would be very easy for parliament to set their boundaries as it sees fit.  The notion of ending up with an 'interfering president' can't really be legitimately used to defend the retention of the monarchy.  Becoming a republic would also be a good opportunity to finally write a constitution. 

Whilst largely ceremonial, all countries listed still have executive powers in the hands of their Presidents that can and are, on occasion, actually exercised. This is actually the exact problem with such a position, whilst they, like the Queen, technically actually have power but are largely not meant to use it, the elected nature of the position means that they can be considered to have a mandate to act using it, even in cases clearly against the wishes of the electorate. 

It's not on it's own a reason to keep a monarchy, but at the same time the desire to create a position of a president isn't a reason to get rid of it either. 

3 hours ago, bigbadbob said:

Russia 

The Russian President has significant powers which can and are actually exercised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, jono said:

When we have established a republic and evenly distributed all the money and property amongst the population, how long before human nature has worked to restore the original inequalities ?

:ph34r:

Quite. Some people will always be more equal than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Albert said:

Whilst largely ceremonial, all countries listed still have executive powers in the hands of their Presidents that can and are, on occasion, actually exercised. This is actually the exact problem with such a position, whilst they, like the Queen, technically actually have power but are largely not meant to use it, the elected nature of the position means that they can be considered to have a mandate to act using it, even in cases clearly against the wishes of the electorate. 

It's not on it's own a reason to keep a monarchy, but at the same time the desire to create a position of a president isn't a reason to get rid of it either.

Yes, but the Queen has used her power too, in relation to Diego Garcia for example.  So, replacing her with a president, also with tightly controlled and limited powers wouldn't change anything in that regard.  I agree there is no desire to create a position of president really, merely a desire to root out institutionalized inequality where it exists. The government of the day would probably wish for a president though, to reduce it's workload regarding ceremonial occasions, however that would be more out of practical necessity than anything else. It can be good in those situations to have a figurehead that is not associated with current policy and legislation, and just represents the nation without much political baggage. However, in my opinion, it's crucial that the people get to choose who that figurehead is...and can aspire to becoming that person themselves if they wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jono said:

When we have established a republic and evenly distributed all the money and property amongst the population, how long before human nature has worked to restore the original inequalities ?

:ph34r:

 

4 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Quite. Some people will always be more equal than others.

So lets just shrug our shoulders and not bother trying to build fair and just societies then...because we are doomed to fail anyway?  Lets leave hereditary privileges alone, as a totem of inequality and as a reminder that humanity is intrinsically flawed?  Creating a republic isn't the solution to society's ills, but it would be a good place to start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Highgate said:

 

So lets just shrug our shoulders and not bother trying to build fair and just societies then...because we are doomed to fail anyway?  Lets leave hereditary privileges alone, as a totem of inequality and as a reminder that humanity is intrinsically flawed?  Creating a republic isn't the solution to society's ills, but it would be a good place to start. 

But to me, the royals aren't a totem of inequality and celebrating the wealth of the few and power over us peasants. To me, they are nothing more than an eccentric celebrity sideshow, played out for the tourist £ they bring in.

They are utterly irrelevant to me & my family's life and it wouldn't change society if we got rid of them IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

But to me, the royals aren't a totem of inequality and celebrating the wealth of the few and power over us peasants. To me, they are nothing more than an eccentric celebrity sideshow, played out for the tourist £ they bring in.

They are utterly irrelevant to me & my family's life and it wouldn't change society if we got rid of them IMO.

Fair enough, nobody can argue with what they mean to you.  But I'd suggest that having a eccentric celebrity sideshow as your head of state and church....isn't ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

 

So lets just shrug our shoulders and not bother trying to build fair and just societies then...because we are doomed to fail anyway?  Lets leave hereditary privileges alone, as a totem of inequality and as a reminder that humanity is intrinsically flawed?  Creating a republic isn't the solution to society's ills, but it would be a good place to start. 

i don't see creating a republic would be a good place to start. It would cost a lot of money and would in practical just be changing the name over the door. And the name sign would be a ghastly plastic thing without the dignity of 1000 years of history behind it. No society in the world is completely fair and just. Ours is one of the best and yet we have a hereditary head of state.

now if we were to discuss genuine reform of the House of Lords I would be with you. Right now it is a mix of hereditary members and those awarded a seat supposedly on their merit and service to the nation. We all know that life peerages aren't always awarded on real merit and are often little more deserving (of a spot) than the members there by accident of birth. Elected House of Lords for me .. Yes I might throw a Bishop in there or an ex PM or two for their alternative view and experience but let's have a real upper house. And leave Queeny and her family to carry on being the best International PR office any nation could wish to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jono said:

i don't see creating a republic would be a good place to start. It would cost a lot of money and would in practical just be changing the name over the door. And the name sign would be a ghastly plastic thing without the dignity of 1000 years of history behind it. No society in the world is completely fair and just. Ours is one of the best and yet we have a hereditary head of state.

now if we were to discuss genuine reform of the House of Lords I would be with you. Right now it is a mix of hereditary members and those awarded a seat supposedly on their merit and service to the nation. We all know that life peerages aren't always awarded on real merit and are often little more deserving (of a spot) than the members there by accident of birth. Elected House of Lords for me .. Yes I might throw a Bishop in there or an ex PM or two for their alternative view and experience but let's have a real upper house. And leave Queeny and her family to carry on being the best International PR office any nation could wish to have.

The house of Lords is beyond ridiculous, I won't even go there.  Lords my a***.

It's clear that we have vastly different, and no doubt irreconcilably opposite, views on this matter. When you look at monarchies you see dignity and tradition built up over generations and centuries it seems, when I look at them I see nothing but collective national embarrassments.  An eagerness to bend a knee in deference, because of some arcane birthright seems an odd tradition to me.

You speak of 1000 years of history, and the dignity that goes with it?  But where was the dignity? Was it the Frenchman William the Conqueror arriving in Britain and destroying the native British ruling class, and killing 100,000 people in Northern England. Was it he and his descendants that were dignified?  Was it the monarchs who fought countless battles, expecting peasants to die when told, and even killing members of their own family to gain or maintain power...was it they that created the tradition of dignity?  Or Henry VIII's unparalleled respect for women...?  Or Victoria's insistence that she be called the 'Empress of India' despite never having been there. Personally, I don't see anything dignified. Just ruthlessness, greed and vainity in equal measure. 

The irony is Britain has such a rich democratic tradition. Magna Carta, the establishment of a parliament, the Habeus Corpus Act, The Bill of Rights.  Each step a great victory for the people...and a defeat for the monarchy.  Do you think they would have given up their power willingly,  had they been given an option?  In my view it's these victories for democracy, giving ordinary people a voice in defiance of royalty that Britain can be rightly proud of. Think of some of the people Britain has produced and their contributions to humanity.  William Wilberforce, Tom Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Emily Pankhurst......that's a dignified tradition to be proud of! 

The royals themselves I actually feel sorry for, born into their situation it must be very difficult for them to do anything but go along with the whole vulgar pantonmime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great counter :thumbsup:

I should have used a phrase more like "weight of history" rather than dignity.

i think we differ because I see the monarchy not as something that sees us a pawns or serfs but something that we the people have shaped over that 1000 years so that it fulfills its place as a genuine servant of its people. I think we have arrived there pretty well and all that history is part of that struggle and says a lot about us as a nation. The monarch is the head but we put it there by common consent. Starting with the Barons at Magna Carta. 

i honestly would rather have our history and demeanor as a nation that either Russia or the United States. Both are republics and both are so fundamentally more flawed than ours it beggars belief. 

Russia overthrew its vile monarchy and replaced it with a people's revolution which gave us Stalins purges where 1 million deaths were be described a a statistic. Despite the largest fertile steppe it couldn't feed its own people even late in the 20th century. It built walls and machine gun nests to keep its own citizens from leaving. It has changed again to a vastly corrupt oligarchy. 

The USA only managed to describe legal equality of races in the last 50 years and has beneath its Land Of The Free veneer a dreadful underlying authoritarianism and barely hidden mass racism. Yet it is the country that is probably best at creating laws to protect rights probably because it is aware at some base level of the failings of its own phyche as a nation.

All history is a bloody tale of power play but ours has yielded a decent, just and fair nation in comparison to our peers. The monarchy is part of that. It might not always be so  I would never say no to change but as we stand today I suggest that the monarchy is a very nice old coat that we have made to fit us over a very long time with much hard work and sacrifice. For me it fits, it's comfortable and keeps a lot of the weather at bay

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the history for me, the buildings, the battles, the commonwealth, the ceremonies.

It's something to be proud of, men and women in the armed forces and emergency services are proud to serve the queen. 

Funny how they're loved world wide but a small minority in Great Britain loath them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PrivateDerby said:

It's something to be proud of, men and women in the armed forces and emergency services are proud to serve the queen. 

Which is even more weird when you think about it. When you're out there in places like Afghanistan, what has it got to do with the Queen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add @Highgate that Wilberforce, Pankhurst and others battlied with Parliament more than they battled with the Monarchy and that The empress of India was well and truely controlled by parliament and the lords in matters of policy. In fact they have been in the thrall and influence of the people for a long long time. ( hence their survival ) I don't see those great social victories as defeats for the Monarchy which by then wasn't making and changing the laws of the day. They were victories over their own elected representatives. Indeed, long after Wilberforce and abolition within the empire, it was Prince Albert who campaigned on a global stage, with the weight of his position behind him, for it to be seen as indefensible to humanity as a whole.

it would be possible without much effort to argue that past "democratic" institutions have visited more misery on the populace than the regal ritual leaders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

The house of Lords is beyond ridiculous, I won't even go there.  Lords my a***.

It's clear that we have vastly different, and no doubt irreconcilably opposite, views on this matter. When you look at monarchies you see dignity and tradition built up over generations and centuries it seems, when I look at them I see nothing but collective national embarrassments.  An eagerness to bend a knee in deference, because of some arcane birthright seems an odd tradition to me.

You speak of 1000 years of history, and the dignity that goes with it?  But where was the dignity? Was it the Frenchman William the Conqueror arriving in Britain and destroying the native British ruling class, and killing 100,000 people in Northern England. Was it he and his descendants that were dignified?  Was it the monarchs who fought countless battles, expecting peasants to die when told, and even killing members of their own family to gain or maintain power...was it they that created the tradition of dignity?  Or Henry VIII's unparalleled respect for women...?  Or Victoria's insistence that she be called the 'Empress of India' despite never having been there. Personally, I don't see anything dignified. Just ruthlessness, greed and vainity in equal measure. 

The irony is Britain has such a rich democratic tradition. Magna Carta, the establishment of a parliament, the Habeus Corpus Act, The Bill of Rights.  Each step a great victory for the people...and a defeat for the monarchy.  Do you think they would have given up their power willingly,  had they been given an option?  In my view it's these victories for democracy, giving ordinary people a voice in defiance of royalty that Britain can be rightly proud of. Think of some of the people Britain has produced and their contributions to humanity.  William Wilberforce, Tom Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Emily Pankhurst......that's a dignified tradition to be proud of! 

The royals themselves I actually feel sorry for, born into their situation it must be very difficult for them to do anything but go along with the whole vulgar pantonmime.

 

I think at the present time retaining the Royal family is a good plan, as the centre ground just seems to be evaporating everywhere.

The House of Lords has its critics, that's for sure, and not everything is ideal (like each Commons party Govt stuffing the place every time they are in power). However, I think the idea of a chamber of 'experts', people who have been there/done that/bought the T shirt advising and re-checking Commons policy is a good idea. Especially when a lot of our politicians seem to do Eton-Oxbridge-bag carrier- party adviser-MP-Minister as their career track.

I like the House of Lords and the Royal family, as both are composed of people who have scaled the greasy pole and are therefore maybe not as susceptible as elected politicians to 'help' donors and mates.

The 'vulgar pantomime' also brings in a lot of tourist money. Not long ago I was wandering through central London and ended up being at Buckingham Palace just before 11am when the Guard is changed. There was a MASS of foreign tourists waving selfie sticks like antenna, excited by the fact the Royal standard was flying and so she was 'in.' Bang on time the Irish Guards, complete with the biggest wolfhound I have ever seen, tipped up. It has to be said, she animates the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...