The Royal Family

[Space Commander Travis]

In terms of having a realistic future by putting the common peoples needs before the elite, a truly democratic vote would be nice instead of being a subject.

I agree with that sentiment, but the point is that it's not the royals that are the problem there and are prventing britain from being a democracy, it's the politicians. It's the party system, and the voting system that (for instance) let Tony Blair come to power on less than 20% of the total electorate, or let David "Cam" Cameron cobble together his "Coalition" because he didn'ta ctually get enough votes to get into power.

[ships-cat]

Hi there H H Holmes,

I suspect people like the Monarchy simply because us Brits tend to be resistant to change.

Perhaps we should compare them with the USA's Rural Electrification Administration ? Both have long outlived their original purpose, and have adapted to survive by taking on new roles. Neither has a strictly logical reason for continuing, but they battle on regardless.

In point of fact, the royal family is BETTER than the REA, in that the REA costs the US taxpayer around $600 million per year , whereas the royal family actually CONTRIBUTE to revenues, through both the money raised by the Crown Estates, and tourism.

On the other hand, the Royal Family are complete DUNCES at installing broadband into rural areas.

meow purr

[Flashbangwollap]

I agree with that sentiment, but the point is that it's not the royals that are the problem there and are prventing britain from being a democracy, it's the politicians. It's the party system, and the voting system that (for instance) let Tony Blair come to power on less than 20% of the total electorate, or let David "Cam" Cameron cobble together his "Coalition" because he didn'ta ctually get enough votes to get into power.

I also agree with you on that score and so we need to look at our entire political setup. However we have to start by throwing off the idea that we are born subjects under a King or Queen first.

Then we may stand a chance of getting an American style system in place. Hopefully an improved one at that since even the Americans are now struggling with no choice or best of the worst type voting.

[dekker87]

dear oh dear....people just don't get it do they.

why is democracy assumed to be better than a monarchy?

because it represents the will of the people?

fine but then you have politicians elected whose primary motivation is re-election...not necessarily leadership...they won't ever make unpopular but necessary decisions because they will lose votes.

just look at what the war on drugs has done to america ffs...look at mexico...yet no-one really advocates legalisation seriously because anyone who would do so is committing political suicide.

i've no real love for the royals but the argument is a little deeper than some of the facile nonsense on this thread.

[Flashbangwollap]

dear oh dear....people just don't get it do they.

why is democracy assumed to be better than a monarchy?

because it represents the will of the people?

fine but then you have politicians elected whose primary motivation is re-election...not necessarily leadership...they won't ever make unpopular but necessary decisions because they will lose votes.

just look at what the war on drugs has done to america ffs...look at mexico...yet no-one really advocates legalisation seriously because anyone who would do so is committing political suicide.

i've no real love for the royals but the argument is a little deeper than some of the facile nonsense on this thread.

Hey Bro I get it alright but what I said was it's a start and the whole system needs attention not to just go American.

Long and short of it is ....It won't effect me as I won't be here by then. It's for the younger generations to get up and do something and not be led by the nose by a bunch of Hypercrit's in Whitehall.

[dekker87]

Hey Bro I get it alright but what I said was it's a start and the whole system needs attention not to just go American.

Long and short of it is ....It won't effect me as I won't be here by then. It's for the younger generations to get up and do something and not be led by the nose by a bunch of Hypercrit's in Whitehall.

apologies FBW...that post wasn't particularly aimed at you...

[Flashbangwollap]

apologies FBW...that post wasn't particularly aimed at you...

Okay mate feelings mutual.

[ali smack]

I live in England and have no idea why we still have a Royal Family.Not a terrible amount of people like them.

[Blackwhite]

Being an American, I don't really understand why the UK still takes any notice of the royal family.

The news, both here and abroad, has been full of details about the upcoming wedding (I forget who is getting married, I think one of the princes, oh well). Celebrities and diplomats from around the world are going to be in attendance, but I ask myself "why?". From my understanding, they have no real legislative power in the UK anymore, much of that has gone to the parliament and the PM (I could be mistaken, so feel free to correct me). So why do people feel that it is so important to hear what they have to say or care about who is going to be the next "king" or "queen"? Why keep these relics of an old, outdated Monarchy?

Would appreciate any comments on the matter, I am just trying to understand this...

If monarchy is old and outdated then what does that make the republic? Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome were both republics and you can't get much more ancient than that. The republic is an ancient system of governance, too.

The reason why the British love their monarchy is because it's infinitely preferable to having a politician as a Head of State. And why can't we listen to what the Queen or the other Royals have to day? They have opinions, too, like everybody else and they usually talk much more sense than any politician.

Take Prince Charles. He's an ardent environmentalist and has even created his own eco-village, named Poundbury, in Dorset. He has given many speeches over the years, to organisations such as the UN, about green issues. I think many people are much more likely to listen to what politically-neutral Prince Charles or the Queen has to say about certain issues than to listen to any politician.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Blackwhite]

I live in England, and even I have exactly the same questions too! I never have been and never will be a monarchist.

This quote from Thomas Paine sums up my sentiments;

"It is inhuman to talk of a million sterling a year, paid out of the public taxes of any country, for the support of any individual, while thousands who are forced to contribute thereto, are pining with want, and struggling with misery. What is called the splendour of the throne is no other than the corruption of the state. - Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

The Royals don't live off the taxpayer. You believe a complete myth which, for some reason, many republicans believe. Only a TINY TINY fraction of the Royals' income comes from the taxpayer. The rest of it they make themselves through working, such as Prince Andrew who is the UK's Ambassador for Trade and Business - and a very good job he has done, too. The Queen, the world's biggest landowner, also generates money through rents. Also, don't forget that the Queen is the only Head of State in the world who served in WWII. Her husband, Prince Philip, is also a WWII veteran. He was commissioned as a midshipman in the Royal Navy in January 1940. He spent four months on the battleship HMS Ramillies, protecting convoys of the Australian Expeditionary Force in the Indian Ocean, followed by shorter postings on HM Ships Kent, Shropshire and in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). After the invasion of Greece by Italy in October 1940, he was transferred from the Indian Ocean to the battleship HMS Valiant in the Mediterranean Fleet. Amongst other engagements, he was involved in the Battle of Crete, was mentioned in despatches for his service during the Battle of Cape Matapan, and was awarded the Greek War Cross of Valour

Last year, each person paid just 62p, the price of a chocolate car, for the Royal Family. 62p! The total cost for the Royal Family each year is much less than the cost, in America, of the President's Air Force One plane alone. Our monarchy is much cheaper than any republic.

Also bear in mind that being Queen is Elizabeth II's job. She didn't choose to be Queen (unlike presidents who choose to become president so they can lord it over their people) and would probably wish to be doing something else. But she recognises that she has a duty to perform and has performed it well for 59 years. And I see nothing wrong in her receiving money from the taxpayer - in a republic, who do you think it is who pays the President's wages? The taxpayer, of course!

In a poll commisioned by the BBC in March 2009 76% of people said they would like the monarchy to continue after the present Queen, while 18% said they would prefer a Republic. (link)

This truely shocks me! Why anyone would support an inbred, elitest, racist and homophobic family is completely beyond me. Oh, and the fact they aren't even british bothers me too.

/rant

Have you got any proof that the Royals are inbred, elitest, racist and homophobic or are you just showing ignorance? The Queen and her husband, Prince Philip, might be distant cousins but marriage between cousins is not very unusual (Charles Darwin, for example, married his cousin). But apart from those two, I cannot think of any other example of supposed inbreeding in the Royal Family. Prince William, who is marrying the unrelated KateMiddleton, is certainly not partaking in any inbreeding. And neither has Prince Charles, whose former wife Princess Diana was totally unrelated to him, just like his current wife Camilla.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Flashbangwollap]

The Royals don't live off the taxpayer. You believe a complete myth which, for some reason, many republicans believe. Only a TINY TINY fraction of the Royals' income comes from the taxpayer. The rest of it they make themselves through working, such as Prince Andrew who is the UK's Ambassador for Trade and Business - and a very good job he has done, too. The Queen, the world's biggest landowner, also generates money through rents. Also, don't forget that the Queen is the only Head of State in the world who served in WWII. Her husband, Prince Philip, is also a WWII veteran. He was commissioned as a midshipman in the Royal Navy in January 1940. He spent four months on the battleship HMS Ramillies, protecting convoys of the Australian Expeditionary Force in the Indian Ocean, followed by shorter postings on HM Ships Kent, Shropshire and in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). After the invasion of Greece by Italy in October 1940, he was transferred from the Indian Ocean to the battleship HMS Valiant in the Mediterranean Fleet. Amongst other engagements, he was involved in the Battle of Crete, was mentioned in despatches for his service during the Battle of Cape Matapan, and was awarded the Greek War Cross of Valour

Last year, each person paid just 62p, the price of a chocolate car, for the Royal Family. 62p! The total cost for the Royal Family each year is much less than the cost, in America, of the President's Air Force One plane alone. Our monarchy is much cheaper than any republic.

Also bear in mind that being Queen is Elizabeth II's job. She didn't choose to be Queen (unlike presidents who choose to become president so they can lord it over their people) and would probably wish to be doing something else. But she recognises that she has a duty to perform and has performed it well for 59 years. And I see nothing wrong in her receiving money from the taxpayer - in a republic, who do you think it is who pays the President's wages? The taxpayer, of course!

Have you got any proof that the Royals are inbred, elitest, racist and homophobic or are you just showing ignorance? The Queen and her husband, Prince Philip, might be distant cousins but marriage between cousins is not very unusual (Charles Darwin, for example, married his cousin). But apart from those two, I cannot think of any other example of supposed inbreeding in the Royal Family. Prince William, who is marrying the unrelated KateMiddleton, is certainly not partaking in any inbreeding. And neither has Prince Charles, whose former wife Princess Diana was totally unrelated to him, just like his current wife Camilla.

:lol: I'm not even going to try and answer you mate. But if I had a choice as to where my taxes were spent it wouldn't be on maintaining any one of the Royal family since as you say they are indeed very rich and they get rich by inheriting estates which have been in their family for donkeys years. Nice if you have got it aye?

[Sthenno]

The Royals don't live off the taxpayer. You believe a complete myth which, for some reason, many republicans believe. Only a TINY TINY fraction of the Royals' income comes from the taxpayer. The rest of it they make themselves through working, such as Prince Andrew who is the UK's Ambassador for Trade and Business - and a very good job he has done, too. The Queen, the world's biggest landowner, also generates money through rents. Also, don't forget that the Queen is the only Head of State in the world who served in WWII. Her husband, Prince Philip, is also a WWII veteran. He was commissioned as a midshipman in the Royal Navy in January 1940. He spent four months on the battleship HMS Ramillies, protecting convoys of the Australian Expeditionary Force in the Indian Ocean, followed by shorter postings on HM Ships Kent, Shropshire and in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). After the invasion of Greece by Italy in October 1940, he was transferred from the Indian Ocean to the battleship HMS Valiant in the Mediterranean Fleet. Amongst other engagements, he was involved in the Battle of Crete, was mentioned in despatches for his service during the Battle of Cape Matapan, and was awarded the Greek War Cross of Valour

Last year, each person paid just 62p, the price of a chocolate car, for the Royal Family. 62p! The total cost for the Royal Family each year is much less than the cost, in America, of the President's Air Force One plane alone. Our monarchy is much cheaper than any republic.

By that reckoning they Royals would get about 37 million pounds a year. How is that a tiny fraction?

And you can't really say our monarchy is cheaper than the other systems, because our taxes support the government AND the monarchy.

Also bear in mind that being Queen is Elizabeth II's job. She didn't choose to be Queen (unlike presidents who choose to become president so they can lord it over their people) and would probably wish to be doing something else. But she recognises that she has a duty to perform and has performed it well for 59 years. And I see nothing wrong in her receiving money from the taxpayer - in a republic, who do you think it is who pays the President's wages? The taxpayer, of course!

But if your 62p per person figure is true, the Royal Family are receiving millions and millions of pounds for doing very little at all. By comparison, the President earns about half a million a year for doing what I imagine is a far tougher job.

Have you got any proof that the Royals are inbred, elitest, racist and homophobic or are you just showing ignorance? The Queen and her husband, Prince Philip, might be distant cousins but marriage between cousins is not very unusual (Charles Darwin, for example, married his cousin). But apart from those two, I cannot think of any other example of supposed inbreeding in the Royal Family. Prince William, who is marrying the unrelated KateMiddleton, is certainly not partaking in any inbreeding. And neither has Prince Charles, whose former wife Princess Diana was totally unrelated to him, just like his current wife Camilla.

Not sure about the others, but a racist attitude is proven pretty much any time Prince Philip opens his mouth.

The thing I find most upsetting about the Royal Family is the millions of pounds worth of jewellery and trinkets they hoard while ordinary people are losing their jobs due to spending cuts. How is that justifiable?

[Luziadus]

Monarchy is good for countries that were born under Monarchy system, not in countries like America which is logical that some americans dont understand it , I also dont understand their fanatism and hysteria to their presidents or candidates that divides more the country with their elections than uniting the people.

My country lost "voice" and influence 100years ago when Republic was implement by force after a Monarchy which had its problems with republicans also in the parlament but not very popular in elections, it was a democratic monarchy like the one we see in england nowadays, with monarchy weak the republicans got the opportunity and killed the King and the heir in their back when they were in the coach waving to the people, and were defending a republic system with equality, liberty for all, but then it wasnt that what happened, republicans cut the number of people that could vote, closed newspaper if these ones were against them, and then we had another revolt implementing a second Republic but this time was under a dictatorship during more than 40years...todays we are in a 3º republic and we are paying the retirement of 3 more ex-presidents, and their benefits, we are starting to think thar each president we will have more expensive this republic is, if they do the same as a king why not having just one person and paying just to that person? recently a study compared the costs of our republic and the spanish monarchy, and our republic costs the double of the neighbour regime, how can that is possible? dont know the answer.

I think a King is the authentic neutral autority that gives stability than a mere guy elected by the masses with the help of interest business and favors, thats why being president is impossible if you dont belong to the politic parties, which is the same as being football player and then being a referee, not make sense.

One of the reasons that made republicans to revolt against monarchy was this:

- "The 1890 British Ultimatum was an ultimatum by the British government delivered on 11 January 1890 to Portugal in breach of the Treaty of Windsor of 1386. The ultimatum forced the retreat of Portuguese military forces in the land between the Portuguese colonies of Mozambique and Angola (most of present-day Zimbabwe and Zambia) which had been claimed by Portugal and included in its "Pink Map", which had clashed with British aspirations to create a Cape to Cairo Railway, thereby linking its colonies from the north of Africa to the very south.hen Portugal acquiesced to British demands, it was seen as a national humiliation by republicans in Portugal, who denounced the government and the King as responsible for it. The government fell, and António de Serpa Pimentel was appointed Prime Minister. The British Ultimatum inspired the original lyrics of the Portuguese National Anthem, "A Portuguesa". The 1890 British Ultimatum was considered by Portuguese historians and politicians at that time to be the most outrageous and infamous action of Britain against her oldest ally.

On 20 August 1890 the Treaty of London was signed between Portugal and the United Kingdom, defining the territorial limits of Angola and Mozambique. The treaty was published in the Diário do Governo (Portugal's Government Diary) on 30 August and presented to the parliament that same day, leading to a new wave of protests and the downfall of the Portuguese government. When this treaty was not ratified, a new treaty was afterwards negotiated and accepted by both governments the following June. This ultimatum was one of the main causes for the Republican Revolution, which ended the monarchy in Portugal 20 years later." Source

Most of the english dont know about this, and i dont understand why this is ignored in schools?!

We are being with proposals of a referendum about republic because it was never asked to the people of what they prefer, recently some people are saying: why not having a king in a republic?? european monarchies nowadays survives because their are authentic republics.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Karlis
Added Source

[Flashbangwollap]

The reason you see so much about the Royal Wedding is the same reason you hear about the ups and downs of every B-list celebrities marriage... as long as people keep buying into the celebrity culture the media will keep harping on about them. The celebrity status of the royal family is no more or less deserved than the celebrity status of reality TV stars or famous offspring.

The only people in the UK who care about the royal wedding are either over 70 or Heat-magazine buying gossip-hounds.

Agreed /\/\/\/\/\

[They are a part of our history and our heritage./]

So they maybe but they would become more history than now and we would still get the tourism to gawk at what used to be.

[The Royal Family does a lot for this country./]

Yeah all that arm waving and jetting around the world buckshee can't be all bad for the country. Well at least while they're out of the country they can live off their invites in other countries.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Flashbangwollap

[Luziadus]

[The Royal Family does a lot for this country./]

Yeah all that arm waving and jetting around the world buckshee can't be all bad for the country. Well at least while they're out of the country they can live off their invites in other countries.

what you think your president would do?? something different? lolol

A monarch nowadays dont have power in his country because if he/she had the country were considered a absolutist monarchy like in Saudi Arabia, but i dont know which is more democratic a King in Saudi Arabia or a President in North Korea, they have different regimes.

Thats why in europeans monarchy the monarch dont govern but reign, the people elect their government because of their political parties and a head of state should be out and neutral of those politic games, and a monarch is the best neutral head of state because dont need the elections to maintain their reign, but it will not be easy but dangerous if a monarch reigns agaisnt the will of their people.

And let be real in every regime people only complain if they are living bad no matter if its a president or king/queen since people live in harmony with wealth its all ok.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Luziadus

[Dougal]

But if your 62p per person figure is true, the Royal Family are receiving millions and millions of pounds for doing very little at all. By comparison, the President earns about half a million a year for doing what I imagine is a far tougher job.

I think I'd rather pay 62p a year in taxes for the Queen to go visit other countries and be a general good figure head than to some people on the dole who refuse to work and live off benefits. At least the queen gives plenty back.

[Flashbangwollap]

I think I'd rather pay 62p a year in taxes for the Queen to go visit other countries and be a general good figure head than to some people on the dole who refuse to work and live off benefits. At least the queen gives plenty back.

Like she doesn't pay taxes Mmmmh and we pay to keep her mmmh and we rebuild her little castles and keep them in repair . Yeah I see what you mean.

[Space Commander Travis]

A republic is not by any means a guarantee that one's taxes will not be spent on the upkeep of palatial residences and lavish lifestyles. For palatial residences and lavish lifestyles at the people's expense, one need not look much further than Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gadaffi, leaders of republics who were noted for their palatial residences and lavish lifestyles, as well as for being psychopaths. Q.V. also Adolf Hitler, Reichschancellor and leader of the Third Reich from 1933-45, and Joseph Stalin, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from 1922-53. A republic is by no means a guarantee that life will be equable, fair, or that one's leader will not turn out to be a complete nutcase. In fact, on the whole, I'd say that monarchs and crowned heads of state have rather a preferable record to republics and "elected" heads of state, in the last few centuries at any rate.

[Flashbangwollap]

A republic is not by any means a guarantee that one's taxes will not be spent on the upkeep of palatial residences and lavish lifestyles. For palatial residences and lavish lifestyles at the people's expense, one need not look much further than Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gadaffi, leaders of republics who were noted for their palatial residences and lavish lifestyles, as well as for being psychopaths. Q.V. also Adolf Hitler, Reichschancellor and leader of the Third Reich from 1933-45, and Joseph Stalin, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from 1922-53. A republic is by no means a guarantee that life will be equable, fair, or that one's leader will not turn out to be a complete nutcase. In fact, on the whole, I'd say that monarchs and crowned heads of state have rather a preferable record to republics and "elected" heads of state, in the last few centuries at any rate.

Life is not fair. You can quote all the broken sudo republics till the cows come home mate. Here we are talking about The Royal Family.

You mean as long as they (The Royal Family) have no real power they are fine. Right again mate but look back aways at what they were like in the past. And so why keep them going?

Most all anyones taxes are spent on keeping the Wealthy, Wealthy. Or indeed people in powerful positions abusing the system for their own gain. Or don't you read the news?

Edited March 21, 2011 by Flashbangwollap

[Luziadus]

Like she doesn't pay taxes Mmmmh and we pay to keep her mmmh and we rebuild her little castles and keep them in repair . Yeah I see what you mean.

The Queen is the "citizen" that pays more taxes in the country, and injects millions in the country with tourism and royal business, sorry if you dont know these things....oh and the wedding will be paid by royal family money, the people will pay only the security, and its been estimated that the wedding would help the economy in that time with the business around it can creating millions of income.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Luziadus

[Flashbangwollap]

The Queen is the "citizen" that pays more taxes in the country, and injects millions in the country with tourism and royal business, sorry if you dont know these things....oh and the wedding will be paid by royal family money, the people will pay only the security, and its been estimated that the wedding would help the economy in that time with the business around it can create millions of income.

She doesn't pay tax.

Most of the tourism that comes here never get to see the Queen.

And the British people will all get a tax refund?

Sure mate you lap it up that's what they want everyone to do.

I'm sure they'll flog the tele rights world wide and make a bomb. All those mugs with portraits of the Royal couple and other dust collecting worthless brickabrack we can add to our memento's aye?

[Space Commander Travis]

Most all anyones taxes are spent on keeping the Wealthy, Wealthy. Or indeed people in powerful positions abusing the system for their own gain. Or don't you read the news?

yes, most of whom are Democratically Elected Politicians. If we abolished the Monarchy, purely because it was "out of date", we'd just need another Democratically Elected politician to replace them, and how would we be better off? Or would we just rename the PM the President, and where would we be better off then?

I think if you want a system to change, why not start with that, the political industry, something that is without a doubt corrupt, and is not only an open drain down which taxes are poured but which has the ability to cause actual harm, something that the monarhcy hasn't for about 300 years?

[Flashbangwollap]

yes, most of whom are Democratically Elected Politicians. If we abolished the Monarchy, purely because it was "out of date", we'd just need another Democratically Elected politician to replace them, and how would we be better off? Or would we just rename the PM the President, and where would we be better off then?

I think if you want a system to change, why not start with that, the political industry, something that is without a doubt corrupt, and is not only an open drain down which taxes are poured but which has the ability to cause actual harm, something that the monarhcy hasn't for about 300 years?

You are right we possibly wouldn't be any better off or worse off but do we then need a multi-layered cake?

[Luziadus]

She doesn't pay tax.

Most of the tourism that comes here never get to see the Queen.

And the British people will all get a tax refund?

Sure mate you lap it up that's what they want everyone to do.

I'm sure they'll flog the tele rights world wide and make a bomb. All those mugs with portraits of the Royal couple and other dust collecting worthless brickabrack we can add to our memento's aye?

excuse me, she PAYS taxes! like a normal citizen.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Luziadus

[Flashbangwollap]

excuse me, she PAYS taxes! like a normal citizen.

How can the Queen the Monarch of England pay tax like a normal citizen?

Have you seen her tax returns?

I can picture her sat by the fire at Balmoral filling in her tax returns with Phillip. "Hurry Phillip we have to get this in the post tonight or we might get thrown in goal!"