[Martyn*]

(Original post by Borderline)
Any evidence for any of that at all?

Unless you have a quick mind, it probably won't be immediately obvious to you.

[QwentyJ]

(Original post by ArcadiaHouse)
They're not.

Royalists are utter nutjobs though with an unsettling obsession with an octogenarian woman.

Says the die hard Diana defender!

[Borderline]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Unless you have a quick mind, it probably won't be immediately obvious to you.

In other words, no, you haven't......

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Someone here mentioned the cost. The cost of the Royal Family has been used to justify their existence. This is partly due to brainwashing and propaganda through the decades. The reason why the Royal Family exist still is because the powers-that-be (of the day; whether it is Blair or Cameron or the newspapers) have to maintain the status quo for as long as they can. Maintaining the status quo involves many things, one of them being that the masses need to believe in a modern a fairy tale; another is that we are not willing to give up tradition and Nationalism, especially so with regards to institutions still in existence today who still believe that the Royals are divinely appointed, or who encapsulate the only lasting vestiges (apart from the army and bunting) of the British Empire.

Or there is just no tangible and real reason to replace them. I challenge any republican to give a strong enough practical reason.

[gladders]

Martyn, give me a break. If the royal family is needed to maintain the status quo, then why isn't every country in the world a monarchy? And why are many more liberal and egalitarian countries monarchies?

Your claim ignores reality.

And please - brainwashing? To say brainwashing is to be terrified of legitimate opposition.

[Bellissima]

i really don't get why people don't care that some of their money and the money of others like them paying taxes, goes to this family so they can basically lead a life of luxury. they do not NEED that amount of money. the work they do does not JUSTIFY that sum of money. i also don't get the kind of hysteria some people get with their royal family love... why they are basically paid by us to be idolised... i don't care how much money they bring in but i highly doubt we would lose ANY if they recieved less money... i just think the whole concept is weird.

[Keckers]

(Original post by gladders)
Martyn, give me a break. If the royal family is needed to maintain the status quo, then why isn't every country in the world a monarchy? And why are many more liberal and egalitarian countries monarchies?

I find it hilarious that you included the words egalitarian and liberal in the same descriptive sentence. Good joke. Kudos.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Borderline)
In other words, no, you haven't......

Just observe how many people in this country believe in this fairy tale besides those who don't. Notice how many of those that do justify the Royal's existence because they are 'value for money', and ignore the fact that they are continually in the newspapers and stamped on our coins continually reminding us who they are and what they stand for. It isn't about how much cash they generate; it is about maintaining the status quo.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gladders)
Martyn, give me a break. If the royal family is needed to maintain the status quo, then why isn't every country in the world a monarchy? And why are many more liberal and egalitarian countries monarchies?

Your claim ignores reality.

And please - brainwashing? To say brainwashing is to be terrified of legitimate opposition.

Every other country in the world have their own way of maintaining the status quo; like organised religion, for example.

[boromir9111]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
A warning against inbreeding?

Just made my morning this has

+repped

[Martyn*]

The truth is that we don't have a Royal Family purely because they are value for money.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Or there is just no tangible and real reason to replace them. I challenge any republican to give a strong enough practical reason.

That may be a separate issue though. If it is true that the Royals are value for money (and it may be true), why get rid of them? However, the reason why we still have a Royal Family are quite different from the reason that they are value for money. Even if the Royals didn't generate any money, people would still believe in them, because it is traditional and bound up with the cultural and historical heritage of the country. This is why they are always in the news. They are here as part of the plan to maintain the status quo.

[gladders]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Every other country in the world have their own way of maintaining the status quo; like organised religion, for example.

Give me a break. You're a fruitloop, a conspiracy theorist.

[hvh]

(Original post by Bellissima)
i really don't get why people don't care that some of their money and the money of others like them paying taxes, goes to this family so they can basically lead a life of luxury. they do not NEED that amount of money. the work they do does not JUSTIFY that sum of money. i also don't get the kind of hysteria some people get with their royal family love... why they are basically paid by us to be idolised... i don't care how much money they bring in but i highly doubt we would lose ANY if they recieved less money... i just think the whole concept is weird.

Personally, I would rather my money go to the Royal family than to those who pop out 10 kids in order to live in a house provided by the state, on money provided by the taxpayers.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gladders)
Give me a break. You're a fruitloop, a conspiracy theorist.

Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "lah lah dee dah" is not going to make it go away.

[gladders]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Just observe how many people in this country believe in this fairy tale besides those who don't. Notice how many of those that do justify the Royal's existence because they are 'value for money', and ignore the fact that they are continually in the newspapers and stamped on our coins continually reminding us who they are and what they stand for. It isn't about how much cash they generate; it is about maintaining the status quo.

Clearly not; the Queen and her predecessors have being on the throne during periods of unprecedented rapid change, in constitutional, social, economic and cultural ways.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gladders)
Clearly not; the Queen and her predecessors have being on the throne during periods of unprecedented rapid change, in constitutional, social, economic and cultural ways.

I don't doubt that they have.

[gladders]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "lah lah dee dah" is not going to make it go away.

As you've asserted that such things as monarchy are used by countries to maintain the status quo, you have to give evidence. How exactly are we being forced not to change? Can you give any tangible evidence of where we would be without such things?

[FrigidSymphony]

I find it absurd that a modern, supposedly progressive country still has one person acting as head of state and head of the church. Ridiculous.

[superfoggy]

I would like to keep them around, even if I disagree with the concept fundamentally.

I think it helps a bit in curbing the whole, if you disagree with the government, you're not for MURRICA, you're unpatriotic, YER A TERRORIST AND A COMMIE. The monarch is the head of state and represents the people, and the prime minister doesn't.

This country sucks ass, long live the queen. ( )