The Student Room Group

The royal family? Yay or nay?

Scroll to see replies

Nay - but they have every right to exist as a family and make money and be rich if they're successful. But being rich JUST because you were born into a specific family and for no other reason seems to me to be quite perverted.
Original post by Fatima.R
So a lot of people have mixed views toward the royal family
Some people don't want then to exist because they believe it creates social inequality and they don't really do anything
But others believe that they have every right to be there because they are 'royalty' after all
I haven't really given this much thought before but I am confused as to what the function of the royal family have in our society


What are you your views
Yay or nay??

Posted from TSR Mobile


I don't see why they have 'every right' to be there. Just because they happened to be born into the right sort of family?
When there's so many people in the UK who are living in or near poverty, the monarchy stands for something I'm strongly against, which is inequality.

I'm a republican - nay.
Reply 22
Original post by aaronlowe
Nay - but they have every right to exist as a family and make money and be rich if they're successful. But being rich JUST because you were born into a specific family and for no other reason seems to me to be quite perverted.


And yet its the law of nature. Look how many businessmen and women are rich only by virtue of their families? Almost all of them.
Original post by enaayrah
What an odd comparison.


I know XD
Original post by mogwai98
I don't see why they have 'every right' to be there. Just because they happened to be born into the right sort of family?
When there's so many people in the UK who are living in or near poverty, the monarchy stands for something I'm strongly against, which is inequality.

I'm a republican - nay.


Of course they don't have a fundamental right to be royalty, any more than David Cameron has a fundamental right to be Prime Minister. Nevertheless, if it serves the country well to have a monarch then a monarch there should be.

All I will say is that it's no coincidence that the most democratic countries in the world, the most socially equal, the most stable, the happiest and the richest are mainly constitutional monarchies, whereas republics all over the world during the past century have been plagued by civil wars, dictatorships and governmental corruption. Clearly there's something to be said for the monarchical principle.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
YAY!

The Royal family has an incredibly interesting history and is highly respected all around the world. Members of the royal family and the history and architecture surrounding them generates a lot of tourism for England too!
nah who even gives a ****
Yay. I think they're harmless :smile: they do more good than harm - H/W military career, invictus games, aid economy, bring people together.... they're what makes us British.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yay. They're an important part of our national identities and they play an important diplomatic position. The Crown also plays a big role in landscape and wildlife conservation, as well as funding a wide array of charities and trusts. It's also useful having an apolitical authority above parliament in case of constitutional/political crises.

And republics are dull.
Yay! Although I do feel sorry for them with everything they have to put up with :frown:
Reply 30
Nay - I'm an Irish nationalist. Don't get me wrong, the Royal Family are so fascinating (I'm into history) but the principles of it...anyway, it's not for me to decide so whether they stay or go I don't care, I just won't ever be making oaths of loyalty or singing God Save the Queen.
Original post by Arbolus
Of course they don't have a fundamental right to be royalty, any more than David Cameron has a fundamental right to be Prime Minister. Nevertheless, if it serves the country well to have a monarch then a monarch there should be.

All I will say is that it's no coincidence that the most democratic countries in the world, the most socially equal, the most stable, the happiest and the richest are mainly constitutional monarchies, whereas republics all over the world during the past century have been plagued by civil wars, dictatorships and governmental corruption. Clearly there's something to be said for the monarchical principle.

Posted from TSR Mobile


If you say it's no coincidence, what is it about having a monarchy that is stabilising for a country? I don't think you can establish a correlation and draw a conclusion like that. And the thing is, Cameron was voted in.... the same can't be said about the Royal family.

Original post by boods8897
Yay. I think they're harmless :smile: they do more good than harm - H/W military career, invictus games, aid economy, bring people together.... they're what makes us British.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Really? So you'd no longer feel British if the monarchy were abolished?
Original post by mogwai98


Really? So you'd no longer feel British if the monarchy were abolished?


There's so little now apart from having the royals that can come anywhere near to being a British identity. I just think that if you asked someone either here or in another country to name 5 things that they associate with Britain, then the Queen would feature in that list.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Fatima.R
So a lot of people have mixed views toward the royal family
Some people don't want then to exist because they believe it creates social inequality and they don't really do anything
But others believe that they have every right to be there because they are 'royalty' after all
I haven't really given this much thought before but I am confused as to what the function of the royal family have in our society


What are you your views
Yay or nay??

Posted from TSR Mobile


Nay. They don't have as much power as they used to so they don't really make as much an impact except in tourism.
Original post by TTWNGCBC
Yay! Although I do feel sorry for them with everything they have to put up with :frown:


I know right, must be so hard being them. I feel really sorry for them too.

Original post by boods8897
There's so little now apart from having the royals that can come anywhere near to being a British identity. I just think that if you asked someone either here or in another country to name 5 things that they associate with Britain, then the Queen would feature in that list.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I don't feel I have any British identity really... I certainly don't feel British because some American thinks of the royals if asked about 'across the pond', nor do I think that's a good enough reason to keep them.
Original post by BrightonDunkley
Yay!

Brilliant for the economy and and cheaper than an elected head of state. Also to be honest with or without the royal family there will always be social inequality, no aspect of life is ever fair, for example why do some people live to 100 and others die at less than 1? We will never be able to change it, the simple fact is life is not fair.

Also think how boring our history would be without the royal family....


Could say the same about slavery...
We actually make a profit with them, so that has to be a good thing?

I could understand people not liking them if they were horrid, but they seem like genuinely lovely people.
Yay. I mean, who else would we put on the 'heads' side of our currency? :P
Reply 38
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Could say the same about slavery...


Actually there was a solid economic argument against slavery, particularly as economies advanced. This isn't even a modern argument: Adam Smith was making it in the 18th century.
Original post by L i b
Actually there was a solid economic argument against slavery, particularly as economies advanced. This isn't even a modern argument: Adam Smith was making it in the 18th century.


There was also an economic argument for it as well. Some were that slaves were actually better of as slaves and as living standards for them was improving what was the problem? You cut them free and they have to provide for themselves as well as get exploited as wage slaves. Economic arguments tend to be heavily politicaly motivated.

Smithy was also pre capitalist and wrote some stuff that would be considered anti capitalist and anti imperialism. Shame no one listened then or now, especially the people who worship him.

Anyway I was just making the point that just because a social relation is good for an economy in some way does not justify that relation in its self. Having an economy based on sweatshops with appalling conditions and worker rights half way round the world can not be solely justified just because "it is good for the economy". Just as if an economy was built on the bedrock of slave ownership doesn't justify the slave ownership.


Original post by aaronlowe
Nay - but they have every right to exist as a family and make money and be rich if they're successful. But being rich JUST because you were born into a specific family and for no other reason seems to me to be quite perverted.


That contradicts your first sentence.
I
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest