Do we need a Royal Family

Well they are fun to look at.

Reply 5

Yes we need them, as in the event that we get someone trying to be a dictator (didnt Tony have a damn good try?) there is a head of state that can constitutionally protect against this. Paying them a little less might help, but TBF she does pay taxes now, and now that Prince William is back on the market, all us girls have a chance to get some of your hands on that lovely lolly (I meant the money :eek:

).

Reply 6

pharmgirl

Yes we need them, as in the event that we get someone trying to be a dictator (didnt Tony have a damn good try?) there is a head of state that can constitutionally protect against this. Paying them a little less might help, but TBF she does pay taxes now, and now that Prince William is back on the market, all us girls have a chance to get some of your hands on that lovely lolly (I meant the money :eek:

).

They aren't "overpaid". If anything the monarch operates at a loss of about £6 Billion, since the revenues of the Crown Estates go to the Excheqeur. And comparing Blair to a dictator is a stretch.

Reply 7

Gilliwoo

They aren't "overpaid". If anything the monarch operates at a loss of about £6 Billion, since the revenues of the Crown Estates go to the Excheqeur. And comparing Blair to a dictator is a stretch.

Good point. But my point about preventing dictatorship is still sound. So do you think that not being overpaid also applies to the salaries on the civil list for the more minor Royals?

Reply 8

pharmgirl

Good point. But my point about preventing dictatorship is still sound. So do you think that not being overpaid also applies to the salaries on the civil list for the more minor Royals?

The government only pays for state-related duties of the Royal Family. The minor royals' parliamentary allowances are reimbursed by the Queen.

Reply 9

shady lane

16

pharmgirl

Yes we need them, as in the event that we get someone trying to be a dictator (didnt Tony have a damn good try?) there is a head of state that can constitutionally protect against this. Paying them a little less might help, but TBF she does pay taxes now, and now that Prince William is back on the market, all us girls have a chance to get some of your hands on that lovely lolly (I meant the money :eek:

).

There are loads of countries that either have the head of government and the head of state as the same person (e.g. the US), or that have a prime minister as head of government and a president as the head of state (e.g. Germany, France). I don't think the UK needs the royal family to prevent a dictatorship; that's just ridiculous.

Reply 10

shady lane

There are loads of countries that either have the head of government and the head of state as the same person (e.g. the US), or that have a prime minister as head of government and a president as the head of state (e.g. Germany, France). I don't think the UK needs the royal family to prevent a dictatorship; that's just ridiculous.

I'm inclined to believe tha our present constitutional arrangements would make an alternative very difficult. That said, the real reason we keep the Monarch is how incredibly convenient the Crown's powers are to politicians. It makes the conduct of government a more precise and fluid business, and allows ministers to get on with their work without needing to appeal for "legitimacy" to such nebulous concepts as the state, the constitution and, oh God forbid, "The People".

Reply 11

shady lane

There are loads of countries that either have the head of government and the head of state as the same person (e.g. the US), or that have a prime minister as head of government and a president as the head of state (e.g. Germany, France). I don't think the UK needs the royal family to prevent a dictatorship; that's just ridiculous.

As said in Shady's inimitable style...

Britain does not have a constitution like the US therefore there is nothing to stop this from happening. So if our head of state and prime minister were one there would be nothing to stop them grabbing power and just refusing to leave.

The Royal family also preserve continuity in a changing political landscape, e.g. the queen mother, who survived two world wars and more so than the queen, was held in great affection by people from all walks of life.

Reply 12

shady lane

16

Well my point was, why can't the head of state be a ceremonial president, like in Germany, instead of a monarch?

Reply 13

Would solve the dictatorship issue but there wouldnt be the advantage of continuity. The ceremonial function of a head of state is as a symbol of the country, how can a president be better than a Royal family that has symbolised the country for 1000 years?

Reply 14

Catsmeat

13

pharmgirl

Would solve the dictatorship issue but there wouldnt be the advantage of continuity. The ceremonial function of a head of state is as a symbol of the country, how can a president be better than a Royal family that has symbolised the country for 1000 years?

Why do we need a head of state at all? Surely a democratically elected system negates the need for one to carry power over others?

The argument about the "symbolic" importance of the Royal Family is one trotted out by lazy monarchists; I've heard the "well, it's good for the tourism" argument too many times.

Reply 15

_jackofdiamonds

10

It doesn't need a royal family, but it doesn't need a president either. A president would most likely be appointed anyway, so you still wouldn't elect them. If we merged head of government with head of state you also have the problem of politics, which isn't a problem for the queen and is a reason why she can have dialogue with so many other heads of states around the world easier than Blair can.

Reply 16

Thud

17

no we definitely do not need them. bloody outdated regime that's all.

Reply 17

'Death of a Joyce scholar'

Why do we need a head of state at all? Surely a democratically elected system negates the need for one to carry power over others?

The argument about the "symbolic" importance of the Royal Family is one trotted out by lazy monarchists; I've heard the "well, it's good for the tourism" argument too many times.

We were talking about how to guard against a democratically elected leader turning dictator and how a sepration of head of government and head of state with limited constitutional power prevents this.

Reply 18

pharmgirl

As said in Shady's inimitable style...

Britain does not have a constitution like the US therefore there is nothing to stop this from happening. So if our head of state and prime minister were one there would be nothing to stop them grabbing power and just refusing to leave.

The Royal family also preserve continuity in a changing political landscape, e.g. the queen mother, who survived two world wars and more so than the queen, was held in great affection by people from all walks of life.

Pharmgirl, there's aneven stronger axis to the "continuity" argument. The Queen has been dealing with Prime Ministers since Churchill: she probaly has a more intimate understanding of the political system and of how the constitution works than any living politician right now. Even if she's not quite a constitutional scholar, I'd say almost nobody can claim that much experience in the UK political system.

Reply 19