Turn on thread page Beta

Do you support the Royal Family? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Hmm whereas the lovely Prince Phillip has never been known to say anything remotely racist has he? He has apparently said something offensive about approximately two thirds of the world population! Unelected leaders are also frequently without respect- how do you think Chares is going to fare? An elected head of state can at least say that s/he was freely chosen by the electorate.
    You were saying before what a respected democracy Britain is- I would have thought that fact that people are less interested in elections than they are in Pop Idol is an indication that things need to change rather than remain the same, wouldn't you?
    yeh i guess.. i think the important difference is that the PM we elect has power over everyday decisions which affect us and so he/she cannot afford to speak out of turn for fear of losing votes.. our monarchy are only human, and yes, sometimes they speak out of turn.. I do agree things should change, and fast, but I do not in any way see how the removal of the monarchy will help British politics..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Remove them, and save money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Remove them, and save money.
    Well if its about money, how much money do you think was brought to the UK by the tourists who came to Charles/Dianas wedding? The tourists who came to see the Jubilee celebrations and spent money using our tubes, trains, buses, shops etc? The people who come to London just to see the palace and the changing of the guard? The money generated by our press in royal storylines, weddings and funerals? I dont know the figures but Im sure the money made in the UK balances out, if not exceeds, the money spent on keeping them.. Money is always a sensitive issue, especially when you pay taxes, but there are lots of other ways of saving money that dont include the removal of the monarchy..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsboy)
    Well if its about money, how much money do you think was brought to the UK by the tourists who came to Charles/Dianas wedding? The tourists who came to see the Jubilee celebrations and spent money using our tubes, trains, buses, shops etc? The people who come to London just to see the palace and the changing of the guard? The money generated by our press in royal storylines, weddings and funerals? I dont know the figures but Im sure the money made in the UK balances out, if not exceeds, the money spent on keeping them.. Money is always a sensitive issue, especially when you pay taxes, but there are lots of other ways of saving money that dont include the removal of the monarchy..
    well give me some figures for the tourism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    well give me some figures for the tourism
    hold on a second, ill just fetch my calculator and get the royal accountant on the line (!)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsboy)
    hold on a second, ill just fetch my calculator and get the royal accountant on the line (!)
    do that, I can wait
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    do that, I can wait
    damn theyre closed on weekends, the lines open tomorrow, ill get back to you
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsboy)
    damn theyre closed on weekends, the lines open tomorrow, ill get back to you
    A common excuse...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ok own up, who ticked "who are the royal family?"!!!!???
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsboy)
    "The Queen is the United Kingdom's Head of State. As well as carrying out significant constitutional functions, The Queen also acts as a focus for national unity, presiding at ceremonial occasions, visiting local communities and representing Britain around the world. The Queen is also Head of the Commonwealth." - Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk
    Wow, she must be soo overworked! No wonder she has no time for her family - that's why they have all these problems!

    The Queen's functions are:

    She reads pre-written speeches
    She hosts dinners
    She wears a very heavy crown
    She waves at us commoners
    She allows us to use her face on stamps and money
    She signs bits of paper

    This requires divine power which only the monarch has. She was appointed by a god to watch over us commoners. Same with the Lords. These people are born better than us and they have qualities which make them better than us. If the monarch knocked up someone years ago that child was given a peerage as they carry these wonderful qualities too. These qualties are handed over to each generation via inter-breeding. This is the basis of today's establishment.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pkonline)
    Wow, she must be soo overworked! No wonder she has no time for her family - that's why they have all these problems!

    The Queen's functions are:

    She reads pre-written speeches
    She hosts dinners
    She wears a very heavy crown
    She waves at us commoners
    She allows us to use her face on stamps and money
    She signs bits of paper

    She also entertains foreign heads of state she probably has no time for and makes endless small talk to give us a bit of extra help in world affairs... do you think Bush didn't love his state visit and his ride in the royal carriage? And do you think it doesn't help win these other politicians over to our side a bit? (Guantanamo Bay? Think it didn't help?) She is ALSO the only person who has had access to all political affairs and papers since 1953. She takes note of what's going on.

    Yes, the divine power rubbish is out of date. That doesn't make the institution itself bad, and it certainly isn't bad for our economy. The Queen pays taxes, the tourist industry is heavily reliant upon our history and the fact that we carry on many of the traditions, and the Queen is a diplomat of the highest calibre, if you take the trouble to read about her.

    Incidentally, hereditary Lords are surely better than people who were appointed by Tony? The hereditary Lords are indebted to no-one except a long-dead monarch. They can follow their own minds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nah don't support the Royal Family here. I think it is sad that the Australia tax payer had to learn that $1Billion of Australia's money would go toward young prince Harry's holiday over here. Specifically paying for his security. Erm fine. Can't have princes getting mugged in the main streets of Sydney etc. But the little lad was out learning what it was like to be a farm hand. Up in the Northern Territory for God's sake. THe only trouble he would meet up there would be a fiesty kangaroo that didn't like the smell of poms. There isn't really a need for the royal family is there? I can't speak too intelligently on this topic because I never really cared, but is there actually a point to maintaining a royal family??? They only seem to be a waste of time and money. And lets not forget precious paper as they continually grace the cover of women's magazines cuz women love gossip. Get rid of them, save some money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Incidentally, hereditary Lords are surely better than people who were appointed by Tony? The hereditary Lords are indebted to no-one except a long-dead monarch. They can follow their own minds.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I had no idea of that. Interesting. Wish we had something like that over here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MadNatSci)
    She also entertains foreign heads of state she probably has no time for and makes endless small talk to give us a bit of extra help in world affairs.
    Incidentally, hereditary Lords are surely better than people who were appointed by Tony? The hereditary Lords are indebted to no-one except a long-dead monarch. They can follow their own minds.
    She doesn't like the other heads of state? Diddums. She's being paid enough to do it so forgive me for not sympathising.
    Why exactly should it be the Lords rather than any other section of society who get to exercise their own judgement? Why the hell should they be able to follow their own minds just because some ancestor of theirs was in with the monarch? The hereditary peers are an anachronism.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    She doesn't like the other heads of state? Diddums. She's being paid enough to do it so forgive me for not sympathising.
    Why exactly should it be the Lords rather than any other section of society who get to exercise their own judgement? Why the hell should they be able to follow their own minds just because some ancestor of theirs was in with the monarch? The hereditary peers are an anachronism.

    You wouldn't enjoy her job. Money isn't everything. Imagine putting up with all the crap they get at the worst times - all the rubbish about Diana was the worst. Apparently they aren't allowed to mourn privately. And they would have been mourning, however much they disliked Di - mourning for William and Harry, who had lost their mother. But that's by the bye. The royals also do a helluva lot for charity - Princess Anne in particular does a lot of work and doesn't advertise it. They don't need to shout about what they do.

    Oh, and don't say any of the other rubbish about 'she could just step down then'. You know she couldn't, not just like that - because too many people feel the monarchy is an important part of Britain, apart from anything else.

    And do you really prefer Tony Blair's appointed crony peers to the hereditary ones? I didn't compare them to all other sections of society, just the appointed section that appears to be taking over and will forever owe a debt to Mister Blair. Seems ridiculously undemocratic to me - don't know how people can moan about the monarchy. This is far more dangerous.

    Look, I don't agree with all the stuff the royals get- far from it - but I don't see why they should go just because some people are jealous. You weren't born into riches. Neither was I. They were. That's life - none of us choose it. Just get on with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MadNatSci)
    You wouldn't enjoy her job. Money isn't everything. Imagine putting up with all the crap they get at the worst times - all the rubbish about Diana was the worst. Apparently they aren't allowed to mourn privately. And they would have been mourning, however much they disliked Di - mourning for William and Harry, who had lost their mother. But that's by the bye. The royals also do a helluva lot for charity - Princess Anne in particular does a lot of work and doesn't advertise it. They don't need to shout about what they do.
    Oh, and don't say any of the other rubbish about 'she could just step down then'. You know she couldn't, not just like that - because too many people feel the monarchy is an important part of Britain, apart from anything else.
    And do you really prefer Tony Blair's appointed crony peers to the hereditary ones? I didn't compare them to all other sections of society, just the appointed section that appears to be taking over and will forever owe a debt to Mister Blair. Seems ridiculously undemocratic to me - don't know how people can moan about the monarchy. This is far more dangerous.
    Look, I don't agree with all the stuff the royals get- far from it - but I don't see why they should go just because some people are jealous. You weren't born into riches. Neither was I. They were. That's life - none of us choose it. Just get on with it.
    Like I said before, forgive me for not weeping with pity for the poor royal family. I can think of worse things, frankly. Whatever they do for charity, they get paid enough for it and I know people who do as much for no financial reward whatsoever. I find it hard to believe that they aren't allowed to mourn in private either. Thougn you are right that I wouldn't want to be a royal, as it would mean being related to Prince Phillip. It would also mean that either I would have to renounce my religion or that any offspring I might have would have to withdraw their claim to the throne in case I tainted the line of succession with my dirty papist blood, so yes, you're quite correct, I would hate to be part of the royal family.
    I never said anything about her stepping down. Why are you trying to put words into my mouth?
    Neither did I mention Tony's lot either. There is no way in hell that birth ought to be able to secure one a place in the legislature. The fact that the system of appointing peers also stinks (though no, its not as bad as them being there based on their descent alone!) doesn't make hereditary peers more acceptable.
    You insult me by claiming my objections are down to jealousy! (I would have thought from readong what I've written it would have been obvious why I dislike the institution) And yet you claim that I wouldn't want the life of a royal. Well, make your mind up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsboy)
    I think we are in danger of getting rid of things on a whim just because todays society think its right - several hundred years have gone quite well, and we have (arguably) one of the most respected democracies in the world. Why change things now? What if we get rid of the monarchy (and all the other associated things like the Commonwealth) today and then in 50 years time it is decided that we were better off with a monarchy? Also, I am sure many world leaders respect the Queen more than the PM and this is an important part in ensuring we have strong ties with other countries.
    i agree. instead of asking why should be keep them? ask, why should we get rid of them? the answers to the former far outweigh the latter, even if they are thin on the ground.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i agree. instead of asking why should be keep them? ask, why should we get rid of them? the answers to the former far outweigh the latter, even if they are thin on the ground.
    OK:

    1) an hereditary monarch represents the feudal society of mediaeval times, not a modern democratic one. It is an integral part of Britain's infamous class system, representing that system's most extreme example. Whilst there is a monarchy, the class system cannot be abolished and a meritocracy cannot be established.

    2) The monarchy costs approximately £75,000,000 pa to maintain, despite the family's already immense wealth. That money could fund up to 75,000 university students. It could run a hospital for a year. The tax-payer also paid £200,000 on a new wardrobe for the Queen. When this money is taken into account, the money they generate by tourism decreases and you have to remember that tourists will still visit the country and its palaces and castle, maybe there would be more tourists if the palaces were fully opened.

    3) According to a MORI poll, only 12% of the population believe the monarchy should continue in its current form. IDS was more popular than that. The monarchy is no longer respected.

    The monarchy, like slavery, sexual and class discrimination, and colonial exploitation is a throwback to our shameful past, and an impediment to our future.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    OK:

    1) an hereditary monarch represents the feudal society of mediaeval times, not a modern democratic one. It is an integral part of Britain's infamous class system, representing that system's most extreme example. Whilst there is a monarchy, the class system cannot be abolished and a meritocracy cannot be established.

    2) The monarchy costs approximately £75,000,000 pa to maintain, despite the family's already immense wealth. That money could fund up to 75,000 university students. It could run a hospital for a year. The tax-payer also paid £200,000 on a new wardrobe for the Queen. When this money is taken into account, the money they generate by tourism decreases and you have to remember that tourists will still visit the country and its palaces and castle, maybe there would be more tourists if the palaces were fully opened.

    3) According to a MORI poll, only 12% of the population believe the monarchy should continue in its current form. IDS was more popular than that. The monarchy is no longer respected.

    The monarchy, like slavery, sexual and class discrimination, and colonial exploitation is a throwback to our shameful past, and an impediment to our future.
    I'm starting to agree with this anti-monarchy now. As much as they are nice to keep for historic reasons - it's not fair to waste our money. Is it likely that when the Queen dies this may be when change could take place? I suppose they could preserve our history by opening Buckingham Palace as a museum, which has a similar effect to keeping them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Like I said before, forgive me for not weeping with pity for the poor royal family. I can think of worse things, frankly. Whatever they do for charity, they get paid enough for it and I know people who do as much for no financial reward whatsoever. I find it hard to believe that they aren't allowed to mourn in private either. Thougn you are right that I wouldn't want to be a royal, as it would mean being related to Prince Phillip. It would also mean that either I would have to renounce my religion or that any offspring I might have would have to withdraw their claim to the throne in case I tainted the line of succession with my dirty papist blood, so yes, you're quite correct, I would hate to be part of the royal family.
    I never said anything about her stepping down. Why are you trying to put words into my mouth?
    Neither did I mention Tony's lot either. There is no way in hell that birth ought to be able to secure one a place in the legislature. The fact that the system of appointing peers also stinks (though no, its not as bad as them being there based on their descent alone!) doesn't make hereditary peers more acceptable.
    You insult me by claiming my objections are down to jealousy! (I would have thought from readong what I've written it would have been obvious why I dislike the institution) And yet you claim that I wouldn't want the life of a royal. Well, make your mind up.
    OK. We are never going to agree on this, and I'm not trying to be rude here! But. I am not trying to put words into your mouth. I'm trying to counter arguments before they come, just in case. Possibly unwise. I wasn't trying to insult you either - it just seems to me that jealousy is the most likely reason for people wanting so badly to get rid of the royals. The reasons generally add up to "Why should we pay any money to support them?" And to be quite honest I tend, on the whole, to agree with that because I think they're probably quite capable of supporting themselves from their estates. But I don't think we should get rid of them - that's all. So assuming we let them pay their own way, what is left as an argument for complete abolishment of the monarchy? Resentment of someone who was lucky (?) enough to be born to the throne. That's the way I see it... rather than find ways to keep them without them costing us money, people want to scrap them altogether. That's why I think they're maybe jealous.

    You didn't mention Tony's lot, no. But I had, originally - as a comparison between what the Lords were and what they soon will be - and you hadn't taken this into account. So I was trying to point this out. No, it isn't fair that they have a right to sit in the House by birth, and democratically elected peers would be far fairer. But my original point was that those there by birthright would be less likely to be biased than those who were appointed, and I reiterated it to see what you said.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.