Why exactly do we have a Royal Family... Watch

This discussion is closed.
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#41
Report 7 years ago
#41
(Original post by gladders)
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?
We are not forced as much as we are coherced into believing that the royals are value for money and therefore we need to keep them. Or, that they are traditional or divinely appointed (or even that they are 'constitutional') and symbolise what was great about the past and is great about them now. And that should they be removed the country would lose its history, lose diplomacy with other countries, descend into anarchy and civil war, and the cosmos would be put out of balance. These are the justifications, and there may be many more.

It is clear that the media are implicit in maintaining the link between citizens and the monarchy, whenever there is a jubilee or whenever a royal decides to get married. The effort by British institutions (and even Churches) to get everyone to shore support for the royals, including Cameron's admonission that people should have a street party if they want one, is yet more evidence of it. The Royals are a symbol of National and patriotic pride - to that extent a great deal of propaganda is needed to maintain the status quo.

Just look at the Victorian age. The image of Queen Victoria was everywhere as part of a campaign of mass persuasion, which the Church was implicit in at the time. It is not that much different today.

Just look around.
0
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#42
Report 7 years ago
#42
(Original post by tamimi)
From my understanding of basic British History, we went quite a while without a monarch system during which we were doing "fine" to some extent.
And then we adopted the monarch system back on, only that this time the Royal family would have far less jurisdiction than it did - Leaving most of the power to the elected members of the people. I.e. the democratic system that we live in today.

So what exactly is the function of the Royal Family?

This is not a ****-stirring question. I'm genuinely intrigued. I just read about the Queen's 60 Mill jubilee boat and bearing in mind that super expensive wedding not long ago... I read a lot of comments from people that are not to any extent amused by the Royal Family's "Budget" so to speak. I personally don't think it's justified.

So what's exactly going on..

Why is the monarchy so vital?

Why do they get to spend money like mad in our current climate which from my current understanding is quite tight, whilst I'm sure others are starving/homeless/jobless and the whole country is up to it's ball sack in debt... :confused:
...The one which brought in super loads of tourism and business, you mean? Also, I'm not entirely sure whether yours is a historical question or a one of principle. You start off talking about British history, and end up asking about the justification for it. They have different kinds of answer.
0
talon1579
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#43
Report 7 years ago
#43
(Original post by tamimi)
From my understanding of basic British History, we went quite a while without a monarch system during which we were doing "fine" to some extent.
It was only a few years, and it was a rather brutal dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. We replaced a king with a dictator, who was followed by his son (sound familiar?). Fortunately, he was a bit useless.
0
tamimi
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#44
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#44
(Original post by TurboCretin)
...The one which brought in super loads of tourism and business, you mean? Also, I'm not entirely sure whether yours is a historical question or a one of principle. You start off talking about British history, and end up asking about the justification for it. They have different kinds of answer.
In layman terms, it feels like a man bought an ipad rather than feed his starving son.

It's more principle.
I don't at all disagree that the Royal Family as a figure are generating income via tourism and other channels, I just don't think it justifies spending some of that money. The country is in debt even after calculating how much the Royal Family brought in.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not claiming to be knowledgable on the topic: I'm just describing things from the perspective of an average person.
0
tamimi
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#45
(Original post by Borderline)
To add to my other post about Royals not spending money 'like mad':

Princes William and Harry equally inherited the £22 million estate left by Diana - rich from her own family, not by marriage. Just in case you assume that they are spending Gov. money.

And the diplomatic relations they make and upkeep for the country are incomparable. The Queen commands respect all around the world, everyone knows her - do you know the Heads of State of France and Germany? I doubt it.
Countries in the Middle East, such as Bahrain, Qatar and Saudia Arabia, also have Royal Families. They undoubtedly have much stronger relations with us because of ours. Regardless of what we think of those countries, our relationships with them are extremely important.
I agree. I'm not suggesting the removal of the monarch system, I just think that their budget needs a bit more clamping.
Go back one year in time, the government chops a massive chunk of higher education funding, I.e. EMA + introducing the 9K uni cap. If it was down to me, I would rather chop the RF budget rather than cut the education bill.

TLDR: RF are great to have but they're spending too much.
0
Architecture-er
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#46
Report 7 years ago
#46
France had a revolution, now look at them
0
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#47
Report 7 years ago
#47
(Original post by tamimi)
In layman terms, it feels like a man bought an ipad rather than feed his starving son.

It's more principle.
I don't at all disagree that the Royal Family as a figure are generating income via tourism and other channels, I just don't think it justifies spending some of that money. The country is in debt even after calculating how much the Royal Family brought in.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not claiming to be knowledgable on the topic: I'm just describing things from the perspective of an average person.
Okay, you're now conflating questions of principle and practicality. In principle, no we shouldn't have a royal family because it is a vestige of a time long since past and spits in the face of progressive, meritocratic principles. As a practical matter, though, they bring in more money than they cost, so your argument about sustaining them in a time of crisis doesn't really make sense. Yes, they cost a lot to maintain, but nothing like as much as they generate. It's not just tourism, either. Once upon a time the monarchy fell upon hard times and struck a deal with Parliament. In return for a fixed annual allowance paid to the Royal Family, the country receives the benefit of the proceeds from the royal land. And they own a lot of land.

So, again, it depends on whether you want to be principled or pragmatic.
2
Bey Taco
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 7 years ago
#48
They are like a symbol of this country.


Every year thousands of tourists come from all over the world just to see them and visit museums. One of the only democratic countries left with a royal family and so it makes us unique. Otherwise Britain would just be another country.
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#49
Report 7 years ago
#49
(Original post by Martyn*)
We are not forced as much as we are coherced into believing that the royals are value for money and therefore we need to keep them. Or, that they are traditional or divinely appointed (or even that they are 'constitutional') and symbolise what was great about the past and is great about them now. And that should they be removed the country would lose its history, lose diplomacy with other countries, descend into anarchy and civil war, and the cosmos would be put out of balance. These are the justifications, and there may be many more.
So basically your point of view allows for nobody who disagrees with you to have free and independent opinions of their own? That only the people who agree with you are free-thinking?

That’s pretty insulting.

It is clear that the media are implicit in maintaining the link between citizens and the monarchy, whenever there is a jubilee or whenever a royal decides to get married. The effort by British institutions (and even Churches) to get everyone to shore support for the royals, including Cameron's admonission that people should have a street party if they want one, is yet more evidence of it. The Royals are a symbol of National and patriotic pride - to that extent a great deal of propaganda is needed to maintain the status quo.
Wow, yeah you’re right. Suggesting people have a street party is clear sign of indoctrination :rolleyes:

There was, and is, a space for republicanism in the UK (are you ignoring the Guardian, which is outwardly republican?), but don’t consign the republicans’ failings to collective brainwashing of the people. The people are capable of thinking for themselves.

Just look at the Victorian age. The image of Queen Victoria was everywhere as part of a campaign of mass persuasion, which the Church was implicit in at the time. It is not that much different today.

Just look around.
I am. I don’t see anything you claim. People are free to criticise the royal family and I’ve heard plenty of criticism from friends and family. Even I do it on occasion. Hardly brainwashing.

Again, you’re explaining away the inability of people to care as brainwashing, when it’s in fact the failure to grasp the public’s imagination.
1
Borderline
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 7 years ago
#50
(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.
:confused:

So to reiterate what I said in my other two posts, and you still have not answered - do you have any evidence for your claims? No.... You don't at all.
0
Borderline
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 7 years ago
#51
(Original post by tamimi)
I agree. I'm not suggesting the removal of the monarch system, I just think that their budget needs a bit more clamping.
Go back one year in time, the government chops a massive chunk of higher education funding, I.e. EMA + introducing the 9K uni cap. If it was down to me, I would rather chop the RF budget rather than cut the education bill.

TLDR: RF are great to have but they're spending too much.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you've actually researched their budget. As I said before, most of the money goes towards diplomatic engagements and palace upkeep - these things would happen without the Royal Family. Also, profits from the Crown Estate are returned to the Treasury.

The Queen doesn't just take the money and put it in her bank account. She frequently return any possible money she can. In 2010 she voluntarily gave the Treasury the money she made by selling her helicopter (which all Heads of State have, by the way).

If we were to replace the Royal Family, the cost would be roughly similar. The Head of State and high-ranking diplomats that would replace them would also receive high salaries, which the Royal Family do not.
0
tamimi
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#52
(Original post by Borderline)
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you've actually researched their budget. As I said before, most of the money goes towards diplomatic engagements and palace upkeep - these things would happen without the Royal Family. Also, profits from the Crown Estate are returned to the Treasury.

The Queen doesn't just take the money and put it in her bank account. She frequently return any possible money she can. In 2010 she voluntarily gave the Treasury the money she made by selling her helicopter (which all Heads of State have, by the way).

If we were to replace the Royal Family, the cost would be roughly similar. The Head of State and high-ranking diplomats that would replace them would also receive high salaries, which the Royal Family do not.
(Original post by Architecture-er)
France had a revolution, now look at them



Woah guys, you're getting me wrong. I'm not in any way encouraging the removal of the monarchy. At all.

"Why do we have a Royal Family" was a genuine question, not a stab at their ways.

Financially, I just don't think they should be spending as much as they do. That is all.
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#53
Report 7 years ago
#53
(Original post by tamimi)
Financially, I just don't think they should be spending as much as they do. That is all.
I agree the fiscal probity is absolutely always a very important thing. However with respect, I think the royal family is pretty tight fiscally already. Since 1990, while government costs have increased fifteen-fold, while royal costs have been about half that. If MPs’ salaries were pegged to the Civil List, they would still be paid £26,701 instead of the present £63,291.

Ironically for an institution people often decry as wasteful, it's probably one of the most efficient state institutions we have!
0
Dmon1Unlimited
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#54
Report 7 years ago
#54
Given that she owns everything, I don't think we are in the position to ask pompously as if she's a 'ball and chain' that we keep around for the kicks but can throw away at any moment...

For the sake of argument... I dont know..Tourism, money, etc :dontknow:

Inb4 angry TSR mob :mob:
It.Has.Begun. :eek:
1
najinaji
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#55
Report 7 years ago
#55

If you're too lazy to listen to Rees-Mogg, the long and short of it is that the monarch can, due to the constitution, take away the powers of the executive, disband the government and use the military to get rid of them in the event of the UK falling into the hands of a totalitarian state.
1
Welsh_insomniac
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#56
Report 7 years ago
#56
(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.
I'm unsure on my position regarding whether I'm pro Monarchy or not, but you do realise that they are not allowed to use state funded money for their own personal purposes? We would need to pay people to do the work that the Monarchy does with probably increasing costs and more benefits to those public servants. It's a fallacy to suggest that we could replace the Monarchy with a republic state and it would be absolutely free.
0
HF guitar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 7 years ago
#57
we have always had a royal family....its traditional. we need them its part of our great nation.
0
Bobifier
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#58
Report 7 years ago
#58
(Original post by najinaji)

If you're too lazy to listen to Rees-Mogg, the long and short of it is that the monarch can, due to the constitution, take away the powers of the executive, disband the government and use the military to get rid of them in the event of the UK falling into the hands of a totalitarian state.
I can tell he's boring just from his name.
0
sclez1
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#59
Report 7 years ago
#59
People will automatically support the Royal family purely because they've grown up being meant to do so. In reality, and I realise this is controversial, their existence is unjust.
0
Architecture-er
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#60
Report 7 years ago
#60
(Original post by tamimi)
Woah guys, you're getting me wrong. I'm not in any way encouraging the removal of the monarchy. At all.

"Why do we have a Royal Family" was a genuine question, not a stab at their ways.

Financially, I just don't think they should be spending as much as they do. That is all.
Don't worry, my post was more aimed at all the anti-monarchists who started posting in the thread, not you personally
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (138)
22.89%
The paper was reasonable (264)
43.78%
Not feeling great about that exam... (110)
18.24%
It was TERRIBLE (91)
15.09%

Watched Threads

View All