Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

Are you pro or anti royal?

  • Total voters
    604
elmarko1234 said:
I'm not missing any point, if anybody would like to explain how the concept of succession by birthright & the idea of having an unelected head of state fits in with our modern understanding of democracy/equality I'd love to hear it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, first off, you could expand on your understanding of democracy and how it actually applies to this country. That should be good for a laugh :D
 
elmarko1234, you're a) getting mixed up between nostalgia and recognising when something is in the national interest and b) vastly overstating the power that the the monarchy actually has in modern day democratic Britain. When for example was the last time that the royal assent was not granted to a proposed law?
 
DanielMMS said:
:D Yes, how true :rolleyes:. Something that has existed for the last 305 years (if you include just the British Monarchs) or 1,210 years if you start from Egbert is going to die out in the next century when we all "grow up". :D There are definitely some who need to "grow up". :D
Click to expand...
100 years ago virtually nobody was educated to a reasonable standard, 100 years ago women & black people could not vote.

Allot changes in 100 years - the sword was still used in combat for 1000 years - didn't take long for it to become obsolete.

Cultures mature over time, people within those cultures mature at different rates - some hold onto antiquated institutions & others wish to drive change for the better.

But hey, I'm not asking for her to not be your queen - I'm asking not to have her forced onto me as mine.

Removing her as head of state/making donations voluntary would be the logical solution - it would allow the fanatical followers to donate money, watch her lecherous offspring breed & marry etc.

Just don't force it on the rest of us who have grown up.
 
Robbie G said:
elmarko1234, you're a) getting mixed up between nostalgia and recognising when something is in the national interest and b) vastly overstating the power that the the monarchy actually has in modern day democratic Britain. When for example was the last time that the royal assent was not granted to a proposed law?
Click to expand...
You are aware that discussion of the benefits/flaws of the monarchy is BANNED in parliament? - that somebody recently was cautioned for even criticising them.

How exactly does that fit in with democracy?, our ELECTED representatives are not allowed to criticize our UNELECTED head of state?,
 
elmarko1234 said:
100 years ago virtually nobody was educated to a reasonable standard, 100 years ago women & black people could not vote.

Allot changes in 100 years - the sword was still used in combat for 1000 years - didn't take long for it to become obsolete.
Click to expand...

Difference is there has been two world wars in the last 100 years, thats changed a lot of things and helped spark things forward
 
elmarko1234 said:
You are aware that discussion of the benefits/flaws of the monarchy is BANNED in parliament? - that somebody recently was cautioned for even criticising them.

How exactly does that fit in with democracy?, our ELECTED representatives are not allowed to criticize our UNELECTED head of state?,
Click to expand...

That is indeed silly, however you have to consider how it actually matters in practical terms.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
You do realise you're mistaking a difference of opinion for maturity right?
Click to expand...
Not all opinions are equal.

Do you think it's OK that our elected representatives are not allowed to criticize our unelected head of state, or even discuss possible changes in parliament?.
 
Robbie G said:
That is indeed silly, however you have to consider how it actually matters in practical terms.
Click to expand...
Well, in political terms it means that the royal family are protected by undemocratic legislation - that some people are "above the law" (name one entity that can't be discussed in parliament?) & that any potential change is being slowed due to this law.

While I do agree the impact is minimal, the problem is the principle.
 
1) They probably solicit more revenues than they consume
2) Having a non-political head of state with a smaller political footprint is invaluable
3) Having our head of state as the head of the common wealth (and beyond) brings us economic and cultural benefits
 
elmarko1234 said:
Allot changes in 100 years - the sword was still used in combat for 1000 years - didn't take long for it to become obsolete.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting 1000 years is a short time for our civilisation? Or are you suggesting a quick turn around with the gun, and that it will be obsolete in a short period of time?

elmarko1234 said:
Well, in political terms it means that the royal family are protected by undemocratic legislation - that some people are "above the law" (name one entity that can't be discussed in parliament?) & that any potential change is being slowed due to this law.
Click to expand...
How are they protected by undemocratic legislation? The majority of this country enjoy having a monarchy, and therefore have not started democratic proceeds to have them removed. That is democracy for you. If you don't like it, write to your MP.
 
There was a good little but in charlie brokers 2011 wipe that sums up the silliness of the royal family (can't link it though as it has a fair bit of swearing in though). BBC iplayer and youtube have it covered though :)
 
DanielMMS said:
As regards the charity angle, the affect of royal involvement is extraordinary. By way of example, I live on an island that has a Governor who represents the Queen. Like the Queen, his role is largely ceremonial - he has no real power, per se. But, if he is to attend a charitable event, you can guarantee that the great and good will attend in their droves and splash the cash to a far greater extent than would be the case otherwise. And he is just a representative.
Click to expand...


Where do you live?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom