It's good that we have you as a source within the MoD to tell us these things.
Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?
- Thread starter theforce
- Start date
It's good that we have you as a source within the MoD to tell us these things.
Nor do most of us. Most of us sit and use computers all day.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,784
- Location
- Falling...
Now you see, whilst I'm anti Royal, I do "get" that so called faux "pride" that people seem to think they have. It is rather admirable and quite something. And as a figurehead I think the royal family aren't that bad, like the figurehead on a boat - doesn't "do" anything, but as a form of superstition and as the identification and sense of identity to sailors it was important. So from that point of view, I do understand. It's completely irrational though, I agree, but I can't mock people for their pride - it's a good quality to have. It's good to have pride in something.
Well, bearing in mind people that are indifferent wouldn't miss them if they were gone but don't feel strongly enough to want to remove them. If they were pro, they'd have voted accordingly. So in fact it is much more pertinent and close.
Vive la revolution!
No. If you only have "indifferent" as your third option between pro and anti, statistically you would have to either ignore that section completely or you would apportion them proportionately to the other two options.
[edit] if they had been anti they would have voted accordingly so you cannot simply lump them with the antis.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,784
- Location
- Falling...
Had I made the pole no and yes (which in retrospect perhaps I should have), I reckon it would be a lot closer with the "No" vote. Irrespective of that, enough people "don't care" enough to cast a vote either way, so to me that's good enough as as no. Indifference means that they won't miss them 
It's quite intersting nonetheless, that this tiny group of people (compared to the nation's population) is so divided.
It's quite intersting nonetheless, that this tiny group of people (compared to the nation's population) is so divided.
Well, bearing in mind people that are indifferent wouldn't miss them if they were gone but don't feel strongly enough to want to remove them. If they were pro, they'd have voted accordingly. So in fact it is much more pertinent and close.
Vive la revolution!
Not necessarily, if they were leaning in any particular direction they would have voted in that direction. People are indifferent for a multitude of reasons and that should not be used to indicate implicit acknowledgement of one side or the other.
If we take the above poll as representative, it seems that the Pro's have it by a wide margin......even if you attribute the 'indifferent' to the 'anti' the margin is still significantly in favour......
I think the revolution will have to wait....
I suggest you do a little research about what Andrew actually did during the Falklands War before making such an ill-informed statement. Like-wise, Harry being Harry, it is very unlikely that he will not have been 50miles from danger. Is anywhere in Helmand 50 miles from danger anyway?!?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,784
- Location
- Falling...
Not necessarily, if they were leaning in any particular direction they would have voted in that direction. People are indifferent for a multitude of reasons and that should not be used to indicate implicit acknowledgement of one side or the other.
If we take the above poll as representative, it seems that the Pro's have it by a wide margin......even if you attribute the 'indifferent' to the 'anti' the margin is still significantly in favour......
I think the revolution will have to wait....
Of course, I was just winding up "teh royalist"
However, there are a lot more No's or even non-pro's than one would imagine considering we live in a "monarchy"
Of course, I was just winding up "teh royalist"
However, there are a lot more No's or even non-pro's than one would imagine considering we live in a "monarchy"
Well, we live in a society that loves to 'hate' the establishment, yet would also defend that establishment with their lives if they thought someone was going to take it away from them......
The British...go figure!
Had that in mind, I'm sure some people would like the "job" of representing the nation by travelling about a bit and waving instead of the old 9-5 type job.
Now you really are talking tosh. Andrew flew Seakings during the Falklands War (I seem to recall that the Queen insisted he go rather than be given a desk job back on Blighty); Harry was stationed in Helmand recently. To name but two. Even William's career can hardly be referred to as closetted.
Though it is true they have served in active duty, there is no way (at very least Harry) would have ever been in a position where he could have been killed or captured, it's too much of a prize for the enemy and endangers the other's that serve with them by becoming a much more important target.
Last edited:
I think you will find most republicans don't give a hoot about some artificial concept of national identity.
But nice try.
Pro Royal here.
They do a lot of good work for the country and for charity. They are born into the public spotlight where their every move and every word is scrutinised. They have no say in this and cannot opt out of their life they were born into the monarchy and most of them step up to the plate admirably.
I think that must be much harder than most of our lives are regardless of how much money they have as a result. It is quite small minded to object to the monarchy purely based on the ammount of money and status they are born into and reeks of jealosy to some extent. It also seems to me that the most stallwart pro monarchy supporters tend to be the "lower" class low earners in society. So the whole "they dont deserve to be so rich compared to everyone else" argument doesnt really stick.
There is also a certain romantiscism to a Monarchy, especially one which is above or not directly involved in politics.
Long and short of it I am proud to have a monarchy and sure as hell am glad I was not born into it!
/Salsa
They do a lot of good work for the country and for charity. They are born into the public spotlight where their every move and every word is scrutinised. They have no say in this and cannot opt out of their life they were born into the monarchy and most of them step up to the plate admirably.
I think that must be much harder than most of our lives are regardless of how much money they have as a result. It is quite small minded to object to the monarchy purely based on the ammount of money and status they are born into and reeks of jealosy to some extent. It also seems to me that the most stallwart pro monarchy supporters tend to be the "lower" class low earners in society. So the whole "they dont deserve to be so rich compared to everyone else" argument doesnt really stick.
There is also a certain romantiscism to a Monarchy, especially one which is above or not directly involved in politics.
Long and short of it I am proud to have a monarchy and sure as hell am glad I was not born into it!
/Salsa
You mean hanging out with paedophiles & having dodgy pictures taken with under-age prostitutes?, you know - like our Royal trade envoy?.
Great for the image of GB.
The UK foreign secretary is William Hague, The Prince of Wales is Charles.
William Hague gets up in the morning does his job as foreign secretary then goes home in his shiny new car, after his term in government he will most likely have enough to retire and take it easy.
Prince Charles gets up and is already at work because he spends 24 hours a day being an ambassador for Wales, no man in history has done more to promote our country on the international stage expect perhaps Tom Jones (who made tons of money and lives a big flash house with his sports cars). Charles goes home in his 30 year old Rolls (kinda like a 20 year old Lexus but nowhere near as good) to his big old draughty house, sure its big but its also old. Even when he has "time off" he has an army of reporters following him so he never has the freedoms of you or me and added to that he never has the money of a rock star or the lifestyle of a lottery winner.
Personally I'm very proud of my Prince, he does more charity work per year than most of his haters do in a lifetime and does more for good causes and to promote Wales than anyone else.
William Hague gets up in the morning does his job as foreign secretary then goes home in his shiny new car, after his term in government he will most likely have enough to retire and take it easy.
Prince Charles gets up and is already at work because he spends 24 hours a day being an ambassador for Wales, no man in history has done more to promote our country on the international stage expect perhaps Tom Jones (who made tons of money and lives a big flash house with his sports cars). Charles goes home in his 30 year old Rolls (kinda like a 20 year old Lexus but nowhere near as good) to his big old draughty house, sure its big but its also old. Even when he has "time off" he has an army of reporters following him so he never has the freedoms of you or me and added to that he never has the money of a rock star or the lifestyle of a lottery winner.
Personally I'm very proud of my Prince, he does more charity work per year than most of his haters do in a lifetime and does more for good causes and to promote Wales than anyone else.
I would love to see an actual referendum on whether the monarchy should be abolished or not. If the antis are so few and far between then the pros wouldn't have anything to worry about and the will of the majority would prevail.
Even if they won, I would just be keen to see how many pros and how many antis there truly are.
Even if they won, I would just be keen to see how many pros and how many antis there truly are.
I thought have thought so.
The royal family has always been promoted quite heavily in the military over the last few centuries (for obvious reasons).
But I'd like to know how you can square the basis concept of equality/democracy with the contradictory concept of succession by birthright.
The two concepts are not compatible, because having an exclusive family as head of state is basically saying "unless prince William wants to **** you, then he marries you & dies - you will never be head of state".
Had I made the pole no and yes (which in retrospect perhaps I should have), I reckon it would be a lot closer with the "No" vote. Irrespective of that, enough people "don't care" enough to cast a vote either way, so to me that's good enough as as no. Indifference means that they won't miss them
It's quite intersting nonetheless, that this tiny group of people (compared to the nation's population) is so divided.
I voted indifferent but if it was a yes/no poll I certainly would have said yes (pro-royal).
I'm an aussie so thought my vote wasn't really as acceptable but still wanted to be included!!
After reading through the thread as well I want my vote over to change it from indifferent to Pro as well
.That being said I dare say no one on these forums will know enough and see enough of the "whole picture" to actually say what would be a better choice, we all have our own opinions and upbringings that have skewed our views one way or the other.
Are you really saying that sleeping your way into a family is something to be desired.
"Hey Daughter, if you want to be head of state you better get used to bending your legs behind your head for a half bald rich toff!".
Great message.
It's spurious anyway to suggest that Kate married William just to get into the royal family, just as your counterpoint is spurious.