Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

Are you pro or anti royal?

  • Total voters
    604
elmarko1234 said:
Who said anything about equal under law.

I'm talking about succession by birthright into a position of minor power & prestige - along with being head of the church & head of state.

You are either avoiding the point, or don't understand the question.

As I'm certain you are not an idiot I'd wager the first.
Click to expand...

Isn't that basically the same as say my parents leaving the family business to me, just that the royal family has been doing this for longer and on a larger scale than most?

edit: beaten by vonhelmet
 
elmarko1234 said:
Who said anything about equal under law.

I'm talking about succession by birthright into a position of minor power & prestige - along with being head of the church & head of state.

You are either avoiding the point, or don't understand the question.

As I'm certain you are not an idiot I'd wager the first.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother me, like I said it doesn't affect my life, I have equal rights under the law and my democratic rights are upheld and protected, in part by The House of Lords..... There is no practical contradiction.

I am not a member of the Church of England and as a symbolic Head of State the Monarchy is as good if not preferable to having a symbolic President.
 
Last edited:
Salsa said:
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
Click to expand...

Thank you for saying that better than I ever could. I think the royal family is great, and helps make this country great.

On a side note, its really nice to see that through all the pomp and circumstance they are still a family. I remember watching Wills passing out parade and as Her Majesty went past the smiles on both Grandmas and Grandsons faces were real. Not sure why she still makes Charles call her Ma'am tho!
 
He does have a point... what gives them the right to be "ahead" of the rest of us?


On a side note, this is a wonderful debate, and I've learned a lot from reading it - isn't GD great when it's having well mannered debates like this?! :)
 
Vonhelmet said:
The same is true of anyone with rich parents. What's your point? This is sounding a bit on the communist side.
Click to expand...
Rich parents do not pass on political power or the title of head of state or head of the church.

Neither do rich parents get given (faux) ranks in the military or are able to have half the police force on beckon call when they get married.

Neither do they automatically become "ambassadors" or sent around the world to represent our nation - or given jobs like trade envoy to hob-nob with paedophiles.

Next.

The communist comment is so stupid it's not even worth arguing with - really, I know you can do better than that.
 
Last edited:
elmarko1234 said:
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".
Click to expand...

You still wouldn't be head of state in your crude example.
 
Freefaller said:
Oh I agree entirely that as a country on a whole, fantastic! However attributing it solely to an archaic system like the monarchy to me seems a little far fetched. OVerall I don't think they do much harm, however, I do still feel it's a farce. However don't you feel a sense of identity without the royal family?
Click to expand...

It is part of that Identity, like the US Presidency is to Americans, or Republcanism is to the French...it helps define their National identity, it is but part of that, not the whole.

Strangely I feel a sense of continued stability with the Monarchy, something I never felt in the US under a system that changes every 4-8 years.... That may simply be down to the difference in my life personally and how I represent that symbolically to myself, however I feel that the Monarchy is a good thing for Britain and to lose it would be to lose an important part of our national heritage and identity.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
Are you as stupid and ignorant as you're pretending to be?

The monarchy brings in a couple of billion in tourism income.

The 100% income tax on most of the royal family's income by itself brings in 5 times as much as the cost of the monarchy, most of which goes towards providing jobs anyway.

If the monarch was deposed, they'd have to be replaced by another head of state. That head of state would require a salary (which would probably be paid for life, so we'd soon be paying a dozen head of state salaries) and salaries for all the people they'd employ (as the queen does now). They would also need a similar security budget.

The country would lose a fortune by deposing the queen and replacing her with another head of state.

That's just the financial side. The queen works very well as a diplomat, so we'd lose that too. The queen also functions as a safeguard against extreme political tyranny. No need for that right now, but who knows what the future will bring?

Maybe you'd like a vote on it. Well, you have the monarchy to thank for having a vote, since the most important part of the modern democratic system (the Great Reform Act) was forced through parliament by a king, using royal power.

There is absolutely no advantage gained by deposing the monarchy and a great deal of disadvantage. If you want to waste your own money, fine. But you don't get to waste mine for some pointless rubbish burbling out from your own ignorance.
Click to expand...

Angi on her period again ladies and gentlemen.
 
elmarko1234 said:
Rich parents do not pass on political power or the title of head of state or head of the church.
Click to expand...

We've already established that they have negligible political power, and what power is headship of the church anyway?

elmarko1234 said:
Neither do rich parents get given (faux) ranks in the military
Click to expand...

Can you prove that William and Harry don't deserve the ranks that they have attained?

elmarko1234 said:
or are able to have half the police force on beckon call when they get married.
Click to expand...

At their what, sorry? Besides, the security cost pales in comparison to the revenue they generate.

elmarko1234 said:
Neither do they automatically become "ambassadors" or sent around the world to represent our nation - or given jobs like trade envoy to hob-nob with paedophiles.
Click to expand...

Can we get away from this one example of the system failing and talk sensibly? You read like a Sun column. And someone has to represent the nation - why not the royals?

elmarko1234 said:
Next.

The communist comment is so stupid it's not even worth arguing with - really, I know you can do better than that.
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
elmarko1234 said:
Rich parents do not pass on political power or the title of head of state or head of the church.

Neither do rich parents get given (faux) ranks in the military or are able to have half the police force on beckon call when they get married.

Neither do they automatically become "ambassadors" or sent around the world to represent our nation - or given jobs like trade envoy to hob-nob with paedophiles.

Next.

The communist comment is so stupid it's not even worth arguing with - really, I know you can do better than that.
Click to expand...

And the royal family doesn't pass on my fathers awesome scrambled egg recipe, which some might view as more important than being head of the church to some people :D.

If it is theirs to give on then why can't they? It isn't like they recently walked up and said "yepp this will do us nicely, I'll make my sons and daughters head of the church in this place".

They took it by force a fair while ago and are still in power, similar to corporate take-overs etc that happen these days.
 
Utterly indifferent myself. They, along with the government don't make my life any better, happier, richer or any more fulfilling. If people want to go jump up and down and wave flags outside Buckingham Palace to perhaps catch a glimpse of another human being, go for it. I'm sure you have your reasons.
 
FNGsam said:
And that rich family I'm sure would have items that they award that the royals don't.
Click to expand...

LOL like what??...im pretty sure the Royal family could and probably do have everything that most rich families do. But then it all comes down to how rich is rich??.

Also lets not forget the special privileges that the royal family have, privileges that despite having all the money in the world could not even afford you those privileges.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom