Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

[elmarko]

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



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



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



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?



Ditto.

You are ignoring the cost of the extra bank holiday, which cost the economy more than the wedding created by a large margin.

You are also selectively ignoring the negatives.

Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing.

 

[Freefaller]

Surely then if people are of that opinion they should believe ALL inheritence should be banned.

Of course not... I've inherited a little property abroad - I'm grateful and luckier than a lot of people - but I'm just a pleb in comparison to their world. However, they are put in a position of questionable "power". Heads of state - it's not something that you earn. By the way I'm not getting into the argument that they are scroungers, or do nothing, but it's the title that makes me uneasy. Why should someone who happens to be of a blood line, be the head of the country, be awarded a life that they didn't have to work towards? bSure they work when they're busy, not denying that (but still, it's not exactly hard listening to people, and being a patron to some things...).


Let's face it, I just don't think monarchy is right or fair. I'm not a royalist. Others are. Agree to disagree. Neither is more right or wrong in my eyes, we just have our views and they differ. Good on you for supporting what you believe and supporting your head of state - it's honourable. I just don't see it as necessary these days... but as discussed, good figurehead, good for tourism, etc... not really a good role model as not one single non royal can ever compare their life/growing up/experiences to theirs in any way shape or form - it's way too disproportionate. However, it's good to see that people jsut accept the status quo - I on the other hand don't

 

[Naffa]

I wonder how the monarchists in this thread feel about the possibility of this being true:

Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005

Ministers sought prince's consent under secretive constitutional loophole on bills covering issues from gambling to the Olympics

Ministers have been forced to seek permission from Prince Charles to pass at least a dozen government bills, according to a Guardian investigation into a secretive constitutional loophole that gives him the right to veto legislation that might affect his private interests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-offered-veto-legislation

I'll reiterate what I said before, my inactive distaste for the monarchy will turn into out and out hatred if Charles becomes king (and not just because of the possibility of the above being true).

As well as the mass of times he has sought to exploit his position in order to influence government policy, and publicly seeking to undermine it. Is this the role we would want our head of state playing?

 

[elmarko]

We should add age to the poll - would be interesting to see the split.

I'd put good money on a majority of the indifferent/anti are below a certain age - similar to how we are becoming more secular as a society (over the years) - I'd predict we are also becoming more republican.

The only people I know who support the royal family are over 50.

 

[FNGsam]

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 priviledges that the royal family have, priviledges that despite having all the money in the world could not even afford you those priviledges.

Sir Richard Branson owns an island, he could leave that to his son? The royal family couldn't leave their children ownership of Sir Bransons island. Thats one example for you.

 

[DanielMMS]

But I'd like to know how you can square the basis concept of equality/democracy with the contradictory concept of succession by birthright.

You seem to have conveniently missed my earlier question to you about democracy - "could expand on your understanding of democracy and how it actually applies to this country" .

And as for equality, how far do your views of abolishing succession by birthright extend. If your parents own a house, would you consider it acceptable to inherit once they die? If your parents were wealthy business-people, would you expect the company to be passed onto you as their heir? Obviously, the monarchy is a rather more extreme example but, seeing as you have mentioned that it is the principle that matters, I presume you would seek to have inheritance abandoned as a concept entirely.

 

[Castiel]

Of course not... I've inherited a little property abroad - I'm grateful and luckier than a lot of people - but I'm just a pleb in comparison to their world. However, they are put in a position of questionable "power". Heads of state - it's not something that you earn. By the way I'm not getting into the argument that they are scroungers, or do nothing, but it's the title that makes me uneasy. Why should someone who happens to be of a blood line, be the head of the country, be awarded a life that they didn't have to work towards? bSure they work when they're busy, not denying that (but still, it's not exactly hard listening to people, and being a patron to some things...).

The issue is that while some see being a member of the Monarchy is a privilege, it is in reality a duty.....a good monarch will rise to that duty, whereas a poor one will abuse the priviledge that accompianies that duty.

 

[Yas786]

Sir Richard Branson owns an island, he could leave that to his son? The royal family couldn't leave their children ownership of Sir Bransons island. Thats one example for you.

Is that the best you can come up with??...yes he owns an island that he bought with his own money. The royal family im pretty sure could buy an island and give it their off spring, if they should choose to do so.

The royal family have no right on Bransons island as a matter of fact, as it wasnt owned by the royal family nor has it been given to Branson as far as im aware....if im incorrect then i stand to be corrected.

 

[Freefaller]

It would be good to see some of them renouncing their "title" and integrating themselves into society.

Good on some of them for joining the army/navy/raf etc... that is commendable and respectable.

 

[FNGsam]

Is that the best you can come up with??...yes he owns an island that he bought with his own money. The royal family im pretty sure could buy an island and give it their off spring, if they should choose to do so.

The royal family have no right on Bransons island as a matter of fact, as it wasnt owned by the royal family nor has it been given to Branson as far as im aware....if im incorrect then i stand to be corrected.

But they couldn't give Sir Bransons island away now could they?

The royals are probably the most extreme example but essentially they have an inheritance (including: head of state, church etc) that they are able to pass on to their family just like any other family passes on as well

 

[platypus]

By quite a lot - they are awarded a lot of items/sanctions that a rich family wouldn't surely?

You mean rich familys that can avoid paying lots of tax through clever usage of accountancy laws, whereas the royal family and crown estate don't?

 

[Vonhelmet]

You are ignoring the cost of the extra bank holiday, which cost the economy more than the wedding created by a large margin.

So? Are we going to judge these things purely on money in versus money out? A lot of people enjoyed the wedding. We certainly did. We put some flags up and had a picnic in the garden and my then 4 year old wore one of her fancy dresses.

You are also selectively ignoring the negatives.

Enumerate them.

Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing.

I'm not experiencing any, as yet.

 

[quickshot89]

Is that the best you can come up with??...yes he owns an island that he bought with his own money. The royal family im pretty sure could buy an island and give it their off spring, if they should choose to do so.

The royal family have no right on Bransons island as a matter of fact, as it wasnt owned by the royal family nor has it been given to Branson as far as im aware....if im incorrect then i stand to be corrected.

well, technically, they have an island already

 

[Yas786]

But they couldn't give Sir Bransons island away now could they?

of course they couldnt because as i said they do not own the island unless they do by some sort of weird law.

Unless im being dim or slow here, i dont really understand what point your trying to make??.

 

[spudbynight]

We should add age to the poll - would be interesting to see the split.

I'd put good money on a majority of the indifferent/anti are below a certain age - similar to how we are becoming more secular as a society (over the years) - I'd predict we are also becoming more republican.

The only people I know who support the royal family are over 50.

I strongly support the royal family and I am well under 50.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I wonder how the monarchists in this thread feel about the possibility of this being true:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-offered-veto-legislation

I'll reiterate what I said before, my inactive distaste for the monarchy will turn into out and out hatred if Charles becomes king (and not just because of the possibility of the above being true).

As well as the mass of times he has sought to exploit his position in order to influence government policy, and publicly seeking to undermine it. Is this the role we would want our head of state playing?

I'd be curious to see exactly what this loophole is. It sounds like it ought to be closed, if it's being abused.

 

[Vonhelmet]

We should add age to the poll - would be interesting to see the split.

I'd put good money on a majority of the indifferent/anti are below a certain age - similar to how we are becoming more secular as a society (over the years) - I'd predict we are also becoming more republican.

The only people I know who support the royal family are over 50.

I'm verging on 30 and voted as indifferent. I'm not pro, as such, but I'm most definitely not anti, if you can grasp such a state of mind.

 

[platypus]

I'll reiterate what I said before, my inactive distaste for the monarchy will turn into out and out hatred if Charles becomes king (and not just because of the possibility of the above being true).

As well as the mass of times he has sought to exploit his position in order to influence government policy, and publicly seeking to undermine it. Is this the role we would want our head of state playing?

So, from the article you quoted:

"Communications between the prince or his household and the government are confidential under a long-standing convention that protects the heir to the throne's right to be instructed in the business of government in preparation for his future role as monarch"

A constitutional loophole exists in legislation created by parliament, and yet you hate Charles for that? I find that a tad odd.

The only people I know who support the royal family are over 50.

You should get out a bit more.

 

[Yas786]

well, technically, they have an island already

Technically i suppose they do but the question then arises, could the royal family sell off the island without anyone standing in their way??

 

[FNGsam]

of course they couldnt because as i said they do not own the island unless they do by some sort of weird law.

Unless im being dim or slow here, i dont really understand what point your trying to make??.

The royals "own" the right to pass down an inheritance of political power etc that their family have amassed over time just as any other family has that same priveledge. That is my point.