Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

[elmarko]

So your point on income equality is somewhat pointless. Glad we agree on that!



Try being a little bit more clear and concise in what your arguments actually are?



Quite a lot of the land will not be via ancient land grabs but purchased using Crown Estate funds. However how they appropriated the land in the dim and distant past is rather immaterial. What matters is they are the legal owners. I am not all that keen on stripping people of their property just beause it will benefit me personally. Do you advocate we should do the same to all land or only that held by people you find disagreeable?

I said the the monarchy is part of a wider problem based around inequality & inequity - the the concept it'self was ridden with the aforementioned problems.

I never stated it was the specific cause at any point - so attempting to imply that because there is no specific evidence to the royal family (which anybody with half a brain can agree is not exactly a shining example of equality) means that it's not a problem is dishonest at best & stupid at worst.

I've already stated before that scientific studies do not work that way, attempting to find a study based on one specific point on a wider social issues is always going to fruitless.

But hey, if you have to resort to straw man arguments to try to attempt to win debates be my guest - I'll just sit here & wait for a intelligent reply.

Don't worry - I've got all day.

Who said that stripping the property would benefit me personally?, I'd like the money to go to infrastructure, social welfare for the vulnerable, reducing the deficit - I don't receive anything from the government, not even healthcare.

 

[culvers]

im neither for or against a monarchy, but i can't see what we would gain from getting rid of them, whereas we would probably lose financially. If there was some tangible benefit to getting rid of them then i would be for it, but i believe they make uk plc a net profit, so until that changes, we should keep them.

I dont see the point in change for the sake of change, plus we would probably end up with some government stooge as head of state.

 

[elmarko]

im neither for or against a monarchy, but i can't see what we would gain from getting rid of them, whereas we would probably lose financially. If there was some tangible benefit to getting rid of them then i would be for it, but i believe they make uk plc a net profit, so until that changes, we should keep them.

I dont see the point in change for the sake of change, plus we would probably end up with some government stooge as head of state.

To be honest - your last point is the best defence I've heard so far for keeping the monarchy (not that I want to keep them mind).

The only (slight) benefit of a politician is at least we can get rid of them every few years.

How many people here would bow to the queen? - just out of curiosity.

 

[Castiel]

To be honest - your last point is the best defence I've heard so far for keeping the monarchy (not that I want to keep them mind).

The only (slight) benefit of a politician is at least we can get rid of them every few years.

How many people here would bow to the queen? - just out of curiosity.

It wasn't required to bow to the Queen.

 

[platypus]

To be honest - your last point is the best defence I've heard so far for keeping the monarchy (not that I want to keep them mind).

Plenty of reasons to keep them have been given in this thread. You've just chosen to ignore them or "strawmanned" them yourself.

 

[elmarko]

It wasn't required to bow to the Queen.

I don't recall saying it was - but there is considered to be a certain "etiquette" on how to act around royalty.

I'm just asking in theory - as I recall recent there was a bit of controversy due to an Australian MP not doing a curtsey or something.

I wondered how many would feel comfortable being expected to bow or curtsey.

 

[platypus]

I don't recall saying it was - but there is considered to be a certain "etiquette" on how to act around royalty.

I'm just asking in theory - as I recall recent there was a bit of controversy due to an Australian MP not doing a curtsey or something.

I wondered how many would feel comfortable being expected to bow or curtsey.

On the occasions I've met the Queen & Duke of Edinburgh, I've not been required to do anything other than be polite.

 

[elmarko]

Plenty of reasons to keep them have been given in this thread. You've just chosen to ignore them or "strawmanned" them yourself.

Most of the reasons given have been based off assumptions that I dispute - the main being that the land should belong to them to begin with.

If (like me) you don't agree with that initial premise the arguments based on the money they bring in ring pretty hallow.

I'll I've heard is apologists & people suffering from cognitive dissonance pretending that inequality & inequity are not real social problems.

But hey, if it allows you to hold two conflicting views (that equity is important) and that the concept of "Royal family" is great - who am I to get in way of your delusions.

Feel free to distort reality at your hearts content.

I'd like age to be added to the poll - as I'm pretty certain that a majority of the "Pro-Monarchy" votes are from our older members.

If this is the case, it means all we need is time (as a nation).

 

[platypus]

You can dispute things as much as you want. Unfortunately for you, the law states that the land belongs to them.

I find it odd that you stick to this notion that it cannot be proved that they bring in revenue. The Crown Estate added £211m to the Treasury last year.

Have you written to your MP yet?

 

[elmarko]

You can dispute things as much as you want. Unfortunately for you, the law states that the land belongs to them.

I find it odd that you stick to this notion that it cannot be proved that they bring in revenue. The Crown Estate added £211m to the Treasury last year.

Have you written to your MP yet?

I've written to my useless MP (Mark Hoban) on numerous occasions regarding various issues - the copy/paste responses are great.

Taking into account after checked up his voting history in the house of commons before the last chance I got to vote (on some controversial issues - fox hunting, equal rights for homosexual couples, hereditary peers etc) I doubt he will agree with me on anything.

But I can't imagine you would have a problem with hereditary peers would you?, same kind of thing - but with more political power (less money).

 

[platypus]

I've written to my useless MP (Mark Hoban) on numerous occasions regarding various issues - the copy/paste responses are great.

Definitely agree with you here. I think the secretary who responds to my letters to my MP needs to get a few more templates to use.

But I can't imagine you would have a problem with hereditary peers would you?, same kind of thing - but with more political power (less money).

I lean largely towards an elected House of Lords. The reason being that the Lords constitutes an invaluable part of our political process; and hereditary rights do not guarantee that the person is capable of the kind of debate and decisions on law making that the Lords go through. I'd much rather that these positions were given more thought and went to people who are proven to be knowledgeable in that area. Less money though? Not always the case is it!

I don't see it being the same as the Royal Family, because the Monarchy is [now] symbolic, and not an integral part of our political process.

 

[Ceryndrion]

of course, the last time we had a republic, they banned christmas..

 

[DanielMMS]

Most of the reasons given have been based off assumptions that I dispute - the main being that the land should belong to them to begin with.

If (like me) you don't agree with that initial premise the arguments based on the money they bring in ring pretty hallow.

I'll I've heard is apologists & people suffering from cognitive dissonance pretending that inequality & inequity are not real social problems.

But hey, if it allows you to hold two conflicting views (that equity is important) and that the concept of "Royal family" is great - who am I to get in way of your delusions.

Feel free to distort reality at your hearts content.

I'd like age to be added to the poll - as I'm pretty certain that a majority of the "Pro-Monarchy" votes are from our older members.

If this is the case, it means all we need is time (as a nation).

Much of what you say is an entirely reasonable standpoint. It is just a shame that you have to pepper it with childish insults aimed at those who share an opinion different from those you hold. But, hey ho.

The problem with your position regarding the Crown Estates is that such has been amassed from a variety of sources through numerous methods. To be able to reach a judged opinion as to whether each element should rightly be owned by the monarchy surely it would be necessary to review them all individually? Or do you simply take the view that all wealth held by the monarchy has been procured and amassed in an inequitable fashion so should be reclaimed?

 

[DanielMMS]

I lean largely towards an elected House of Lords. The reason being that the Lords constitutes an invaluable part of our political process; and hereditary rights do not guarantee that the person is capable of the kind of debate and decisions on law making that the Lords go through. I'd much rather that these positions were given more thought and went to people who are proven to be knowledgeable in that area. Less money though? Not always the case is it!

I'm not convinced about an elected Lords - or Commons, if it comes to it. The electorate proves time and again how incapable they are of deciding what is actually best for the country instead choosing to be swayed by whoever is the most attractive (both looks and personality) or who can plead the most emotional case . Personally, I think the whole concept of the UK system of governance should be ripped apart. It is far too riddled with self-serving, self-important, fatcats whose only interest is feathering their own nests.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I've written to my useless MP (Mark Hoban) on numerous occasions regarding various issues - the copy/paste responses are great.

Taking into account after checked up his voting history in the house of commons before the last chance I got to vote (on some controversial issues - fox hunting, equal rights for homosexual couples, hereditary peers etc) I doubt he will agree with me on anything.

But I can't imagine you would have a problem with hereditary peers would you?, same kind of thing - but with more political power (less money).

So your MP is useless as far as you're concerned... So go and see him, or call him up, or vote him out, or stand for office yourself.

 

[DanielMMS]

Taking into account after checked up his voting history in the house of commons before the last chance I got to vote (on some controversial issues - fox hunting, equal rights for homosexual couples, hereditary peers etc) I doubt he will agree with me on anything.

Therein lies the reality of a representative democracy. Theoretically, the actions of an MP should be representative of those he or she represents. In reality, the actions of the MP are dictated by their party. Personally, if democracy is the chosen form of governance, I feel it should move more towards a direct or participatory democracy. This clearly would have been impractical in the past but technology in particular has moved on to the level of being able to facilitate it.

 

[RDM]

The electorate proves time and again how incapable they are of deciding what is actually best for the country instead choosing to be swayed by whoever is the most attractive (both looks and personality) or who can plead the most emotional case .

Personally, if democracy is the chosen form of governance, I feel it should move more towards a direct or participatory democracy. This clearly would have been impractical in the past but technology in particular has moved on to the level of being able to facilitate it.

Surely these two statements are at odds with each other?

 

[DanielMMS]

Surely these two statements are at odds with each other?

Yes. And no! What I'm saying is that I don't feel the democratic system works as is. But if we have to have one it should be more participatory.

 

[elmarko]

So your MP is useless as far as you're concerned... So go and see him, or call him up, or vote him out, or stand for office yourself.

I try to vote him out, sadly I only get one vote.

The area I reside in is full of southern middle class home-owner types, hardly the type to be sensitive to the plight of the unfortunate - the problem with FPTP is that if you live in an area which is strongly any particular side against what you are personally (be that Labour or Tory in most cases) your vote is literally meaningless.

I'd complain less if we had PR - but this stupid country voted against an improvement in the current system, so no chance of that. (mostly be people who could not even describe how it worked).

On the point on representative democracy I agree completely - also on that most MP's (on all sides) wish to add "feathers to the nest" as it was put earlier.

I don't even believe in democracy anyway - so I'm unlikely to want to start a political party, I'd prefer decisions to be made by experts of each field based on something objective (technocracy) - like a desire to reduce total human suffering.

It's easy to set policy when you have a clear objective, once you have that "choice" becomes meaningless - why should there be a "left wing way" or a "right wing way" of doing anything - clearly it should be "The correct way".

 

[DanielMMS]

I don't even believe in democracy anyway - so I'm unlikely to want to start a political party, I'd prefer decisions to be made by experts of each field based on something objective (technocracy) - like a desire to reduce total human suffering.

It's easy to set policy when you have a clear objective, once you have that "choice" becomes meaningless - why should there be a "left wing way" or a "right wing way" of doing anything - clearly it should be "The correct way".

But the idea of technocracy is fraught with danger for a variety of reasons. Interesting article here which puts it far better than could I. Ultimately, I would question how it would be possible to legitimise a technocracy and how personality/external/political issues could be avoided - much the same way as is the situation within a democracy.