Royal Family - Abolition?

imo they should be got rid of, as for the ppl that say that they generate income imo thats crap ,tourists do not sit and have tea with the royals ,all they do is see the buildings ,which would still be there even if the royal family wasnt,the royal family have more than enough income to look after themselves and should be made to do so,any monies that the royal family now get should be put into the health/education system,as for what they do as far as i can see they have extended holidays at the tax payers expence and keep the class system alive ,as for being a figurehead ,well im proud to be british and the royal family doesnt come into it,perhaps the queen herself should be proud to be british which does not have to include taking money from the lower classes,how would you feel seeing someone take money from a blind begger ? the royals dont seem to have a problem with it ;)
rant over
 
maybe all royals have to spend some time as an MP or something. That way they would be more in touch with the reality of UK life and people might actually think of them as worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Hehe, I see your point, but I think you've picked a bad example of a profession they could try there :D
 
To quote someone else, I would far rather serve someone who is taught their entire life how a country should be ruled and how to act than someone who is elected to the same possition.

I don't see what anyone has against the Royal Family in all honesty.....
 
VIRII said:
Because historically speaking and right up until this very day the HoL have provided a very useful function as a check to the house of commons who can ultimately over rule them anyway. Rather than change to suit your "it's not fair" attitude re birthright show how they fail the country becuase if the system is working well then don't change it.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, the House of Lords has been an extremely undemocratic institution that, e.g., almost caused the country to have a revolution in 1932 after they blocked the third petition for the Great Reform Act.

Up until this day, especially since the Salisbury Convention of 1911, it's had no political power as it realised that, being unelected and unaccountable, it has no legitimacy to check the House of Commons. Throwing out most of the hereditary peers has actually increased the strength of the House of Lords by increasing their mandate to curb the executive.

A bicameral system is good in theory. I support change, not because of some '"it's not fair" attitude' that you want to brand me with, but because I encourage political reform to make our country more democratic.
 
Crispy Pigeon said:
If their interests were Machiavellian, then they also suited the public interest. Why on earth should people wield any kind of political power through inheritance?

I just wish they would finish the job of the House of Lords reform.
Click to expand...

While you obviously don't agree with the HoL as it stands they do perform an important job providing a check against the possible excesses of the HoC, the current proposals for the ID cards bill being an ideal example. The very fact that they are not elected and therefore not answerable to the public(in a general sense) is very important so their policies and viewpoints can be shaped much more objectively than those MPs who rely on votes to keep them in power. Yes there are some Lords who do not deserve to be there but equally there are plenty of people in all walks of life who don't deserve where they have got to and they should be removed if possible but it isn't always possible and certainly shouldn't be rushed.

The HoL reform isn't necessarily going to be any better than the system it replaces, many peers have been elected on the basis of the parties they represent rather than any inherant merit for the job which is wrong.
 
Crispy Pigeon said:
A bicameral system is good in theory. I support change, not because of some '"it's not fair" attitude' that you want to brand me with, but because I encourage political reform to make our country more democratic.
Click to expand...

Being more democratic (ie elected house of lords) will benefit us how exactly?
The lords are currently being chucked into the HoL by Blair at a rate of knots to boost his political ideology there. How is that democratic exactly? How does that ensure a better future exactly?
Being more democratic doesn't instantly = better.
 
VIRII said:
I hope the analogy makes sense because the issue of Monarchy should be about how they do or don't benefit the country economically, socially and internationally rather than about divine right or fantastical rich tea biscuit dipping scenarios.
Click to expand...

The analogy is fair enough, I'm a down to earth guy who doesn't suffer fools gladly ... Consequently I don't mince my words.

Its not about class, its about a waste of money and our being brainwashed into thinking the Royals are perceived as value for money as regards tourism, when in fact they are just comedy value.

But so long as it brings in the tourism money I suppose ... the end result is the same.

Bottom line is, you get more value for money from Monty Python and Billy Connolly, etc etc ... if you accept the comic value of the Royals.

They are overpaid and a waste of money.

All IMHO of course, anyway I cant believe I've been on this thread for so long, things to do.

No Offence, OK.
 
pugster said:
imo they should be got rid of, as for the ppl that say that they generate income imo thats crap ,tourists do not sit and have tea with the royals ,all they do is see the buildings ,which would still be there even if the royal family wasnt,the royal family have more than enough income to look after themselves and should be made to do so,any monies that the royal family now get should be put into the health/education system,as for what they do as far as i can see they have extended holidays at the tax payers expence and keep the class system alive ,as for being a figurehead ,well im proud to be british and the royal family doesnt come into it,perhaps the queen herself should be proud to be british which does not have to include taking money from the lower classes,how would you feel seeing someone take money from a blind begger ? the royals dont seem to have a problem with it ;)
rant over
Click to expand...
You know, you are allowed to use a '.' on these forums, I damn near died. :)

I'm out of education so why should I pay taxes towards that? I have private medical cover, why should I pay so much for the NHS? I still do because it is for the benefit of the country, not for me. Same goes for the Royal family. You may not need it but the country still benefits.
 
VIRII said:
Being more democratic (ie elected house of lords) will benefit us how exactly?
The lords are currently being chucked into the HoL by Blair at a rate of knots to boost his political ideology there. How is that democratic exactly? How does that ensure a better future exactly?
Being more democratic doesn't instantly = better.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a necessarily directly elected second chamber, but that is one way of doing it.

However it is done, a more democratic House of Lords will hopefully result in three things.
1) Good legislation from the House of Commons not being blocked.
2) Bad legislation from the House of Commons being blocked or returned for revision.
3) People feeling that they are being represented in the Parliamentary system and therefore more inclined to take part.

You're right; Blair is appointing quite a lot of peers. I did not say this is democratic or something I support.
I do think it is unarguable that an elected politician appointing individuals he or she deems worthy for their life is more democratic than a peer inheriting it from his or her father, even if he or she has the political acumen of a duckling.

I agree that being more democratic doesn't necessarily equal better, no. I am conscious that we're taking the thread off-topic though, so that was just one of the ways in which reform of the House of Lords would improve the country.
 
You know, it's interesting ... can you imagine a real Monarch or a real Emperor? One who actually commands the faith of the Public, who actually stands for something, who embodies all those values the People hold dear? Wouldn't it fantastic to have a ruler who is a real leader of Men and who is a King amongst them? Just imagine it, right now ...... Is Charles a leader of Men? Does he command the respect and adulation of the Public? Is he a leader of Men? Of course he doesn't. You all see that. He is a complete plonker who busies himself planting potatoes in the Southwest. Gee, we sure all look up to you, Old McDonald ... When you lead us into battle we'll have our Spud guns at the ready.

The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ought to be usurped, the German scum! And in their place installed an Emperor who genuinely deserves title as sovereign. :D
 
Old Turkey said:
The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ought to be usurped, the German scum! And in their place installed an Emperor who genuinely deserves title as sovereign. :D
Click to expand...

Alright, if you insist. I'll take the job! First order of business, publicly flogging that little snot rag Blair for the viewing pleasure of my subjects!
 
As an Irishman my opinion doesn't really count here - but....
It adds character to your national image and history, and yeah its great for tourists like me! Also gives you something to rally around in hard times, like in the war.

On the serious side, there are very few diplomats as experianced as the queen, supposedly shes a very shrewd negotiator. You can only get this from 50 years+ on the job. You can only get that experiance if you're in it for life! From what I hear, some of the deals shes worked (espessially all the commonwealth stuff) have been very good for you lot. I'd say a lot of younger (if you can call any of them young!) statespeople could learn a lot from her.
 
Apologies if this has already been addressed, but what about the issue of whether the Royal Family THEMSELVES wish to remain? I would honestly question whether they, if given the choice, would want to continue in their current role. It seems to me that despite their lavish lifestyles, their place in British society has brought nothing but utter misery to them over the years. I'd hazard a guess that were a referendum carried out and they were abolished once and for all, they'd be thanking us for saving them from a life of misery! Yes, there are undoubtedly a lot of benefits from being a Royal, but on balance, would anyone really want that responsibility? I certainly wouldn't and see the whole system as completely outdated to the point of being laughable. Do them a favour - get rid!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom