Royal Family - Abolition?

[VIRII]

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.

There is another thread which discusses the US latest defence budgets in which it is suggested that democracy there has broken down as the only political options to people are basically 2 very similar parties. New parties and common peoples views can't be established - too expensive to set up a political party etc.

Hereditary peers buck such systems and stagnation.

 

[VIRII]

Comedy value?

Try typing Prince Philip blunders into Google for starters, hours of mirth right there

Philip says what he thinks, he doesn't mince his words, he doesn't bow to PC pressures. He tells it like it is. I thought that you'd appreciate his forthright manner ?

 

[VIRII]

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!

Emporer elroberto gets my vote then.

 

[Nikias]

There is another thread which discusses the US latest defence budgets in which it is suggested that democracy there has broken down as the only political options to people are basically 2 very similar parties. New parties and common peoples views can't be established - too expensive to set up a political party etc.

Hereditary peers buck such systems and stagnation.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Hereditary peers avoid stagnation and similar parties? One of the criticisms levelled at them was how their faction always supported the Conversatives and but blocked Labour's.

Are you suggesting that if the United States' second chamber, the Senate, were unelected then the people would have more choice? That the common people would be more represented? I think I've really misunderstood you, so could you please clarify?

Regardless of this, it remains utterly scandalous that anyone should have any say in running the country because of an accident of birth. That kind of noisome idea belongs hundreds of years ago in the past.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The Royal family does have its purposes, tourism attraction adside. The Queen is the head of the state still, and whether we like it or not, she actually still have some powers in the law (Royal Prerogative). Legislation needs her accent before they come into forced, there are numerous traditions that is embedded with the Royals into our government that can't be changed or get rid of over night.

 

[Nikias]

Philip says what he thinks, he doesn't mince his words, he doesn't bow to PC pressures. He tells it like it is. I thought that you'd appreciate his forthright manner ?

He doesn't acknowledge common sense either. If one argues for keeping the royals as figureheads, icons for our nation...do we want one that embarrasses the country and causes diplomatic fallout?

Another example of how having people in their position based on an accident of birth rather than their merits can be harmful.

 

[Arcade Fire]

Regardless of this, it remains utterly scandalous that anyone should have any say in running the country because of an accident of birth. That kind of noisome idea belongs hundreds of years ago in the past.

By the same notion though, why do you deserve the fantastic opportunities and higher quality of life that having lived in Britain has brought you? The fact that you lived here rather than anywhere else is due to nothing but an 'accident of birth'.

 

[Nikias]

The Royal family does have its purposes, tourism attraction adside. The Queen is the head of the state still, and whether we like it or not, she actually still have some powers in the law (Royal Prerogative). Legislation needs her accent before they come into forced, there are numerous traditions that is embedded with the Royals into our government that can't be changed or get rid of over night.

Is that a real power? The last head of state to refuse the Royal Assent to a statute was Queen Anne in 1708. It's all formalities and bureaucracy. Red tape that we can do away with.

I do agree that actually abolishing them would be a messy task, which I why I suggested leaving it until we overhaul the rest of the system as well.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Is that a real power? The last head of state to refuse the Royal Assent to a statute was Queen Anne in 1708. It's all formalities and bureaucracy. Red tape that we can do away with.

I do agree that actually abolishing them would be a messy task, which I why I suggested leaving it until we overhaul the rest of the system as well.

It depends, it's all down to the public support, lets say if Labour passes the legislation for the ID cards, or when the raise in Students tuition fees happend. Lets say the queen did not want to accent the ID card bills. If the public supports her, and shows in it ways like demostrations and petitions. Then I would say she would be pretty safe. However, if she decline some regular Bill then Tony and his mates might have more to say about that.

 

[antijoke]

Prince Phillip is the win! he can stay.

 

[Nikias]

By the same notion though, why do you deserve the fantastic opportunities and higher quality of life that having lived in Britain has brought you? The fact that you lived here rather than anywhere else is due to nothing but an 'accident of birth'.

That's not the same notion. I am talking about being born into a role of privilege and power. I have already said that I do not envy the Royals for their lifestyle. It's not the flash cars or money that bothers me. I dislike the institution of royality which forces this upon people.

It's the idea of their being better people than I am because of their birth; I do not believe that I am more important than anyone else in the world because I had the good fortune to be born here.

 

[MikeTimbers]

All i think is this;

they abolished hereditary lordships 'cause it was unfair for current gen to benefit from acts of past - on this same logic why do we have royal family?!

They abolished new hereditary titles but they haven't started removing existing ones!

 

[jezsoup]

Reading this whole thread and to be honest no one here has given any good solid reasoning with evidence to suggest it would be more beneficial to remove the royal family rather than leaving them.

This is really a bit of a no brainer to be honest.

 

[Luseac]

We should never get rid of the Royal Family, The sovereign plays a very important role, not only is she head of the commonwealth but defender of the faith. In this day and age of islamlamic extremists. I am glad to have someone defending Christianity in this country.

Another good point is that other countries love the Royal Family and thus millions are spent visiting the country

80% of the country still support the monarch and long may it continue.

 

[VIRII]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Hereditary peers avoid stagnation and similar parties? One of the criticisms levelled at them was how their faction always supported the Conversatives and but blocked Labour's.

Are you suggesting that if the United States' second chamber, the Senate, were unelected then the people would have more choice? That the common people would be more represented? I think I've really misunderstood you, so could you please clarify?

Regardless of this, it remains utterly scandalous that anyone should have any say in running the country because of an accident of birth. That kind of noisome idea belongs hundreds of years ago in the past.

What I am saying is that hereditary peers do not owe any grace and favours to any political party and tend to vote freely whereas grace and favours Lords chosen specifically for their kinship with the current PM are utterly pointless as they are not free thinkers.

Again you suggest that choosing representatives by hereditary means is not politically correct in your mind but do not offer a better system. In cutting off your nose to spite your face you achieve nothing. Your gripe is about how they are selected as opposed to how well they function.

 

[VIRII]

He doesn't acknowledge common sense either. If one argues for keeping the royals as figureheads, icons for our nation...do we want one that embarrasses the country and causes diplomatic fallout?

Another example of how having people in their position based on an accident of birth rather than their merits can be harmful.

I prefer that to kow-towing, bowing and scraping to every tinpot PM around the world apologising for our colonial past and all that PC garbage.
I saw some pictures recently comparing Mrs Blairs reaction to how she greets other foreign dignitaries be they elected or hereditary or chieftan of an African plains tribe.
With the Queen she is upright, erect and almost looks down her nose, with ANYONE else she is a snivelling grovelling toady. Who the hell is she anyway, she is nothing and no-one, just married to a primeminister. I can't think of any previous partner to a PM who goes so far out of his or her way to be a celeb.

But no let's have more fo the sickening free holidays for the PM and his family, let's have more free flights, 2 jags for his mates and every other freebie and payrise they can muster.

If our elected Govt had an ounce of the level of Duty and commitment to this country that the Queen shows we'd be a far prouder nation. As for blowing money were you not aware that Blair just threw our EU rebate away for free. It'll get him a nice job later though in the European Parliament won't it. I can't see the Royals ever selling us out like that.

 

[VIRII]

It's the idea of their being better people than I am because of their birth.

That notion only exists in your mind. You would just chuck out something that has served this country so well for so long because of your insecurities?
Even Cromwell wouldn't go as far as you.

 

[PlacidCasual]

To be honest I had hoped the country would grow out of the dated idea that everything that is old is crap and must be replaced by something new. Thats how I feel about anti-monarchist rants too.
Somehow I don't think the country will be a better or more intersting place for the removal of the monarchy. I don't think everyone will be suddenly richer and equality will wash over us, I just think we'll lose a little bit of what we were and replace it with something mundane.
The cost of the Royal Family is a red herring, the cost is small and is being pruned year on year as they use the "Royal Assets" to generate their own income streams. Now the Bloody Sunday inquiry cost £157m at last count and will tell us nothing we didn't know already. The lawyers bill alone for the Wembley Stadium cost £79m, more than Twickenham cost to build and bigger than the lottery grant for the Millenium Stadium. Foot and Mouth cost £4billion+. The Iraq War costs an innumerable amount. Grabber Browns economic policy combined with the expansion of the public sector is going to put all private sector workers in penury with its pension liabilities. Yet people still complain about the cost of the Royal family whilst Derry Irvine is spending £250,000 of the tax payers money to put chinese silk wallpaper on the Lord Chancellors apartments walls.

Sod it let the little people pull down everything that is beyond their ken.

 

[mattx2]

I think a few independent analysts have concluded the royal family makes the UK about £120 million a year. I agree that maybe some traditions and rights (the stupid outdated ones e.g. having to offer any beached whales to them etc) should be taken away from them and they should be treated more like a wealthy family rather than the divine rulers of the UK

 

[Jake 2.0]

isnt this a bit like saying do we just stop selling cigarettes? as they give so much in terms of taxes but they also cost us. but then if we were to stop selling any loss in tax would be cancelled out by the lessening of burden on NHS...

I dont really care tbh!