Royalist or Republican?

[McPhee]

Wouldn't class myself as either but it's not hard to see the value the royals provide. The tourism they bring in and the amount of soft power they hold is incredibly useful especially with the current government looking like such a mess.

It would take a presidential role ages (if ever) to gain the same amount of respect and probably wouldn't cost any less as the royal buildings would need to be kept maintained as listed historic treasures.

Politically, I get it. That's a large and important part of the argument.

The tourism thing is a red herring though. It's impossible to say with any accuracy what the tourism impact of abolishing the monarchy would be. Many of Europe's former monarchies see huge numbers of visitors to their palaces each year. Almost 7 million people visit Versailles. For Peterhof Palace, it's over 5 million. Our busiest historic site is the Tower of London, at 2.5 million visitors annually. Buckingham Palace manages about half a million in the short period that it's open. If the monarchy were abolished, the nature of UK tourism may change a bit. But the number of tourists, or the revenue they generate, wouldn't necessarily fall.

Speculation on my part, but I suspect the biggest change would be a drop in the sales of royal tat in the tourist shops, offset by ticket revenue for entry into former royal residences.

As for the money, we already pay for the upkeep of the Buckingham Palace, etc. The Sovereign Grant was recently increased to fund repairs. If the Palace were a museum, open to the public year-round, it would need less (potentially zero) state aid. Charities like the National Trust and Historic Scotland already do a fantastic job of maintaining historically important sites across the country, without Government funding. Ticket sales, membership fees, and charitable donations pay for it all.

 

[Tute]

Honestly i'd rather see parliament thrown in the bin than the monarchy.

One actually cares about the country, the other only cares about itself.

 

[Teh_Next]

the amount of soft power they hold is incredibly useful especially with the current government looking like such a mess.

What "power," is it that they're using on the current issues ( I assume Brexit) that make them useful in relation to the current mess of a government?

 

[Lopéz]

I'd still love to see two separate correlated surveys where one question is are you a royalist and the other are you a creationist and if not do you believe in God.

Why not have them here and correlate your findings?

 

[Jean-F]

I wasn't surprised this year, as of every year to hear that what's behind Her Maj's Christmas message is a load of tosh.

The official picture of her speech has been released with an idea of "the message" she will be spreading. Before she's even aired or said it, it seems to be along the lines of respect and understanding...as she's sat in front of some mega expensive gold piano or harpsichord, whatever it is. I just could not but wonder if that thing was sold, though it probably be priceless, what sort of money it could raise and support how many families on the poverty line and for how long.
That's some real respect and understanding right there. And I thought...what is the point of you?

It just reinforces to me that I'm a republican.

What be you?

Well, when I driving a taxi, I was all for the Royals, if I was in the area of Buck House after the Changing of The Guard, I was virtually guaranteed to get a tourist putting his/her hand up, good on you Liz.
I’m not a Republican per se, but if I was an American, I’d straddle a fine line between the GOP and The Democrats.
I’m a lifelong cynic, when I read the line about how many poverty line families could be helped by selling the gold piano, my first thought was, ‘Yeah, they’d ****k it in Wetherspoons, Greggs, or on Lotto tickets and cans of Tennents’, better off taking the money from the Civil List, and building a hospital(s).

 

[h4rm0ny]

Sounds like you want the queen on a horse in full chain mail, raising her sword in the air and screaming “For England and St George”

This is what it would take to make me a royalist.

People are only royalist because currently the monarch is led by a mostly alright matriarch.

Just wait til the Spider takes the reigns and even more so after that, it'll lose it's image instantly once Lizzers pops off.

Spider?

The Royal Family are prisoners living in a gilded cage, prodded routinely by jeering crowds. Life of Riley, without doubt! It's a kind of human zoo, kept for the sake of tourism and continuity, and I wouldn't want to be a part of it for all the tea in China... assuming we can still say 'all the tea in China'. I know all the tea in Ceylon is definitely not on.

Certainly I wouldn't want to be a royal for the same reasons. But if that's a cage, spare a thought for the female members of ME royal families:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/06/dubai-says-missing-princess-safe-home-attempted-escape/

https://www.business-standard.com/a...otect-strategic-interests-118042700029_1.html

 

[h4rm0ny]

I'd still love to see two separate correlated surveys where one question is are you a royalist and the other are you a creationist and if not do you believe in God.

Then have one:
https://linkto.run/p/N52N9U24

 

[Caracus2k]

Card carrying SNP member claims to be a staunch republican (but pro EU) total not shocker!

Whilst also making dubious claims about giving 5% of their sub £11,850 annual salary to charideeee (as they claim apparently not to pay income tax in Scotland ) despite having left their previous apparently high paid job it IT to work 'office hours Monday to Friday' as a physiotechnical instructor in the NHS (no mention of this being part time seen?) with some teenage kids to pay for whilst all being too apathetic to put together their newly purchased fairly expensive computer parts......

Sounds totally legit

 

[RoboCod]

The whole issue being spouted about the message just sounds like people angry at rich people because they're poor. The same old system is against them BS. There is nothing stopping you pulling your big boy pants up and getting on with life. Some are fortunate and land into good times, but most people work for them. It's boresome hearing the same old whinging and blaming other people for their own misfortune. Half the twits on social media ranting about this have never done a thing for charity. I was reading one guy who despises the monarchy, their wealth and that they should give it up for the poor. Meanwhile, he's in a band, touring the world, living it up and not living in a gutter. How hypocritical from the usual champagne socialists.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The whole issue being spouted about the message just sounds like people angry at rich people because they're poor. The same old system is against them BS. There is nothing stopping you pulling your big boy pants up and getting on with life. Some are fortunate and land into good times, but most people work for them. It's boresome hearing the same old whinging and blaming other people for their own misfortune. Half the twits on social media ranting about this have never done a thing for charity. I was reading one guy who despises the monarchy, their wealth and that they should give it up for the poor. Meanwhile, he's in a band, touring the world, living it up and not living in a gutter. How hypocritical from the usual champagne socialists.

I'm reasonably well-off. I didn't start that way but these days I have a decent-paying job and have a house and mortgage. I'm certainly not "poor". And yet I'm against the monarchy because I believe political power should derive from democratic principles and public taxes shouldn't be diverted to subsidise the lives of a wealthy family. Neither of these things is just. How is that "whinging and blaming others" ?

And as to "some are fortunate", look at social mobility in the USA - poor families become rich and rich families poor within a few generations. USA has possibly the highest generational social mobility in the world. But the Royal family plainly do not fit that model because they are a State-backed wealthy family.

 

[Rroff]

The whole issue being spouted about the message just sounds like people angry at rich people because they're poor. The same old system is against them BS. There is nothing stopping you pulling your big boy pants up and getting on with life. Some are fortunate and land into good times, but most people work for them. It's boresome hearing the same old whinging and blaming other people for their own misfortune. Half the twits on social media ranting about this have never done a thing for charity. I was reading one guy who despises the monarchy, their wealth and that they should give it up for the poor. Meanwhile, he's in a band, touring the world, living it up and not living in a gutter. How hypocritical from the usual champagne socialists.

I wish life was that black and white - I've had times when I've struggled despite doing everything right/I'm supposed to do and other times when I've had it great without putting in any real effort. I'm doing OK for myself at the moment but overall didn't get here easily and a good bit was luck.

On the other hand I find those ranting about poverty and the rich the loudest are often right pieces of work some of them never intending to do a day of honest work in their life even if the opportunity presented itself and others as you said highly hypocritical and more often than not actually very bitter and twisted people.

 

[RoboCod]

I'm reasonably well-off. I didn't start that way but these days I have a decent-paying job and have a house and mortgage. I'm certainly not "poor". And yet I'm against the monarchy because I believe political power should derive from democratic principles and public taxes shouldn't be diverted to subsidise the lives of a wealthy family. Neither of these things is just. How is that "whinging and blaming others" ?

And as to "some are fortunate", look at social mobility in the USA - poor families become rich and rich families poor within a few generations. USA has possibly the highest generational social mobility in the world. But the Royal family plainly do not fit that model because they are a State-backed wealthy family.

You have a political viewpoint. That is understood and quite right. However, like I said, the general consensus amongst most anti-royals appears to be as I said, along the lines of ridiculous jealousy and/or complete hypocrisy. It's this sad self deprecating stance that people seem to think makes them virtuous. The mere fact half these whingers are on the Internet posting from their nice smart phones puts them in something like the top 5% of wealth in the world alone. Their lack of grasp on reality is astounding and the sheer sense of entitlement is hilarious

 

[RoboCod]

I wish life was that black and white - I've had times when I've struggled despite doing everything right/I'm supposed to do and other times when I've had it great without putting in any real effort. I'm doing OK for myself at the moment but overall didn't get here easily and a good bit was luck.

On the other hand I find those ranting about poverty and the rich the loudest are often right pieces of work some of them never intending to do a day of honest work in their life even if the opportunity presented itself and others as you said highly hypocritical and more often than not actually very bitter and twisted people.

Of course I'm generalising some what though. I have no doubt some people struggle and never seem to catch a break where as others get everything for nothing. For people to aim the blame at the monarchy though hints at some serious lack of responsibility in their own lives. Why stop at her? Let's blame anyone who has it just a fraction better than us. I wonder what the emaciated children of Africa think of all this.

 

[h4rm0ny]

You have a political viewpoint. That is understood and quite right. However, like I said, the general consensus amongst most anti-royals appears to be as I said, along the lines of ridiculous jealousy and/or complete hypocrisy. It's this sad self deprecating stance that people seem to think makes them virtuous. The mere fact half these whingers are on the Internet posting from their nice smart phones puts them in something like the top 5% of wealth in the world alone. Their lack of grasp on reality is astounding and the sheer sense of entitlement is hilarious

What I see, is you dismissing counter-examples and reaffirming your preconception. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But the Royal Family ARE undemocratic by definition and DO get supported through our taxes. You can ascribe whatever negative connotations and motivations to those who object to the royal family that you wish but these are objective facts and to dismiss criticism of it as "whinging" seems unfair to me. Do you have evidence that the Middle Class (the largest body of "not poor") are more predominantly in favour of the royal family than poor people? Because that would support your contention that dislike of Royalty is motivated by the envy of the undeserving poor. My personal experience, speaking anecdotally, is that the Union Jack waving, Royal Family following types are more commonly what we'd call working class than middle class. And amongst the 'self-made' types (if I can include myself), I don't typically see ardent support for the Royal Family any more or less than otherwise. (Perhaps slightly less as we're not usually huge admirers of inherited wealth). So I'd want to see some evidence that the none-poor are notably more pro-Royal than the poor.

 

[Freakbro]

And as to "some are fortunate", look at social mobility in the USA - poor families become rich and rich families poor within a few generations. USA has possibly the highest generational social mobility in the world.

That's not quite correct. I'm not sure there is one social mobility index for the whole world, but there are studies for more comparable countries, eg. The western developed ones and the USA scores quite low on those.

Several large studies of mobility in developed countries in recent years have found the US among the lowest in mobility.[3][18] One study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[18][16][25] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children. (see graph)[18] Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz contends that "Scandinavian countries changed their education systems, social policies and legal frameworks to create societies where there is a higher degree of mobility. That made their countries more into the land of opportunity that America once was."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States

 

[RoboCod]

What I see, is you dismissing counter-examples and reaffirming your preconception. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But the Royal Family ARE undemocratic by definition and DO get supported through our taxes. You can ascribe whatever negative connotations and motivations to those who object to the royal family that you wish but these are objective facts and to dismiss criticism of it as "whinging" seems unfair to me. Do you have evidence that the Middle Class (the largest body of "not poor") are more predominantly in favour of the royal family than poor people? Because that would support your contention that dislike of Royalty is motivated by the envy of the undeserving poor. My personal experience, speaking anecdotally, is that the Union Jack waving, Royal Family following types are more commonly what we'd call working class than middle class. And amongst the 'self-made' types (if I can include myself), I don't typically see ardent support for the Royal Family any more or less than otherwise. (Perhaps slightly less as we're not usually huge admirers of inherited wealth). So I'd want to see some evidence that the none-poor are notably more pro-Royal than the poor.

I never claimed the middle class were or were not predominantly in favour. Like I said, the ramblings on social media generally follow the same line: outrage at a rich person and the reason they are not rich themselves. It's simply envy and an unwilling to accept their own responsibility. As I also stated, many of these moaners appear to be rather well gifted with life's luxuries anyway, the fact they're posting online is indicative of that. My point, I thought you'd acknowledge, is that perspective is required, and aiming anger at a rich person just because of lack of perspective is pathetic. If you'd like to head on a tangent with this, be my guest, I'm simply following the premise set out by OP..

 

[h4rm0ny]

Of course I'm generalising some what though. I have no doubt some people struggle and never seem to catch a break where as others get everything for nothing. For people to aim the blame at the monarchy though hints at some serious lack of responsibility in their own lives. Why stop at her? Let's blame anyone who has it just a fraction better than us. I wonder what the emaciated children of Africa think of all this.

You've made an unwarranted leap here. From disagreeing with having a Royal Family to "they are at fault for how my life is". It's a rather tautological leap which first creates a motivation and then (the fallacy) ascribes it to a wider group suggesting this is the reason. Whilst certainly some people ask why theysho

That's not quite correct. I'm not sure there is one social mobility index for the whole world, but there are studies for more comparable countries, eg. The western developed ones and the USA scores quite low on those.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States

Well I always try to be open to counter-information. It's a while since I've debated this and it's a very complex area. For example, the USA is the richest nation in the world. The same social mobility in absolute terms that would put you in the top 1% in Denmark will not do so in the USA because it simply has a much higher ceiling in wealth. Will you agree that the USA has high social mobility to most of the world's countries? I don't think this degree of variance alters my point which is that for most "privileged" people, their family has worked to get there but that this does not apply to the Royal Family (within any reasonable time span).

 

[h4rm0ny]

I never claimed the middle class were or were not predominantly in favour.

I know you didn't. You attributed anti-Royalist feeling was due to the envy of the undeserving poor. I pointed out that to support this, we should see a much greater degree of pro-Royal feelings amongst the Middle Class than amongst poorer sections of society. I don't believe we do and if anything, I find poorer people tend to be more the flag-waving, jubilee-celebrating types than the Middle Classes. So like it or not, the Middle Class are your control group.

Like I said, the ramblings on social media generally follow the same line: outrage at a rich person and the reason they are not rich themselves. It's simply envy and an unwilling to accept their own responsibility. As I also stated, many of these moaners appear to be rather well gifted with life's luxuries anyway, the fact they're posting online is indicative of that. My point, I thought you'd acknowledge, is that perspective is required, and aiming anger at a rich person just because of lack of perspective is pathetic. If you'd like to head on a tangent with this, be my guest, I'm simply following the premise set out by OP..

Okay. Well I will acknowledge that. I am familiar with the politics of envy that you describe and you're not wrong. So perhaps I am. I also think such attitudes are destructive and often ill-founded. From your post, we'd probably agree more than we disagree so I apologise that I've gone in a bit full-on. I've a tendency to be rather pugnacious. Where we disagree is that I think a lot of criticism of the royal family isn't motivated by that. But it may be a reaction to thinking my own reasons (not to do with this) might be cast as that. And undoubtedly there are people as you describe.

So in summary, you may be right that a lot of anti-royal sentiment is based in envy. That's not my reasons but you were polite and clear enough that you weren't attributing it to me, so I apologise for going off on one. I'm a very confrontational person which I've never been able to mitigate. Though I do work on conceding a point, later.

 

[Caracus2k]

That's not quite correct. I'm not sure there is one social mobility index for the whole world, but there are studies for more comparable countries, eg. The western developed ones and the USA scores quite low on those.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States

The USA has plenty of social mobility for people with cultures that values education and have a good work ethic.

Just look a how sucessful groups like the Koreans are in the US for example.

The Impact of Korean Immigration on the US Economy

MARCUS NOLAND

Korean migration to the United States has occurred in three distinct phases. The first phase involved a relatively small number of migrants att he beginning of the 20th century; the second consisted mainly of students motivated by educational opportunity in the first decade or so following the Korean War; and the third started in 1965 with theliberalization of the US national quota system.

This chapter examines the economic impact of Korean immigration on the US economy, focusing on the third wave of immigration that began in 1965. This group of Korean immigrants appears to be distinct both from
most other national immigrant groups and previous Korean immigrants. They have high levels of educational attainment, with rates of college education nearly twice the US national average. They form businesses at a rate 70 percent higher than the US public at large, and have savings rates of roughly twice the national average. Their children have achieved even
higher rates of educational attainment and earn per capita incomes well above the national average. There is a correlation between the presence of Korean immigrants and state economic performance, and if this were in-
terpreted as a causal relation, it would suggest that a doubling of the Korean immigrant population would increase national per capita income growth by 0.1-0.2 percentage points.

The lack of relative social mobility in places like the US could as much be an argument for selective source immigration policies then anything else.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The lack of social mobility in places like the US could as much be an argument for selective source immigration policies then anything else.

Oh, you've done it now!