Royalist or Republican?

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

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?

Just going off your posts I guarantee you the Queen and by extension the royal family contribute and generate far more for this country than you or yours.

 

[Caracus2k]

Oh, you've done it now!

Social mobility in the US took a down turn at around the same time as immigration policies were liberalised in the 1960's is that correlation or causation?


The 1960's also saw the start of the expansion, in earnest, of federal welfare spending in the US.......

The greatest growth economy wise in countries in scandinavia was before they implemented their welfare states not because of it.

 

[RoboCod]

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.



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.

I appreciate it when posters exchange debate like this, it's quite rare. My respect for your reasoned response and I know you are confrontational sometimes, it's in your nature to debate since you have the confidence in your intellect to do so.

I too am clearly quite excitable over this emotive subject. As you rightly identified, my initial post to you was supportive of your viewpoint in that you hold an educated and reasoned stance on the matter but perhaps I didn't make it clear, poor "Norven" English and all. I don't agree with the republican view but I respect those that have it based upon a good argument rather than the green envy of the rich we seem bent on breeding in our society.

 

[MissChief]

I don't mind the royals, they are a big draw for tourists which helps the country. That being said I think the state is overly generous in what it gives them (considering what they already have, own and draw revenue from) so I wouldn't be against being financially tougher on them, but overall I'm pro royalty.

You are aware that the income fom the Crown Estates is given to the treasury and a relatively small part of that is given back to the Royal Family as the civil list? The royal family is a direct net CONTRIBUTOR to the country, not to mention the sheer number of tourists they bring to the UK!

 

[Andrew_McP]

The royal family is a direct net CONTRIBUTOR to the country, not to mention the sheer number of tourists they bring to the UK!

The 'net contibutor' thing is tricky to use as justification against republicans, because it comes as a result of hereditary land and rights. However you can balance that by saying it's pretty much the same for any successful family where children inherit success... or at least the opportunity to continue that success.

Earlier in the thread folk were also questioning the tourism benefits, when other nations have similar attractions without royalty. I think the way to look at that is in marketing terms... our Royal Family brand is very strong, at least in part because they are living, breathing, and gossip-generating (both pro and anti). Of course, Elvis is worth more dead than alive and Van Gogh's best career move was shuffling off in miserable poverty. So I'm not sure how far the branding things works either. I think Diana probably generated more interest while alive, but her shadow still falls over the Family and especially the way her sons are held in such high esteem, so...

Maybe it just boils down to the fact we're Brits and we don't function well without Knowing Our Place in a natural pecking order which requires a top and a bottom.

 

[Stev]

Royalist here, I love the pomp and ceremony.

 

[StriderX]

Just going off your posts I guarantee you the Queen and by extension the royal family contribute and generate far more for this country than you or yours.

Well it's really easy when you're born into wealth, just look at Trump, probably the stupidest person to grace the planet, yet he's still doing mildly fine relatively.

 

[No1newts]

You are aware that the income fom the Crown Estates is given to the treasury and a relatively small part of that is given back to the Royal Family as the civil list? The royal family is a direct net CONTRIBUTOR to the country, not to mention the sheer number of tourists they bring to the UK!

I was not aware, I thought they kept what they made.

But they do hold a lot of private property as the Windsor family don't they?

 

[MissChief]

I was not aware, I thought they kept what they made.

But they do hold a lot of private property as the Windsor family don't they?

AFAIK the Queen only outright owns two properties, Balmoral and Sandringham. This is why she's not paying for Buck Palace renovations herself, she's in effect a tenant. Also when people say she's rich most of it is tied up in property or goods. I can't imagine she has more 'liquid money' than some of the well known rich people with millions if not billions in the bank.

 

[Hagar]

Royalist, mainly because I can imagine what sort of person may put themselves up for election as 'Head of State'. Or worse, be bumped up there by politicians on the basis of 'muggins turn' or be promoted beyond their ability.

At least we have a benign system with few constitutional rights but well defined responsibilities. We know who is next in line and it is generally a well ordered system.

I would respect an argument that reduced the scope of the public purse by limiting the family members eligible to recieve it but overall it works well and the cost to each of us is fairly negligible.

 

[Fire_fly]

Royalist, mainly because I can imagine what sort of person may put themselves up for election as 'Head of State'. Or worse, be bumped up there by politicians on the basis of 'muggins turn' or be promoted beyond their ability.

At least we have a benign system with few constitutional rights but well defined responsibilities. We know who is next in line and it is generally a well ordered system.

I fall on the royalist side for similar reasons. Also once you start to vote for a head of state on political grounds you risk having half the county hating that person for their political views and nutters on both sides screaming not my president. i.e the last couple of US presidents.

I would respect an argument that reduced the scope of the public purse by limiting the family members eligible to recieve it but overall it works well and the cost to each of us is fairly negligible.

Just out of interest how far down the royal family do the perks like Royal Protection Offers and money from the public purse go? I assumed that it was only the top (ish) tier that actually get anything. Furthermore, you still have to provide any president a suitably grand official residence and presidential protection officers, both before they enter the role and after they leave it, similar to the US Secrete Service. The cost saving would probably be fairly negligible Vs the current system.

 

[Johno please?]

Its outdated and pompous, those royalists who attend the events make me cringe, and eugh we might actually have the chinless charley who wants to be head of all faiths as next king if he hasn't converted to Islam first.

 

[RoboCod]

Its outdated and pompous, those royalists who attend the events make me cringe, and eugh we might actually have the chinless charley who wants to be head of all faiths as next king if he hasn't converted to Islam first.

I don't follow this outdated logic, it's hardly like the monarchy functions anything like it used to... "off with his head!"... What is more updated, in your mind? As for the fanatics waving flags at their ceremonies, I assume you don't attend these events, so if you were to just turn the TV channel over I don't see how this could at all affect you. This is the great thing about our modern progressive society, you have choice. I would think that is what you'd have championed?

 

[No1newts]

AFAIK the Queen only outright owns two properties, Balmoral and Sandringham. This is why she's not paying for Buck Palace renovations herself, she's in effect a tenant. Also when people say she's rich most of it is tied up in property or goods. I can't imagine she has more 'liquid money' than some of the well known rich people with millions if not billions in the bank.

Well you educating has pushed me more into the pro royal camp, thanks

 

[Johno please?]

I don't follow this outdated logic, it's hardly like the monarchy functions anything like it used to... "off with his head!"... What is more updated, in your mind? As for the fanatics waving flags at their ceremonies, I assume you don't attend these events, so if you were to just turn the TV channel over I don't see how this could at all affect you. This is the great thing about our modern progressive society, you have choice. I would think that is what you'd have championed?

Not having a queen who is head of state and of the church would be more updated. oh and obviously I have the choice to have an opinion as well.

Are you over the age of 50? That would make sense.

 

[Scania]

This is too heavy for Christmas Eve lads.......I’m oot!

Three days later, I still agree with you!

 

[dirtybeatfreak]

As much as I can afford. I'm not sitting here with a gold gilded piano though and the loyalty of millions for nought more than being a powerless icon of yesteryear.

FWIW I donate 5% of my earnings to charity, split between foreign and domestic.

Well then she already donates a lot more than 5% of her earnings and wealth. Most of that is more than she is expected to give. So really, you should just stfu, she contributes tenfold what you do in comparison. Do you expect all the greedy republicans to give as much too, coz I'll wager most of them don't give pittance compared?

That came across more sounding more angry than I intended lol, but it just annoys me that the Royals get singled out when they do so much more to help than any of the other rich and powerful figureheads in this country. It's just fashionable to hate them for no apparent reason.

 

[MissChief]

Well then she already donates a lot more than 5% of her earnings and wealth. Most of that is more than she is expected to give. So really, you should just stfu, she contributes tenfold what you do in comparison. Do you expect all the greedy republicans to give as much too, coz I'll wager most of them don't give pittance compared?

That came across more sounding more angry than I intended lol, but it just annoys me that the Royals get singled out when they do so much more to help than any of the other rich and powerful figureheads in this country. It's just fashionable to hate them for no apparent reason.

Exactly. Many very well off celebrities will happily appear on telly, on the radio and online asking us to donate 'Just £2 per month could provide drinking water' or whatever charity they're signed up with. I'd be far more impressed if they came only he telly and said 'I donated £20k so a whole town can have clean water. Now with your help we can provide clean water for the whole country' or something. When Adele was asked to perform on the latest charity single she declined as she was on a career break to raise her kid. She made a private donation to OXFAM instead. I doubt anyone that sang on the charity single made a donation themselves.

The charity work that the Royal Family does, even if they don't outright donate themselves, is staggering. https://www.royal.uk/charities-and-patronages-1 shows they are patrons of a great number of charities and organisations. Although it's now 6 years old, this article shows the queen has helped raise more than £1.4Bn and this number is likely higher since then too.

 

[RoboCod]

Not having a queen who is head of state and of the church would be more updated. oh and obviously I have the choice to have an opinion as well.

Are you over the age of 50? That would make sense.

What's your proposed alternative? You need a head of state.

Wait, so only people over 50 are Royalist? I hate to break it to you, there are many young pro royals and the monarchy isn't going anywhere, not in our lifetime that's for sure

 

[wordy]

Republican.