1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by theforce, 11 Jan 2012.

?

Are you pro or anti royal?

  1. Pro

    52.8%
  2. Anti

    16.9%
  3. Indifferent

    30.3%
  1. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,632

    Lol.

    What subjects.
    What money they pay far more than they take. They also do an enormous amount of work as diplomats. They are also fairly unique in that they stay the same between governments which is extremely useful.

    As for land, why would you take it back. You going to take back ex PMs properties and wages?
     
  2. PondPikey

    Gangster

    Joined: 8 Jul 2011

    Posts: 280

    Location: England, My England.

    This. And to anyone that doesnt like it. Go live somewhere else.

    Problem with this country is its full of people that think everyone should be equal, fact is without the royal family we would be far less interesting.
     
  3. Yaayuh!

    Capodecina

    Joined: 5 Nov 2010

    Posts: 21,757

    It seems as though many other nations love the UK Monarchy and tbh they make for awesome ambassadors.
     
  4. elmarko

    Capodecina

    Joined: 22 Sep 2011

    Posts: 10,575

    Location: Portsmouth (Southsea)

    Because it was never hers to begin with.

    You mean like the racist price Philip, or the hanging out with paedophiles trade envoy?

    The fact she holds no political power is a liability - it means our prime ministers have too much power (as we have no president).

    If you can't understand how the concept of "succession by birthright" is contradictory to modern established rules of equality & fairness then perhaps you need to re-examine the subject a little closer.

    As I said, she could still continue - just off donations from monarchists.
     
  5. elmarko

    Capodecina

    Joined: 22 Sep 2011

    Posts: 10,575

    Location: Portsmouth (Southsea)

    :D - Username says it all.
     
  6. SoapSurgeon

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 14 Apr 2003

    Posts: 1,101

    What do people think about maybe sacking off the royal family and installing David Beckham as head of state?

    Could work.
     
  7. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,632

    Never hers, yes it is.
    They are well respected and do several hundred meetings a year.

    It's a far better system than a president, how has government got to much power compared to a presidential system.
    As for birth right well that's just made up rubbish. Society is based on birth rights and always will be. I have no issues with it. People are born to rich people or people with contractors, owners of large corporations. The only important thing is social mobility.
     
    Last edited: 11 Jan 2012
  8. Tom0

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 29 Aug 2003

    Posts: 9,623

    Location: South Wales

    Wow. Check out Mr. Pretentious. :o
     
  9. Naffa

    Capodecina

    Joined: 4 Sep 2005

    Posts: 11,455

    Location: Bristol

    The reason we still have a Royal family can pretty much be summed up by the fact people are such wimps. The tourism argument, the fact we have people like Prince Andrew going around the world as an envoy for British business, yes, these are all well and good, but I would strongly argue that these are not the reasons our monarchy remains.

    There is one problem, and that is what our state would look like as a republic. Who would be our head of state? How would our system of government change? I spend a great deal of time thinking about these questions (political scientist alert :o), and the most frustrating thing is that the only real arguments that come in favour of maintaining the monarchy come from a failure to theorise a country after one.

    Personally, I hate the fact we remain a monarchy, I hate the fact our head of state is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England and that every piece of legislation passed through our partially elected parliament needs 'royal ascent'. These are play-roles, as our monarch has no real power as head of state. They only serve to remind us of a time passed, of a system of rule long gone and a system of rule I would much rather prefer to see confined entirely to the past. It's our disgusting conservative streak which makes us so afraid of even a whiff of substantive change.

    And as a caveat, my dislike for the monarchy will soon turn to hatred if Prince Charles ever gets to the throne.
     
  10. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,632

    Or people actually think they are hood and better than the alternatives.
     
  11. Threepwood

    Soldato

    Joined: 29 Sep 2011

    Posts: 5,216

    Location: Monkey Island

    How many soldiers, firemen, doctors or cleaners are still doing their job at 86?

    Never mind the fact that none of them have been the head of state for the past 60 years or so...
     
  12. Diesel

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Jan 2006

    Posts: 2,244

    Location: Newport

    People who want to get rid of the monarchy seem to think it will save the country a lot of money. It is my understanding that the Queen is one of the more cost effective heads of state.
     
  13. Naffa

    Capodecina

    Joined: 4 Sep 2005

    Posts: 11,455

    Location: Bristol

    I would wager that nobody (or almost nobody) that actually advocates for a monarchy has spent even a minute seriously contemplating its alternatives.
     
  14. DanielMMS

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 17 Feb 2011

    Posts: 1,114

    Are you trying to suggest the Queen is a man in drag :eek: If so, off with your head :D
     
  15. alx

    Soldato

    Joined: 10 Aug 2003

    Posts: 6,037

    Location: Dubai, UAE


    Or maybe people just like the Monarchy? I for one do, and it's not because I'm afraid to speak out about it.

    I like having a monarchy because it's interesting and different. Even if the monarchy does cost more than it makes it doesn't really bother me, small drop in the ocean compared to something like HS2.
     
  16. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,632

    You ould be wrong, just look at the responses in this thread.
     
  17. Tom0

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 29 Aug 2003

    Posts: 9,623

    Location: South Wales

    Are you trolling? How can you even make that comparison?

    A massive overhaul of a public service compared to a monarchy? Tenuous at best.

    Lets be honest, you were looking for a reaction there..
     
  18. Burnsy2023

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Nov 2003

    Posts: 36,710

    Location: Southampton, UK

    Personally, I think the Queen does a rather hard and sometimes thankless job but seems to do it extremely well. I mean she can't be doing a bad job for other commonwealth countries to want her as their head of state too.

    As the video linked above states, she doesn't cost the country anything, indeed she is a huge revenue generator through tourism and the Crown Estate. I think that people visit Britain not just to visit Royal residences, but just for the fact that we have the most famous monarchy in the world. I quite like our country being different, so what if we're technically 'subjects' it's not like it really makes much difference to any of the public, we still have some of the broadest freedoms in the world.
     
  19. Burnsy2023

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Nov 2003

    Posts: 36,710

    Location: Southampton, UK

    It doesn't. It's by far a net contributor to the treasury.
     
  20. alx

    Soldato

    Joined: 10 Aug 2003

    Posts: 6,037

    Location: Dubai, UAE

    Exactly. Maybe people actually want a monarchy because it's different, unique and they're actually proud of having one......