Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

DanielMMS · 11 Jan 2012 at 10:56

elmarko1234 said:
I'm not missing any point, if anybody would like to explain how the concept of succession by birthright & the idea of having an unelected head of state fits in with our modern understanding of democracy/equality I'd love to hear it.

Perhaps, first off, you could expand on your understanding of democracy and how it actually applies to this country. That should be good for a laugh

Participant · 11 Jan 2012 at 10:58

elmarko1234, you're a) getting mixed up between nostalgia and recognising when something is in the national interest and b) vastly overstating the power that the the monarchy actually has in modern day democratic Britain. When for example was the last time that the royal assent was not granted to a proposed law?

elmarko · 11 Jan 2012 at 10:59

DanielMMS said:
Yes, how true . Something that has existed for the last 305 years (if you include just the British Monarchs) or 1,210 years if you start from Egbert is going to die out in the next century when we all "grow up". There are definitely some who need to "grow up".

100 years ago virtually nobody was educated to a reasonable standard, 100 years ago women & black people could not vote.

Allot changes in 100 years - the sword was still used in combat for 1000 years - didn't take long for it to become obsolete.

Cultures mature over time, people within those cultures mature at different rates - some hold onto antiquated institutions & others wish to drive change for the better.

But hey, I'm not asking for her to not be your queen - I'm asking not to have her forced onto me as mine.

Removing her as head of state/making donations voluntary would be the logical solution - it would allow the fanatical followers to donate money, watch her lecherous offspring breed & marry etc.

Just don't force it on the rest of us who have grown up.

elmarko · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:01

Robbie G said:
elmarko1234, you're a) getting mixed up between nostalgia and recognising when something is in the national interest and b) vastly overstating the power that the the monarchy actually has in modern day democratic Britain. When for example was the last time that the royal assent was not granted to a proposed law?

You are aware that discussion of the benefits/flaws of the monarchy is BANNED in parliament? - that somebody recently was cautioned for even criticising them.

How exactly does that fit in with democracy?, our ELECTED representatives are not allowed to criticize our UNELECTED head of state?,

quickshot89 · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:03

elmarko1234 said:
100 years ago virtually nobody was educated to a reasonable standard, 100 years ago women & black people could not vote.

Allot changes in 100 years - the sword was still used in combat for 1000 years - didn't take long for it to become obsolete.

Difference is there has been two world wars in the last 100 years, thats changed a lot of things and helped spark things forward

DanielMMS · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:07

elmarko1234 said:
Just don't force it on the rest of us who have grown up.

Bless. And how much does it actually cost you personally to have the monarchy?

Burnsy2023 · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:08

elmarko1234 said:
Just don't force it on the rest of us who have grown up.

You do realise you're mistaking a difference of opinion for maturity right?

Freefaller · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:09

Burnsy2023 said:
Could a mod add a simple poll asking if we're pro or anti monarchy?

Will do.

platypus said:
Pfff, bugger off Frenchie. We don't want your kind of monarchy treatment over here .

Robbie G said:
'France and Russia'

Yeah let's be more like those guys!!

Hell yeah! :cool:

Participant · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:10

elmarko1234 said:
You are aware that discussion of the benefits/flaws of the monarchy is BANNED in parliament? - that somebody recently was cautioned for even criticising them.

How exactly does that fit in with democracy?, our ELECTED representatives are not allowed to criticize our UNELECTED head of state?,

That is indeed silly, however you have to consider how it actually matters in practical terms.

elmarko · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:11

Burnsy2023 said:
You do realise you're mistaking a difference of opinion for maturity right?

Not all opinions are equal.

Do you think it's OK that our elected representatives are not allowed to criticize our unelected head of state, or even discuss possible changes in parliament?.

elmarko · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:14

Robbie G said:
That is indeed silly, however you have to consider how it actually matters in practical terms.

Well, in political terms it means that the royal family are protected by undemocratic legislation - that some people are "above the law" (name one entity that can't be discussed in parliament?) & that any potential change is being slowed due to this law.

While I do agree the impact is minimal, the problem is the principle.

Hatter The Mad · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:17

1) They probably solicit more revenues than they consume
2) Having a non-political head of state with a smaller political footprint is invaluable
3) Having our head of state as the head of the common wealth (and beyond) brings us economic and cultural benefits

platypus · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:18

elmarko1234 said:
Allot changes in 100 years - the sword was still used in combat for 1000 years - didn't take long for it to become obsolete.

Are you suggesting 1000 years is a short time for our civilisation? Or are you suggesting a quick turn around with the gun, and that it will be obsolete in a short period of time?

elmarko1234 said:
Well, in political terms it means that the royal family are protected by undemocratic legislation - that some people are "above the law" (name one entity that can't be discussed in parliament?) & that any potential change is being slowed due to this law.

How are they protected by undemocratic legislation? The majority of this country enjoy having a monarchy, and therefore have not started democratic proceeds to have them removed. That is democracy for you. If you don't like it, write to your MP.

Threepwood · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:23

Has a royal person touched your special place recently or something elmarko? You seem a little hurt.

pingwing · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:25

There was a good little but in charlie brokers 2011 wipe that sums up the silliness of the royal family (can't link it though as it has a fair bit of swearing in though). BBC iplayer and youtube have it covered though

Participant · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:28

Silliness != bad.

Burnsy2023 · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:30

elmarko1234 said:
Not all opinions are equal.

Do you think it's OK that our elected representatives are not allowed to criticize our unelected head of state, or even discuss possible changes in parliament?.

I don't think it's a problem, so why fix it?

spudbynight · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:30

England doesn't have a royal family.

Hank_Marvin · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:30

DanielMMS said:
As regards the charity angle, the affect of royal involvement is extraordinary. By way of example, I live on an island that has a Governor who represents the Queen. Like the Queen, his role is largely ceremonial - he has no real power, per se. But, if he is to attend a charitable event, you can guarantee that the great and good will attend in their droves and splash the cash to a far greater extent than would be the case otherwise. And he is just a representative.

Where do you live?

Participant · 11 Jan 2012 at 11:34

spudbynight said:
England doesn't have a royal family.

Yes it does? And so does the UK, if that's what you're getting at.

Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

Are you pro or anti royal?

Pro

Anti

Indifferent