Monarchy in the UK

[Laurens]

I feel rather ashamed to live in a country that has an unelected head of state. To me it is completely antithetical to the idea of democracy that we supposedly espouse.

I've never heard any good arguments as to why we should still have a royal family, I've heard that 'it's good for tourism' and 'it distinguishes us from the US', or various other appeals to history and tradition - to which I say who gives a shit? An unelected head of state is completely against the ideals of democracy and I see no reason to hold onto a monarchy in the 21st century.

So the first thing I'd like to know is whether anyone knows of any good reasons for having a monarchy in the UK?

The second thing I'm curious about is whether there would actually be a legal means of getting rid of the royal family? As in relinquishing their status as head of state (rather than assassinating them).

 

[Prolescum]

There aren't, in my view, any good reasons for keeping that horrid gaggle of useless wankers around.
I'm Scottish by birth and temperament, so perhaps my perspective is coloured somewhat...

The main point is that there just aren't enough republicans here, and the English have a fetish for nonsensical tradition (see Morris dancing).

 

[Gramarye]

</>

 

[australopithecus]

I like the Royal family. Firstly, it's not as if they actually do or have an impact on anything anyway, secondly; in 2010 it cost 62p per person to finance the Royal family. 62p a year. XBOX Live costs 11p a day to put that in perspective. The total cost was ,£38.2 million. In contrast, the Monarchy in 1999 generated around ,£113.2M profit, and I've seen later estimates between ,£200M and ,£500M (admittedly not from any reputable sources).

They give back more than they take, and are benign entities that appear on our money. We have democratically elected governments who actually effect our lives, I see no reason to piss on the Monarchy. If people are going to be born privileged and wealthy, I'd rather they be the ones who can't fuck me over. Personally I'd rather see the Tory-led government abolished myself.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think it is fine to have a symbolic monarchy... once you strip them of 100% of their wealth and put them on display like monkeys in a zoo, for the further profit of the state.

 

[australopithecus]

Just a thought:

This waste of oxygen had amassed a personal fortune of ,£30M in 2009. When the British public stops funding her and morons like her, then we can have a discussion about how much we fund the Monarchy.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Just a thought:

This waste of oxygen had amassed a personal fortune of ,£30M in 2009. When the British public stops funding her and morons like her, then we can have a discussion about how much we fund the Monarchy.

I don't know who that it, but I'm sure you super-enlightened unarmed Europeans can walk AND chew gum at the same time, right? :lol:

 

[australopithecus]

:|

 

[ImprobableJoe]

:|

:lol: :mrgreen: :evil: :ugeek: :roll: :facepalm:

 

[Prolescum]

What has Morris to do with the Royal Family?

It's all there in my post.

I like the Royal family. Firstly, it's not as if they actually do or have an impact on anything anyway

Wrong, my friend.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/31/prince-charles-veto-planning-legislation

secondly; in 2010 it cost 62p per person to finance the Royal family. 62p a year. XBOX Live costs 11p a day to put that in perspective.

I have no problem paying taxes to keep the unemployed in homes and able to eat, I take umbrage that a group of people more than able to sustain their standard of living on their own receive not only a wage, but money from the public purse for the upkeep of their barely used properties, plus tax exemptions and other sundry financial benefits and incentives to boot.

The total cost was ,£38.2 million. In contrast, the Monarchy in 1999 generated around ,£113.2M profit, and I've seen later estimates between ,£200M and ,£500M (admittedly not from any reputable sources).

I'm not sure how this is figured out, but I'm betting it's a toss-up between tourism and business persuasion parties as to where this "profit" comes from. Either way, the input from the royals themselves is negligible.

They give back more than they take

I'm not sure that's true either, tbh.

and are benign entities that appear on our money.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4312780.stm

Not so benign in my view.

We have democratically elected governments who actually effect our lives, I see no reason to piss on the Monarchy. If people are going to be born privileged and wealthy, I'd rather they be the ones who can't fuck me over. Personally I'd rather see the Tory-led government abolished myself.

Well, quite. :lol:

I'm against the concept of monarchy completely, not just the British lot.

 

[Gramarye]

</>

 

[Prolescum]

Oh lordy...

The main point is that there just aren't enough republicans here, and the English have a fetish for nonsensical tradition (see Morris dancing).

Morris dancing is an example of a nonsensical tradition, for which the English have a particular fetish. Morris dancing has nothing to do with the royal family, save that the position of monarch, in my view, is also nonsensical (perhaps absurd is a better word). It was a very straightforward, if off the cuff, sentence.

You have played your only "Prole explains a gag" card.

 

[Gramarye]

</>

 

[Prolescum]

Morris dancing is an example of a nonsensical tradition, for which the English have a particular fetish

Can you substantiate this statement with other examples

Yes. As noted, the monarchy.

and conversely can you establish that other nations have no 'nonsensical traditions' of their own?

I did not state that it was a trait exclusive to the English, there is no requirement upon me that I establish whether other nations have their own nonsensical traditions or not. It should be noted that I live in England.

Or are you simply sharing your personal opinion regarding the English?

Actually, I'm having to explain a simple joke to you. You can scroll up if you're forgetful.

 

[SirYeen]

I hope you don't mind if I post this video here. I see it hasn't been posted yet and I think it is quite relevant.

 

[nudger1964]

i instinctively have some sympathy with a republican position but to be honest i think getting rid of the royal family alone would be more trouble than any gain was worth.
Im all for improving our system of govt but id rather start off with things that really matter...like transparent govt, freedom of information and a written constitution.
To be honest, without a written constitution, id rather keep the house of lords than rely on a democracically elected second house.

 

[Prolescum]

i instinctively have some sympathy with a republican position but to be honest i think getting rid of the royal family alone would be more trouble than any gain was worth.

Well I don't support the guillotine... :lol:

An orderly transition isn't that difficult, really. Just lengthy.

Im all for improving our system of govt but id rather start off with things that really matter...like transparent govt, freedom of information and a written constitution.

I agree, it should be done but it isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Coryla]

I agree getting rid of the monarchy in uk is perhaps relatively low down on the list of priorities right now what with the global economic crisis and the governments attacks on health, jobs, education etc. etc. however, putting this aside the monarchy still needs to be got rid of.

The video posted which shows the deal between the monarchy and the state, the monarchy gets a 'salary' from the state and in return the state gets all the rental profits from the monarchy's lands. So, taking tourism aside, the argument made in the video that the monarchy is in fact profitable is in my view false as the monarchy shouldn't own the land in the first "As hereditary sovereign, the Queen owns the crown estate - almost 120,000 hectares of agricultural land, plus the seabed around the UK" [quote from the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/16/qanda.jubilee] as well as the occupied royal palaces.

As for tourism I am less sure of the figures and/or how accurately it can actually be figured out how much revenue from tourism is down to the monarchy etc. But the point here is that we are not wanting to do away with the monarchy because it is something we can survive without that will save us a few pennies but because we are in opposition to the fundamental relation within society that a monarchy holds.

 

[SirYeen]

Don't things get really messy when you disown the royal family in a country which at least pretends to be all about tradition ?

 

[malicious_bloke]

Fretting over the power held by the monarchy hasn't really had much of a point since about 1660.

I agree the crown is a pointless anachronism but as previously stated we have far more pressing concerns about the institutions in this country. As a whole they probably cost us far less than our expense-fiddling, tax dodging political class.