(OT) The Monarchy!

[Alfie]

I love that last sentence, but then what if the monarch is also barking mad? The public never even had the chance to vote them in at all.

We'd have to be really unlucky for them both to go bonkers at the same time.

You're correct to specify the things that the royal family does. The argument on that point really is whether or not this is the job for a publically funded hereditary line of people in whom the public have absolutely no choice over.

Fundamentally since you said you're all for the royals, do you have any problem at all that in a democratic society there are people born into such a position of power, prestige, wealth and imposed respect? (I'm aware that capitalism naturally produces wealthy lineage elsewhere but I'm referring to a publically funded family with certain jurisdictions over the whole nation).

I have no problem with monarchy being "publically funded" (they pay taxes now, so they are paying partly for themselves), the monarchy is what sets us apart from the scruffy little urchins such as France, Germany, Italy etc and the upstarts like US of A. They bond us by tradition, trade etc to the Commonwealth states

 

[skalpel]

We'd have to be really unlucky for them both to go bonkers at the same time.

Well you'd obviously have to be really unlucky to have your prime minister decide to nuke Russia, join the euro and allow inbreeding or whatever it was you said haha. I was just adding to the situation!

I have no problem with monarchy being "publically funded" (they pay taxes now, so they are paying partly for themselves), the monarchy is what sets us apart from the scruffy little urchins such as France, Germany, Italy etc and the upstarts like US of A. They bond us by tradition, trade etc to the Commonwealth states

The queen & prince Charles pay voluntarily income tax right? So technically they still don't have to and can chop and change how much they pay when they please (which has been done I think). They're also exempt from other taxes that your average person gets stung by, and they don't voluntarily pay them either.
Why do you think it is best for a hereditary monarch to have the power and do the tasks that they currently do instead of a publically elected person or persons? Set aside your opinions on the personalities of the current royal family and consider the theory behind it: either the country chooses people democratically to play a role in how the country is run or they have no choice in the matter and children of a particular family automatically get the job instead.

 

[Alfie]

The royal family have no role in how the country is run, that's down to the elected government. (no matter how bad a job they are doing). The Royals act as a figure head nothing more, a tradition that sets apart as I said from other countries. Part of what makes us British, I for one am willing to pay my 13pence a month or whatever it is for that. I'm all in favour of a democracy and publically elected government, but have no wish to see a President Cameron (who wasn't elected into power). As I say it's what sets apart from the hoy poloy. They act as envoys both diplomatically & trade, it's part of their role while Cameron's is to govern and run the country.

 

[skalpel]

The royal family have no role in how the country is run, that's down to the elected government. (no matter how bad a job they are doing). The Royals act as a figure head nothing more, a tradition that sets apart as I said from other countries. Part of what makes us British, I for one am willing to pay my 13pence a month or whatever it is for that. I'm all in favour of a democracy and publically elected government, but have no wish to see a President Cameron (who wasn't elected into power). As I say it's what sets apart from the hoy poloy. They act as envoys both diplomatically & trade, it's part of their role while Cameron's is to govern and run the country.

The monarch does have the ability to play a role in how the country is run. The current monarch has rarely exercised the right to do some of the things she can but she still can nevertheless; events that seem mere formalities now could just as easily have been lawfully thrown upside down and all over the place if the monarch felt like it. The UK does have a dignified monarch when it comes to respecting the laws and traditions of the land and that is certainly a good thing because a total lunatic could have some laughs indeed.

I have no wish to see a President Cameron or a President anybody who wasn't elected into power either, but I don't share your extremely disdainful view of republics nor do I feel the need to have a figure head to somehow 'set us apart' from the barbarians outside.

 

[Speedo]

.

Read your PMs, man!

 

[skalpel]

Read your PMs, man!

I have none.. ?

 

[Speedo]

I have none.. ?

My bad, thought it sent last night but it didn't, will send it again.

 

[Alfie]

I understand you have different views and am in no way trying get you to change them, all I'm saying is I'm for the monarchy which was the original question. Most power was taken away from the monarchy after the Civil war and I have no doubt that an elected parliament is a fairer and more just way to run the country.
There isn't a great deal of difference really between a Prime Minister & a President as far as I see, both elected, to serve the country and do the best for the country.
With regards the figurehead I guess it's just a view instilled to me by my grandparents who all lived through the war and always used to tell me about the family gathering round the radio to listen to the King's wartime speeches, how the Royal family would go and visit troops or familys that had been bombed out, how they got behind the campaigns to gather metal etc for the war effort. They were the figurehead of resistance (throughout Europe to an extent) against the Nazis along with Churchill.

 

[skalpel]

I understand you have different views and am in no way trying get you to change them, all I'm saying is I'm for the monarchy which was the original question. Most power was taken away from the monarchy after the Civil war and I have no doubt that an elected parliament is a fairer and more just way to run the country.
There isn't a great deal of difference really between a Prime Minister & a President as far as I see, both elected, to serve the country and do the best for the country.
With regards the figurehead I guess it's just a view instilled to me by my grandparents who all lived through the war and always used to tell me about the family gathering round the radio to listen to the King's wartime speeches, how the Royal family would go and visit troops or familys that had been bombed out, how they got behind the campaigns to gather metal etc for the war effort. They were the figurehead of resistance (throughout Europe to an extent) against the Nazis along with Churchill.

Oh not at all, don't worry I wasn't getting upset or anything, I was doing most of the probing (steady on there!) because I like discussing topics with people who have the opposite opinion to me to see what I can learn/get from it.
You're right though; during times of intense war like the First & Second World Wars, something about monarchy and patriotism stirs up a lot of hope and community spirit in people at a necessary time.

 

[Alfie]

Most modern male Royals have served in the armed forces at one time or another as well. Prince Phillip (for all his faults) was a serving officer in the Royal Navy during WW2, Harry served in Afghanistan until the press got hold of the story and he was recalled (not his choice apparently), William serves at present as an air/sea rescue pilot & maddest one of the lot is Prince Andrew who served during the Falklands as a helicopter pilot, not only rescuing people from HMS Sheffield & Sir Galahad but acting as moving targets to lure Exocet missiles away from the ships in the taskforce. Something for people to think about who say the Monarchy do nothing for the country. (not aimed at Skalpel)

 

[Donkey Toon]

I understand you have different views and am in no way trying get you to change them, all I'm saying is I'm for the monarchy which was the original question. Most power was taken away from the monarchy after the Civil war and I have no doubt that an elected parliament is a fairer and more just way to run the country.
There isn't a great deal of difference really between a Prime Minister & a President as far as I see, both elected, to serve the country and do the best for the country.
With regards the figurehead I guess it's just a view instilled to me by my grandparents who all lived through the war and always used to tell me about the family gathering round the radio to listen to the King's wartime speeches, how the Royal family would go and visit troops or familys that had been bombed out, how they got behind the campaigns to gather metal etc for the war effort. They were the figurehead of resistance (throughout Europe to an extent) against the Nazis along with Churchill.

I understand what you are saying about the Royals and my own grandparents would be giving me grief for my opinions on the monarchy for the same reasons. As individuals I don't have a problem with them, infact I pity them for having to do the worst job imagineable. IMO many of them would probably welcome the removal of the responsibility. Lets face it, if they were removed from the position of power, they would still as a family be the richest landowners in the UK and those who like the royals would still treat them as special and give them adoration, but they would no longer be treated like media stooges to be shot at at will.

My problem with them echoes skalpels; they aren't elected, they have the power to circumvent democracy (whether they choose to or not is irrelevant, they should not have the power) and the power could be missused in the wrong hands and yet still be carried out legaly.

You mentioned the role of the Royals during WWII. But how much different could it have been had the Nazi sympathising Edward VIII still been in power. The fact that the last two monarchs have done a good job does not mean that we should wait until a future monarch has a nightmare before we consider whether the system just isn't right anymore.

 

[Alfie]

I understand what you are saying about the Royals and my own grandparents would be giving me grief for my opinions on the monarchy for the same reasons. As individuals I don't have a problem with them, infact I pity them for having to do the worst job imagineable. IMO many of them would probably welcome the removal of the responsibility. Lets face it, if they were removed from the position of power, they would still as a family be the richest landowners in the UK and those who like the royals would still treat them as special and give them adoration, but they would no longer be treated like media stooges to be shot at at will.

My problem with them echoes skalpels; they aren't elected, they have the power to circumvent democracy (whether they choose to or not is irrelevant, they should not have the power) and the power could be missused in the wrong hands and yet still be carried out legaly.

You mentioned the role of the Royals during WWII. But how much different could it have been had the Nazi sympathising Edward VIII still been in power. The fact that the last two monarchs have done a good job does not mean that we should wait until a future monarch has a nightmare before we consider whether the system just isn't right anymore.

The same could have been said of any elected Prime Minister. Oswald Mosely and his black shirts had quite a large following leading up to WW2. Family tradition & upbringning is very important to the Royals I think(no firm proof, just appears so) that would go a long way to stop the supposedly tyrannical monarch you seem to envisage.

 

[Donkey Toon]

The same could have been said of any elected Prime Minister. Oswald Mosely and his black shirts had quite a large following leading up to WW2. Family tradition & upbringning is very important to the Royals I think(no firm proof, just appears so) that would go a long way to stop the supposedly tyrannical monarch you seem to envisage.

The difference is that a Prime Minister is elected from a selection of choices. They are vetted by the party, the media and the voters and as such there are numerous chances to choose somebody else. The Prime Minister also has fewer powers and cannot make such sweeping decisions alone.

The Monarch is born into it and we are left to fate as to whether the next in line is fit to rule. The working process of the line of succession for our Head of State has more in common with North Korea's than with most other democratic developed nations.

 

[StoneyNUFC]

Bit of a generalisation there but anyway, do you mean patriotic? There's plenty of patriotic people in every country of the world; I'm not seeing how abolishing the monarchy would cause people to act more patriotic.

Probably the opposite in fact.

However, less than 2% own a passport. They stole rugby and called it football because they didn't want to admit they're too soft to play without a full set of armour. Many have tried to correct me on my "American" which is amusing in fairness. They start war on an impoverished desert country half way across the world and blow up our troops when we back them up, despite that fact that most of them couldn't even point to it on the map. They think their the best country in the world and are miles ahead of anyone else glorifying their attitude, which in general is poor. Simlpy believing you have a more advanced culture or being newer doe not make this so. Over half the population consider anything green to be rabbit food. They take the mick out of us for all being toffs because they are completely lead by the media. This view has also lead them to think we are soft - HA! Maybe they should learn more about toffs for a start or display that attitude in England to those who are not - The vast majority refuse to acknowledge that pumping carbon nto the air is damaging the planet. They allow a presidency to reside over their country despite it being well publicised that there was no mandate and the election was rigged. (Bush Jr) - A competition with only one country competing cannot and should not be classed as a "WORLD" league, to do so only emphasises the problem with their attitude.

In fairness though, most that go travelling and what-not tend to be more open-minded. As a nation they're like a ******ed 8 year old with a crack habbit and a rocket launcher.

They are however, our strongest allies (in terms of military force) and I respect them as such. In light of that I'm okay with them. Would I want to live there? HELL NO!
Plus they gave us crack and disco - And the ones who are bright are utterly ashamed of all the point I made being displayed by their fellow citizens. That particular brand of Americans tend to be fairly righteous, curteous and have my full support.

Also, and more importantly than any of the rant above... IT'S CALLED FOOTBALL!

 

[Alfie]

Wasn't that long ago a Prime Minister led us into an unjust war by claiming he had information that he didn't and the electorate went along with, Mrs Thatcher changed the way we paid taxes against the wishes of the majority of the population & the guy who is Prime Minister at the moment didn't win the election so I'd say the system is flawed. As I say I'm in favour of a democratically elected government but I also suport the Royals. I think you overplay the power the Royal family have these days. As I said to Skalpel they're more figureheads than heads of state. Korean rulers rule, make laws, catch syphilis, have power of life and death over people, our Royals have no such real power these days.

 

[Tel (they/them)]

Keep em.

I love the Queen. She keeps an element of patriotism amongst the public and helps make Britain great. If the monarchy was dissolved, Buckingham palace would be sold privately to some rich Arab and this country would have no soul left. Furthermore, they should run this country, back to the old days not putting everybody else before your own, they'd do a better job than that veinypile-faced w@nker that's running us into the ground day by day.

 

[StoneyNUFC]

The royal family have no role in how the country is run, that's down to the elected government. (no matter how bad a job they are doing). The Royals act as a figure head nothing more, a tradition that sets apart as I said from other countries. Part of what makes us British, I for one am willing to pay my 13pence a month or whatever it is for that. I'm all in favour of a democracy and publically elected government, but have no wish to see a President Cameron (who wasn't elected into power). As I say it's what sets apart from the hoy poloy. They act as envoys both diplomatically & trade, it's part of their role while Cameron's is to govern and run the country.

And they do a FANTASTIC JOB with diplomacy. Far more effective than any other envoy could possibly be! It's the queens country, to get a visit personally puts you on a great footing from the start.

 

[Donkey Toon]

Wasn't that long ago a Prime Minister led us into an unjust war by claiming he had information that he didn't and the electorate went along with, Mrs Thatcher changed the way we paid taxes against the wishes of the majority of the population & the guy who is Prime Minister at the moment didn't win the election so I'd say the system is flawed. As I say I'm in favour of a democratically elected government but I also suport the Royals. I think you overplay the power the Royal family have these days. As I said to Skalpel they're more figureheads than heads of state. Korean rulers rule, make laws, catch syphilis, have power of life and death over people, our Royals have no such real power these days.

The democratic party system is flawed yes. As somebody said (Churchill I think) "Democracy is the worst political system available ... with the exception of all the other systems that have been tried". Not a brilliant quote but it makes the point ... democracy is the best of a bad bunch.

But none of those downfalls have anything to do with whether it is right to have an unelected Monarch as your head of state. They Queen could if she chose take us into an illegal war, change the taxes and appoint an unelected Prime Minister. The difference is she wouldn't have to lie in parliament about it or make any pretense of convincing an electorate. She can just do it. That is the whole point of my opposition. Damn the heritage and the picture postcard opportunities presented by Buckingham Palace I don't recognise the right of the Sax-Coburg-Gotha family to Lord it over us.

The Principle of the issue for me is more important than the heritage and the fact it doesn't seem to cause a problem doesn't exempt it from change. Just my opinions.

 

[Alfie]

She could also press men into Naval service but she doesn't. Let's face it a lot of the laws of the land are dated. I'm the Lord of the Manor of about a foot and a half square of Dartmoor, got it for my birthday from the family, it means bugger all. (except you plebs should really call me Lord Alfie )
Yes the current Royals are descended from Prince Albert. But they are still our Royals and I'll support them because of that and my various arguments for them over the last page or so.I understand other people's views against the Royal but they are not mine, those who disagree should be taken to the tower imo, bloody traitors

 

[Donkey Toon]

She could also press men into Naval service but she doesn't. Let's face it a lot of the laws of the land are dated. I'm the Lord of the Manor of about a foot and a half square of Dartmoor, got it for my birthday from the family, it means bugger all. (except you plebs should really call me Lord Alfie )
Yes the current Royals are descended from Prince Albert. But they are still our Royals and I'll support them because of that and my various arguments for them over the last page or so.I understand other people's views against the Royal but they are not mine, those who disagree should be taken to the tower imo, bloody traitors

Oh blimey ... if i'd known I was talking to a Lord I would have bowed and given in straight away. Sorry m'lud this damn peasant never did learn his place ...

Like you have said Alfie, the current Queen doesn't abuse her powers the way she could and it isn't really an important issue right now. If it ever came to a vote, i'd vote in favour of change but i'm not bothered enough to get up in arms about it. This is still the best country in the world for me, I just wouldn't mind tweaking it a bit!