Do we really need the royal family? [Archive]

Cornish Steve

15th January 2006, 02:57

The problem is that the minor royals of this generation are the dukes, earls, marquises, etc. of future generations.

It's amazing how much land they own across the country today. For example, as Duke of Cornwall, Prince Charles owns much of the land of Cornwall; it's his primary source of income. Locals don't own the land; they pay rent to the prince for the privilege of working it. By all accounts, he's a fair landlord who cares passionately about farming; however, some lords and ladies who own land in Cornwall live in Spain on the earnings and couldn't care a hoot for the locals. In the town where I grew up, a local lord owns all the shops in the high street. He's pushed up the rents so much that half of them are now boarded up.

I have great respect for British history and for the stability that the monarchy has brought through the centuries. We need go no further than George VI to see a king who rallied the country during time of war. (Unfortunately, though, we need go no further than Edward VIII to find a king who was a traitor to his country.) I do feel, however, that the institution of royalty has served its time and is now an unnecessary burden on the country.

I might add that the Church of England is also a huge land-owner. It should have sold its wealth years ago and used it to serve the poor and under-privileged of this great nation.

Coding Monkey

15th January 2006, 06:54

No. Where's the democracy involved? Although, in practice, their powers are basically non-existent, it's the money that they're entitled to through heritage, not success, that I have a problem with. The same can be said of the Lords. Remove the Monarchy, remove the Lords and move toward a Senate/House of Representatives system where each chamber can override the next in a democratically elected and fair system

confused

15th January 2006, 10:04

Well going back a lot of years, if I was around at that time I'd probably have said they were indeed needed, but what do they actually DO now ? They have a PM etc that aparantly runs the country.

cjd

15th January 2006, 10:38

No.

They have a value as a tourist attraction but that's all.

I like to see all their privileges that we pay for removed and I'd like them on the same tax footing as me and you.

I'd also like to see the back of all the bowing and scraping people have to do in front of them and I do not wish to be 'honoured' by them. Deferrence is dead.

I want the House of Lords replaced by a democratic organisation and I want to be a citizen not a serf.

And I'd like it on my desk, close of business Friday. Thank you.

Jayne

15th January 2006, 10:45

Coding Monkey

15th January 2006, 11:00

Yes,

I big chunk of our tourist trade come here for the Royals and most of them do a really good job for charity too. The Queen still has powers if she chooses to use them and often does if she thinks there is a need too. They employ 100's of people all over the country and they are the symbol of the UK. It would feel strange without the Queen on Christmas day. :D

Jayne

Yet the amount bought in by tourism compared to the amount they actually have, tax free, makes that statement a redundant proposition.

The Queen basically as no power. It would be her last day as Queen if she refused to sign a bill, and I long for that day. All powers are within the Prime Minister, although because of a lack of written constitution, there is nothing in writing to declare this. It could be seen to go back to Queen Victoria when, in 1880, she didn't want Benjamin Disraeli to lose his position as Prime Minister to Gladstone and so as she attempted to overrule it. Needless to say, it failed. Even the power to declare war now resides in the Prime Minister, as you clearly witnessed during Iraq. If you truly believe she has power, perhaps those with an objection to Iraq should take it up with her, as surely she could have stopped it - and it is most obvious that she had an objection to it - if she had any formal powers.

I'd also add that for anyone going with the "it's tradition" statement should know that slavery wasn't abolished in England until 1833, and nearly 30 years later in America. That was a good tradition! Maybe we should have kept that one too.

Admiral Collections

15th January 2006, 11:02

Jayne

15th January 2006, 11:04

And William will make a bloody cute King :lol:

Jayne

Admiral Collections

15th January 2006, 14:43

And William will make a bloody cute King :lol:

Jayne

Won't he just Jayne? he hee. Although I like Harry, he is really cute.

Nic :wink:

easyasit

15th January 2006, 15:02

I just like the idea of having a royal family.

Im like Jayne, Im not really interested in all the issues regarding taxes and the money they get etc. I think they are an important part of our heritage and I love reading about them as well.

Nic :wink:

I will not give the sermon here as i am trying to remain PC. I have no wish to cause offense.
But i am in favour of the queen.
It is onle of the last pieces of our identlty we have left:-)
And one thing that still spearates us from brussels

Al

Jayne

15th January 2006, 15:10

And know-one wants to be sprout Al :lol:

Jayne

Coding Monkey

15th January 2006, 15:11

But why have an identity that we have no control over? How can you actually be "proud to be British"? It's the same as being proud to be male/human and having 5 fingers and toes.

Jayne

15th January 2006, 15:14

The Queen is fab :D

She does work very hard, she's probably a better business woman than any other. Don't you watch all the documentaries about her, I am proud to have a Queen as hard working as her :D

Jayne

creacom

15th January 2006, 15:14

Well, I dont think we need a Royal Family. What do they represent exactly ? Are they a good representaion of British culture and modern day way of life ?

They do bring in money from tourism but I am not sure there is a lot left from this when you deduct their salaries, estate upkeep and whatever else we give to them from our taxes !

Take the Queen mother for example. Her castle in the North of Scotland is worth a fortune and do you know how many Royals have been there since she died - 1 - Prince Charles and it was for 1 night ! So instead it sits there, gets a few thousand visitors in the summer and we pay for everything else.

When the Queen went to Paris in 2004 for to celebrate her alliance it cost over a million of the UKs money. She went for 4 days !

I dont have a problem with aboloshing the Lords either and setting up a Senate/house of representatives system.

There are a lot of things in my opinion that seperate the EU countries from eachother and without the Royal Family that would stay the same.

Blood pressure rising......:wink:

Jacqui

Jayne

15th January 2006, 15:19

lol..Jacqui, take deep breaths :lol:

Well I think she should give that castle to Jacqui and we can than all go stay at her castle for our hols :lol:

Jayne :D

Coding Monkey

15th January 2006, 15:20

One thing that people forget is how poverty still exists in this country, yet there is millions of tax payers money being pumped into the Royal Family each year.

creacom

15th January 2006, 15:24

Exactly send them to live on a nice big estate somewhere and we will give them enough money for food and electricity. The rest they can pay for themselves....including gin !! :lol:

Urban Space

15th January 2006, 16:01

as you clearly witnessed during Iraq.

And now we're having a go at Iran too, apparently they 'don't need nuclear technology.'

The royal family aren't even English! They're all German.

And

One thing that people forget is how poverty still exists in this country

That fireworks display at the New year in London cost £1 million. Now what could the goverment have done with £1 million other than spend it on something that lasts 2 mins.

Sigh!

Liam

easyasit

15th January 2006, 19:35

But why have an identity that we have no control over? How can you actually be "proud to be British"? It's the same as being proud to be male/human and having 5 fingers and toes.

Well macmyday, it is the same as asking therefore y are you proud of the Arsenal football team is it not? I am guessing from the post you made the other day when they won 7-0 that this is the case.
Yet y are you so proud of them? They are the same as any team arn't they?
You have no control over whether the team does well do you?

I compare west ham utd to this country, badly managed, badly run, underdogs now compared to the rest of the world, but has been and has the potential to one day be again the best team in the country.
Even of it doesn't i will remaim a west ham utd fan to my grave, becuae it means something to me
A bit like britain also means something to me.
Do you understand that?

Al

Coding Monkey

15th January 2006, 19:38

I don't support Arsenal, actually, and am certainly not proud of England when they win a football match, but enjoy watching them play. It's not a matter of concluding you're a part of the team by saying "we" when referring to your football team, but a matter of general laziness, so the association is made.

Yet, the discrepancy in your above post is your choice. I could choose to support Arsenal, but I don't. Being British is not a choice. Please read the other thread about British Day, as it's been discussed.

dagr

16th January 2006, 10:07

Easyasit, you've asked two questions, but only given people one possible answer.

Q1: Should we retain the monarchy? (Yes/No)
Q2: Do we need the monarchy? (Yes/No)

I'd guess most people would say NO to Q2, whereas Q1 would be more subjective.

(A pedant strikes again).

creospace

16th January 2006, 10:10

Anyone who says no to the monacy should give up their citizenship.

Shame on you! :)

Jayne

16th January 2006, 10:15

I love the Queen, I could do with lots more of her in my bank balance :lol:

Jayne

mattk

16th January 2006, 10:15

I have two words for all those people who think we don't need a monarchy:

President Blair.

I rest my case.

cjd

16th January 2006, 10:15

Anyone who says no to the monacy should give up their citizenship.

Shame on you! :)

Because we have a monarchy and not a republic we are Subjects of the Queen not Citizens of the UK; how does that feel, serf :evil:

creospace

16th January 2006, 10:22

You can still denounce your citizenship. And to qwell any uprising it was said with my toungue firmly in my cheek, serf :)

Who will join me in reuniting the British Empire, any takers?

Rule Britania!

Jayne

16th January 2006, 10:29

Me, I like the Royal family, don't care what anyone says :D

Jayne

Top Hat

16th January 2006, 10:33

I think we should get rid of the Royal Family.

They should be allowed to keep their heads, but that’s about all. :wink:

creospace

16th January 2006, 10:34

I've grown fonder of them since leaving England. Not sure how I would feel if/when I return.

They do themselves little favors but then they are human too!

CG Effect

16th January 2006, 10:49

We need the queen if we did'nt have her we would have too much money to give towards soilders body armour and also the homeless.

Jayne

16th January 2006, 10:52

Pay footballer less and that should cover the soldiers and homeless :lol:

Jayne

Coding Monkey

16th January 2006, 10:56

But footballers are paid through sponsorships, football ticket prices etc etc, not our taxes. Although their wages are insane, my taxes don't pay for them. And President Blair? At least that way he could be overruled by the Commons and Lords/New Alternative.

Jayne

16th January 2006, 11:07

Yes the footballers are, from companies who we buy stuff from, so it's the same thing...it all comes from our pockets, know matter how you look at it :lol:

Jayne

ebonybailey

16th January 2006, 11:22

Jayne

16th January 2006, 11:25

Thank You Michael, that's just what I said. :D

Jayne

Top Hat

16th January 2006, 11:33

The exports from this country are as much as they are because of the royal stamp, and whether you like it or not peoples first reason for visiting london is not big ben but the royal family, they bring in more cash than you realise.

I disagree, people visit for the history, the places the pomp and ceremony, you can still keep all that, and open Buck house, and enter the 21st century.

Lots of people visit France, and enjoy thier history, Royal palaces and the like.

The exports from this country are as much as they are because of the royal stamp

Then companies with the Royal Stamp should pay for the Royal Family :wink: .

Coding Monkey

16th January 2006, 11:41

Yes the footballers are, from companies who we buy stuff from, so it's the same thing...it all comes from our pockets, know matter how you look at it :lol:

Jayne

Not entirely, as we can choose not to pay to watch them, which means the prices of tickets drop, their wages drop and so on. We can't choose not to pay taxes, as it's a criminal act.

mattk

16th January 2006, 11:44

Not entirely, as we can choose not to pay to watch them, which means the prices of tickets drop, their wages drop and so on. We can't choose not to pay taxes, as it's a criminal act.
But doesn't the Royal Family cost something like 60p per person to the British tax payer?

Let's be honest, that's value for money in anyone's book.

Jayne

16th January 2006, 12:40

http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/images/ROYAL_FAMILY_B2_JUB_08.jpg

Please be standing for Her Royal Highness :D

Any more un-royal comments and it will be off with your head :lol:

Jayne

cjd

16th January 2006, 12:55

I have no problem with keeping them on (on a salary) as a kind of celebrity heritage; a superior Alton Towers.

But, I want them removed as head of our constitution and legal system and to see them treated in the same way by the tax office as I am - notably inheritance tax.

And don't even think of asking me to bow to any of the land-stealing, murdering, German buggers!

Mortime Business Software

16th January 2006, 12:58

Yet again I can see another debate descending into another childish squabble. Are we not all mature, civilised people who are capable of conducting ourselves in a befitting manner.

I think the monarchy should be treated with the respect they deserve. When they are all asleep tonight, I think we should paste fresh dog shite into the earpieces of all their telephones, and wipe big pieces of snot on their door handles.

Dave

Coding Monkey

16th January 2006, 13:21

That's far more civilised than what I had in mind, Dave

creacom

16th January 2006, 13:27

The exports from this country are as much as they are because of the royal stamp, and whether you like it or not peoples first reason for visiting london is not big ben but the royal family, they bring in more cash than you realise.

I know they bring in a lot of money but they also cost an absolute fortune to maintain ! The houses and palaces would still be there is people wanted to visit but we could just retire the Royal Family and let them pay for their own lifestyles for a change.

With the money we save from not paying for their every move it will cover the loss of tourist trade - if there is a loss in tourist trade to London.

Jacqui :D

easyasit

16th January 2006, 13:51

i think what a lot of you seem to forget is that the royal family, is not only good for tourism, but also for diplomacy as well.

The queen and her family visit a good number of countries to retain good dilplomatic relations with them.

We speak of the money the royal family cost us, ok this is point

you also seem to ask why they should be afforded this. Well there is a price they pay as well you know.
for starters, their lives are not their own. They are told what to do, and wen to do it. They like the prime minister are only glove puppets. It is their teams with the real power.
The queen is told who she is visiting, and who is to visit her.
She might have to sit through hours and houts of boring presentaiton, and still apprear interested.

prince charles
for years denied the woman he loved. Only now has he been permitted to marry her.

Prince william
This poor boy, i still remeber wen he was born, now he is a soldeier. But no matter how much he might love it, he cannot stay. He is second in line to the throne. So he will never be allowed to serve with his men on thr frontline, any more than his brother harry will. And both of these boys are hands on lads. There is nothing snobbish about either of them.
Lets also lookat Kate Middleton, Williams lovely lady. If she really knew what being a future queen involved, would she stay?
She would loose her life, and her identity. She will no longer be Kate Middleton. She may love williams but does she love him that much?

The point i am making is that these ppl have moeny yes, butit comaes at a price.
Wen each of you were raised u had a choice, career, partner, etc etc.
These guys have no choice, especailly in williams case. He can join the army, attain a high rank. but in time, he will have to leave. He has no choice in that.
If anything happens to him, then it will be his brother Harry

After all that i have only one thing to say

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

Al

CG Effect

16th January 2006, 15:07

Shes good at controling the duck population.

dagr

16th January 2006, 15:13

1. I don't think anyone is saying the Royal Family is totally useless, but rather arguing that they are not good value for money. Other countries have monarchs who also have a diplomatic role, but don't cost nearly as much. And just how many of Britain's Royal family fulfill diplomatic roles?

2. Sorry, but I just can't buy the "hardship" side of the Royal family's duties. Yes, they have duties, of which a few will be tiresome, but it's hardly coalface stuff is it?

And they do have a choice, as witnessed by King Edward's abdication in the 1930s for an American divorcee.

Personally, having not looked into the cost of the Royal family, I have no strong feelings either way about them. I can see an important advantage of the monarch's neutral continuity/overseeing role with respect to parliament (as opposed to an elected, supposedly neutral, non-executive president). On the negative side, there is the potential cost issue, the hangers on, the constant rubbish spread over page after page in the press (sorry, but a lot of it is made up and is often used by governments to hide real news).

So there you go.

[mode Hi-jack ON]
Jacqui (CreaCom), did you get my reply? My computer froze when I clicked on "Submit".
[mode Hi-jack OFF]

cjd

16th January 2006, 15:13

You want to see how hard they worked for their £37m pa (excluding security costs) you ca find out what they're up to here:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page3950.asp

easyasit

16th January 2006, 16:32

i can certainly see whre you are coming from.

Another reason i am for the royal family is that they are part of who we are :-)
Countries like France would love to see us loose the royal family.
To lose the royals ppl, i think is to become a republic, then part of the USE (united states of europe).
to be honest i think u will get ur wish, and in ur life time as well :-(

regarding waste of money, there are far more millions being wasted on wars that are really nothing to do with us.
Benefits for ppl who are not entitled
And Health Treatment for any tom dick or harry that just wanders across uninvited. ;-)
There is where the countries millions are also being wasted
Now the 37 million spent on the royals seems like pennies

I can tell though that this debate will rage on, so i will leave my opinion there :-)

Al

creacom

16th January 2006, 16:51

Countries like France would love to see us loose the royal family.
To lose the royals ppl, i think is to become a republic, then part of the USE (united states of europe).
regarding waste of money, there are far more millions being wasted on wars that are really nothing to do with us.
Benefits for ppl who are not entitled
And Health Treatment for any tom dick or harry that just wanders across uninvited. ;-)
There is where the countries millions are also being wasted
Now the 37 million spent on the royals seems like pennies

I dont think that France would like to see the UK loose the royal family. I dont think they care.

Do you really think that people come to the UK for health treatment ? Knowing that there is a 6 month wating list for almost every operation.
I agree that there a lot of people on benefits that neednt be. But on the other hand there are a lot of people who do need them.

37 million still doesnt seem like pennies to me. Imagine what that money could do for hospitals around the country ?

We are starting to see a trend that the majority of the people who would like to keep the royals are also those who feel that the EU is a danger to our heritage.

Jacqui :D

dagr

16th January 2006, 17:34

What's the Royal Family go to do with the EU? Many EU countries, pro-EU countries, are monarchies. I don't get the link.

I am always amazed how many people in Britain think France, the EU, whatever, is "out to get them". You'd be surprised how little other countries care about Britain, never mind the Royal Family. It's one of those stereotypical views vehiculed by the populist media and politicians for their own ends.

Mind you, I have a learned French friend who convinced me of the following:

"France is a monarchy dressed up as a republic, whereas Britian is a republic dressed up as a monarchy."

I didn't believe him at the start, but he finally convinced me.

easyasit

16th January 2006, 17:38

i could comment on this. It is a subkect on which i have extremely strong views on.
but for the reasons of keeping world peace i will not :-)

I have no problem with ur posting Creacom, to an extend i do agree.

Al

easyasit

16th January 2006, 17:41

What's the Royal Family go to do with the EU? Many EU countries, pro-EU countries, are monarchies. I don't get the link.

ok here goes.

As you can see Europe now has a currency, the Euro, that not everyone admittedly uses.
We also have a EU flag, that Gordon Brown now wants us to honour like its out own.
We also take many orders now from Brussels
Csn you see where this is heading?

To become part of the United states of Europe, it would mean giving up our monarchy, and our armed forces.
this as i underastand it is what Brussels wants us to do.

Al

dagr

16th January 2006, 20:00

You raise some valid and pertinent points on Europe Al, that should probably be discussed in one or more new threads in the main section as they have deep impacts on business.

However, I still can't see what the EU has to do with the Royal family. In fact I can, but only to say that the Royal families of Europe are probably one of the best examples of EU integration, the cross-border ties predating the EU by a few hundred years, helping them, by and large, remain strong in their own country.

To come back to Europe, I keep lambasting the populist media on the EU because rather than discuss the issues, they incessantly talk about imaginary "monsters", sent by the evil Brussels (whoever he is!). The majority of politicians don't help either.

First, a few points to help make things real:
1. Until very recently, all EU-wide laws voted in Brussels have only been voted in because Britain explicitly agreed to it. (Not that you'd know that as every national leader claims it for their own when it's good, and derides it when its perceived as negative, shamelessly calling it a "Europe thing" and how they can't do anything about it.).
2. Over 10% of "Brussels" is British. It's not some dark pit that magically churns out mysterious, evil policies from nowhere aimed at killing off Britain.
3. Two of the most pro-European integration countries, aka the pillars of evil, Holland and France, voted, errrrrr..... against more EU integration.
4. If Brits took more time to get to know other EU peoples, they'd learn that many EU countries, including France, have a lot of respect for Britain and things British.

Now, to the nitty-gritty, where is the EU going and what does it mean for Britain. I can best sum it up by saying that it's like moving from a small pond to a big pond. Do you want to be big fish in a small pond or a medium-sized fish in a big pond?

The debate should be on under what circumstances would you be willing to make that switch, if at all.

Personally, I see it primarily as an economic decision, once all the smoke and flag waving have blown over. I can see the pros and cons of what would be the current proposed scenario, and it's not clear to me what would be best for Britain. And there you go.

Admiral Collections

16th January 2006, 20:18

easyasit

16th January 2006, 22:02

I'm sure war veterans would be appalled at this post. They had a sense of patriotism. Imagine them going to war saying 'ahh well sod the Royals, in fact sod britain lets not fight, eventually some muppet will come up with a welfare system'.

That would have ended in a poor result for all of us!

Nic :wink:

thank you, at least we appear to agree on something ;-)

Although the soldiers who fight today, so not fight for that reason anymore now.

Cornish Steve

17th January 2006, 05:07

While this is going off topic, the main problem I have with Europe is the euro. Once it becomes the national currency, a country's economy is inevitably linked to other European economies. Since control of the exchange rate is centralised, for example, national governments lose some important weapons when fighting inflation or growing the economy. That's the beginning of the end of national autonomy.

By the way, I'm amazed at how different Europe is from the US when the economy is weak. In Europe, governments tend to raise taxes to generate more revenue whereas the US government cuts taxes to generate more revenue (by stimulating growth). Despite such opposite strategies, both regions remain economic powerhouses.

creospace

17th January 2006, 05:33

I'm right in thinking that soldiers are not here to prootect us but offically protect queen and country?

I watched a documentry last night about a hurricane pilot in the war who saw a lone bomber about to bomb buckingham palace. The UK pilot had ran out of bullets and so rammed his plane into the gerry and knocked him out of the sky risking his life in doing so.

I am so proud and thankful of what men and women did in the war to keep us who we are.

Here's to blighty! :)

dagr

17th January 2006, 07:32

For some, even the majority in the past, patriotism may be defined as risking your life for the monarch. For many though, it was not and is not the case.

Good point about the Euro Steve, specially with Europe's wider divergency of economies. I think just going for the Euro, and leaving everything else "as is" would become unworkable after a few years.

In the long run, people will always sacrifice idealogical principle for better sustained quality of life, and the major ingredient of this in a democracy is prosperity. It is the economic growth in the big countries that will be the key to what happens in the EU and how it develops.