Royalty

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Postby macca » Sun Jan 06, 2002 6:25 pm

why do we have a royal family, is it a hang over from a dictatorship, or are they just harmless hole for tax payers money?
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby nicola » Sun Jan 06, 2002 6:36 pm

because foreigners LOVE them. and the british tourist industry is going down the pan. foot and mouth, september 11th - we don't have a bloody chance. wiping out the icon of everything british (money, posh accents, tea-drinking) would be a very bad idea, in my opinion. it's also worth bearing in mind that they are not that rich. this point is going to sound really weak because i can't remember the fella's name OR how much he earns, but i'll go with the example anyway: this bloke has about 3 times as much money as the royal family because he raises battery turkeys. so basically, from being extremely cruel, he's made absolute shitloads. <P>the royal family may be a bunch of ponces and yes - they hunt, which i don't like - but they use their wealth and significance for some good causes: over-used example, but people like princess di made huge contributions to charity causes.<P>so anyway ... um, my main argument would be the tourism thing.<P>
User avatar
nicola
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 1:00 am
Location: london

Postby ben » Sun Jan 06, 2002 7:30 pm

If anything then the monarchy is a remnant of a previous dictatorship. But times have changed and the monarchy no longer have any power. Royalty are born into a life of being hounded by the press, unable to leave a "normal" life. Yes, some of you may think that it's a small price to pay but royalty aren't even given the choice.<P>The monarchy are funded by Parliamentary annuities to the total of £2.5 million. Of that total, £1.5 million is PAID BACK by the Queen. This includes all the expenses of the Royal family not including herself and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. <P>So the government pays out £1 million a year to the monarchy from taxpayers money, which lets be honest is an extremely small amount to a government which pays out a quarter of a billion pounds each for 4 nuclear warheads. In return the monarchy brings an incredible amount of tourism, it gives britain a sense of identity not to mention the amount of charitable good works that many of the royal family do. This more than compensates for the minute amount of money they receive from the government.<P>The monarchy are self-sustaining and if nothing else, provide good entertainment with all their scandalous affairs Image
User avatar
ben
Janitor
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:00 am
Location: UK

Postby macca » Sun Jan 06, 2002 10:44 pm

the monarchy came to power on the back of murder, blood shed and the death of innocent people, it is impossible to deny that. even though they no longer kill people the fact remains that their position is built upon deaths. that £1million pounds is still alot of money which could be much better used, and it is impossible to equate the royals to nuclear warheads, (both are bad but we need nuclear deterent and we don't need a royal family). untill the royal family are stripped of their titles and the land which is owned by the state is returned, nobody in this country is a free person but is a subject and we will swear allegance to the queen. also one of the main obstacles to a constitution for the UK is the monarchy. <P>the ammount of chairty work the royals do is insignificant and is mostly for publicity. an elected non-executive president would be a far better solution, costing less and clearing the way for a constitution. the monarchy is also based upon them being better than the rest of us, which is inheirently WRONG. why should the royals demand we bow/curtsie before them, and refer to them a Sir or Ma'am. just give me one reason which means i should show them more respect than any other head of state? (the French/German/American/etc head of state doesn't demand so why should they?)<P>another thing about that £1million, far more money is wasted on their 'protection', police time and money is wasted to protect them when they decide to do something, and british army soldiers are stuck parading infront of them when they are sorely needed elsewhere. nobody really knows how rich they are as it is ILLEGAL to investigate them for tax fraud or to probe their assets to determine their wealth, both are crimes of TREASON, which is punishable by death.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby ben » Sun Jan 06, 2002 11:03 pm

"the monarchy came to power on the back of murder, blood shed and the death of innocent people, it is impossible to deny that."<P>Yeah, and what? If an ancestor of yours committed a crime do I punish you? The Normans took Britain in 1066, shall we chuck all their descendants out now? Do we get rid of the government because a long time ago the MP's had sex with little children? It is not a logical jump to say "get rid of the monarchy because they used to be real bastards!"<P>I can think of many other areas of government investment that should be cut down before you stop supporting the monarchy. They are self-sufficient and pay for themselves in tourism. What a load of nonsense that we are not free as long as we have a monarchy. Swearing allegiance to the Queen means nothing. She holds no power over any us, I couldn't give two hoots about what the Queen thinks and likewise she does not care whether i bow/curtsey infront of her. It is an individual's own choice to show respect to the Queen in whichever way they wish, no-one says you have to and I'm sure she does not get offended if you don't. They do not demand the respect they are given.<P>How can you say that the charity work they do is insignificant? Have you checked the figures? It's practically the only thing they do! I think every single Royal is connected to some form of charity or other. And so what if they're doing it for publicity? Most people do charity for some selfish reason or another, the fact is the charity is being doing and any charity is better than none. What charity do you do?<P>I don't know where you get the idea that you cannot investigate the monarchy's financial details because I'm looking at them right now on their website: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page433.asp<P>The royal family do no harm and the whole "get rid of the monarchy" vibe is unfounded.
User avatar
ben
Janitor
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:00 am
Location: UK

Postby macca » Mon Jan 07, 2002 4:50 pm

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2[/IMG]Originally posted by ben:
Yeah, and what? If an ancestor of yours committed a crime do I punish you? The Normans took Britain in 1066, shall we chuck all their descendants out now? Do we get rid of the government because a long time ago the MP's had sex with little children? It is not a logical jump to say "get rid of the monarchy because they used to be real bastards!"<P>The royal family do no harm and the whole "get rid of the monarchy" vibe is unfounded.</font>
<P>firstly MP's having sex with children isn't a reason to get rid of government but it's a damn good one to send that MP to jail.<P>alos i never said punish the royals, i only said strip them of their titles, the use of buildings owned by the people of this country and they should be treated as any other head of state, not like they are a special case.<P>it may not matter to you whether you salute a flag or a person but it does to me. i have dual nationality, in one country i am a citizen in the other i am a subject. it may only be words to you but it means more to me, being a subject means you are infeiror to the royal family, and i do believe that all men are equal, so what gives the queen the right say i belong to her (that is what it is to be a subject).<P>the queen does demand that you bow/curtsey before her, if you recieve a MBE or whatever you are told how to curtsey etc, and if you are one of her 'servants' you are educated in how to treat her. as head of state i do believe she should be given some preferential treatment, eg. polite etc but what gives her the right to have people bow etc. and why are we hanging onto this hangover from a past dictatorship when we (britain) is suspossed to be a leading light in democracy and freedom?
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby nicola » Mon Jan 07, 2002 6:17 pm

fine then, don't curtsey - but then you don't get your MBE.
User avatar
nicola
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 1:00 am
Location: london

Postby Olly » Mon Jan 07, 2002 7:42 pm

If the monarchy actually had any "real" power then I would have no tollerance for them whatsoever. I am against any form of hereditory power, in fact when I first saw this question my knee-jerk reaction was "No way! The monarchy are dead wood, expensive dead wood at that!" But after I had cooled down a bit and read other posts I have re-evaluted my opinion somewhat. I still think that the amount of money that is spent on them and the vast revenue from property they own could be put to far better use (NHS anyone?) But if you offset this against the amount of tourism they bring in it becomes more paletable. I am loathed to support them at all but I can't ignore this. To conclude I think that as a heads of state they should be disposed of, how can you represent the people when you live in a bloody palace!? But as a tourist gimmick they should be kept, until we get a Disneyland anyway.<P> Olly<P>------------------
In exams the foolish ask questions that the wise can not answer - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Olly
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Scotland

Postby macca » Mon Jan 07, 2002 10:31 pm

like i said i don't want them killed, i want them removed as head of state, all codification for bowing etc, an elected non-executive president, and all state funding removed along with the right to live in public buildings. whatever they own they keep, but i would want a full public tax investigation because i do not believe they have provided true details for taxes etc.<P>as for an MBE i wouldn't accept it, i see no worth in 3 letters after my name. also i find it extremely pretenious to use it.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby ben » Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:02 pm

I bet you George Bush reckons himself more than the Queen does. He blatantly sits there in the bath thinking, "i'm the president. haha. i'm the bees knees. i have so much power! everyone loves me." While the Queen probably sits by the fire, with her corgis, wishing people didn't feel the need to bow or curtsey to her.<P>It's important to remember that she was born into her position (like all the royals) and therefore never asked for it, while politicians etc. strived to be in a position of power. It is untrue that the Queen demands for people to bow/curtsey for her, she is merely a puppet of the Royal House.<P>It's unlikely you will be offered an MBE. I happen to know that the Queen often visits this site and posts under the secret alias of "The Muslim Representative". You won't make the honours list this year Image
User avatar
ben
Janitor
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:00 am
Location: UK

Postby nicola » Tue Jan 08, 2002 11:11 pm

It's also worth realising that even if the royals were stripped of their titles, they'd still be hounded by the press, so they'd need muchos protection anyway and very little would change - at least with this generation. They'd just lose international interest and thus, we'd lose tourism.<P>I, for one, would still be interested in Ole William, HRH or no. Image
User avatar
nicola
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 1:00 am
Location: london

Postby macca » Tue Jan 08, 2002 11:29 pm

i don't care whether people are interested or not, as for tourism would it suffer that much? i'd rather remove them and take the damage to the tourism industry. event hough tourism would, probably, be reduced i feel it is worth the ethics over hte material gain.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby alex » Wed Jan 09, 2002 3:33 pm

Macca, if you dislike hierachy and therefore dislike the Royals, because they are supposedly seen as being more important than everyone else, then how come you're happy being a "Guru" along with Ben whilst the rest of us are mere "Thinkers" !!<P>I think this is a case of dual standards. You're happy for a hierachy to exist but only when you're at the top.
User avatar
alex
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: NW London

Postby macca » Wed Jan 09, 2002 6:35 pm

speakin gof which any chance i can be a comrade Image, Ben?<P>i don't dislike the monarchy because of a hierarcheal (spelling) settin gin society, i dislike them because they are in that higher position not out of competence or skill etc, but out of a birth right that is to the effect that they are predeterminatly better than everyone else. i don't not dislike the PM becuase his is the PM, i dislike hime because i think he has the wrong focus, and has sold out on Labour. but thats a whole different arguement.<P>anyway i want to be a comrade Image
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby The Muslim Representative » Wed Jan 09, 2002 8:27 pm

Alas, my true identity has been discovered thanks to Ben (ur DEFINETLY not on the honours list !).....I now feel the need to comment.....this country has at its symbolic head THE QUEEN, if u don't like it go back to ur other country where u can be a citizen rather than a subject !! Its surely absurd to get rid of everything and anything which gives us the British a true sense of our cultural heritage and a true sense of our historical heritage...in effect our identity. I mean what is it u want the UK to become ???!!?!?! We have to keep something !<P>
ps: The post on Israel is coming soon !! My secretary hasn't yet finished typing it.
The Muslim Representative
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2001 1:00 am

Postby macca » Wed Jan 09, 2002 9:35 pm

taking away the royals will not destroy cultural heritage, i hardly call the royal families heritage cultural unless you think state sponsored murder of millions of inocent people 'cultural'.<P>what do i want this country to be? i want this country to be a socialist democracy, which as has been proven gives the best society and provides the best resources to improve living standards of all. the royal family are opposed to democracy, otherwise they would have requested to be withdrawn as head of state or requested a refferendum to see if the population wants them as head of state. without an elected president, executive or not, the country is inheirently not a democracy.<P>finally, why don't i return to the republic of ireland? because i don't have to, and currentyl i don't have a choice, like most people who post i do not have the choice to live in another country as i live with my parents and last time i checked my back account i didn't have enough money to up sticks and live somewhere else
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby The Muslim Representative » Wed Jan 09, 2002 10:27 pm

Murder of millions of innocent ppl....macca u still stoned ?! Listen let by gones be by gones and lets move on. U open ne history book and u'll find the royal family mentioned in some context, the rise and fall of the British empire, Henry the eighth....the Royal family are part of the United Kingdom almost inherently. Sure they've had their good times and their bad times but so has everybody and everything else !! I look around this society and I c its pretty good, we are reasonably free, the mere fact that u can post such comments on this web site is proof in itself that the Royal family is not this hidden dictatorship secretly opposed to democracy.....cos if it was u wouldn't be writing what ur writing !
The Muslim Representative
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2001 1:00 am

Postby macca » Thu Jan 10, 2002 12:14 am

not stoned *yet* Image but thats another story<P>anyway, the royal family did (probably does, but thats just my opinion) condone the whole sale slaughter of innocent people as well as worthless wars that would have never happened if it wasn't for imperialistic ideas. but yet again that is another story.<P>the reason for the monarchy to go, is that we are still being technically oppressed (which means you can't have you're pure capitalism ben), it also means that calling britain modern is lying. without a democratically elected president (either executive or non executive) this country is (this bit will suck as i am rewritting this after i crashed) clinging onto it's archaic bygone days when it was really Great britain. and it surely must be long over due for this country to drag it's self into the C21.<P>also do we really want a scandelous, unelected and arcahic family that don't represent what britain is.<P>oh yeah anarchist moment, i really want to burn Microsoft to the ground, but thats beside the point
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby ben » Thu Jan 10, 2002 12:34 am

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2[/IMG]Originally posted by macca:

anyway, the royal family did (probably does, but thats just my opinion) condone the whole sale slaughter of innocent people as well as worthless wars that would have never happened if it wasn't for imperialistic ideas.
</font>
<P>You talk of the monarchy as if it is some power-hungry entity. The monarchy is made is made up of human beings like you and I. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the current monarchy condones slaughter and wars. Every Royal has the choice to denounce his/her title but the monarchy still goes on. In fact, if enough people denounce the throne, then you and I are in the running for becoming King of England. It's just a title and holds no power as it rightly so.<P>You talk of getting with the 21st century but it seems like you are the one living in the past. See the royal family for what they truly are, a tourism pull, rather than criticising them on things you couldn't possibly know about.<P>How exactly are we opressed by the monarchy? They have no influence on the government or the economy. Have a look at Lenin and Stalin (your heroes Image) unelected dictators, and they didn't even bring any tourists in. The Queen is not a political figure which is why replacing her with a president is not a sensible option. Think of all the waxworks that would have to be removed from Madame Tussauds!<P>
User avatar
ben
Janitor
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:00 am
Location: UK

Postby macca » Thu Jan 10, 2002 12:56 pm

firstly Stalin was about as much a communist as Hitler, he wouldn't know what communism was if it came up and bit his hand. Lennin didn't hold elections, as in most countries in a similar time of 'change-over', there were things to be done first to stablise the country to allow an election. and as i have said before communism is meant to rely upon democracy as much as capitalism, but as has been shown it usually spawns dictators. (if you want it explained i will do so in the politics forum)<P>anyway, i'm not living in the past i'm trying to live in a better and more democratic country. surely it would be more democratic to elect our head of state rather than let nature choose him or her for us. as you said every royal has the right to abdicate or drop their title, so why don't they? they don't because they like the attention and the money. if it was really that hard a lifestyle, the occasional charity work the vast government aid the choice to delcare whatever tax return you think is resonable, the royals would have quit years ago. the fact still remains that they haven't and they are clinging onto power till they are removed. <P>i'm also pretty sure that the next question will be, wouldn't you stick at it for that much money? no i wouldn't, i would find it offensive that would be paid tax payers money in such quantities, am unelected and i would have the chance to get out but i am sacrificing my ethics for the sake of a large pay packet.<P>i'm not sure you understand what president i mean, yes you can have an executive one, but it would much more beneficial to have a non-executive one. they hold the same power as the royal family, but as act in line with the house of lords (i also really don't like the names "house of lords/commons", it's in exactly the same vien of thought, but i'll leave that for another day), and work as a head of the house of lords, who should all be elected as it disgracful to have the country still being run, to a certain capacity, but unelected peers. in that capacity they still open hospitals as the royals do, but they don't waste money on pointless world tours and drain away £1.5million a year.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby alex » Thu Jan 10, 2002 6:18 pm

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2[/IMG]Originally posted by macca:
the fact still remains that they haven't and they are clinging onto power till they are removed. </font>
<P>If we're talking politics then I'm sure you'll agree that the Royals do not have any form of power in a political sense. Power, in politics, is at a simplistic level, the ability to get others to do things that they would not otherwise do. According to this definition therefore the Royals do not have any form of power because there is nothing they can get you to do if you don't want to.<P>My personal opinion, is that they bring in tourism, do lots of charity work, smile and wave, give us a sense of heritage and generally do no harm. £1.5 million is nothing and would be far outweighed by the tourism they bring in. They carry no power therefore it doesn't matter that they are born into their position. It's very different from the House of Lords because they actually have a say in the political decisions of our country. Royalty is also not undemocratic and I'm fairly sure a referendum would actually go in their favour.<P>Finally macca, if you really hate the Queen, post some weed in a Royal Mail letter box, techinically anything in those things is property of the Queen so you can get her done on drugs' charges Image

<p>[This message has been edited by alex (edited 10 January 2002).]
User avatar
alex
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: NW London

Postby macca » Thu Jan 10, 2002 8:53 pm

alex, i'm shocked at your disregard for the real royalty, such a waste putting it in a ost box.<P>i've pretty much used all the arguements against the queen by now and so have those against, so errrrrrr yeah kinda over. anyone want to sum it all up?<P>
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby ben » Thu Jan 10, 2002 11:18 pm

"It is the fool who says in his heart that a debate is finished after only 20 posts on a UBB forum." -2002<P>This debate has been going on for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. How naive it would be to assume we had covered it in this humble set of messages. As with all philosophy, no answers will be posted here, only ideas and opinions, and each of us will take from it what we wish and formulate our own philosophies. That's the beauty of it! <P>Keep the topic rolling....
Last edited by ben on Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ben
Janitor
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:00 am
Location: UK

Postby A Muslim » Thu Jan 10, 2002 11:25 pm

sorry to dampen this whole topic, it was a great read and well i must say that people have dug their trenches rather deep on this one, but if u want a summary macca, i will have to say...you don't like the royal family, others do...its your choice to not like them...but remember it's considered treason if you talk out against the queen or even go against the British empire?! (if that exists)
what i am saying is that...you don't like her, learn to live with it...she's gonna die sometime!
A Muslim
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Surrey

Postby macca » Thu Jan 10, 2002 11:50 pm

oh well yet another tick in my traitor column. i was even called a traitor once for saying communism isn't evil.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users