Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 145 total)
  • What's the point of the royals?
  • camo16
    Free Member

    What’s the point of the royals?
    Could say that about any one really …..

    Reality TV Stars ( sic)

    So called celebrities ..

    over paid kick ballers

    The difference, though, is that reality TV stars, celebrities and footballers earn their salaries (a disputed point, maybe, but their wages don’t come out of the public purse).

    In one sense, this entire discussion is meaningless – because the royal family don’t have to justify their existence to anyone. They’re not like companies/brands etc; they don’t have to validate their contribution to society to please shareholders.

    But that’s also the problem, I reckon. These days we ask questions about the state of society (lefty moaning or not) and expect to get answers. Everyone’s telling us that society must be cost efficient, from top to bottom. Supposed wastage is eliminated. Yet the royal family continue.

    So the original question continues. Is there a point to the royals? Because if there isn’t, there’s a good case for their expenses to be eliminated.

    yunki
    Free Member

    point of the royals..?

    soft porn for old people surely..?

    Singlespeed_Shep
    Free Member

    Better than being french.
    This is just jingoistic, ignorant and insulting.

    Yes it is and it was said tongue in cheek in regards to a lot of the comments on here.

    I’m proud to be British, Proud of my heritage, and proud that I live in a somewhat civilized Nation that gives all a good standard of living something that our forefathers have worked hard for.

    There are a hundred issues with the nation that need addressing well before the typical Royal Bashing.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    seosamh77
    Free Member

    Is there a point to Constitutional Monarchy in 2011?

    No.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    What’s the point of the royals?
    Could say that about any one really …..
    Reality TV Stars ( sic)

    So called celebrities ..

    over paid kick ballers

    we could if all these did these activities as a result of the fact their parents did it and they were automatically given the right to do it ….oh your parent is a footballer excellent so are you etc.

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    Yes it is and it was said tongue in cheek in regards to a lot of the comments on here.

    Oh well sorry but I din’t see the sarcasm in your voice, you see…

    There are a hundred issues with the nation that need addressing well before the typical Royal Bashing.

    One of the biggest issues we ned to confront is the social and economic divide created by our deeply entrenched undemocratic class system, at the ‘top’ of which sits the Monarchy.

    So, I’d say that dealing with the issue of an unelected head of state sitting atop an anachronistic, unprogressive, undemocratic system of social order is actually a priority.

    miketually
    Free Member

    Loads of people are born with the genes that make them more likely to be rich and have privileges

    Take that bastid Rooney, why should him and his mates get all that money just because they have the right genes?

    What if Rooney’s son got to play for England and get paid loads by Man Utd, even if he’s shit at football? And his son. And his son…

    Singlespeed_Shep
    Free Member

    Oh well sorry but I din’t see the sarcasm in your voice, you see…

    Yeah my fault needed a 🙄 or maybe a 😉 but I had Liz and Phil giving me grief in my ear at the time.

    So, I’d say that dealing with the issue of an unelected head of state sitting atop an anachronistic, unprogressive, undemocratic system of social order is actually a priority

    But surely the handover of the majority of power to parliment and using the Royals as a symbol is what we have been doing in modern times. I think the use of them as a representative is very benfical to the country and the politics being left to the people we vote for.

    camo16
    Free Member

    At least this sentence has a point.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    yes that why every week the PM visits the monarch…because they are remote from power and just a figure head IIRC it is why we are a constitutional monarchy as well 🙄

    camo16
    Free Member

    I’d just like to add that tags can be the most inspired part of an opinion thread. This is a classic case in point. I’m going to sit back, puff on a stogie and work out if I’m a moaning leftie or a typically ignorant right winger.

    << puff, puff, puff, no inspiration arrives, gives up and decides to find a free pool game on the net >>

    canibearaindogtoo
    Free Member

    I’m not a royalist but I find it hard to argue against the monarchy from a point of inherited privelege. Living in the developed western world we are all born with more than we need and are more priveleged than say a kid born in a village in west Africa. How many of you who would oust the royals from their ivory towers be prepared to swap your house for a favela in Rio?
    You might argue you have worked hard for your house but that is only possible thanks to being born in a civilization created not by you and more often than not to the detriment of other countries (appropriation of natural resources waste dumping, slave trading etc.).
    Don’t particularly like the royals but when you start stripping priveleges, where do you stop?

    DaRC_L
    Full Member

    When those Americans get home, they can tell their kids that they can be head of state one day, if they work hard. We’re stuck here telling our kids that they’re not as good as the Windsors.

    This. Here is Wisdom.

    That there is naivety.
    In the UK there’s (or used to be) more chance of someone from a state school becoming PM than there is in the US of one becoming president.

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    How many of you who would oust the royals from their ivory towers be prepared to swap your house for a favela in Rio?

    Mm, it’s an interesting point, if not entirely relevant.

    My dad is from Bangladesh, which is a desperately impoverished country. My mum was born in Coventry. I was ‘fortunate’ to have bin born in London, and have enjoyed a relatively* affluent upbringing and lifestyle, with such benefits as few education, healthcare etc. Something that many of my relatives in Bangladesh do not enjoy. So I am in a sense ‘privileged by accident of birth’.

    Difference is that I don’t automatically occupy a ‘greater’ social position than my relatives. If I were to be placed in the same circumstances as them, I would be equal to them, not ‘superior’.

    I do like your point though, definitely something to consider, innit?

    *In a Global sense.

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    I’d just like to add that tags can be the most inspired part of an opinion thread.are a way for spineless cowards to anonymously insult others.

    This place would be far better off without them.

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    That there is naivety.
    In the UK there’s (or used to be) more chance of someone from a state school becoming PM than there is in the US of one becoming president.

    You’ve missed the point. The US President is their Head of State. Our Prime Minister is not.

    jruk
    Free Member

    Anything that pisses off Gaurdian readers has to be a good thing.

    Plus of course our politicians have big enough egos as it is. Can you imagine ‘President Blair’…he’d go off invading countries for no reason…oh, hang on minute…

    camo16
    Free Member

    Anything that pisses off Gaurdian readers has to be a good thing.

    I know what you mean. Gaurdian readers. T••ts, the lot of them!

    😡

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    yes all policies should be designed about annoying one group rather than achieving some good

    How many of you who would oust the royals from their ivory towers be prepared to swap your house for a favela in Rio?

    Don’t particularly like the royals but when you start stripping priveleges, where do you stop?

    Its a huge leap there [despite your fair point about world inequities] but I am fairly sure you can remove the royals with transporting the whole population to third world slums though.
    STW is ace for hyperbole like that if you do this then we will end up with this… of course only the royals stop us all being removed to a rio slum GAWD bless em

    wunhundred assist dont be shy folk

    Singlespeed_Shep
    Free Member

    That there is naivety.
    In the UK there’s (or used to be) more chance of someone from a state school becoming PM than there is in the US of one becoming president.

    You’ve missed the point. The US President is their Head of State. Our Prime Minister is not.

    You can spin it, But that statement is correct is terms of Political leader. As we have both a monach and Pm

    PeterPoddy
    Free Member

    What the hell has that got to do with anything?

    Everything.

    Just because it is “traditional”, it doesn’t mean it is right or is best for the country, or the world for that matter, today or in the future.

    Some of us appreciate history, some don’t.

    I know which side I’d have been on….

    totalshell
    Full Member

    certainly the hair cuts are better

    mikey74
    Free Member

    It is also a necessity, and our duty, to question history and tradition and debate whether it is still relevant and learn from previous mistakes in order to move forward and not stagnate.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    In the UK there’s (or used to be) more chance of someone from a state school becoming PM than there is in the US of one becoming president.

    never mind spin can you give percentages or some actual clarity to this claim as it is incredibly vague-
    there is or there used to be – which is it you seem unsure?
    If it used to be then for what dates/timeframe?
    Can i have a percentage for each PM v President and what % were state educated v private
    We can then decide if it is true or false there is no need for spin.
    I think* it is now [ or in the past] not true to say what you said….weighty claim that eh easy to nail down what I am saying.

    * I dont know for sure but I dont think you do either
    Here have the UK figures
    For UK politicians in the the 20 th C every PM till 64 was privately educated. We then had all state educated till Blair when we went back to private again. Does not strike me as good odd despite the brief hiatus of state school.

    Cameron, Clegg and Osborne all went to private schools with fees now higher than the average annual wage. Half the cabinet went to fee-paying schools – versus only 7% of the country – as did a third of all MPs.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12282505

    PeterPoddy
    Free Member

    learn from previous mistakes in order to move forward and not stagnate.

    When, in fact, we’ve gone backwards from Saxon times IMO…..

    canibearaindogtoo
    Free Member

    Junkyard, I appreciate your point regarding hyperbole, but change favela for soviet eastern bloc (I know it doesn’t exist any more, it’s for the purpose of comparison) and the step down from royalty to my level would be comparable. My point was more to highlight that we are focusing on what they have and we don’t rather than what we have. The problem with class warfare is that there’s always someone below you looking at what you have.
    Mr Elfin, you’re right, not entirely relevant, I was focusing on the material side of things and it is the perceived social superiority which is the problem. You get stuck in a lift with an average Joe and I get stuck in a lift with Wills, who’ll be first to the pub?

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    The problem with class warfare is that there’s always someone below you looking at what you have.

    it is about not having someone above you for the last 1000 years due to accident of birth and you being able to surpass them on personal merit. Elfin was correct about your point[ making us think in global terms] yes we are all royals in some respect due to being born in a G7 country. I also did a bit of hyperbole in my reply 😳

    rkk01
    Free Member

    the politics being left to the people we vote for

    There’s a novel idea… 🙄

    BermBandit
    Free Member

    Better than being french.

    Well speaking as a European I find your comment rather provincial… 😐

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    It’s ok apparently he was cheeky tongue.

    And what is this nonsense about wanting to establish a true democracy in place of a monarchy a ‘lefty’ idea?

    Unless you mean of course Left-Handed? IE, superior to ordinary folk….

    canibearaindogtoo
    Free Member

    Junkyard, fair point. I was getting too tied up in material issues rather than perceived social superiority. Caipirinha, anyone?

    rkk01
    Free Member

    Chance of being elected UK PM vs US President is not “spin”, it is irrelevant, as pointed out above – you simply cannot aspire to be head of state in this country*.

    * Unlike France, Germany, Italy, US, Russia …

    ** Put like this, I can see why the Aussies lean towards republicanism

    MSP
    Full Member

    Why would we need a presidential system as an alternative? Thats just nonsense, all that is required is an elected house of lords with equivalent powers as it currently has, and remove the queen/royals as the head of state.

    rkk01
    Free Member

    Don’t all countries need a HoS?? Surely the alternative is a ruling committee, politburo or junta*
    .
    .
    .
    .
    * I suppose cabinet might also be an appropriate collective noun

    MSP
    Full Member

    Don’t all countries need a HoS

    Not really, we have a parliament and the house of lords which (should) act as a check on the power of the commons, the head of state actually isn’t required for any reason other than an argument against getting rid of the one we currently have. And those that claim the queen has no real power already believe that to be the case.

    dazzlingboy
    Full Member

    There are a hundred issues with the nation that need addressing well before the typical Royal Bashing.

    I’m no royalist fanboy, but this is the most sense I’ve read in 3 pages.

    rkk01
    Free Member

    I’d be more convinced by an argument that put forward an example of a fully functioning, modern representative democracy that doesn’t have a HoS.

    There may well be some – I just can’t think of any…

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    technically it is not the Queen but the crown that has real powers. We rely on the current monarch not actually exercising them but constitutionally they could. example include refusing to sign a law, calling an election, asking any old MP to form a government [ it is her /his majesty’s govt after all] etc

    I’d be more convinced by an argument that put forward an example of a fully functioning, modern representative democracy that doesn’t have a HoS.

    the argument is about not having a monarch as a HoS not about not having a HoS

    BermBandit
    Free Member

    I’m sure they are all lovely people…well except Andrew…..and Phil the Greek, and… well some of them might be quite nice, anyway thats not the point, the point is it is an anachronism which perpetuates the class system and the attitudes that led to the worst excesses of our colonial past. What to replace it with is an entirely different argument, and there are plenty of models to choose from, but not to move with the times is the same as walking about with one of these

    and pretending it is fundamentally doing the same job as one of these

    .

    i.e I guess there is an argument, its just self evidently not a very good one

    Singlespeed_Shep
    Free Member

    Are you sure its not a case of having one of these:

    For meeting with foreigners and charging for tourists to come look at, when behind the scenes you have one of these:

    (with a blue tie)

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 145 total)

The topic ‘What's the point of the royals?’ is closed to new replies.