I know a number of people on here are vociferous in their negative feelings with respect to the monarchy, and I have never really been able to offer a serious defence, although I do believe that a constitutional monarchy is a good form of government.
In any case, I just came across [url= https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/opinion/with-all-due-disrespect.html?ref=opinion&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F ]this excellent article in the NY Times[/url] about loyalty to the president that, I think, presents at least one of the reasons I hold the opinion I do. Especially the quote below.
Now, anyone questioning Mr. Trump’s legitimacy will be accused of being unpatriotic — because that’s what people on the right always say about anyone who criticizes a Republican president. (Strangely, they don’t say this about attacks on Democratic presidents.) But patriotism means standing up for your country’s values, not pledging personal allegiance to Dear Leader.
Without succumbing to mere reaction, what thoughts do you have?
To the monarchy - fairly indifferent really. I'd like to see them go but proper constitutional reform is more important to me than the symbology of not having a monarch while keeping first past the post and the house of lords
I can't get too excited about them really, they're just a figurehead, a pantomime, and am amazed they take up so much political time and effort when there are so many other far more important issues around us at the moment. As long as they work and pay their way then we may as well have them than not. They add a bit of colour to an otherwise dull world, do serve a real and useful purpose in the murky world of international diplomacy, I like the tradition and pomp and ceremony and the rest of the world loves them and they are a big tourist draw and gives us an excuse to maintain some nice big buildings and palaces which otherwise might just go to wreck and ruin or become another bunch of National Trust places - which is fine but I can't help feel a bit sad for National Trust houses, just there showing off a time long since gone when they were busy centres of industry but now with no with no real purpose - at least the palaces are still working buildings emptying many people of many trades that have little value outside of the monarchy. Of course in the cold light of day you can't justify them, but life is all the more interesting for having them.
What's the alternative? Sack her off? She'll still be Queen.
Remove her Powers? They're hypothetical at best, if she tried to exorcise them, they'd be snatched away.
Take away her income? She gets it in exchange for handing over her estate to the state so she actually loses out on it.
Ask madame guillotine to 'help out'? What would that make us.
We've already eroded the monarchy to what we want - something to keep the tourists happy.
I'm not sure I understand the op's point but my view on the monarchy is that they are the poster family for lack of social mobility and putting one family up as being better than other due to an acvident of birth is the starting point for all sorts of evil that occurred in the past. Now they the queen pretty much keeps her place by keeping her gob shut. I think they should go.
Oh...
[img] 
[/img]
Another bloody Monarchy/Politics thread.
You
Win
The
Internet
I have no problem with the royal family. They're not political anymore.
The British political system is, imo, a ****ing joke though.
But yeah, what bikebouy said as well.
I have no problem with the royal family. They're not political anymore
The Queen isnt but Charlie is. The rezt seem to be pretty neutral and stick to accepted good causes.
Too many of the monarchy IMO. Only the top few should get any money or jobs or benefits.
Bikebuoy: it's an invitation to converse; not a deliberate attempt to inflame the forum.
I think our future queen but one demonstrates clearly that the idea of a lack of social mobility can be discarded comfortably
Plus recent events have done little to suggest that putting it out to a vote delivers a better result!
Take away her income? She gets it in exchange for handing over her estate to the state so she actually loses out on it.
True, but it's not subject to death dues, so it should bu rights be public by now anyway.
an excuse to maintain some nice big buildings and palaces which otherwise might just go to wreck and ruin or become another bunch of National Trust places - which is fine but I can't help feel a bit sad for National Trust houses, just there showing off a time long since gone when they were busy centres of industry but now with no with no real purpose - at least the palaces are still working buildings emptying many people of many trades that have little value outside of the monarchy.
I think you have a slightly inaccurate view of National Trust houses. A big-ish house will employ over a hundred people of people; managers, stewards, conservators, housekeepers, carpenters, masons, chefs, restaurant workers, wardens, gardeners, shop keepers. And then there's the hundreds (or even thousand+) of volunteers. OK there's not butlers.
I think our future queen but one demonstrates clearly that the idea of a lack of social mobility can be discarded comfortably
1) She's (and will be) 'princess' not queen
2) She's from Bucklebury in Berkshire, if that's your idea of social mobility then, errrrrrrr, you need to get out more to re-calibrate your idea of average.
It's worth having a quick scan through this article, the costs of our constitutional monarchy are now less than two other European monarchies, and the costs of presidencies can be truly eye-watering;
http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/think-a-republic-would-be-cheaper-than-monarchy-think-again-40065
France pays £91million/year for its socialist presidency! Both Italy and Poland pay more for their presidencies than the Royal Family costs Britain.
And as for America, well the mind truly boggles!
Today’s outrage of the day is apparently the fact that the total cost of running the White House under the Obama Administration reached $1.4 billion:
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and hisfamily last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
Then there's the cost of the EU presidency:
How much does it cost?On average Member States spend € 65 million to run the presidency. Poland was a big spender € 120 Million. It also did sign a contract worth € 1 million with Burson-Marsteller to help it run its EU presidency (including training Polish press spokespeople, setting up the presidency website, carrying out worldwide media monitoring, organising study trips to Poland for foreign journalists, putting on social and cultural events and encouraging MEPs to get behind presidency priorities.
Italy spent € 68 million. Latvia spent € 70 million and the Latvian Presidency Secretariat signed a contract with Dods Training because it wanted to strengthen and hone its communications skills. Derived from different ministries within the Latvian government, the Secretariat staff had varied prior knowledge and communications experience as well as differing levels of English. Training included Public written communication, Public communication over the Internet and Crisis Communication. Luxembourg has planned a budget of € 93 Million (cost of equipment, meetings and entertainment € 35.5 million, cost of personnel € 20.9 million travelling and food and lodging expenses abroad € 4 million, cost of furniture and computers € 100 000).
Over the course of 18 months, the trio will have spent a combined amount of € 231 million.
Small steps.
1. Pick a house and live in it, give the others to the NT
2. Monarch and immediate succession on the dole, all the others can get a job
3. No land
4. No political role at all apart from ceremonial
5. Rid Lords of Nobility
That should do for a start
Why can't they get in on the joke and be a bit more "soapy" like Jordan or the Kardasians.
Killing Diana was worth an Eastenders Duff..Duff..Duff,Duff..Duff, DuffDuffDuff
but since then nothing
I don't immediately see what the parallel is between the quoted story and the UK monarchy. Are you making the point that UK republicans are often dismissed as unpatriotic, but this reaction is wrong, and it's perfectly legitimate to criticise the monarchy?
I think our future queen but one demonstrates clearly that the idea of a lack of social mobility can be discarded comfortably
Who is that then? Did she grow up on a council estate and go to some shitty comp? As ever THM your desire to disagree with everything I write doesnt half lead you to post some shit.
I think a benefit cap should be slapped on her.
And she should pay the bedroom tax.
I'm all for giving powers back to the Queen. She'll do a far better job and Philip would sort out Brexit in an instant by insulting everyone foreign so they'll just bog off and leave us to ourselves.
😉
[I]But patriotism means standing up for your country’s values, not pledging personal allegiance to Dear Leader.[/I]
Allegiance to the Queen was always Queen and country and the Queen herself has first duty to the country. Different to a dictatorship worshiping a leader, which is the impression I'm getting from Trump given the continuous stream of absurd statements of this and that he will do and change, without any political process.
Not that it's the British thing to pledge allegiance to anything.
She'll be dead soon anyway, then charlie boy will cut back on some of the others. All the forelock tuggers will tire of him soon enough, I think he will be the last.
In scotland our allegiance is to the people not the monarch
I think our future queen but one demonstrates clearly that the idea of a lack of social mobility can be discarded comfortably
As above, but I raise you Marlborough College with no bursary. On of four G20 schools in U.K. alongside Stowe, Eton and Wellington. Most expensive day fees in U.K. but iirc she boarded and that is quite competitive in comparison with Marlborough just outside the most expensive 10% and costing slightly over the national average wage before tax for one child to board there. Social mobility indeed.
But back on topic I think the constitutional monarchy bit, unelected upper chamber stuffed with hereditary nobility and political party donors, and FPTP bother me more than a royal family even one as fancy-lookin' as the UK's.
Not a fan of the monarchy,it's symbolic of privilege and the class system. The sooner it is gone the better. Although other constitutional reforms are much more important IMO.
scrap it, let the Aussies, Candians, and Kiwi's etc. fund their own head of state, the freeloaders 😉
1. Pick a house and live in it, give the others to the NT
2. Monarch and immediate succession on the dole, all the others can get a job
3. No land
4. No political role at all apart from ceremonial
5. Rid Lords of Nobility
I don't mind this idea. In many ways, I think it addresses the issue of social mobility, etc., better than simply discarding the monarchy.
Not a fan of the monarchy,it's symbolic of privilege and the class system. The sooner it is gone the better.
You see, I don't agree with you here, because I don't believe for a moment we could concoct something that wouldn't replicate all the same problems, but add the problem of [i]partisan[/i] privilege. The USA, for instance, has no royal house, but we can't pretend for a moment that the talentless offspring of certain actors or historic entrepreneurs don't enjoy the same kind of unearned privilege as the royals often get accused on enjoying.
Now, anyone questioning Mr. Trump’s legitimacy will[b] be accused of being unpatriotic[/b]
Genuine question: does anyone actually give a toss that somebody may consider you "un-patriotic"?
Winston Churchill got it right: It's the worst form of government - except for all the others.
The monarchy makes me indignant with rage - I'm slowly and painfully descending into full blown libertarianism.
The only reason these ****ers think they're better than any of us and have what they do, is that we have a social system that secures their ill gotten gains and stops those of us who would be perfectly at ease with stuffing a Makarov into their mouths and pulling the trigger from doing so.
As migrant benefit scroungers go, I think the Monarchy are nailing it.
The USA, for instance, has no royal house, but we can't pretend for a moment that the talentless offspring of certain actors or historic entrepreneurs don't enjoy the same kind of unearned privilege as the royals often get accused on enjoying
Maybe so but not subsidised by the general public like the royal family is here.
Reform the National Trust!!!!!
She'll be dead soon anyway, then charlie boy will cut back on some of the others. All the forelock tuggers will tire of him soon enough, I think he will be the last.
I dont agree - the next Royal scandal is that Charles advocates and William becomes King, This will cause an issue - he's too bright and popular with the people, so on the one hand it'll be a popular move, something to cheer up the land, big parties in the street etc. On the other hand, he'll be popular with the people...
The USA, for instance, has no royal house, but we can't pretend for a moment that the talentless offspring of certain actors or historic entrepreneurs don't enjoy the same kind of unearned privilege as the royals often get accused on enjoyingMaybe so but not subsidised by the general public like the royal family is here.
No? Take a look again at what it costs the US taxpayer to support the president, and the French taxpayer, the Italian taxpayer...
Take any president, and you'll see someone who is a glaring example of the privileged elite, usually from a privileged, elitist background.
I ask those who advocate removing our monarchy, what they'd replace it with as head of state?
A president? Ok, now, can anyone honestly suggest a single person they'd trust to be an apolitical head of state to represent Great Britain?
Princess Tony pretty much imagined himself in a rôle not unlike president of the EU, the thought of someone like him, with an ego the size of a large country, and a sense of entitlement to match is abhorrent, but is more than likely that's the sort of person we'd end up with; just look at the various European presidents of recent years, like those of France, Italy, and the lack of respect they engender.
Bugger that!
1) She's [s](and will be)[/s] [b]Duchess [/b][s]'princess' [/s][s]not [/s][b] and will be[/b] queen
Close, but FTFY.
I ask those who advocate removing our monarchy, what they'd replace it with as head of state?
A lottery/reward scheme awarded to an individual on each occasion we need to roll one out as a token of thanks for something special they have done.
Vive la République ! Mort aux tyrans et paix aux peuples !
Vive la République ! Mort aux tyrans et paix aux peuples !
Because we all know how well that has worked out! 😉
Why are you winking at me? Is this my lucky day?