[Closed] What's the point of the royals?

"Well, you wouldn't want David Cameron on your stamps would you?"

Most convincing argument I've heard too.

I fail to see any point in them

I am not a fan whilst arguments can be made about tourism income [ think this is false] and that they are better than a president [ not great point IMHO]. However it is ridiculous that in the 21st C we let an accident of birth grant someone as a monarch. The aristocracy, landed gentry, entrenched interest in this country helps keep us backward.
I may be less inclined to oppose them if they had absolutely no political power - the current system relies on the belief they wont exercise these powers

inheriting money is one thing, but inheriting power is just mental.

But, the royals we've got aren't actually that bad, most of the headliners seem to do a decent job.

Queenie, Phil, and Charlie seem to work very hard.

i think they know that the moment we get a duffer on the throne, we'll kick the lot of them into a ditch somewhere.

imho etc.

I fail to see the point in most of 'modern society'

most of the headliners seem to do a decent job

eh? Prince Andrew did a great job with international business didnt he? What exactly do they do?

I fail to see the point in most of 'modern society'

But that is a construct of lots of different things, the Royal familly are a specifically set up group of rulers who the next best thing to **** all and serve no purpose

Given the choice id remove all of their wealth and priviledge. They could keep their title if it meant that much to them, means nothing to me.

I'm mostly in the "do without" camp.

But along the lines of

you wouldn't want David Cameron on your stamps

I wouldn't want our Armed Services swearing an oath of alliegiance / loyalty to Thatcher / Blair / Cameron (or any other politician)

And before any wise crack points out that the PM has the Exceutive Power - yes I know that, but the idea of the Army / Navy / Air Force having a (dubiously) elected politician as Commander in Chief (al la USofA) scares the hell out of me.

Scandinavian style monarchy, I say.

I don't like the idea or the reality of a Monarchy.

The unwavering, simpering deference towards undeserving parasites is not how I wish this country to portray itself to the rest of the world, as well as being harmful to us as a nation.

And you don't have to have your head of state on your stamps 🙄

"most of the headliners seem to do a decent job"

eh? Prince Andrew did a great job with international business didnt he? What exactly do they do?

well, i did say [i]most[/i] of them...

i suppose they attract attention, whatever they do, wherever they go, they attract attention, and people listen to them.

they have influence - and they use it (domestically, and internationally).

most of them seem to behave themselves most of the time, so we tolerate them, they amuse us more than they annoy us (as a nation), sooner or later we'll get a duffer on the throne, and we'll start the process of getting rid of them.

i do think they set a bad example - we can not hope to live in a meritocracy until they go.

With out current system, I can see the point in a monarchy as a form of "checks and balances" and head of the judiciary and armed forces. However, as they exercise very little power in reality, they are no more than expensive figureheads.

Also, if we eventually go to a properly elected house of lords, as we should do, then that will take away some of the need for the monarchy as a supposedly impartial influence.

Edit: I would look more positively on having a monarchy if they actually trimmed back the hangers on and actually gave them some proper powers. However, I do still struggle to see past the whole rights of succession thing.

I love them because I got a day off for a wedding.

Lets hope we get a holiday when they croak too.

TBH - I don't have a problem with the current lot. I guess there's some tourism and trade relations benefit, and I don't know that we'd be better off with a President. However, they are only the tip of the iceberg. It's the whole "House of Lords" bit that I don't agree with and the two are very closely tied together.

Opening things and shaking hands doesn't seem that hard, I wouldn't mind living their life for a bit. I'd like to see the queen deal with some of my more 'demanding' customers LOL.

How about the army swearing to serve the people rather than the queen or the prime minister?

No point in them, waste money. The past few years watching them struggling to maintain public opinion in their favour with the 'well intentioned' PR stunts is laughable.

How about the army swearing to serve the people rather than the queen or the prime minister?

Spot on.

Okay, devil's advocate time. A 2-minute Internet trawl has provided the following plus points:

Tradition/cultural security
Tourism
Semblance of order
Figurehead to illustrate diplomacy
It's just British
As ready-made ambassadors the royal family do a lot of good-willing about the globe and that seems to genuinely impress some folks out there.
A royal seal of approval (Royal Airforce, Royal Mail) may not mean its best, but it does add a shine or prestige.
Scotland and England may only play nice because of them both having the same monarch

I'm trying to balance the thread here. Probably failing... 🙄

[img] [/img]

Tradition. 1000+ years of history. Which is more than the USA and Australia can manage together, so it's worth it for that alone! 🙂

Windsor farm shop has the best ham I have ever tasted.

Tradition. 1000+ years of history. Which is more than the USA and Australia can manage together, so it's worth it for that alone!

What the hell has that got to do with anything? 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.

Here's a snippet conversation I actually had with Prince Andrew:

I'm polishing wine glasses, aware that PA is in the vicinity and a power lunch is cooking.

A short man approaches me from behind. I didn't see him there. I jump, startled.

PA: Ah, preparing victuals for the masses are we?
Camo16 (who hasn't yet recognised PA): Um... yes?
PA: Ah, good.
(PA exits, a wave of realisation hits Camo16)
Camo16: Dammit!

Not to the point, but it's going in my memoirs.

I have the biscuits BTW..

The Monarchy, as is, is just a representation of the huge divide that still exists. One of a society that believes in a hieratical order combined with an acceptance that that ruler was/is right and divine to hold such a position.
Thankfully we live in a questioning modern society that is free to think and act on own free will and choose to follow/believe in whatever they so wish.
Currently they are proving to move with the times, all be it slowly, through transition into one of little interest and political influence. HMQ is guiding the Royals down a route of social influence with practical application (hence Harrys Heros etc.) which is to be applauded IMHumbleO, this is where they should be, gaining social responsibility to help others less fortunate and in need.
If the questioner asks whether they provide value for money, then IMHumbleO, no they don’t, yet. Once the Royal list is limited to two and the Land they own returned to the people then ok, until that time we’re stuck with an outdated social order dressed up as a tourism income driver.
All IMHO of course.

I do have a question if I may be soooo bold.. When in that there London, why do the “royal” cars have funny number plates NNNNLLLXXX Anyone know why?

Our "Head of State" model would be expensive whether we had a Monarch or a President.

As a small island state, with lingering illusions of grandeur and an over-elevated sense of our place in the world, we would still bestow a glorious London residence, country retreat, etc etc upon any elected president 🙁

In 2000 I met the Icelandic President at the official Presidential residence near Reyjavik. This was a smart, modern, relatively modest fjordside compound. The President doesn't live there - he has his own place in Reyjavik (IIRC) and gets a car out to the "official" residence when "official" business requires it. This is how it should be done.

In the UK we would still go with all the grace and favour, ceremonial, status driven, expensive BS - even if we had a Pressi

below - Icelandic President's official residence...

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Tradition. 1000+ years of history. Which is more than the USA and Australia can manage together, so it's worth it for that alone!

That first photo looks like it is a work of Sketchup lol.

How about the army swearing to serve the people rather than the queen or the prime minister?

One of the most intelligent things ever said on any thread about the Royals on here.

We still have them cos we're British and too flippin insular, conservative and small-minded to think up a suitable alternative (as have many other nations what are doing ok really).

Personally, I don't mind them as people, but I don't agree with the 'Divine Right To Rule' thing, as that's a load of cobblers. So, basically we have a 'Head of State' whose entire position and existence is based on a bunch of lies told to a load of unenlightened peasants over a thousand years ago.

We live in more enlightened times. About bloody time we sorted things out propply, rather than sticking with the same tired old crap we have. The monarchy perpetuates the social divide and class system more than any other institution, is undemocratic and downright anachronistic.

It's like a bit of mould in the corner of the ceiling. As long as it doesn't seem to be getting any worse, we're content to sit there and ignore it....

Ignore teh number plate thingy, I've found out what I'm looking for.

It's like a bit of mould in the corner of the ceiling. As long as it doesn't seem to be getting any worse, we're content to sit there and ignore it...

No but it's true though, innit? Having seen the Royal Wedding malarky, all that money wasted at a time when the poorest in Britain are feeling the Cuts the hardest, it's just disgusting that so much wealth was flaunted before people who are having to suffer job losses, deepening debt and lessening prospects of decent Higher Education for their kids.

Great Britain. My Arse.

I wonder what the result would be if there was a national poll about the Royals - what would be the % split of republicans, can't-be-bothered-either-ways and all-out monarchists.

The problem is that results from threads like this and from small-scale polls are described as 'indicative only' - all the can't-be-bothered-either-ways can't-be-bothered to give their opinion... so maybe we'll never know for sure.

Until the revolution.

No but it's true though, innit? Having seen the Royal Wedding malarky, all that money wasted at a time when the poorest in Britain are feeling the Cuts the hardest, it's just disgusting that so much wealth was flaunted before people who are having to suffer job losses, deepening debt and lessening prospects of decent Higher Education for their kids.

Although I agree with you, alot of the "massess" didn't seem to mind though, did they?

It's almost as if you waive a bit of bling under someone's nose and they immediately forget their troubles. It's a bit like the fact that if you walk into 90% of all council houses, you will find the largest LCD TVs you have ever seen, even though the residents are complaining they can't afford to feed their kids.

<< clutches at straws >>

I imagine they prop up the hunting, shooting, polo and castle maintenance sectors.

😕

I don't mind the royals, and they don't really have any say in what goes on. Do they?

thanks elfin, wasn't me, GF's comment 😳

Although I agree with you, alot of the "massess" didn't seem to mind though, did they?

Well, yes they did. I know very few people who were pro and many who were anti the whole overblown, overpriced farce.
They didn't get interviewed by the media though. Funny that.

It's a bit like the fact that if you walk into 90% of all council houses, you will find the largest LCD TVs you have ever seen, even though the residents are complaining they can't afford to feed their kids.

I wonder what the result would be if there was a national poll about the Royals - what would be the % split of republicans, can't-be-bothered-either-ways and all-out monarchists.

not a national poll as such but ............

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2772/ReutersIpsos-MORI-Monarchy-poll.aspx

this thread surely proves my point on the Harry's hero's thread they are just a load of scavenging PR whore's

It's a bit like the fact that if you walk into 90% of all council houses, you will find the largest LCD TVs you have ever seen

Erm, I think that might be a [i]slight[/i] exaggeration; I live on a Council Estate, and the largest flat-screen tellies I've seen are in the posh flats down by the marina. But yes, I do get your point that people are seduced by materialism to the point that they forget how to be a community.

As for the Royal Wedding, Riots and that; people see others not actually 'working' particularly hard, and living the life of Riley. No wonder then that there's not much of a 'work ethic' about these days. They don't see Queenie et al 'struggling' to get by, and succeeding through 'hard work', do they? So what sort of message does that send out? It's pretty clear, that unless you're pretty bloody fortunate and very clever, that hard work alone will not bring you all the 'rewards' we seem to be promised. A credit card might though...

I'm sure there are some figures out there that demonstrate that the Royals are actually profitable to the state overall.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the notion that anyone has the "right" to be born into such privildge simply as a result of tradition and bloodline, when there are so many who do far more for the benefit of society yet without the priviledges that the Royals receive.

But life isn't fair. If we are going to stamp out things that aren't right/don't seem fair, there's a heck of a lot to sort out before we get to the Windsors.

Provided they remain relatively cash neutral to the state, i can't get too bothered about it.

Guessing at the numbers here, but The Royal Family cost £60 000 000 a year to keep.
That's about £1 per UK resident, or £2 per UK tax payer.
I pay about £10 000 tax a year (income tax, NI, fuel duty, VAT etc.)

So that's 0.0002% of my tax goes to keeping them.

this thread surely proves my point

I'm not entirely sure that half a dozen people on a bicycle forum is proof of a great deal TBH
You may well have a lower acceptance level for proof than me however, but I'll pass on it being a done deal for now if that's OK?

anagallis_arvensis - Member

this thread surely proves my point on the Harry's hero's thread they are just a load of scavenging PR whore's

No it doesn't, completely different thing.
I don't mind Harry as an individual, I think given his circumstances he's turned out quite well.
Yes, he's being manipulated, but I'm not brave enough to do what he's done.

Don't mind his brother either.

I still despise the monarchy as an parasitical institution though.

I'm sure there are some figures out there that demonstrate that the Royals are actually profitable to the state overall.

Hmm, I'd suspect such figures might be 'massaged' somewhat.

And are there any figures that demonstrate the existence of the Monarchy's real benefit to Society? Not just in monetary terms...

Tradition. 1000+ years of history. Which is more than the USA and Australia can manage together, so it's worth it for that alone!

That's an incredibly Anglocentric view, Podster. Those places had culture and civilisations way before the White Man came and destroyed them. Same in Central/South America. Look at what happened to the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs etc...

MidlandTrailquestsGraham - Member

Guessing at the numbers here, but The Royal Family cost £60 000 000 a year to keep.
That's about £1 per UK resident, or £2 per UK tax payer.
I pay about £10 000 tax a year (income tax, NI, fuel duty, VAT etc.)

So that's 0.0002% of my tax goes to keeping them.

Don't really care about the money, but it is annoying.

It's the fawning, mindless deference that has me wistfully eyeing lamp posts.

Guessing at the numbers here, but The Royal Family cost £60 000 000 a year to keep.

You can double that, [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family ]since it does not include the cost of security provided by the Police and the Army, the lost revenue of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and other expenses[/url]

Edit: and does it matter what % of your tax it is, the overall cost and money could be spent on worthwhile causes.

That's an incredibly Anglocentric view

You don't need to go as far afield as the americas etc to illustrate the Anglocentric viewpoit....

and does it matter what % of you tax it is

OK, so it's £120m, not £60m.
Still, you could build [url= http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/documents/crs_543267.pdf ]3km of 6 lane motorway[/url] for that or fire [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12806709 ]240 cruise[/url] missiles at a sandy country somewhere.
Much better value for money.

Or build, equip and staff a couple of health centres or something...

Or, to put it another way, it's about 1/160 of the cost of the [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/may/31/health.lifeandhealth ]NHS's failed computer system[/url].

Or a new school or two.

Why always use negative examples to try to prove a point?

Or 1/250 of the cost of the [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8561286.stm ]high speed rail link[/url].

And year on year it starts clocking up, £1 200 000 000 over 10 years etc...

If you get woodworm it's gonna cost, but these parasites are in a league of their own.

The riots only cost the tax payer £100 million, seems a bargain.

You can buy meat for cheaper than most redwoods stuff so why not give it a go?
It is not just about absolute cost but also about the principle.

I thought you didn't like people who live in publicly funded housing Graham? 😀

But I agree with you in this case, their accents are awful.

Why always use negative examples to try to prove a point?

Ok, forget about the money.
Some of us despise the institution for what it is and what it represents, not what it costs.

How do you feel about them otherwise?

Yes, it would be better to spend the money on something that would be a positive benefit to more people, but as wastage goes, they're nowhere near as bad as a lot of other tax payer funded things.

See, this is purely a question of how much something costs, in monetary terms. What about the social aspect of all this? This is something that is routinely ignored, and then we wonder why people riot and stuff....

i dont know, but one day i hope to rule he country and when i do they will be executed in a public way..and it will be horrific 🙂

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

people who winge about how unfair life is, then do **** all to change theirs .... ( or go on a looting spree )

Truth is there is not a lot of point to most things in this world,

but there are still a lot of pointless things that bring joy to millions in differant ways

Rainbows,
Music,
Nature at it's best
Mountain Bikes
Trail Centres
Football

oh and the Royals .... if no one cares about them how come around 1 million made a trip to London not long back on the off chance of getting a glimpse of the latest person to join the firm ?

They may not seem relevant to you but they still have a place in society ... like it or not

no issue with the concept at all. largely ceremonial the big five Q, DoE, charlie, anne and jedward do much much more than anybody elected would ever do, we dont have to hane more elections every 65 years we dont have to have retirement plans we get a good deal anybody know anybody else Q's age who works as long as she does ( ie not free to do what she might want to do ie play in garden with corgis.) no we get a good deal.
i'd rather stand up for my country lead by a monarch rather than tony blair.. sure we could scale back the expense but jedward both have jobs and i'm sure over the next 20 yrs we ll see a modern monarchy develop i dont see bill and cath living in buck house for instance.
long may they rule over us.. ( well wear ermin at least)

I am surprised to see the number of people on here who would like to see them gone (each to their own).
Personally I think as a country we have given away far too much tradition and far too many values and are in danger of becoming just another European Country dining out on past glory.
I still have pride in being British and what the country stands for. Part of that pride is based on the culture and values of Great Britain, although they seem to ebb away every day...

Whatever the Royal Family costs to maintain (including security etc.), it brings in far more financially than it costs - a given fact. Americans flock here in their droves, and it ain't for the weather or Swinley Forest.

Just my thoughts..

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?

TBH, I reckon I've had a privileged life too, healthy family of my own and even managed to foster a few more that brought us happiness
The royals [or footballers] have nothing I want thanks

Do Harry and Will get paid for being in the Forces? I wonder about that sometimes.

Anyhoo's it's all going "understairs" isn't it, I mean whatshername married an ex Rugby player t'other week..

I'd be quite happy with the Russian solution.

Can't see us ever ditching the royals.

I enjoy my life, and if i had to decide what was ditched on order for me to save £1 on my tax bill the royals would be nowhere near the top.

I still have pride in being British and what the country stands for. Part of that pride is based on the culture and values of Great Britain, although they seem to ebb away every day...

What like being an failing colonial power, still reveling in the fac tthat we have historically taken whatever we chose by force, leaving in our wake horrendous turmoil that carries on for centuries, or a system based on nepotism and privilige that actively gravitates against achieving excellence and therefore reversing that decline?

1) there's a lot of meet & greet that needs to be done running a country - so either elect a president (as in Eire) to do it or have a hereditary one. They still cost so any figures quoted for the royalty also include this. Getting rid of the Royalty would not save £60m - particularly as the upkeep of the palaces etc.... would still need to be paid for.
2) many cultures in the world (e.g. Arab nations & Japan) still have royalty - it gives greater credibility having our own.
3) Military are loyal to the royalty not gov't = seperation of authority is essential in any democracy. So just as the judiciary need to be independent from gov't but answerable to it, so does the military.
4) Tourists - what we pay for royalty is paid back in tourism. The tourists like the fact that the royalty are still here.
5) Longevity - the Queen can advise the PM on all the world leaders as she's met many of them or their predecessors.

Just a few reasons why a President can't do the job as effectively as Royalty (plus we get the occasional extra day off for Deaths / Marriages)

Whatever the Royal Family costs to maintain (including security etc.), it brings in far more financially than it costs - a given fact. Americans flock here in their droves, and it ain't for the weather or Swinley Forest.

Is it the roayls that they come to see, or the buildings/events?

The buildings would still be there. We could still have the changing of the guards, etc.

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.

What like being an failing colonial power, still reveling in the fac tthat we have historically taken whatever we chose by force, leaving in our wake horrendous turmoil that carries on for centuries, or a system based on nepotism and privilige that actively gravitates against achieving excellence and therefore reversing that decline?

Better than being french.

miketually - Member
We're stuck here telling our kids that they're not as good as the Windsors.

the Queen can advise the PM on all the world leaders as she's met many of them or their predecessors.

Certainly she can, "Oi Blair Boy go kill that Sadam fella I used to entertain and we used to support" and "Do you think going into Afganistan is a good idea BlairBoy?, you do.. ahh go on then, but don't take my boys with you"

You state she has influence, then why did she agree to thses examples.

I think you'll find she's marionalised somewhat by biggoted fat Civil Servants with fek all alse to moan about.

Does the queen appoint Bishops to the Lords? There's a problem, right there.

You state she has influence, then why did she agree to thses examples.

marginalised somewhat by biggoted fat Civil Servants with fek all alse to moan about.

Is it the roayls that they come to see, or the buildings/events?

They come for the Royals, they are frigging obsessed with them. All the American tourists I've met are well up on the lives of the current Royals, way more than most Brits.

If I may interject at this juncture.

There isn't actually any "point", to anything.

Message ends.

As you were.

"We could still have the changing of the guards, etc."

they would however, be guarding nothing surely? 😉

They could be "guarding" an elected president

Selle Royal? Good saddles them.

Personally I think as a country we have given away far too much tradition and far too many values and are in danger of becoming just another European Country dining out on past glory.
I still have pride in being British and what the country stands for. Part of that pride is based on the culture and values of Great Britain, although they seem to ebb away every day...

Ah, let's all stand on deck, salute and sing 'God save The Queen', as we slip down into the icy depths....

[img] [/img]

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.

Sadly, however:

Better than being french.

This is just jingoistic, ignorant and insulting.