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

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.

point of the royals..?

soft porn for old people surely..?

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.

Is there a point to Constitutional Monarchy in 2011?

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.

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.

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...

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.

At least this sentence has a point.

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 🙄

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 >>

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?

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.

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.

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

This place would be far better off without them.

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 [b]Head of State[/b]. Our Prime Minister is not.

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...

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!

😡

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?

wunhundred assist dont be shy folk

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

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.

Some of us appreciate history, some don't.

I know which side I'd have been on....

[img] [/img]

certainly the hair cuts are better

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.

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.

* 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.

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

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

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?

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

the politics being left to the people we vote for

There's a novel idea... 🙄

Better than being french.

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

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....

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

[img] http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbaidcxED8dbA8yIoM7FYmN0kIqOsma1hEFug-TaDt_8yQzvfgxg [/img]

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

[img] [/img].

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

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

[img] http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbaidcxED8dbA8yIoM7FYmN0kIqOsma1hEFug-TaDt_8yQzvfgxg [/img]

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

[img] [/img]

(with a blue tie)

I think you are missing the point that the one behind the scenes is in fact one of these
[img] http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbaidcxED8dbA8yIoM7FYmN0kIqOsma1hEFug-TaDt_8yQzvfgxg [/img]
too regardless of prevailing tie colour, and has been pretty much forever.

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.

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

Could the fact that we keep getting privately-educated PMs/Cabinet members/MPs be related to the fact that we have a monarchy? It constantly highlights the fact that one class is 'better' that the rest.

theres only one solution
[img] [/img]

and fwiw i doubt we'll ever be rid of them and i also dont expect to see an lected house of lords, i think the no to AV vote has let the powers be that know we are all perfectly content with out government

the no to AV vote has let the powers be that know we are all perfectly content with out government

Actually, it says more about what a total sell out the Lib Dems have been under Nick Clegg. The fact we have a coalition government even though GB made a bit of a cock up of his term as PM actually tells you much more. i.e. here it is on a silver platter..... oops even then you couldn't get past the fact that people still remember what a bunch of ignorant self serving twunts you are.
No doubt the no to AV vote will be wheeled out to justify all sorts of things in the future, but it certainly shouldn't be taken as a satisfaction poll.

Digressing from the OP - but to me, what the AV No vote signified is the total apathy, ignorance or entrenched traditionalism / inertia within a huge body of the voting public 🙄

Ah good, every forum has one of these debates now and again.

I'm neither pro or anti monarchy but those who believe that abolishing the Monarchy will somehow create a sense of equality that has been missing from British society are surely being incredibly naive?

There are always haves and have nots....as others have said at what point do you draw the line?....my parents want to leave me their house, this is inherited wealth, why should i get their house just because of my birthright....is it fair that my mate whose parents dont own a house wont get one when they die?

If you go back far enough in British history you'll find that the old aristocratic families got their estates by taking incredible risks during wars....sometimes by supporting the right pretender to the throne, sometimes by raising an army, often going into battle themselves....although their wealth and privilege now seems unfair you'll find that at some point it was earned in the first place and then simply maintained and passed down from generation to generation....which i have no problem with.

although their wealth and privilege now seems unfair you'll find that at some point it was [b]earned[/b] in the first place and then simply maintained and passed down from generation to generation....which i have no problem with.

So, you have no issue with someone or a group taking what they wanted, throught the use of violence, aggression, slavery and the denial of basic human rights to others then?

So, you won't mind if I come into your house, beat and torture you, enslave you and your family, and take what you own as my 'earnings'?

What's your stances on looters?

Effin, you torture us daily anyway 😀

And you stole back that Yeovil town top off your ex...she got it for collecting glasses in Chard one night.

Again with the Yeovil Town top; oy vey. Enough already...

I don't even know where what who why or how 'Chard' is. 😳

Swiss Chard?

I've bin to Swiss Cottage today, if it helps....

Elfinsafety.

That was the way it was done then....appropriation of wealth that way today is rightly seen as abhorrent.

You are trying to apply the morals from hundreds of years ago to modern politics, it doesnt work.

Like is said, at some point 'old money' has been earned (however horribly by modern standards) and shouldnt just be taken away from somebody because of something their ancestors did....that just seems spiteful to me.

Again with the Yeovil Town top; oy vey. Enough already...

I don't even know where what who why or how 'Chard' is.

Well, she's been on to me to ask you for it back...she says since she took the injunction out against you that she's afraid to speak to you.

Like is said, at some point 'old money' has been [b]earned[/b]

Define 'earned'.

You are trying to apply the morals from hundreds of years ago to modern politics, it doesnt work.

Erm, I think you've got that a bit topsy-turvey tbh...

and shouldnt just be taken away from somebody because of something their ancestors did....that just seems spiteful to me.

Tell me; your bike gets nicked, someone is found with it but they weren't the one who nicked it. In fact, let's just say they bought it in good faith.

Will you let them keep it?

FFS DD...

I've got a Triestina top from Italy, she can have that and shut about it stupid cah.

Deviant, You are trying to apply the morals from hundreds of years ago to modern politics, it doesnt work.

There you go sorted that one out for you, now then you keep chucking them up in the air and I'll hit em for you.

No, she likes Green and White...

Is the Triestina top Green and White?

No, it's red.

The colour of success....

Green and white ffs... so she's a Catholic now? Oy, and indeed, Vey.

Actually there's a Deportivo Cali top kicking about somewhere, let me have a rummage....

Elfinsafety.

Yeah got the morals bit the wrong way round - typo, sorry.

Define earned?...hard to do, like i said in the previous post what constitutes 'earned' back then will be seen as theft by todays standards.

Some wealthy families made their money during Empire by exploiting people and resources from foreign countries...at the time it was seen as legit and nothing wrong with it...today its rightly frowned upon.
Conversely some 'old money' families have made a mint through legitimate means which would stand up to modern day scrutiny.

What i cant stand about so called modern and fair society is how bitter and spiteful people get about inherited money and the obsession with the class system.

Some people exploited single mothers and used them as drug runners, then stole their football tops, thinking they were Plymouth Argyle kit. It doesn't make it right though. 🙁

What i cant stand about so called modern and fair society is how bitter and spiteful people get about inherited money and the obsession with the class system.

😯

I think the issue is that under the current system, society isn't 'fair'; it's the perpetuation of inequality by the monarchy and class system that makes it so. Sure, society will never be entirely egalitarian, but ours is particularly unequal because those at the top of the pile ensure that the status quo remains so, as it favours them personally, rather than society as a whole.

Human Nature, granted, but i'd like to see a more even playing filed, personally. Let the aristocracy have to fight their way up same as everyone else. What's wrong with that?

In a 100m sprint, all athletes start at exactly the same distance from the line. Those cheating are disqualified. No-one has any advantage over the others, other than individual ability.

I think those at the top fear that if the playing field were level, they would not be able to hold onto wealth and power in the way they do, so they manipulate the situation to suit their own ends. Obviously.

does not in any way make for the most just, exciting, progressive and rewarding society. Just prolongs the stagnation...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Thats just it though Elfinsafety, the aristocracy did fight their way up....just not in your life time or mine....thats why it is called 'old money' and bitching about it hundreds of years later is rather sad dont you think?

Are you proposing a system with no inherited wealth, whereby everybody starts from zero?....what would happen to somebody's wealth after they die in that scenario?....no opportunity or means to pass things on to offspring seems very mean.

Like i said earlier, where do you draw the line?....do you stop my parents from leaving me their house?

Thats just it though Elfinsafety, the aristocracy did [b]fight[/b] their way up....

🙄

bitching about it hundreds of years later is rather sad dont you think?

Erm, no. I think just rolling over and accepting things without question, in spite of them not being fair, just or equal, just because thinking about them is too much effort, quite pathetic.

It's our duty as members of a society to always challenge what we believe to be wrong. Otherwise, Humanity can never progress.

Britain is suffering because it's stuck with an archaic old dinosaur of a system of social organisation. Other nations have successfully cast off the shackles of inherited power, and aren't doing too bad, so why can't we?

The dinosaurs died out cos they were unable to adapt and survive. We're floundering in the mud, while other successfully mutated forms wait gleefully to feast on our rotting carcass...

[img] [/img]

thats why it is called 'old money' and bitching about it hundreds of years later is rather sad dont you think?

Are you proposing a system with no inherited wealth,

Are you proposing a system with no inherited wealth

Inherited power and inherited wealth are two different things.

Actually the inherited wealth thing is an interesting point. Clearly if the proponents of the status quo are right, there is absolutely no need for it obviously. The cream will obviously rise to the surface regardless, especially given all the advantages they will receive even without the inheritance.