I cannot understand the logic of anybody who thinks that a system of hereditary monarchy (and royal family, who will bring in a monarch from a branch of the family in another country if necessary) with its associated privilege/superiority over the the commoners (and being head of the fairly poorly attended established church) is somehow “better” than having some sort of elected/appointed ceremonial head-of-state for shorter term.

The government headed by the Prime Minister ‘run’ the country and could still do so without a monarch.

Celebrating 60 years of the queen surviving since inheriting “the throne” is quite strange if you think about it.

There’s a difference between patriotism/being grateful for being a UK citizen(ok, subject) and being a royalist, although few seem to be able to make this distinction.

I can only assume that staunch Royalists are the sort of people who dislike change and don’t like to question anything.

ps. Just because one is not keen on the idea of monarchy does not mean that one is in favour of a violent Russian-style revolution toppling the monarchy.

Tree of Life. About everything ….and nothing.

I wouldn’t watch it again.

I used to cycle past the Bay Malton on my commute.

I think I’m quite fortunate to have been born into an ordinary family in the UK in the late 20th century, although being born in most other (northern, non-communist-bloc) European countries would have been fine too.

Mr Woppit – Member

One HUGELY great thing about Great Britain in this day and age, is that I can be an Atheist Republican or any other damn thing I choose to be and no-one is going to chop my head off for it. In fact, I’m protected from having that happen.

Indeed,

….but the masses are ignorant Daily Mail/Express/Sun reading pseudo-christian (eg. very-non-practising CofE) royalists and no politician would dare to suggest changing that.

Let’s be grateful for our pleasant, comfortable, accommodating country, but let us not confuse that with an anachronistic, pseudo-divinely-apppointed, feudal, hereditary, life-long monarch sailing down the Thames.

I can never understand why people want to maintain the status quo because,
“It’s always been done that way”

But my point was that people are easily deceived into tasteless putting of “x”s into boxes…

…as they are easily deceived that a constitutional monarchy is the correct and only way.

Do these people think that republics are somehow not proper countries?

Well they voted for King Cameron and Queen Clegg, so their tastes are hardly impeccable…

I think you’ll find that the electorate voted for their local MPs, and David Cameron, as Prime Minister, wasn’t given the keys to a few palaces, castles and counties for his family to enjoy for evermore.

I’d agree that there is something in that. My use of the word “Inexplicable” was the wrong one. It can be explained even if I can’t sympathise with the view.

As I posted earlier in the thread, It seem to me that many people don’t actually know/think about what the monarchy/royalty/Hereditary Peers and bishops in The Lords etc. actually mean.

There is a lot of ignorance about the issue.

Many do seem to find it impossible to separate these things from some mythical notion of “Britishness”. Having a National Anthem with a first verse that talks almost exclusively about God saving the Queen (and allowing her to reign over us, the inferior, common people), rather than saving the country or, heaven forbid, the people, reinforces this situation.

A lot of people seem convinced that this feudal, birth-right system of privilege is better than having elected/appointed1 head-of-state with some degree of accountability, which I find very difficult to understand.

I’m the chap who asked,
“What’s the point?”

The public are, inexplicably, happy to have the current constitutional monarchy.

-The public are a funny bunch.

The people may well vote for the queen, but would they vote for King Charles & Queen Camilla, King William & Queen Kate?
…They won’t have the choice under the current system.

…and yet, and yet, lots of people seem quite happy with the situation. They’re a funny bunch, the public.

Singlespeed_Shep – Member

Because we could have some voted-for or even appointed for a fixed term, with the option to extend the ‘reign’ up to a point.

Like a Prime Minister?
A Prime Minister is the ‘first’ Minister of the government who are elected.

…but, I take your point that the Prime Minister basically ‘runs’/manages the country and agree with you that the queen is unnecessary and we could do without her.

She can keep one of her castles and spend the rest of her days in retirement.

If you claim she is worthless and doesn’t do anything, why do we need to vote for someone to be worthless and do nothing?

Because we could have someone voted-for or even appointed for a fixed term, with the option to extend the ‘reign’ (up to a point) who has the job of shaking hands with people and turning up to meet dignitaries. We wouldn’t need to accommodate their extended family in various palaces and castles.

How is having a pseudo-divinely-appointed monarch and royal family that are supported through throughout their entire lifetime (Even if the king abdicated because he decided to marry a divorcee in the 1930s) and do as much for “us” as they feel like doing, superior to this?

We are not amused

The current queen chooses to keep herself busy, meets the people regularly (There is presumably no formal requirement for these duties)and is regarded as a ‘good’ person. Previous monarchs and some of her close relatives would not necessarily be consideed the same.

The system of having one specially privileged family with ceremonial duties endorsed and funded by the state is an outdated one, extremely wrong and there is no justification for it as far as I can see. The cost or benefit to the taxpayer is an irrelevance.

The masses don’t give these things much thought and may well be happy with being unquestioning. What puzzles me is that the people I’ve spoken to about it generally seem to think that a diamond jubilee is a good thing and that it’s fine to have a monarchy, “because they’ve always been there” -That’s hardly a strong case.

There are jokes about multiple generations of a family living on benefits in council houses, but I’m not going to stoop to that sort of level 😉

Sir, I salute your indefatigability 😉

I certainly don’t like or dislike the people themselves as I don’t know them. I’m not feeling particularly vindictive or unpleasant towards them either, but I do object to the concept of monarchy.

Maybe you, or I, or Dave down the road should become the monarch and our families can be added to the civil list. We’re pleasant enough, deserve it as much as anybody else and it won’t affect ordinary working people as they won’t notice the extra few pence spent from their taxes.

Alternatively, we could just do without a monarchy at all as it is archaic, incompatible with a meritocratic, egalitarian society, not important and we don’t need one.

something ‘royal’ that amused me recently was the discussion about females succeeding the throne over their younger brothers and how it would take a lot of discussion for such a change of protocol.

Now forgive me if I am being simplistic, but it wouldn’t take that much thought or work at all to change to a slightly more gender-equal system would it?

The current queen does keep herself busy and does seem a very dignified lady (luckily), but just think, if the monarchy were dissolved, then the poor old queen wouldn’t have to do any of that any more -60 years is a long time. That’s yet another reason to do so.

Being so far removed from the people is part of the problem….

Dissolving the monarchy and hereditary peerages & removing bishops from the Lords would be moves in the right direction. I’m not sure I have any leftie credentials.

That’s the way I see, Donk.

Taking power by force in the dim and distant past, losing ‘power’, but remaining in a very privileged position, marrying ‘royals’ from other nations to keep it all in the family and occasionally scraping around Europe for successors.

Most of us are ‘commoners’. Nice.

we tried letting politicians be in charge

it didn’t work

Ah yes, it would never work for any country, would it? Those poor, ignorant republics around the world.

How much do you think that the monarch is in charge of in this country?

Would you rather have an elected head of state?

Yes. They don’t have to use the same system as the USA or France. The Irish one would be fine.

The UK government is elected by the population to run the country. The government is headed by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister goes for weekly meetings with the unelected monarch-for-life,(who also signs off ‘laws’). This sounds to me like yet another archaic, deferential part of the system

I reckon it sets a really bad example of our nation to have the pinnicle of our society represented in this way.

Exactly, but a lot of the population don’t seem to see it that way.

We often have 40 litres of petrol and 70 litres of diesel sat on our drive.

HSE

Singlespeed_Shep
Regardless of job, anyone who does it for 60 years gets a party, her job affects more people so gets a bigger party.

What?

Lastly, I think what a lot of people like about the Royal Wedding/Jubilee is the community spirit, togethorness, feeling of patrioticness etc. I can totally understand this, but don’t think we need to confuse these with the royal family. We could still have days that celebrate these things, but could be national democracy day or whatever.

Exactly. The masses fail to make that distinction, because most people don’t give such things any thought. They just do what they’ve always done and the media love a royal story.

There’s no shortage of patriotism in republics.

Singlespeed_Shep – Member
It was an example in US having more holidays. If we had more holidays because we for example where a republic we would have more days off costing £6bn-£1.2bn.

That’s a very peculiar argument. Disbanding the monarchy doesn’t automatically lead to more public holidays…. nor does it lead to Barak Obama or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad becoming our president or adopting the Stars and Stripes.

The cost of the monarchy is irrelevant.

It’s the psuedo-divine-appointment, deference and inequality that is the issue.

As I and others have suggested above, I don’t think that “Royalists” do give it much thought. If they did, they might see it slightly differently.

They are celebrating the life of somebody they don’t know, who, unlike them, has a “God-given”, life-long right to extreme privilege and funding by the state (had she had a brother it would have been him we were celebrating). What is this if not deference?

The arguments about the net financial gain/loss to the country are a distraction.

The royal family are a bunch of normal people who are unaccountable and (whether or not the current queen happens to “work” hard, is wise, dignified etc.) are not superior to rest of the population, although they are treated as such by large numbers of that population.

As the Queen said in a recent Christmas speech,
“It is at this time of the year that we should think of those less fortunate than ourselves” -That’s a lot of people to think about!

Why hang out the flags because the queen has been on the throne for 60 years?

The ideals of IAM are fine.

I’d definitely prefer that the driving public gave some thought to their driving/riding and the impact of their actions on others.

If everybody undertook the IAM course then that would be no bad thing. Observation and planning is is a good thing.

Being a member shouldn’t provide a sense of superiority though.
Theirs (and Rospa’s) system is the slightly quirky, Roadcraft method of driving, but it is not “the one, true way” to smooth car control.

I joined and passed their test(motorbike). I’m grateful to the volunteers who run it, but I’ve no interest in being a member of the club. I didn’t re-new my membership.

failedengineer – Member

Spot on, Aristotle, spot on.
Thanks.

I fail to see how being “royalty” automatically results in superiority or how a fairly powerless, hereditary figurehead ‘head of state’ (and head of the ‘established’ minority church) who’s family are provided with a very privileged existence for life is any way preferable to an elected/appointed one who is in post for a fixed term.

It does genuinely mystify me that so many people seem quite happy to defer to the monarchy. I can only assume that they’ve never really given it much thought.

ps. On a personal note, I find the peculiar tone adopted by BBC correspondents reporting “Royal” stories quite irritating 😐

It’s a shame that, despite the efforts of the people involved, there will always be (vocal) people who like to moan/complain. What is the basis of the “individual’s” complaint?

The mountain biking trails at Gisburn are a great facility and I’ve really enjoyed riding there when I’ve been. I think they have a positive impact on the area. It’s just a shame that I don’t live a bit nearer.

I know that people are all different and have different abilities and attitudes, but the point about people riding around the “qualifier” is a good one. I had to think hard to remember what it actually was, but if somebody can’t ride that, then they should really think twice about riding down the gully.

Likewise, “The staircase” on Home-Baked didn’t particularly stick in my memory (I’ve just found it on Youtube) although I do enjoy that section, but more for the turns.

This proves that there is no point to dissolve the monarchy or even keep it. Sort of a stalemate.

We won’t be better or worse off so just leave it.
Proves?

it isn’t about the money.

I suspect that the economy of the country would not be significantly affected by the absence of the monarchy.

As for the debate about Monarchy or Republic , well I for one reckon we are far better off having a nominal head of state rather than a new president every few years, a Prime MInister is more than enough to wreck an economy with out another career politician joining in as President.

Some presidents are nominal figure-heads-of-state, it depends on the system used. I’m not sure that a lifetime monarch is superior, but maybe I should be more deferential and question less.

The title of the person who is actually ‘running’ the country is irrelevant.

teamhurtmore – Member

Aristotle – Happy to leave you to enjoy your views and pass on the obvious flaw in meritocracy.
Eh? So you would prefer a hereditary dictatorship?

ps. I may be wrong, but I’m not 100% sure that the fairly arbitrary choice of a forum pseudonym makes me the reincarnation of an ancient Greek philosopher. Either way, I don’t think that it has much bearing on whether the UK has a monarchy.

be thankful that this constitutional monarchy allows you the liberty to enjoy and exercise your view.

Yes, I pity those poor, repressed (liberté, égalité, fraternité) French people who do not have the protection of a monarch.

you may wish to compare here{sic) vision of duty with those of our elected representatives (sic).

Launching ships, opening public buildings and going on foreign visits? You’re right, that sounds much more helpful than running public services, the economy and international negotiations. I’m even more grateful for the other royals.

Would you also prefer an unelected hereditary dictatorship to elected politicians? Maybe the North Korean system?

Better still – simply go and have a ride. Not a great weekend for republicans after all!!

Indeed, we can feel shame at our lack of deference and delight at a fairytale, non-ruling, nepotistic system. Gawbless ’em.

Singlespeed_Shep – Member

But the estates bring in £226 million in surplus income.

…and do they do this only because the royals ‘own’ them?

Would they disappear if the monarchy was disbanded?

Again, it is irrelevant. It is about having a country that at least pretends to have a meritocracy rather than a blatant closed-shop in the upper echelons.

Singlespeed_Shep – Member
You can pick at everything that it is put in front of you all you want. but this is one example, The royals do bring money in.

…So do arms manufacturers who sell to dubious regimes.

My objection the notion of monarchy has nothing to do with the expense/revenue of the Royal family.

My objection is to a system that assumes that one family are superior to all others in the country by birth(I appreciate that it is a very fair system, as I could become a royal by marriage, but as I’m already married it is unlikely)

Why should we ‘defer’ to these people or give them any more respect than anybody else in the country?

Don’t forget that the queen is only ‘on the throne’ because her uncle abdicated to marry somebody who had been previously divorced and this was presumably against the very important ‘royal protocol’ at the time -It isn’t by divine appointment.

The monarchy/royal family is an anachronistic organisation that has no place in the UK in 2012.

What is the point in keeping them if only to demonstrate that we are a slightly eccentric country that can’t quite make the sensible decisions to remove the long-term nepotism of monarchy and hereditary peerages and to dis-establish the church.

I rode the circuit a bit last week.

If the roads were closed off I reckon I’d have a chance of being on the podium 😉

To average 130mph around there seems quiet amazing, really.

I’m so pleased that our monarch has been on the throne for 60 years. It makes so much difference to me and this country that she is there.

Oh, hang on a minute, it makes no difference to me or to this country at all.

It’s not about money (costs or benefits), but about the whole concept of superiority by accident of birth (and a (in)conveniently abdicating uncle) and the strange deference that goes along with it.

Really, what is the point?

ps. The national anthem is a miserable dirge.

There are different debates going on here, but I’d prefer that the general population took part in physical activity, even if there is a relatively small risk of injury.

On second thoughts, I’d actually prefer that they continue to travel, en masse, to the Trafford Centre at weekends.

As you were.

Lazy journalism pandering to narrow minded bigots

Exactly.

The ‘extreme’ label is laughable, but does make something as easy as riding a bike sound more ‘gnarly’ to the masses, Dude …Or irresponsible, depending upon your viewpoint.

How many bicyclists have been hit/knocked off by cars on the roads of that newspaper’s Lancashire catchment area over the same period?

“The Boat That Rocked”

The only cinema showing that I’ve ever walked-out of -plenty of others did the same.

Truly, truly dire.

Right-wing tabloids popular with angry (ignorant?) members of the middle-aged & older generations spout a hatred of cyclists (amongst many other ‘minority’ groups). Angry motorists stuck in traffic don’t like cyclists …especially if they ride through red lights.

Stevelol – Member

I don’t understand why so many people hurt themselves at Hully Gully :S

A lot of the people I see riding mtbs are not very good riders, I presumably don’t see the faster/more skilled ones ahead of me ….but I have to say that my fairly sociable, weekend-warrior-Dads riding chums and I are rarely overtaken, up or downhill, when we ride, trail centres or otherwise.

“Trail centres” are a double-edged sword, but are a good thing on the whole. Let’s hope that the council don’t read this newspaper.

ps. I’m not claiming to a riding god, I once crashed, broke my ribs and was rescued by a helicopter 🙂