Has the monarchy had its day?

[Sticks]

This is no reflection on the current incumbent who has done an excellent job with what the hand of fate has dealt her.

Separating the person from the position, how can we justify having a head of state selected due to accident of birth, especially as we have encouraged democracy in new countries?

I realise people look at the American presidency with horror, but there are other models for an elected head of state, like the Irish Republic of all places

So in the 21st Century has the monarchy had it's day

[Jack_]

Yes, but it should only be abolished once we've fixed social mobility, are rid of capitalism and all have equal opportunities.

It should be the final stage of it all IMO. No point getting rid of it beforehand as it'll only cause more financial problems.

[Kizzy]

Yes, but it should only be abolished once we've fixed social mobility, are rid of capitalism and all have equal opportunities.

It should be the final stage of it all IMO. No point getting rid of it beforehand as it'll only cause more financial problems.

yup...Thought given the current climate she might be willing to have her entourage live a little more frugally with the public purse....but no...instead we chuck her a huge party!
Well we can always close a couple of youth centres, cut frontline police officers again, close a hospital ward ...maybe a meals on wheels service to offset the cost?

[Tom4784]

I don't think it matters either way, the Royals are just figureheads with no real power. I say live and let live since they do do a lot for tourism.

[Mrluvaluva]

The 10.5 million pounds used for today comes from privately donated money, rather than public funds. Of course though the bills for policing the event etc are paid for by the tax payer.

[joeysteele]

No, I would want and vote to keep the Monarchy over a Presidential system anyday. I don't see my mind changing on that to be honest.

[arista]

Yes, but it should only be abolished once we've fixed social mobility, are rid of capitalism and all have equal opportunities.

It should be the final stage of it all IMO. No point getting rid of it beforehand as it'll only cause more financial problems.


Jack
Thats Every Day Life
buying your Bread.

Capitalism will be here after you have gone.

[Livia]

Seeing the number of people who have turned out in the rain the see the Royal Flotilla, and all the thousands of events going on up and down the country, I would say the Monarchy is still very much a part of our country's identity and heritage.

[Kizzy]

The 10.5 million pounds used for today comes from privately donated money, rather than public funds. Of course though the bills for policing the event etc are paid for by the tax payer.

Does it?
http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/civil%20list%20report%202010/Introduction%20and%20overview%202009.pdf

[Mrluvaluva]

Does it?
http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/civil%20list%20report%202010/Introduction%20and%20overview%202009.pdf

If you think I am going to read all that you will be sorely disappointed. Please just state your point.

[Jack_]

Jack
Thats Every Day Life
buying your Bread.

Capitalism will be here after you have gone.

But I'd rather not live in a world of exploitation, consumerism and greed, which is what capitalism breeds.

It's a system which seeks only to reinforce and reproduce social inequalities. That cannot be justified, people should work for the benefit of the community and society, not profit. Obsessing with capital is a dangerous and detrimental concept.

[Livia]

I've just seen on the news, hundreds of thousands of flag-waving people ignoring the rain and joining in the celebrations along the Thames... and less than a hundred joyless, dour-faced anti-monarchists with placards outside County Hall, whining. There's your answer, I think.

[Patrick]

:bored: Yes. Load of sh*t.

[Patrick]

I've just seen on the news, hundreds of thousands of flag-waving people ignoring the rain and joining in the celebrations along the Thames... and less than a hundred joyless, dour-faced anti-monarchists with placards outside County Hall, whining. There's your answer, I think.

Who cares? That's just people looking for an excuse to celebrate something.

All you ever hear is how much the royal family piss people off, because they are irrelevant and mean nothing anymore. I think people can find many other ways to celebrate and show their culture and stuff like that, than trying to celebrate something silly like a Royal Wedding or a 60th Anniversary of some silly hag - when any other day of the year, no one pays any attention to them.

[arista]

But I'd rather not live in a world of exploitation, consumerism and greed, which is what capitalism breeds.

It's a system which seeks only to reinforce and reproduce social inequalities. That cannot be justified, people should work for the benefit of the community and society, not profit. Obsessing with capital is a dangerous and detrimental concept.


But no place in this World has true communism.


Jack
Santana's New CD Shape Shifter (20 years of outtakes)
is non profit
all goes to his charity
http://p.playserver1.com/ProductImages/5/9/7/1/8/9/0/3/30981795_300x300_1.jpg


So not Everyone is into Evil Greed.


http://p.playserver1.com/ProductImages/9/8/7/2/8/4/0/2/20482789_500x500_1.jpg
This is a Movie you need to watch, Jack.

[Niall]

I think so. We need to move toward a society where a group of people are considered Royal because of their lineage, and are awarded certain powers (if only used on ceremonial occasions) for that, and towards one where the leaders of our country are elected by the people. I know the Royal family is a deeply entrenched part of Britain, but its time for change.

This country is so deeply embedded with a class system that needs to be destroyed. It seems now more than ever that the rich get richer, whilst the poor get poorer, and the Royal family do remind me a lot of that wealthy elite that runs this country.

[Mrluvaluva]

All you ever hear is how much the royal family piss people off, because they are irrelevant and mean nothing anymore.

Do you? I generally hear quite the opposite.

I would say that a large part of the UK, and elsewhere, have been united in celebrating such an event like today. That's surely not a bad thing.

And you all got an extra days bank holiday...

[Sticks]

My understanding is the queen is quite frugal, all the pomp comes from the system itself.

Again we need to separate person from position.

Lizzy never asked to be monarch, it was thrust upon her by fate and she had made the best she could of it.

As for the tourism I would like to know what percentage of Americans visit the UK compared to visiting the other European countries to see if the monarchy is such a magnet for overseas tourism.

[Mrluvaluva]

My understanding is the queen is quite frugal, all the pomp comes from the system itself.

Again we need to separate person from position.

Lizzy never asked to be monarch, it was thrust upon her by fate and she had made the best she could of it.

As for the tourism I would like to know what percentage of Americans visit the UK compared to visiting the other European countries to see if the monarchy is such a magnet for overseas tourism.

You can get some facts and figures here:

http://www.visitbritain.org/

[Kizzy]

If you think i'm reading all that you can kiss it.... :)

[GypsyGoth]

It should be a lottery each year who gets to be the royal family. So that each year it changes and eventually everyone will get a chance.

[Mrluvaluva]

Everyone will get a chance to have a go at the royal lottery, or everyone will get a chance to be in the royal family? If the latter, there would have to be some pretty large, extended family set ups. Just like the royal family really...

[GypsyGoth]

Everyone will get a chance to have a go at the royal lottery, or everyone will get a chance to be in the royal family? If the latter, there would have to be some pretty large, extended family set ups. Just like the royal family really...

:laugh:

Yea the details would have to be sorted out.

[Livia]

Who cares? That's just people looking for an excuse to celebrate something.

All you ever hear is how much the royal family piss people off, because they are irrelevant and mean nothing anymore. I think people can find many other ways to celebrate and show their culture and stuff like that, than trying to celebrate something silly like a Royal Wedding or a 60th Anniversary of some silly hag - when any other day of the year, no one pays any attention to them.

No, I don't always hear how much the royal family piss people off... only on here really where people post links to stuff they don't understand, and in the gutter press, and from a few anti-royalists they wheel out for debate shows, the same old faces over and over with the same ill-informed whines.

And really... your tone and language as usual are illustrative of the fact that you know so little about it and speak from your own freakishly limited perspective, that it's not worth a debate with you

[Sticks]

Which is why I suggested we separate the person(s) from the position.

[Callum]

Nope, they're good for tourism and it's not like we pay hundreds of pounds each year for them to stay. Plus The Queen/royal family is good for foreign relations, she's the only person who can conjure up crowds of thousands of people all pleased to see her around the world. No president or prime minister could ever do that.

[joeysteele]

Nope, they're good for tourism and it's not like we pay hundreds of pounds each year for them to stay. Plus The Queen/royal family is good for foreign relations, she's the only person who can conjure up crowds of thousands of people all pleased to see her around the world. No president or prime minister could ever do that.

Absolutely Callum, really she hasn't put a foot wrong that I can see and from all I hear form people much older than me, only the period at the time of Princess Diana's death was there a likely tricky moment for the Monarchy which very soon was turned around again.

I agree with every word of your post.

[Saph]

No I love the royal family, they're all we have going for us :joker:

For now at least, I can only see the monarchy getting more popular, with the Royal Wedding last year and the Jubilee this year, its sort of introduced them to the younger generations. I wasnt really that bothered about them before the wedding but now Im facinated by them

[Saph]

trying to celebrate something silly like a Royal Wedding or a 60th Anniversary of some silly hag - when any other day of the year, no one pays any attention to them.


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2fspcHDGB1qhh6sgo1_500.gif

[Sticks]

There is this anomaly where we encouraged the emerging nations after the fall of the old Soviet Union, and other emerging states to embrace democracy and yet our own head of state is not democratically elected.

Pot calling kettle black anyone?

[Kizzy]

I agree with saphlike, in a way they are all we have going for us.....
And no we should not be without them I guess, however I would prefer it if her maj made a concious effort to connect more with her subjects.
To see the level of social depravation that some Britains live in, the link I provided earlier lays out the expenditure for the royal family.. To say I understood it would be a lie, as It is really mind boggling.
The upkeep of the residences alone...I read of the modernisation of the drainage and the heating system currently being undertaken at Buckingham palace...Really?...In a double dip recession?...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8499943/How-Civil-List-reform-will-affect-the-Royal-family.html
QUOTE:
How is the Royal Family currently funded?

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh receive an annual Civil List grant from the government to the monarch to meet the expenses of acting as Head of State. This was fixed by the Chancellor at £7.9 million for 2011, a figure unchanged for more than a decade. Separate grants are paid to cover the cost of running the Royal household, set for 2011 at £22 million. The Queen will receive a one-off £1 million supplement in 2012 to help pay for diamond jubilee celebrations.

What I find unusual is why the royal family family can not effectively be a not for profit organisation?
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/HeadofStateexpenditure.aspx
QUOTE:
Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In 2008-09 the Treasury’s gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate were £230 million

So in 2009 the public funded the royal family to the tune of 41.5 million and yet the royal estate had brought in 230 million in revenue during 2008-9?.... It makes no sense to me.

[Kizzy]

To me this topic is similar to another that has been opened....

[Marsh.]

So in 2009 the public funded the royal family to the tune of 41.5 million and yet the royal estate had brought in 230 million in revenue during 2008-9?.... It makes no sense to me.

What makes no sense?

Edit - Ah, I see what you mean, it is quite confusing. But your post highlights why a certain poster was so very wrong in his other thread.

[Jords]

I said yes then I read the comments about what actual benefits they bring and I sorta agree with it, so maybe not.

I do agree with Niall also though that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

[Marsh.]

I do think moving forward, where the Royals like William and Harry are becoming more and more identifiable with the general public that "connecting" with their subjects will eventually happen. Possibly anyway. They take after Diana for being very open, natural and not really afraid to get their hands dirty.

We seem to be coming away from the "stranger in a crown living in a mansion" and knowing the new generations of Royals more as people.

[spitfire]

Why get rid of one of the few British institutions that works really well?
Ours is the oldest monarchy in Europe. It has constantly changed with the times in order to retain consent. That is its genius.
There has been a social revolution in Britain since the Queen came to the throne in 1952.
This is now a multicultural society based on enterprise, not birth.Monarchy has not hindered that. Indeed, having a head of state beyond and outside politics has really helped the country to change democratically and peacefully.
Before the Queen was crowned, she pledged to serve the country always, she has kept that promise.She has now been on the throne for 60 years, she is 86 and, unlike most OAPs, she still works on and on and on, week after week, year after year.
Among her many duties, she heads the Army (which loves her) and countless charities (which depend on her) and she has assisted each of her Prime Ministers since Winston Churchill.Every Prime Minister has praised her guidance at their private weekly meetings. They have all known that the Queen is the one person who will never leak their views and never stab them in the back.They also know she has the national interest, not party politics, at heart.She has never done anything to embarrass this country. She is greatly admired by statesmen as different as Ronald Reagan, Boris Yeltsin and Nelson Mandela.There are many republics with corrupt or irrelevant "revolving door" presidents where the people envy the stable continuity of our constitutional monarchy.
It is part of the country's DNA; we would lose it at our peril.The polls show that, despite the ups and downs of her family in recent years, the overwhelming majority of the British people still support the monarchy.

RULE BRITANNIA.

[Kizzy]

I do think moving forward, where the Royals like William and Harry are becoming more and more identifiable with the general public that "connecting" with their subjects will eventually happen. Possibly anyway. They take after Diana for being very open, natural and not really afraid to get their hands dirty.

We seem to be coming away from the "stranger in a crown living in a mansion" and knowing the new generations of Royals more as people.

That is great but how does that relate in monetary terms?...
The likeability factor is great, kudos to them....still solves nothing as to the promoting themselves as ambassadors of the people...Just still glorified show ponies.

[Marsh.]

That is great but how does that relate in monetary terms?...
The likeability factor is great, kudos to them....still solves nothing as to the promoting themselves as ambassadors of the people...Just still glorified show ponies.

That's why I said "possibly". It's ever changing, but as far as their role as Head of State goes the lines are blurry considering their limited actual power.
At the moment it is just a representation of British history and as is, they're not a great deal of harm.

[Kizzy]

That's why I said "possibly". It's ever changing, but as far as their role as Head of State goes the lines are blurry considering their limited actual power.
At the moment it is just a representation of British history and as is, they're not a great deal of harm.

They?... We only have one head of state...The Queen
I never suggested they were harm...I suggested they could use their influence to do more good within the UK is all....

[Marsh.]

They?... We only have one head of state...The Queen
I never suggested they were harm...I suggested they could use their influence to do more good within the UK is all....

I never meant they are all heads of state. I meant them as the Royals, they (the family- Charles, William, his kids) as future heads of state and how that role and position may change and evolve in the future as it has done already. How hopefully it does take a more positive and active direction. No need to be pedantic.

I never said you suggested they were harm, I understood perfectly what you said. I actually agreed with you.

Fgs, you don't half make it difficult sometimes with your comments.

[Z]

I imagine I speak on behalf of a large percentage of the population when I say I don't mind either way. They don't impact upon my day to day living and I don't mind that they are there. I don't take any interest in them, I've not seen any of this jubilee stuff on TV at all and appreciate the bank holiday, that's about it really.

[Kizzy]

I never meant they are all heads of state. I meant them as the Royals, they (the family- Charles, William, his kids) as future heads of state and how that role and position may change and evolve in the future as it has done already. How hopefully it does take a more positive and active direction. No need to be pedantic.

I never said you suggested they were harm, I understood perfectly what you said. I actually agreed with you.

Fgs, you don't half make it difficult sometimes with your comments.

Ok reading back that did sound a bit abrupt marsh soz :)

[billy123]

The monarchy has an approval rating of 86% and that is pre jubilee that is far more of an accurate rating than a little poll on a kiddy dominated forum.
They are very approved of by the majority.
http://www.southcoastflagpoles.co.uk/pics/diamond%20jubilee%20flags%20queens%20jubilee%20201 2.jpg

[Marsh.]

Ok reading back that did sound a bit abrupt marsh soz :)

Thank you. :hugesmile:

[Sticks]

The monarchy has an approval rating of 86% and that is pre jubilee that is far more of an accurate rating than a little poll on a kiddy dominated forum.
They are very approved of by the majority.


Is that the Queen who is loved and admired and has the approval rating or the position? We are fortunate in this part of history we have someone like Lizzy on the throne, but go back in history the monarch of the time was not as good. Remember we even had one that precipitated a civil war and was executed for treason.

Monarchists and republicans alike make the same error, they do not separate the person from the position.

[Sticks]

Just in case you missed it a message from the Queen

uDQu-HJGhuM

[joeysteele]

While it's true we did have a civil war in the Country,that was a vastly different time, for my part after reading loads about it, I would still have fought on the Royalist side then.
The Monarch then however had absolute rule,(unlike now), the civil war was as to who held the greater power or all the power, Monarch or Parliament. Not that anyone at that time in Britain had any lawful right to try a King,the Monarch was the highest law in the land.

Even then again though, after only 11 years, the people soon were screaming out for a return to a Monarchy,which was then restored in 1660,having been abolished in 1649.

Different rules then applied to the Monarch after that though and Parliament had much greater control of events.
Today, the Monarch has no real power but still commands its status and I don't think it matters who is on the throne, the Queen is a perfect Ambassador for the UK,she is adored by the vast majority, I believe though, the generation of William and Harry and their children are only likely to strengthen the position of the Monarchy further and that will be the great legacy left by this Queen through her descendants.