..what I mean is, removing privilege by birth will not remove hopelessness by birth..the removal of one extreme will not prevent the opposite extreme existing...all it will do is to remove that much needed help the privilege and influence has brought..priveledge also brings opportunities to travel etc and to see and to understand, which is the positive of it...that seeing and that understanding ‘of far off worlds’ is brought back to us and then we act and funds are raised etc...


...Diana was a great example in that without the existence of the Royal family, she may have not even travelled to the places she did, let alone support and ambassador those charities that she did...she saw, she spoke, we listened, type thing...without that, yes there are still terrible birth wrongs in the world and always will be...but with their influence and works and their dedication, the Royals do make it all slightly less, I think...and every little etc..

I would definitely vote to keep them

I actually really like the Royal Family.

I'm not just talking about extremes though Ammi; I'm talking about the average, normal citizen and the subliminal message that something like a Royal Family can place in the public mindset for normal people. The idea that one is "just normal", should have "normal aspirations", shouldn't strive "beyond their place", should be aware of and accept where they slot into a social hierarchy. I think that's damaging, to many people, and it's so subtle that I don't think many people even see it? It's also, in my opinion, a very deliberately constructed social message... They WANT people to "stay in their lane" and let the old families / old money get on with pulling the strings. It benefits absolutely no one but the aristocracy, in the long run.


In terms of bringing people together... Well. That assumes that everyone is into it, which isn't the case. Everyone isn't "everyone"... Some of us DON'T mourn the death, or celebrate the birth or marriage, of a Royal any more than any other of the millions of random families in Britain. In fact, I find it sort of miserable that we celebrate the birth of Little George more than we do the birth of a baby two doors down. That we mourn the death of the Queen mother like it's some huge national incident when old ladies her age die literally every hour without mention. That the nation screeched and wailed over Diana when - despite her doing some good things for charity - there are people who do FAR more for the world than she ever did who die without so much as a mention in the local paper.

That's a problem to me. The idea that it's good for us to "look up" for inspiration, instead of bothering to look around us. Especially when the inspiration that's "up there" is mostly duty-driven. Fake, hollow plastic window dressing.

I'd keep it.

Inherited privilege and wealth will always exist, because people want to look after their own children most, and are unlikely to vote for a system that made everyone start from scratch (or an even base).

I'm always amazed at the number of celebrities and TV presenters etc. that have famous parents. It's a big advantage.

Even if it was completely meritocratic, the ones who had the best genes - eg. for intelligence - would have the advantage. That's as much an accident of birth as anything else.

I have found this post from you both interesting and compelling TS.

My mind isn't changed as to my supporting a Monarchy.
However you outline some very strong,valid and thought provoking elements to this topic.

Well presented by you, good one.

I would vote to keep. I dont look up to them nor do i know anyone that does. They bring an awful lots of tourism to our country, do a lot for charities here and abroad and also keep a link with other countries that we may not have had or kept.

Maybe 100 years ago. The days when a Duchess could go down the the East End in a big hat and the locals would come out tugging their collective forelocks is well and truly over. That's a very dated view of the British, in my opinion.

I had the privilege to work with the Prince's Trust when I left uni, and it really does change the lives of young people. I don't think Charlie gets nearly enough credit for that.

When people go to see them going into church or whatever they do is it any different to the people who line the red carpet at movie premiers...I wouldn't indulge in either but for some people it's what they want to do, no different to following someones every move on Twitter

Only because these days people don't have to bother leaving their homes to do it... they can just sit at home and wank at their telly.

Exactly Cherie :thumbs:

What good do they do?

And if you are going to say tourism then quantify it against what they cost and what we would gain from property and land sale?

Well the standard answer is "tourism" but there's absolutely no evidence that it's much more than an urban myth. Literally no wide scale studies have been done into the potential effect of it on tourism. Royal attractions are estimated to generate only something like 0.5 billion / year in tourism (of something like 15 billion total) and while there MIGHT be some drop in how attractive those are once it's not an active monarchy... there's absolutely no evidence that it would be significant, and it obviously would never drop to zero. "Royal attractions" are still very popular in countries with dead historical monarchies and also you have to factor in being able to totally open up those attractions to the public. There would probably be a measurable SURGE in tourism for at least a decade. But again it's all supposition; no one has actually attempted to measure this in any detail... hence, it being stated as "fact" that the Royals do wonders for tourism is just completely made up :shrug:. Potentially wishful thinking with zero evidence base.

As for being supposed to gush over how much they do for charity... I'm sorry but it would be absolutely bloody abhorrent if they WEREN'T using their completely unearned position of wealth and privilege to help others. They know this very well, and while I'm sure they do naturally get some personal "good feels" from it, it'd take a lot to convince me that it isn't mostly just a huge PR exercise because they know that this good image is part of what keeps them around when most of the world has long moved past the concept of genetic succession.

Wow... that's a very low view of anyone who supports the royals.

The royal family has moved on. Sadly, wannabe republicans have not.

Who's gushing? The only one using colourful language and suggesting people are wanking at their telly... is you.

If you'd care to cast an eye over other posts in this thread, you'd see what they do.

I think mass hysteria over the death of a royal (Princess Diana) and collective excitement over a royal wedding or birth is whipped up by the media. Regardless of the media, the reaction I witnessed with Diana's death was a collective moment of tenderness and the excitement of a royal wedding or birth as collective moments of happiness. If we weren't following the royals, we would be following someone else... the kardashians, Katy Perry or Justin Bieber.

I think its human nature for a lot of people to have a fundamental need to look up to and admire someone we consider honorable or flawless or admirable. I for example greatly admire Diana's sons because I think they've done an enormous amount of public good. I look up to Kate as flawless and graceful and I remember princess Diana as turbulent but intriguing. I don't think my admiration is unhealthy. I don't aspire to be like them. I'm just charmed by them and would hate to see them gone.

That said, I think there are far too many royal hangers-on. The extended royal family imo shouldn't be getting all these royal privileges.

I did and i dont

What i am asking is what is the cost benefit of abolishing and selling the assets.

Every evil empire creates jobs as well as good ones.

I wonder how much we could raise via Purple Bricks if we sold this lot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...yal_residences

I expect we could sort out the NHS, the Elderly Care system and the homeless and still have tons left over for Sweets and a new PS4?

I agree with all of that. The last line is particularly pertinent, there should be a cull of the 'minor' royals.

I was going to lay out the figures as I see them, but you know what, LT? Until I got to the bit about the evil empire. Now I can't be arsed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-10491277.html

even Visit Britain have no figure for this "boost" to the economy via tourism

#oldwivestale

and lets not even start about why at the "head" of the country we have people who become rich and powerful due to who their parents are rather than through hard work and endeavour..

https://i0.wp.com/www.unofficialroya..._daughters.jpg

You could say that about anyone with a few bob. Nepotism isn't confined to the royals. How many "celebrity dynasties" do we have? All hugely admired and fawned over... for acting, or singing, or something equally overvalued.

But it's imaginary; they aren't.

But it's imaginary, she isn't. At the end of many a day she no doubt lies down next to her husband and says "Do you know what Wills? Pretending to be perfect and graceful all day is ****ing exhausting!"

Look what it did to Diana ffs. Did we really learn nothing? She was adored as an unrealistic avatar of flawlessness and grace and the pressure of that image made her hugely unhappy... I think she would be spinning circles in her grave looking at the images of William, Kate and their children splashed all over the tabloids. She would surely be hugely worried for them, as she always was for herself and her boys.


They are flawed. All people are flawed. And believing otherwise, believing that there is such a thing as a flawless or "superior" type of human, is really detrimental to the vast majority of people. It's hard to see that because it's been something we've been doing forever but it's a psychological mess. It's an unrealistic idea of what a human being actually is, and it contributes massively to people NOT accepting each other's flaws. And surely you can't argue that as a society, currently, we are generally accepting of each other's flaws?

Would we? I wouldn't and don't... many already do... some more I'm sure would... but you can't make such sweeping inclusive statements. Not everyone worships celebrity of any type.

And to go on from that; yes there are many celebrity dynasties that are fawned over but that's not the question. The question is SHOULD they be. My answer is "no, never, not from my perspective." And the question isn't and was never "is nepotism confined to the Royals"... it's "does the very concept and existence of the Royals NORMALISE nepotism and make it so that we are less likely to question it". That's been my entire point all along. They make something toxic and ****ing weird seem "normal", they are the proto-celebs from before celebrities were celebrities, except that instead of even pretending to be able to act or sing, no matter how badly, they have their status for literally no reason at all. And en masse we think that's "OK because that's how it's always been, it's tradition". And I guess, because they're "pretty to look at" in all of their finery.

It's odd. Just odd. And it degrades and lessens the importance of the individual in countless seemingly minor but ultimately damaging ways.


But meh. Maybe I've given it too much thought. Maybe society isn't actually a mess and shouldn't be questioned so hard... maybe people do "need" their human deities. If the cancer runs too deep it can sometimes be impossible to cut it out without killing the host, I suppose?

I didn't really get the Diana hysteria either, and I think the Royals are far from perfect, I do think for some they do bring a great joy to many people just like Hollywood A listers whether that be watching them on telly or following them on Twitter or getting up at silly o clock to get to Buck Hose to catch a glimpse so be it each to his own, they are part and parcel of British heritage and culture