ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums - Should the Monarchy be abolished?

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)

- Serious Debates & News (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)

- - Should the Monarchy be abolished? (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200889)

The Royal Family are good value for money. The Queen pays tax, and draws only around £9million pa from the public purse - compare that some some of the other nonsense that is funded by the public. The Royal Household is also a major employer and much of the public money they bring in goes to pay staff wages. Also - forget tourists - the Royal family do a lot of diplomatic stuff that brings in trade and therefore revenue to this country. But the most important factor is that is it can only be a good thing to have a non-political head of state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5138185)

All of those points are well made, however you completely ignore the inherent discriminatory issues with the monarchy. It is a completely UNdemocratic institution.

First of all, because the monarch is also the head of the National Church(Anglican Church) you lose any and all sense of separation of church and state, which makes the monarchy being christian an inherently islamophobic, anti-semetic, and every other word for discrimination against religion too

Second, because the monarchy does not recognize same-sex couples, it is an inherently homophobic institution. The Monarchy would not recognize 2 kings, and would not acknowledge any children whether adopted or through a serogate to be recognized as legitimate parts of the royal family.

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.

It is an inherently discriminatory institution on every level. Arn't you offended by any of these points?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5138185)

The Royal Family are good value for money. The Queen pays tax, and draws only around £9million pa from the public purse - compare that some some of the other nonsense that is funded by the public. The Royal Household is also a major employer and much of the public money they bring in goes to pay staff wages. Also - forget tourists - the Royal family do a lot of diplomatic stuff that brings in trade and therefore revenue to this country. But the most important factor is that is it can only be a good thing to have a non-political head of state.

Yes Very True
thats why they are staying in place

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaphLiike (Post 5127798)

No I like having the Royal family :amazed: its the only thing Britain is known for..

We should be done with Priministers though, i'd rather have a President

You can't have a president without abolishing the Queen though. A president is an elected head of state, whereas the Queen is an inherited head of state. A prime minister is something completely different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 5138203)

Third, all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline.

Phil's a Greek ..... ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niall (Post 5138232)

That's right. The Prime Minister of Britain is equivalent to the US Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The Equivilent to David Cameron in the US is not Obama, it is John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representitives (the majority leader).

That's why when the UK PM visits the US he never gets a state visit reception. The Equivalent to the President is the Queen, and that's why only the Queen get's official State visits with the President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omah (Post 5138235)

Phil's a Greek ..... ;)

He's white enough for government work. :P and doesn't he hate the greeks? lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 5138203)

No, I'm not offended by those points. The Pope is head of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make him an anti-semite. In fact, Prince Charles has stated publically that he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faiths" rather than "Defender of the Faith" when he becomes king to reflect the variety of religions in the country.

It's a little far-fetched to call the whole Royal Family homophobes. Give it time, I'm sure this ancient institution will catch up. They've only just granted that if William and Kate have a female child, that child will rule. I'm sure the USA would never elect a homosexual president right now. Does that make the whole of the USA homophobic?

No, there is probably no chance right now that a black child could be king or queen. In much the same way that it's unlikely that someone Christian and white will ever be King of Jordan. That doesn't make them racist.

It's not an undemocratic institution because the Royals hold no political sway. They don't make decisions about taxation, about the armed forces... about anything. That's the Government's job.

I've always wondered what would happen if one of the heir to the throne was gay. I'd love to see that happen just to see how they'd handle it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5138243)

No, I'm not offended by those points. The Pope is head of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make him an anti-semite. In fact, Prince Charles has stated publically that he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faiths" rather than "Defender of the Faith" when he becomes king to reflect the variety of religions in the country.

It's a little far-fetched to call the whole Royal Family homophobes. Give it time, I'm sure this ancient institution will catch up. They've only just granted that if William and Kate have a female child, that child will rule. I'm sure the USA would never elect a homosexual president right now. Does that make the whole of the USA homophobic?

No, there is probably no chance right now that a black child could be king or queen. In much the same way that it's unlikely that someone Christian and white will ever be King of Jordan. That doesn't make them racist.

It's not an undemocratic institution because the Royals hold no political sway. They don't make decisions about taxation, about the armed forces... about anything. That's the Government's job.

They don't exercise the power over those things, but they DO still have that power(legally). Why should you wait for a tyrant to come along to amend what obviously should be amended?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 5138203)

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.

Well, the UK is mostly white*, whereas, in the US, Black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed-race births made up 50.4% of new arrivals in the year ending in July 2011.

There were 52m Hispanics in the US in 2011 - the largest minority group - followed by 43.9m African-Americans.

More than half the populations of four states - Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas - plus Washington DC - are "minorities".

As the population changes the US will see an inevitable decline in the numbers of whites in the labour force.

In the not-too-distant future, there may be no possibility for a white child to hold the highest office in the US of A.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457

*White British 50,366,497 (85.67%)
*White (other) 3,096,169 (5.27%)

:idc:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niall (Post 5138245)

I've always wondered what would happen if one of the heir to the throne was gay. I'd love to see that happen just to see how they'd handle it.

There's been a lot of speculation over the sexuality of a lot of European royalty in history, but obviously back in the day treason was a serious crime so no one would have breathed a word. I imagine they would deny everything and they'd marry that person off into a heterosexual relationship, much like Hollywood...

Step forward Eddie....haha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zee (Post 5143317)

There's been a lot of speculation over the sexuality of a lot of European royalty in history, but obviously back in the day treason was a serious crime so no one would have breathed a word. I imagine they would deny everything and they'd marry that person off into a heterosexual relationship, much like Hollywood...

I 100% agree with all your comments,especially the last part that would be as near certain as anyone could be that would be what was done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zee (Post 5143317)

There's been a lot of speculation over the sexuality of a lot of European royalty in history, but obviously back in the day treason was a serious crime so no one would have breathed a word.

Rumours about Monarchs have always been rife :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_...Piers_Gaveston

Quote:

Edward II and Piers Gaveston

Several contemporary sources criticised Edward's seeming infatuation with Piers Gaveston, to the extent that he ignored and humiliated his wife. Chroniclers called the relationship excessive, immoderate, beyond measure and reason and criticised his desire for wicked and forbidden sex. The Westminster chronicler claimed that Gaveston had led Edward to reject the sweet embraces of his wife; while the Meaux Chronicle (written several decades later) took concern further and complained that, Edward took too much delight in sodomy. While such sources do not, in themselves, prove that Edward and Gaveston were lovers, they at least show that some contemporaries and later writers thought strongly that this might be the case.

Gaveston was considered to be athletic and handsome; he was a few years older than Edward and had seen military service in Flanders before becoming Edward's close companion. He was known to have a quick, biting wit, and his fortunes continued to ascend as Edward obtained more honours for him, including the Earldom of Cornwall. Earlier, Edward I had attempted to control the situation by exiling Gaveston from England. However, upon the elder king's death in 1307, Edward II immediately recalled him. Isabella's marriage to Edward subsequently took place in 1308. Almost immediately, she wrote to her father, Philip the Fair, complaining of Edward's behaviour.

British historian Ian Mortimer has drawn attention to the use of 'anti-sodomite' smear campaigns in the late 13th and early 14th centuries against Pope Boniface VIII and the Knights Templar. In the latter case, Orleton was a protagonist at the Papal Court at Avignon.

The relationship was later explored in a play by the 16th-century dramatist Christopher Marlowe. This is unusual in making explicit reference to an open sexual relationship between king and favourite. More frequently the nature of the relationship between the two is only hinted at, or is cited as a dreadful example of the fate that may befall kings who allow themselves to be influenced by favourites, and so become estranged from their subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...xual_relations

Quote:

Allegations of homosexual relations

During the 1690s rumours grew of William's III's alleged homosexual inclinations and led to the publication of many satirical pamphlets by his Jacobite detractors. He did have several close, male associates, including two Dutch courtiers to whom he granted English titles: Hans Willem Bentinck became Earl of Portland, and Arnold Joost van Keppel was created Earl of Albemarle. These relationships with male friends, and his apparent lack of more than one female mistress, led William's enemies to suggest that he might prefer homosexual relationships. William's modern biographers, however, still disagree on the veracity of these allegations, with many contending that they were just figments of his enemies' imaginations, and others suggesting there may have been some truth to the rumours.

Bentinck's closeness to William did arouse jealousies in the Royal Court at the time, but most modern historians doubt that there was a homosexual element in their relationship. But William's young protege, Keppel, aroused more gossip and suspicion, being 20 years William's junior and strikingly handsome, and having risen from being a royal page to an earldom with some ease. Portland wrote to William in 1697 that "the kindness which your Majesty has for a young man, and the way in which you seem to authorise his liberties ... make the world say things I am ashamed to hear". This, he said, was "tarnishing a reputation which has never before been subject to such accusations". William tersely dismissed these suggestions, however, saying, "It seems to me very extraordinary that it should be impossible to have esteem and regard for a young man without it being criminal."

bank hoilday and concert and stuff

I just read this as Should Monday be abolished..............that would be a YAY

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 5148484)

I just read this as Should Monday be abolished..............that would be a YAY

:hugesmile:.wishful thinking there Niamh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 5138203)

These points were all discussed at length in a thread many months back when you made the exact same statements. It seems you didn't take anything from it and have gone back to incorrectly using terms such as "racism". Perhaps educate yourself before using them. "Snobby" perhaps but not racist. Harry dated a girl from South Africa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5138185)

Absolutely spot on, long may it continue to be that way too.