[Brillopad]

I said yes because they bring a lot of money into the country. I’m not a royalist though in spirit. I think we should stop financing some of the hangers-on though.

[Jamie89]

No. I don't doubt they benefit us in some ways but I'd vote no on the principle. Basically this...

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, no matter how much tradition they represent or money they bring in, at their very core they represent the idea that "some people are born better". Which is toxic and wrong in any modern society.

I really do think that one day in the future we'll look back on systems such as the monarchy in bemusement

[Marsh.]

Not bothered. They're pretty much a tourist attraction with no power at all.

[Greg!]

Couldn't care less really but I voted yes

[Ammi]

..in a referendum I would be a yes...some of the things the Royal family bring to the nation have already been mentioned...but for me it’s also, that national celebration thing as well, that coming together and celebrating certain Royal occasions as we have with things like street parties, which can create such a positivity within communities...of the few that I’ve been to in my lifetime, there have been things like...older people/pensioners who may have been struggling a bit and felt quite isolated etc...but that community celebration has caused them to ‘come out’ and not only join in but given that opportunity for others to realise their struggles and then with that, offer a long lasting friendship/help etc which completely changes their lives in such a very needed way...it’s not that people haven’t cared or been thoughtless, it’s just that we all can get quite absorbed in our own lives and just not see other people around us and what their life is...also obviously there have been sad Royal occasions of death as with Diana...but to grieve together as a nation from time to time, I think is also very bonding...with politics, we’re often all so very divided in our beliefs and thoughts...so any bringing together, I think is essential...and then how many of us, kind of adopted William and Harry in their mother’s death and have felt those positive ‘celebration’ things with all of the lovely things in their lives...I know with older people especially I have heard lots of stories of street parties and such that have been celebrated for Royal occasions and those are positive feelings they still recall with such fondness of how their community has come together and lots of good stuff they’ve so very much needed...just to counter all of the rubbish we all go through in life...

...I do agree with TS as well in that, no one human should be born with a privilege over another..in an ideal world...I’m equally as uncomfortable with extreme wealth as I am with extreme poverty and those born to war torn countries and starvation and the many sad things people are born to, which remove so many possibilities in their lives...in an ideal world, it would be equal for all, which Incompletely agree with him about...but it isn’t, never has been and never will be an ideal world and the removal of extreme wealth and privilege by birth etc, will never remove those at the opposite extreme because it just is...no extremes are good and ideal but they just are...unlike someone who for instance, has just been born to extremely wealthy parents but ‘gives nothing back’ in terms of that privilege...at least with the Royals, they do look at those who are at the opposite end of their extreme and they do work to raise awareness and they do help with help that is so very much needed in very practical ways...but yeah, I do feel on balance that they’re also an essential National ‘feel good’ as well...those Royal occasions when we all laugh, we all cry together, type thing ...and we all come together and feel each other...

[Ammi]

..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..

[Amy Jade]

I would definitely vote to keep them

I actually really like the Royal Family.

[user104658]

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

.
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.

But it's imaginary; they aren't.

I look up to Kate as flawless and graceful

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?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

They are part and parcel of British heritage and culture

So was aggressive colonialism, theological conquest, slavery and indentured servitude... it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been abolished or should be brought back.

British Royalty will remain part and parcel of British heritage and culture whether it's active or not; just as it is in every other post-monarchy country. Just as Vikings are part of Scandinavian heritage and culture. Just as old-west cowboys and saloons are part of United States heritage and culture. Removing the active component doesn't change that in any way.

[James]

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.

[Ellen]

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Underscore

How would you vote?

Personally, I love the Royal Family and I think they do a lot of good for the country especially the Queen and the younger gen (Will and Kate especially).

However, I would have to think about my vote, but I would definitely lean towards voting to keep the monarchy.

I also believe the nationwide vote would be to keep the monarchy to a much more decisive margin than Brexit.

Poll incoming

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?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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 . 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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 . 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.

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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?

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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 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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

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

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

#oldwivestale

[Crimson Dynamo]

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..

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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..

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.