Should the monarchy be abolished?

[blade1889]

Corruption is the price we pay for democracy. Discuss.

All men* are created equal, just some more equal than others.


* or women, may use people or undefined/unspecified gender as appropriate so as to not cause offence

 

[Red]

I'm in the main indifferent about this, although if I had to choose I'd get rid of it.

What does piss me off though is the fawning royal correspondents. Nicolas Whitchell is one of the worst. Just listening to another on the radio saying that the nation collectively says ahhh when we see photos of William's kids. Do we? I don't.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Yes, less out of any kind of ill-feeling towards the royal family (tho I decline to make that a proper noun), and more to upset all the Royalist Twats.

This. Genuinely the best case I've got against the royals and no more cajoling will make me think otherwise. For a more extreme analogy, the sole case against FC United is FC United fans. I wasn't really arsed until I happened to be in London during the last Jubilee and couldn't turn a corner without seeing Jubeliebers waving union flags or red-cheeked, -trousered and -Pimm'd nobbers falling into Regent's Canal. There are more cases against them monarchs though. Can't we also have an apolitical head of state that lives in a ground floor flat opposite a pothole-ridden car park in Middlesborough so we have enough money spare to open a few more youth centres and build a railway from my house to the Big 6 Inn?

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Genuine question because i haven't got a clue what the answer is but how many people have employment as a direct result of us having a monarchy/Royal Family? There must hundreds of Police, security, cleaners, photographers, drivers, gardeners etc.

I'm indifferent to them really. I don't agree with someone being born in to a position however there are some benefits of having a monarchy. I wouldn't be too fussed either way!

 

[smat]

Genuine question because i haven't got a clue what the answer is but how many people have employment as a direct result of us having a monarchy/Royal Family? There must hundreds of Police, security, cleaners, photographers, drivers, gardeners etc.

On the flipside, the royals would have to get jobs if we abolished them and seized their land. So there'd be a few scroungers into employment at least.

 

[blade1889]

On the flipside, the royals would have to get jobs if we abolished them and seized their land. So there'd be a few scroungers into employment at least.

So you don't think the royals do any work? All they do is sit on their back sides and go on nice holidays, right!?

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

I would like to see abit of balance to it all.

I want to keep the Royal family, I like us having a monarch than a president, I think its a huge boost for tourism and sort've means we at least do have an unbiased counter to parliament. While presidents are elected they still represent one side or other so become a right or left wing leader.

On flip side do we need to fund the living for the ENTIRE family........should be Elizabeth, Charles, William and Harry.......no more needed.

Princess Beatrice wasting about £300,000 on 15 holidays over the last year when she frankly won't get near the crown is a prime example of where money could be cut.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Democratic argument...this is a shit and stupid argument, sorry. Its merely a technicality. Sure the Queen technically appoints the PM and signs off in laws but in practise these are ALL decided democratically. Or maybe we should have president Cameron and have had president Blair lol.

.

How is it? A true democracy should have elected representatives at all levels. Now I know even within that there are problems, especially class and certain kind of background which gets you further, but that is a separate issue. How you can raise a child and say we are all equal at birthn in this country, you have the same democratic right as any other when we continue to maintain a whole family and there inbred minions on the basis of some antiquated mode of government from centuries ago. I get that people are scared, they like the warm old 'Royals' and it makes them feel secure, but it's pathetic. The point about the Queen having zero effective power is irrelevant, she and her family are still given a certain life simply because of their blood, how are they different from anybody else living off the state? They are reliant on the goodwill of the people, the same people who so readily demonise the benefit cheats. Don't give me this bollocks that they 'work hard', fuck off, poncing around opening stuff is not work and certainly does not justify the wealth they are provided with.

 

[blade1889]

How is it? A true democracy should have elected representatives at all levels. Now I know even within that there are problems, especially class and certain kind of background which gets you further, but that is a separate issue. How you can raise a child and say we are all equal at birthn in this country, you have the same democratic right as any other when we continue to maintain a whole family and there inbred minions on the basis of some antiquated mode of government from centuries ago. I get that people are scared, they like the warm old 'Royals' and it makes them feel secure, but it's pathetic. The point about the Queen having zero effective power is irrelevant, she and her family are still given a certain life simply because of their blood, how are they different from anybody else living off the state? They are reliant on the goodwill of the people, the same people who so readily demonise the benefit cheats.

Sorry but your argument seems to be more against people being born 'more equal' than others as opposed to against democracy. We are democratic, as you point out the queen has zero effective power, she is not elected but she has/uses (probably more appropriate word) zero effective power. We are a democracy because we have a democratically elected prime minister and parliament who democratically decide laws that the queen then signs off on.

And people in this country and every single other country in the world will always be born more equal than others. The only way against this is to abolish private healthcare, schooling etc. and have 100% inheritance taxes. Essentially a communist country, which will never ever work.

And on benefits cheats you're arguing that their contributions to the country are not worthy of support. I've covered the reasons above but I completely refute that. The highest figures the royal family cost (collectively) is £200mill. Out of that £200mill a lot goes to paying staff, be it security at Buckingham Palace or a butler...so that money is going to working people who wouldn't have jobs otherwise. They also being in money through tourism and through strengthening trade links on royal visits, as said previously this amount can never be defined. Through the princes trust they generate 57mill of donations and less costs spend 47mill on charitable causes each year. So that upper figure of 200mill less charity that their name beings in, less the people they pay, less the money they bring in does not cost us anything.

As for being benefit scroungers..that would apply to people that don't work, right? Except they do. Be it the princes and queen working for the army when younger. Be it the state visits they do, (that benefit our economy!) or be it being our figure head 24/7 every single moment of their waking lives with ever movement under incredible scrutiny they do work. They aren't on some special level (that some people are in tis country) where they do nothing but earn/get given loads of money.

I'm.not scared, I highly doubt us having royals or not will drastically impact my life one way or the other. I just think people look at the royal family with a very closed view. They see the figures banded around about what they cost and completely ignore that they could (& do) benefit our society as a whole. Its not pathetic, its fact. Pathetic would be getting rid of them purely because they aren't elected despite them using no power. David Beckhams sons weren't elected but they'll get a leg up in football, children of rich investment bankers wont be elected but they'll get a leg up, they'll get given things without putting in any work and some wont ever have to work...even less worthy than the Royal family in my opinion.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

How is it? A true democracy should have elected representatives at all levels. Now I know even within that there are problems, especially class and certain kind of background which gets you further, but that is a separate issue. How you can raise a child and say we are all equal at birthn in this country, you have the same democratic right as any other when we continue to maintain a whole family and there inbred minions on the basis of some antiquated mode of government from centuries ago. I get that people are scared, they like the warm old 'Royals' and it makes them feel secure, but it's pathetic. The point about the Queen having zero effective power is irrelevant, she and her family are still given a certain life simply because of their blood, how are they different from anybody else living off the state? They are reliant on the goodwill of the people, the same people who so readily demonise the benefit cheats. Don't give me this bollocks that they 'work hard', fuck off, poncing around opening stuff is not work and certainly does not justify the wealth they are provided with.

They kinda do work hard though, they also make great sacrifices. They can have no normal social life, no normal career path, they're basically not free. They're public servants from the cradle to the grave. Yeah it's easy to look at the lavish furniture and conclude that they're living it up, but furniture is really all that it is. I don't think people want the monarchy to stick around because they're somehow insecure about Britain's future without it, it's just nice to preserve a living piece of our heritage, and have a figurehead that we don't hate. It may be anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian in theory, but in practise I think there's a complete disconnect in people's minds in that regard. I don't believe anyone really thinks about it like that. The monarchy is just a piece of the furniture, as British as Stonehenge or Big Ben.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Genuine question because i haven't got a clue what the answer is but how many people have employment as a direct result of us having a monarchy/Royal Family? There must hundreds of Police, security, cleaners, photographers, drivers, gardeners etc.

I run past Prince Andrew's house once a week and there's always a police presence there. Prince Andrew.

I guess he's in there generating an undefined amount of tourism or something.

 

[blade1889]

I run past Prince Andrew's house once a week and there's always a police presence there. Prince Andrew.

I guess he's in there generating an undefined amount of tourism or something.

There will probably be royals that don't contribute what they cost. Hence you'll see in my arguments that I use the combined costs and combined income.

Clearly he needs a police presence. He may not bring in the money he costs, so what do you suggest? We cut him off, leave him but risk whatever threats the police are there to stop actually occurring? Or maybe we should look at some individuals in royalty not contributing and get rid of them all despite the combination of them actually benefitting us?

Or maybe just continue to make snide comments and choose little parts of arguments as opposed to the arguments on a whole?

For the record I'd be interested to see where the line is drawn on money being spent on the royal family. There will surely be a position down the line were this stops and they have to work and will use inheritance that gets fast dissipated after every generation.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Sorry but your argument seems to be more against people being born 'more equal' than others as opposed to against democracy. We are democratic, as you point out the queen has zero effective power, she is not elected but she has/uses (probably more appropriate word) zero effective power. We are a democracy because we have a democratically elected prime minister and parliament who democratically decide laws that the queen then signs off on.

And people in this country and every single other country in the world will always be born more equal than others. The only way against this is to abolish private healthcare, schooling etc. and have 100% inheritance taxes. Essentially a communist country, which will never ever work.

And on benefits cheats you're arguing that their contributions to the country are not worthy of support. I've covered the reasons above but I completely refute that. The highest figures the royal family cost (collectively) is £200mill. Out of that £200mill a lot goes to paying staff, be it security at Buckingham Palace or a butler...so that money is going to working people who wouldn't have jobs otherwise. They also being in money through tourism and through strengthening trade links on royal visits, as said previously this amount can never be defined. Through the princes trust they generate 57mill of donations and less costs spend 47mill on charitable causes each year. So that upper figure of 200mill less charity that their name beings in, less the people they pay, less the money they bring in does not cost us anything.

As for being benefit scroungers..that would apply to people that don't work, right? Except they do. Be it the princes and queen working for the army when younger. Be it the state visits they do, (that benefit our economy!) or be it being our figure head 24/7 every single moment of their waking lives with ever movement under incredible scrutiny they do work. They aren't on some special level (that some people are in tis country) where they do fuck all but earn/get given loads of money.

I'm.not scared, I highly doubt us having royals or not will drastically impact my life one way or the other. I just think people look at the royal family with a very closed view. They see the figures banded around about what they cost and completely ignore that they could (& do) benefit our society as a whole. Its not pathetic, its fact. Pathetic would be getting rid of them purely because they aren't elected despite them using no power. David Beckhams sons weren't elected but they'll get a leg up in football, children of rich investment bankers wont be elected but they'll get a leg up, they'll get given things without putting in any work and some wont ever have to work...even less worthy than the Royal family in my opinion.

So basically you're argument, is 'that's just the way it is and if you think otherwise you're a commie'...fucking hell, are you an American?

Absolute rubbish, the economic argument is wrong, you must have such a low opinion of the UK if you think tourists would suddenly stay away if the Queen was removed, they'd still come and see the palaces. Just because there will be more inequality does not mean we should not break up this one, it is the most easily identifiable one to remove and will signal a really progressive attitude towards a meritocracy.

Not having they work hard at all, certainly not relative to their wealth. It's not a personal argument, they could be very lovely people, it makes no odds. You cannot at one point claim to be a true functioning democracy while you still have an aristocracy which controls vast swathes of this countries land. It's just patently obvious that you're lying to yourself.

If they have to sacrifice so much and have no power, it only confirms my point. There is no benefit to them being there and we should remove them, along with the house of lords and have a fully democratic second chamber of power.

 

[mnb089mnb]

There will probably be royals that don't contribute what they cost. Hence you'll see in my arguments that I use the combined costs and combined income.

Clearly he needs a police presence. He may not bring in the money he costs, so what do you suggest? We cut him off, leave him but risk whatever threats the police are there to stop actually occurring? Or maybe we should look at some individuals in royalty not contributing and get rid of them all despite the combination of them actually benefitting us?

Or maybe just continue to make snide comments and choose little parts of arguments as opposed to the arguments on a whole?

If Prince Andrew wants security I would suggest he pays for it himself. He could afford to purchase a skiing chalet in Europe a few years ago for many millions of pounds (I assume this chalet is used for tourism or trade?) so paying for security should be within his means.

I simply don't think an undemocratic institution based upon birth is right. Even if they did bring in millions of pounds in trade and tourism (and no one has ever demonstrated that to be true), if something is wrong, then it's wrong. Slavery was great for UK trade, Jimmy Saville raised a lot of money for charity. Doesn't mean if something's wrong, it should be dealt with.

 

[smat]

So you don't think the royals do any work? All they do is sit on their back sides and go on nice holidays, right!?

My heart bleeds. If a load of holidays meeting dignitaries in big rooms and talking into a camera every Christmas is an inconvenience she can abolish herself.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Could we not privatise the monarchy? It could be much more efficient if it wasn't run by the state.

 

[smat]

I don't think people want the monarchy to stick around because they're somehow insecure about Britain's future without it, it's just nice to preserve a living piece of our heritage, and have a figurehead that we don't hate. It may be anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian in theory, but in practise I think there's a complete disconnect in people's minds in that regard. I don't believe anyone really thinks about it like that. The monarchy is just a piece of the furniture, as British as Stonehenge or Big Ben.

Think you've hit the nail on the head with this. I'll never get my head around it.

 

[merseyboyred]

Yes, less out of any kind of ill-feeling towards the royal family (tho I decline to make that a proper noun), and more to upset all the Royalist Twats.

This is the best argument for abolition. The country would be much better off if those reprobates who hang around hospitals to look at kids were forced to reintegrate themselves back into normal society.

 

[blade1889]

So basically you're argument, is 'that's just the way it is and if you think otherwise you're a commie'...fucking hell, are you an American?

Absolute rubbish, the economic argument is wrong, you must have such a low opinion of the UK if you think tourists would suddenly stay away if the Queen was removed, they'd still come and see the palaces. Just because there will be more inequality does not mean we should not break up this one, it is the most easily identifiable one to remove and will signal a really progressive attitude towards a meritocracy.

Not having they work hard at all, certainly not relative to their wealth. It's not a personal argument, they could be very lovely people, it makes no odds. You cannot at one point claim to be a true functioning democracy while you still have an aristocracy which controls vast swathes of this countries land. It's just patently obvious that you're lying to yourself.

If they have to sacrifice so much and have no power, it only confirms my point. There is no benefit to them being there and we should remove them, along with the house of lords and have a fully democratic second chamber of power.

Hmmmm...if that's how it comes across then its not how its meant. My point was that people will always be born more equal than others, there isn't a way around that unless you do adopt a communist stance.

As argued before you are correct. Tourists will still come to the UK. Investment will still come to the UK. Absolutely. The level of that tourism will be decreased and the level of that investment will too. mnb089mnb th only effective way to demonstrate how much that will change would be to axe the monarchy and not pay them another penny for 50odd years and see what happens which is why the debate will always be there. I do not, however, find it hard to imagine that our economy easily benefits in excess of the £200mill they collectively cost. Lets suppose one tourist from.abroad doesn't come for the weekend as a result, that's the tourist attractions, restaurants, taxi and hotel money no longer in the economy (low estimate of that being £200). Now youd obviously need 1mill tourists to make up to £200mill they cost. However factor in the princes trust, that becomes ~150mill and 750,000 tourists. Factor in that much of tat money will be for security guards and people that work at the attractions (from what I could tell from the article that used that figure, presumably why its higher than the others I found) and that figure decreases further, then add in trade links which can be incredibly profitable and it decreases further. Whilst no figures can ever be definitively arrived at I dont think its hard to imagine they contribute more than they cost. Mnb theres a vast difference between the royal family and jimmy Saville & slavery which I'm.sure you appreciate.

Not having to work hard-hand on heart I'd hate their life. I really would, no way would I want to be under scrutiny every breath I take from birth. I think the best similarity i can draw is with footballers, they get payed lots because they bring in lots...however in this case I'd argue footballers dont necessarily bring in enough to go with their wages.

Controlling land-interesting point and not one I know or have read enough about to really comment. I am intrigued however about what you mean by 'controlling'. The land they have obviously gets past down, that land is still subject to democratic laws. If we axed the monarchy they would still own the land, one would assume we cant just take it off them? And also how is it different to the Duke & Duchess of Chatsworth (for e.g.) who own lots of land, 'control' it and it gets passed down through their line. Now I'm guessing you'll go back to the 'just cos it happens doesn't mean it shouldn't stop..' argument but I'm not sure what you practically suggest? Also remember that this land is going to be generating tourist income, in some parts.

Sacrificing power- no it doesn't. It opposed your undemocratic argument. Just because they sacrifice their ability to decide laws and elect PMs doesn't mean they don't benefit society.

mnb- tbf I'd agree with Prince Andrew having to pay for his own security. And a good example of what Dave was on about above where costs can be cut.

 

[blade1889]

My heart bleeds. If a load of holidays meeting dignitaries in big rooms and talking into a camera every Christmas is an inconvenience she can abolish herself.

Points covered previously...

They do work. They were/are in the armed forces.

Holidays may be nice if you aren't under scrutiny 24/7. Also holidays dont often involve meeting dignitaries to strength ties and bring in more trade. If you honestly think these meetings serve no purpose, do not benefit us then that's naive in the extreme.

At risk of sounding like a broken record...i'd hate their life. I could never be free, every movement I made would be under scrutiny. I couldn't go to a club. To a cinema. Meet friends in town. Go to a McDonalds. I would not be free, ever, and no amount of money in a bank account could ever change that.

 

[smat]

At risk of sounding like a broken record...i'd hate their life. I could never be free, every movement I made would be under scrutiny. I couldn't go to a club. To a cinema. Meet friends in town. Go to a McDonalds. I would not be free, ever, and no amount of money in a bank account could ever change that.

They can probably order in tho, mate.

 

[Pagnell]

Just listening to another on the radio saying that the nation collectively says ahhh when we see photos of William's kids. Do we? I don't.

I'm not sure about 'ahhhhing', but I do laugh when I see the clothes they put them in.

 

[lordofthepies]

At risk of sounding like a broken record...i'd hate their life. I could never be free, every movement I made would be under scrutiny. I couldn't go to a club. To a cinema. Meet friends in town. Go to a McDonalds. I would not be free, ever, and no amount of money in a bank account could ever change that.

Yet you refuse to free them from their misery. Cruel.

 

[lordofthepies]

Charles skips being King, it should pass to William IMO as I don't think Charles has the same international reputation and would damage the monarchies image.

I don't think you fully understand how a monarchy works. I think what you want is an elected head of state.

 

[ArmchairDiehard]

I'm a huge fan of the Royal family and believe they are great for this country.

 

[lordofthepies]

Born in to wealth...so we should just have 100% inheritance taxes then?

Yes.

 

[blade1889]

Yet you refuse to free them from their misery. Cruel.

Yeahp, selfish maybe but I dont think you ever hear them complaining...not in public, at least.

I don't think you fully understand how a monarchy works. I think what you want is an elected head of state.

I think I do. I can hope someone passes up their right to the throne without insisting on the disbanding of the monarchy. I'm sure you can see the difference.

Yes.

Ok. Have you never benefited from your parents? Personally I'd hate it if that ever happened, working nd then the state taking everything I own once I'm dead without a penny going to my children. Not the house, furniture that may have been in the family for generations. Would be awful.

 

[smat]

McDonalds, the cinema, family furniture... Priorities.

 

[blade1889]

McDonalds, the cinema, family furniture... Priorities.

Yawn. If you want a debate then at least do it properly.

Do you have children or plan on having children? When you die would you be happy for the state to take everything and them get nothing? That's what would happen with 100% inheritance tax which is what the comment above alludes to.

I can only speak for myself but I suspect the vast majority are the same as me in hating that idea. Pardon me if I put my family first though, after all they are my priority.

 

[smat]

I don't want a debate, I want to laugh at your stupid opinions.