[Politics] Royal Family: In or Out?

[Iggle Piggle]

Getting rid of the present day monarchy doesn’t alter history. All the things you mention won’t disappear. Our monarchy could become even more celebrated with Royal properties fully opened up, Buckingham Palace could become a museum charting the entire history of Royalty in Britain. It’s relevance to our future doesn’t lesson it’s relevance to our past.

The stories may not disappear but it's a long way removed from Richard III murdering his nephews to sit on the throne to getting rid of it when a 90 year old lady dies because we've had enough of it.

I'd admit that the history of the Royal Family has been a lot less interesting since the Germans took over but it's still over a 1000 years of history that we are talking about getting rid of because of what? Meghan wants her own Instagram brand? Charles is bit boring? Even recent history offers modern day lessons (Wallace Simpson and the mental illness of George for example). It's not a perfect organisation by any means - being born into self entitlement rarely creates rounded individuals - but it is something that is very British that offers a route back through our history. The Americans would love our history and pageantry instead of Donald waving from a naval base.

Gawd bless the Queen.

 

[Live by the sea]

The argument we would be financially better off without the royal family is a red herring. Most surveys put it at around £1 per person per year. So the finances may seem extravagant but in reality meaningless to us taxpayers.

The royal family does help keep our country politically stable and respected around the world. I am not a big fan of the royal family but I have to agree that the queen does a magnificent job and I think it would be sensible to trim the royal family down to just the senior figures and not include all the lesser royals in the finances .

Megan possibly because she is American or possibly because she is arrogant doesn’t seem to appreciate that duty and responsibility to the country is an intrinsic part of being a senior royal. I had some sympathy for her with some of the articles written about her but her behaviour and what I suspect she has encouraged Harry to do, ignoring the queen’s advice & wishes etc shows a total lack of respect for the British monarchy. She wants the prestige and lifestyle but not the responsibilities that go with the job.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The stories may not disappear but it's a long way removed from Richard III murdering his nephews to sit on the throne to getting rid of it when a 90 year old lady dies because we've had enough of it.

I'd admit that the history of the Royal Family has been a lot less interesting since the Germans took over but it's still over a 1000 years of history that we are talking about getting rid of because of what? Meghan wants her own Instagram brand? Charles is bit boring? Even recent history offers modern day lessons (Wallace Simpson and the mental illness of George for example). It's not a perfect organisation by any means - being born into self entitlement rarely creates rounded individuals - but it is something that is very British that offers a route back through our history. The Americans would love our history and pageantry instead of Donald waving from a naval base.

Gawd bless the Queen.

Inherited wealth, status, privilege. Nothing to do with the personalities involved. Being born into self entitlement is exactly why it should go. You said it.

As said before, you don't change 1000 years of history by taking a decision on our future. It's hardly a robust argument for keeping it to be honest.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Keep them on provision that Charles abdicates immediately after the death of his Mum and we get King William V

Why? What makes one slightly dim bloke more fit for the job than the other? If you accept the whole monarchy thing at all, then surely you accept its rules. Charles stays prince of Wales until his mum dies. Then he's king until he dies. Then William gets his go.

 

[Bulldog]

As for an Upper House. They should be appointed on Long Term Appointments from Science, Education, Arts and Industry. Create 100 or so positions and up to that industry themselves to appoint their Rep. Remove politicians (and their short term views) from the equation completely. Create a House of experienced, educated experts in a wide variety of fields each looking to stay in their post for up to 15 years (allow them to be recalled if not working hard enough for their industry).

I could support something like that. Abolish all hereditary titles and privileges so only the person who did the good work gets the honour, not generation after generation of people who may not live up to it.

I would like the Upper chamber to be elected but I have had to accept that appointment by a non political group based on merit, with a fixed term and no title, could be the best way ahead.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The argument we would be financially better off without the royal family is a red herring. Most surveys put it at around £1 per person per year. So the finances may seem extravagant but in reality meaningless to us taxpayers.

The royal family does help keep our country politically stable and respected around the world. I am not a big fan of the royal family but I have to agree that the queen does a magnificent job and I think it would be sensible to trim the royal family down to just the senior figures and not include all the lesser royals in the finances .

Megan possibly because she is American or possibly because she is arrogant doesn’t seem to appreciate that duty and responsibility to the country is an intrinsic part of being a senior royal. I had some sympathy for her with some of the articles written about her but her behaviour and what I suspect she has encouraged Harry to do, ignoring the queen’s advice & wishes etc shows a total lack of respect for the British monarchy. She wants the prestige and lifestyle but not the responsibilities that go with the job.

Hilarious it is all being blamed on the in-laws. How on earth can you know it's not being led by Harry? He's always been a bit of a rebel in Royal terms.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The things I am enjoying most about these Royal threads:

1. Those wanting the Royal family to remain, but want to alter the succession because they don't like the next in line.

2. Those blaming 'the wife' for the current Royal crisis.

 

[Live by the sea]

Hilarious it is all being blamed on the in-laws. How on earth can you know it's not being led by Harry? He's always been a bit of a rebel in Royal terms.

I don’t for certain but Harry despite his playboy past has no history of ignoring his grandmother the queen , he has always held her in very high esteem. Within a short time of meeting Meghan, his behaviour has changed. When Megan was looking at tiaras to borrow from the royal collection, she picked the one that didn’t have provenance and the queen was concerned it may have originated from Russia so Megan was politely advised to choose another one. They were all stunning. What did Megan do, she complained to Harry to ask him to persuade the queen to change her mind. A common American Actress has the nerve to try to argue with the queen of England... alarm bells should have started ringing with Harry at this stage. Harry is well known not to like photos being taken of his every move and the press hounding him and his wife but he understands royal responsibilities, he would not in a million years have driven this. All this separation stuff is being driven by Megan and her desire to have her cake and eat it and do things on her terms.

I’m sure the queen is very upset that Harry ever set eyes on this girl. Yes Megan is socially
Conscious and I’m sure has a good heart but she has a huge ego to match and knows how to munipulate Harry who clearly adores her and won’t do anything to upset her.


Ps when I say common I mean as in not royal .

 

[Springal]

I don’t for certain but Harry despite his playboy past has no history of ignoring his grandmother the queen , he has always held her in very high esteem. Within a short time of meeting Meghan, his behaviour has changed. When Megan was looking at tiaras to borrow from the royal collection, she picked the one that didn’t have provenance and the queen was concerned it may have originated from Russia so Megan was politely advised to choose another one. They were all stunning. What did Megan do, she complained to Harry to ask him to persuade the queen to change her mind. A common American Actress has the nerve to try to argue with the queen of England... alarm bells should have started ringing with Harry at this stage. Harry is well known not to like photos being taken of his every move and the press hounding him and his wife but he understands royal responsibilities, he would not in a million years have driven this. All this separation stuff is being driven by Megan and her desire to have her cake and eat it and do things on her terms.

I’m sure the queen is very upset that Harry ever set eyes on this girl. Yes Megan is socially
Conscious and I’m sure has a good heart but she has a huge ego to match.

This is a hell of a post from someone who has no facts on the matter.

 

[Bulldog]

The stories may not disappear but it's a long way removed from Richard III murdering his nephews to sit on the throne to getting rid of it when a 90 year old lady dies because we've had enough of it.

I'd admit that the history of the Royal Family has been a lot less interesting since the Germans took over but it's still over a 1000 years of history that we are talking about getting rid of because of what? Meghan wants her own Instagram brand? Charles is bit boring? Even recent history offers modern day lessons (Wallace Simpson and the mental illness of George for example). It's not a perfect organisation by any means - being born into self entitlement rarely creates rounded individuals - but it is something that is very British that offers a route back through our history. The Americans would love our history and pageantry instead of Donald waving from a naval base.

Gawd bless the Queen.

The Americans loved the royals sooooo much, they fought a long and bloody revolution to get away from them.

It's like your mate having a beautiful but high maintenance wife. It's one thing admiring her from afar, another thing entirely putting up with the arguments and paying for the endless financial demands.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Inherited wealth, status, privilege. Nothing to do with the personalities involved. Being born into self entitlement is exactly why it should go. You said it.

As said before, you don't change 1000 years of history by taking a decision on our future. It's hardly a robust argument for keeping it to be honest.

Robust arguments are hard as its a easy target. Ultimately, Sandringham would be better as an NHS hospital and the Royal Yacht a floating Doctors surgery. Then, You could argue that Brighton would have been better off building some more university buildings rather than a Football stadium as it will educate more people and whose bothered about 11 blokes kicking a football? I suspect that comparing a football team to the Royal Family will draw some ridicule but it's not so far removed. People camp out on the streets for days in advance to catch a glimpse of a royal wedding, they buy Royal coins and stamps in much the same way we buy replica shirts and people turn up in their thousands to see the Queen across the globe. The Jubillee and associated tour attracted massive crowds. It's not for me, a Royal Wedding bores me to tears for example, but the family does bring pleasure to people for a nominal sum (or pays for itself depending which financial argument you read), Why get rid of something that creates that feel good factor when it sometimes works so well?

The monarchy has survived Oliver Cromwell, child murders, French invasion and even got rid of one King with a red hot poker up the arse. It should outlive this crisis. If they've got any sense they will make themselves relevant in the modern world to appeal across a broader spectrum.

 

[Live by the sea]

The tiara story is well documented in the American media . I didn’t make it up !

 

[Bulldog]

stunning. A common American Actress has the nerve to try to argue with the queen of England... alarm bells should have started ringing with Harry at this stage.
Ps when I say common I mean as in not royal .

Good God man, what century were you born in? No wonder they fought a revolution to get away from this countries stinking F***ing class system, they are people, no one is better than anyone else.

And Markel has had to work for all she has, the Queen was handed it on a plate.

 

[Peteinblack]

As a Lefty, I ought, in principle, to be in favour of abolition, but to be honest, I have no strong feelings about the Monarchy; I suspect that a lot of the public support is actually support for the Queen personally, rather than the institution. I actually think she's a decent person with a kind heart, and has done a good job. I would pare it back, though, and get rid of a lot of the minor Royals - although they seem to be doing this themselves!.

I'm much more concerned about poverty wages, boardroom greed, corporate tax evasion, zero-hours contracts, climate change, food banks, homelessness (while 10,000 properties lie empty), the selling-off of our industries (like railways, nuclear power, steel) to foreign firms and governments, etc, than a ceremonial or symbolic Monarchy.

All I will say is that I have never understood the argument that 'they attract tourists'. I really don't get this - no tourist actually meets the Queen or has cucumber sandwiches and a cup of Earl Grey tea in bone china with her. So how exactly are the Royals a tourist attraction ?

It's actually rather insulting to this country, I think; it implies that we don't have lots of attractions and historic sites that tourists will want to visit anyway - that without a Monarch, no-one will visit Britain anymore.

I don't recall, when I've visited Paris, Prague, New York and Istanbul, thinking "Beautiful cities and architecture, but rather ruined by the absence of a Monarch."

 

[Gabbiano]

Keep, for the simple reason that they are excellent marketing and branding for the country (caveat: when they’re not allegedly fiddling kids with Jeffrey Epstein or crashing cars or spewing racism).

William and Kate seem to have their heads switched on, if only we could skip over Charles.

 

[Bulldog]

I suspect that this is simply not not true. There are many reasons why tourists come to Britain, of course, but I am pretty sure that the idea of the royals plays a significant part. And how exactly has it been proven, as you state? I am sure that I read that London is the most visited city in the world, and yes, museums in Paris may well get millions of visitors, but I am not sure how relevant that is. I doubt very much that three times as many people visit Paris as London.

How do you tell?

I am a republican that visits London fairly regularly. Do I get roped into the "they are only here because of the monarchy" bullshit figures?

 

[Bulldog]

As a Lefty, I ought, in principle, to be in favour of abolition, but to be honest, I have no strong feelings about the Monarchy; I suspect that a lot of the public support is actually support for the Queen personally, rather than the institution. I actually think she's a decent person with a kind heart, and has done a good job. I would pare it back, though, and get rid of a lot of the minor Royals - although they seem to be doing this themselves!.

I'm much more concerned about poverty wages, boardroom greed, corporate tax evasion, zero-hours contracts, climate change, food banks, homelessness (while 10,000 properties lie empty), the selling-off of our industries (like railways, nuclear power, steel) to foreign firms and governments, etc, than a ceremonial or symbolic Monarchy.

All I will say is that I have never understood the argument that 'they attract tourists'. I really don't get this - no tourist actually meets the Queen or has cucumber sandwiches and a cup of Earl Grey tea in bone china with her. So how exactly are the Royals a tourist attraction ?

It's actually rather insulting to this country, I think; it implies that we don't have lots of attractions and historic sites that tourists will want to visit anyway - that without a Monarch, no-one will visit Britain anymore.

I don't recall, when I've visited Paris, Prague, New York and Istanbul, thinking "Beautiful cities and architecture, but rather ruined by the absence of a Monarch."

Beautifully put sir, if only I could be so eloquent.

 

[Live by the sea]

Good God man, what century were you born in? No wonder they fought a revolution to get away from this countries stinking F***ing class system, they are people, no one is better than anyone else.

And Markel has had to work for all she has, the Queen was handed it on a plate.

It’s called respect. You don’t argue with the Queen. The queen represents the monarchy , our country , our history. It’s not the person you respect , it’s the role.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But without a monarchy, the treasury would get all of the 385 million and the crown estates could be sold off, as with the then unused royal properties?

There would be no Prince of Wales so the Duchy of Cornwall's vast, untaxed profits would also go to the treasury or could be sold off for a huge price. Either way, we would be far richer without them.

That would make the country/us no better than thieves. I don't think you could even list which properties are privately owned by the family and which are held in trust for them by the state. Your argument seems to be get rid, and we can have it all.
As someone else pointed out, our governments (plural) are very good at wasting money on failed projects, without wasting other peoples.

 

[Bulldog]

That would make the country/us no better than thieves. I don't think you could even list which properties are privately owned by the family and which are held in trust for them by the state. Your argument seems to be get rid, and we can have it all.
As someone else pointed out, our governments (plural) are very good at wasting money on failed projects, without wasting other peoples.

Why? The land belongs to us. They may have rights to take an income from it, but it belongs to us. What the government does with our money can at least be partly controlled by the way we vote, we have no control over charlie spending fortunes on his classic car collection, funded with money we could have had, because he is above democracy.

The shadowy state of royal finance is one of many reasons I want rid. It's ours when it need repairing, it's theirs when there is money to be made., They are the thieves.