Royal family, good or bad?

#1
Watching all the TV coverage on channels from all over the world, I have seen a few channels dig out a few of the Anti monarchists who drivel on about the cost, undemocratic, old fashioned etc etc of the Royals in general and the wedding in particular!
My view, as a Royalist who took the oath of allegiance over 50 years ago, is that it is a good thing, far better than having to pay some spiv such as Blair for being President!
As for cost, if my memory serves me right, the civil list was introduced in return for the Royal family handing over the income from the Crown Estates in 1760! See some recent details :- quote "For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, worth over £6.6 billion"!
Add this to all the tourist revenue the Royals bring in & I think Britain is doing rather well out of it!
Not forgetting that recent polls show that over 67% of the British public still support the Royals!
What do other Arrsers think? I would like to have done a poll but my PC skills arn't up to it!!
 
#2
I'm a fervent royalist, basically through mercenary principles - as implied by ex colonial, they bring in billions in revenue and other channels through tourism. Anyone who ignores this fact is on another planet!
 

udipur

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Glad we have them, just wish we didn't have all this utter cheese whenever they do something.

Keep 'em at Sandringham and Balmoral and I'm sure they would be as happy as the rest of us.
 
#5
God Save The Queen, long may she reign over us.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
I used to be quite antiroyal...but surely even the staunchest republican can see the monarchy and whether we should have one or not is not something someone William's age has had a lot of say in. good luck to the pair of them, I hope they're as happy as they can be and that they genuinely want to be with each other (unlike the unfortunate situation with their parents).

and top marks for giving it the big FO to cyclops and blair as well. ;)
 
#8
I don't think I would call myself a Royalist although unless I have got it very wrong, they make economic sense to Britain. They cost us far less than the cash they generate one way or another although I doubt any audit could give an accurate figure.

Look at the Irish presidency. How much does it cost to maintain? How much do the elections cost? How much more political clout does it have compared to our own figurehead? Finally how much interest does the Irish Presidency generate in terms of tourism and indeed the cash income that comes with it?

I am not saying they are any use to the Ausies, the Kiwis, the Canadians etc, they can make their own minds up and I am sure one day they will, but in my understanding they make good economic sense to the UK.
 
#9
god save the quim

wait what
 
#10
I read an editorial in the Independent the other day which really turned me against the republican who was writing it.

His thinking was that it is wrong that we are "ruled" by a White, Anglo-Germanic, Protestant Royal family (If anything better described the majority population of Britain better than this I would like to see it). Also he argued that the concept of the crown following male lineage was in controvention of EU law. Now I'm open to the argument that a revision of the rule which states that the crown passes to the nearest male on the family tree, I think that Elizabeth II has proved without a shadow of a dout that women are just as capable of being a monarch as men. But to bring EU law into a debate which only has an effect on the way that the British people are governed is frankly deplorable. I can safely say that any British constitutional debate should NEVER involve that particular organisation outside of the question: Should we leave?

Finally I think that a point often overlooked in this debate is the issue of continuity. The monarch, especially Elizabeth II, provides a centre of national continuity during times of such rapid technological and social upheval and just occasionally allows us to pause, take stock, and say What truly makes us British?

God save the Queen!
 
#11
Also he argued that the concept of the crown following male lineage was in controvention of EU law. Now I'm open to the argument that a revision of the rule which states that the crown passes to the nearest male on the family tree, I think that Elizabeth II has proved without a shadow of a dout that women are just as capable of being a monarch as men.
Thinking about Queen Elizabeth 1st, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth 2nd, you have a strong point there. Three of the most successful and longest serving monarchs we've had in this country.

God save the Queen!
Echo that.
 
#12
A bunch of over privilaged, useless, undemocratic, outdated, outmoded, self serving shite and the sooner we get rid of the monarchy and have an elected head of state (and an elected upper house too) the better. God save the Republic.
 
#13
A bunch of over privilaged, useless, undemocratic, outdated, outmoded, self serving shite and the sooner we get rid of the monarchy and have an elected head of state (and an elected upper house too) the better. God save the Republic.
Your Peter Dow and I claim the fiver.
 
#14
Now I'm open to the argument that a revision of the rule which states that the crown passes to the nearest male on the family tree
Let the royal family change if they want to. It hasn't affected anyone in decades and unless William has a daughter and then a son it won't affect anyone for a while yet.
 
#16
Okay lets examine your argument then:

A bunch of over privilaged, useless, undemocratic, outdated, outmoded, self serving shite and the sooner we get rid of the monarchy and have an elected head of state (and an elected upper house too) the better. God save the Republic.
over privilaged- I would argue that there are far more wealthy individuals in the UK who have also not earned their fortune outside of the Royals. Would you go about siezing their fortunes too?

useless-Aside from providing a not insignificant revinue from tourism the Queen is arguably one of the leading knowledge bases on British politics, having spoken with every PM once per week since Churchill's second term, as well as one of the most well-known international figures.

undemocratic-Of course they're undemocratic, but how much power do they Actually wield outside of stepping in in the event of a constitutional crisis which threatened British democracy>

outdated, outmoded- They are an old institution, so are Parliament and Britain itself. Would you abolish those simply because they are old?

self serving-If there is one thing you cannot accuse the monarch of now its being self serving, I would like you to consider the fact that they are placed into that position through no choice of their own and their life literally becomes the state.

elected head of state- This would simply bring the national figurehead down to the level of party politics, and do we honestly want people like Bliar as our national image?

elected upper house- This would lead to a sharp decrease in the specialists who provide the excellent quality of debate in the Lords. A more powerful lords which could occasionally get in the way of the commons would be useful, but in its current incarnation an elected upper house would be more damaging than helpful.
 
#17
I am in favour of the royals, lets look at the alternative, a presidential system giving us the non family based Kennedys, Bushs, or Clinton family? I think not.

A quick squint round the rest of the world shows a similar range of presidents, who are loved by the people, middle east for example.

To misquote Churchill
'Monarchy is the worst of systems, except the other ones'
 
#20
It's great to have them as a reminder of the old british history of when the monarchy was incredibly important. They are also a sign of great patriotic British figures as well. It's nice to have that something.
 

Similar threads

Top