The Royal Family

[Doc Lynam]

her personal wealth is a mere (relative) couple hundred million.

Thats wrong to start with, the Royal family is one of the hardest institutions to get any figures out of regarding wealth and here's the kicker "assets." Most of their money is tied in what is called "grey" areas, which are extremely hard to trace and pin down as to who owns what. Even some of the boundaries for the Prince of Wales land are not clear and want be clarified its beggar belief.

 

[beorhthelm]

Absolutely corrosive to our society and politics, "Queen" being head of the church and state. The "divine right" and all that bollocks, keeps the division of class and antiquated, turgid systems legitimate. Also I dont think a bunch of Germans or anyone else shouldn't be entitled to free money in the form of taxes or that the Prince of Wales should own any land let alone being one of the largest landowners in the country. Utter bollocks the whole thing. Times have moved on but old money hasn't and there are gimps in this country that back them up with blind faith hiding behind the word "tradition" or "its good for tourism." Get a bloody mouse over here it works just as well.

unless you believe in communism or some other form of hard left socialism with no private ownership, removing the monarchy wouldnt make a jot of difference. Prince of Wales doesnt own the duchy of cornwall, he has a lease on it (albeit free). ask French or Americans if there is truly no class system with a monarch. land is still owned, estates still in herited. and they aint german any more than im welsh.

 

[The Truth]

Anyone in favour of the monarchy is just a complete brown nose of the rich. Disgusting family who spend their life scrounging off the public and posing in plenty of jewellery. They promote guns and war very well and their family history will tell you murder isn't a crime they are unaware of.

 

[The Truth]

unless you believe in communism or some other form of hard left socialism with no private ownership, removing the monarchy wouldnt make a jot of difference. Prince of Wales doesnt own the duchy of cornwall, he has a lease on it (albeit free). ask French or Americans if there is truly no class system with a monarch. land is still owned, estates still in herited. and they aint german any more than im welsh.

You're wrong. Do some research and find out who is considered head of the Masons.

 

[Peteinblack]

Don't object to having a constitutional King or Queen as a national figurehead, but would get rid of the hangers-on.

Also, I don't like the fawning hero worship of the Queen; respect her, by all means (I think she's a decent woman), but there is a kind of national hysteria and celebrity worship of the Royal, fuelled by the tabloids, of course, which I find nauseating and immature.

One argument (put forward by several on this thread, alrleady) which I've never understood, though is: 'Oh, but the Royals attract tourists'. How?

Does the Queen come out of Buck House and have tea with all these tourists?

I actually find this a rather weak and unpatriotic argument; we need the Royals in order to attract tourists - what, so no-one would visit Britain otherwise?!!

So presumably, no-one visits Paris, Munich or New York because they don't have a Royal Family. Yeah, last time I was up the Empire State Building or Eifffel Tower, I thought to myself: 'Great views, but rather marred by the lack of a Royal Family"

 

[The Truth]

The Royals traditionally eat human too! And who's to say they've stopped?

British royals 'used to be cannibals dining on human flesh' | Metro.co.uk

 

[The Truth]

The Royals traditionally eat human too! And who's to say they've stopped?

British royals 'used to be cannibals dining on human flesh' | Metro.co.uk

 

[brunswick]

Anyone in favour of the monarchy is just a complete brown nose of the rich. Disgusting family who spend their life scrounging off the public and posing in plenty of jewellery. They promote guns and war very well and their family history will tell you murder isn't a crime they are unaware of.

totally agree....ppl just don't know their history and dealings. they are german and changed their name to start with.

 

[beorhthelm]

The Royals traditionally eat human too! And who's to say they've stopped?

if you were to bother reading further on the original subject matter, you'd know that just about everyone did. dont like such detail get in the way.

they are german and changed their name to start with.

highly ironic given your avatar name.

 

[Aseros]

unless you believe in communism or some other form of hard left socialism with no private ownership, removing the monarchy wouldnt make a jot of difference. Prince of Wales doesnt own the duchy of cornwall, he has a lease on it (albeit free). ask French or Americans if there is truly no class system with a monarch. land is still owned, estates still in herited. and they aint german any more than im welsh.

Getting rid of the monarchy would have a huge impact on the United Kingdom. The monarchy is what helps the country revolve. It isn't just tradition many of the processes that we go through. It is the law. The monarchy is there to stop parliaments running rampant with laws, and the queen still has the right to stop laws being enacted that could have a detrimental effect on the public. Although the last time this power was exercised was during the reign of Queen Victoria, although it is my belief that she would stop laws being enacted that could have some form of 'dictatorship' for the government. In short, nearly everything about our legal process and political process would need to be changed if the monarchy were removed from power and in my opinion this would not benefit anybody. There needs to be some distinction between the head of state and the politics, an elected president will not give us this.

 

[The Truth]

totally agree....ppl just don't know their history and dealings. they are german and changed their name to start with.

Yeah it's clear to see some people still honestly think that Buckingham Palace employes all those guards, guns and heavy security all for the sake of a bit of tourism! lol.
This family is the most powerful in the world no questions asked.
Check out the links between princess Diana DNA, the holy grail and prince william posing with a lamb. Very interesting indeed

 

[The Truth]

Getting rid of the monarchy would have a huge impact on the United Kingdom. The monarchy is what helps the country revolve. It isn't just tradition many of the processes that we go through. It is the law. The monarchy is there to stop parliaments running rampant with laws, and the queen still has the right to stop laws being enacted that could have a detrimental effect on the public. Although the last time this power was exercised was during the reign of Queen Victoria, although it is my belief that she would stop laws being enacted that could have some form of 'dictatorship' for the government. In short, nearly everything about our legal process and political process would need to be changed if the monarchy were removed from power and in my opinion this would not benefit anybody. There needs to be some distinction between the head of state and the politics, an elected president will not give us this.

Did you know only the queen is allowed to eat a Swan. anyone else who tries this is committing a crime.- Now that's why we need the royal family!

 

[The Truth]

if you were to bother reading further on the original subject matter, you'd know that just about everyone did. dont like such detail get in the way.
.

err!?? no. Most people 300 years ago were not eating human flesh in England. I can assure you of that. Mainly just the royal family i'm afraid but don't worry, it was done mainly through ritual.

 

[Peteinblack]

Getting rid of the monarchy would have a huge impact on the United Kingdom. The monarchy is what helps the country revolve. It isn't just tradition many of the processes that we go through. It is the law. The monarchy is there to stop parliaments running rampant with laws, and the queen still has the right to stop laws being enacted that could have a detrimental effect on the public. Although the last time this power was exercised was during the reign of Queen Victoria, although it is my belief that she would stop laws being enacted that could have some form of 'dictatorship' for the government. In short, nearly everything about our legal process and political process would need to be changed if the monarchy were removed from power and in my opinion this would not benefit anybody. There needs to be some distinction between the head of state and the politics, an elected president will not give us this.

Actually, I think 1707 was the last time a Monarch refused to sign a Bill approved by Parliament.

Were the Monarch today to refuse to sign a Bill passed by Parliament, it would drag the Monarchy itself into politics, and fatally undermine its claim to represent the whole nation by being 'above politics'.

It would also raise a fundamental question about democracy; who would be deciding Britain's laws - a democratically-elected government and Parliament or an unelected Head of State? Imagine the outcry from Tory Royalists if the Queen has refused to give the Royal Assent to the Poll Tax legislation !!!

 

[Bulldog]

Do you agree with having a Royal Family in Britain? Reasons for your answer please!

I am in the mind that we should have a royal family, they give us a sense of identity and I cannot stand people that use the reason 'they leach' when quite clearly they work fairly hard for their money and repair it many times over.

Anyway,

GO!

Let's assume for a moment that the Windsors do work hard, is this an argument for the monarchy? Should we appoint a head of state, MPs or other officials based on who works the most hours in the year?
Nurses, teachers, manual workers, police officers and even City bankers - these are people who work hard. To compare the royals' lifestyle with theirs is absurd. The royals are paid astronomic hourly rates for their "work" and yet accept none of the risks of redundancy or formal performance appraisals, and do not have the same chores and responsibilities the rest of us face at home.

The simple truth is that they do very little. Mark Bolland, former press officer for Prince Charles, was quoted on Janet Street Porter's BBC programme in 2005 as saying "the Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of a year and making it look as though they work hard" .

 

[beorhthelm]

err!?? no. Most people 300 years ago were not eating human flesh in England. I can assure you of that. Mainly just the royal family i'm afraid but don't worry, it was done mainly through ritual.

neither where royals normally. Clearly you havent read any further than the Metro and you havent even read that properly : "According to a new book on medicinal cannibalism, written by University of Durham academic Dr Richard Sugg, well-off and well-educated Brits used to eat human flesh, blood and bones as medicine". the authors position is that if you where ill you might indulge in a little light human derived medicine. he claims the poor continued this into victorian times.

 

[napier's kit man]

Doesn't the whole family have Palace connections??

 

[Bulldog]

Yes ... a big pull for tourism and it's still something other countries hold is awe and helps us from being wiped off the map.

The Queen had done a great job imo ... I might change my views once Charlie takes over, dunno

On the negative once it gets beyond the top 2 or 3 then there's way too many hangers on that we're paying for and contribute bugger all

Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single shred of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.
The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. There is no evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism, in fact, there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue.

 

[The Truth]

neither where royals normally. Clearly you havent read any further than the Metro and you havent even read that properly : "According to a new book on medicinal cannibalism, written by University of Durham academic Dr Richard Sugg, well-off and well-educated Brits used to eat human flesh, blood and bones as medicine". the authors position is that if you where ill you might indulge in a little light human derived medicine. he claims the poor continued this into victorian times.

Good meat, let alone any, was rare to find back in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Execution and peasantry was rife throughout that time-period and it was safe to say that 'good' meat was going to waste.
The reason it doesn't happen now is because it doesn't NEED to. There is plenty of meat.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389142/British-royalty-dined-human-flesh-dont-worry-300-years-ago.html

 

[Bulldog]

I think a royal family is a good thing. No matter what people say they do bring in tourism. Countries like America adore the fact we have a royal family, and they love going to see buckingham palace and the like. Also it is good for international relations as we'd be able to better relate to other countries still with monarchies. People moan about how expensive they are, but a president would cost just as much with security etc. Etc.

Although saying that I think people like Andrew and Edward should actually work for their money rather than just scrounge

The notion of the monarchy is entirely at odds with the principles of the US constitution, which Americans hold dear. While some may enjoy the quaintness of British pageantry there is no desire to replicate it back home.