British Royal Family

[billybunter]

Most Brits I know don''t have chips on their shoulders, maybe it's just you.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by billybunter

Most Brits I know don''t have chips on their shoulders, maybe it's just you.

I don't know, I'm pretty bitter and twisted myself. But I am not anxious to moderate a collective spitting out of dummies. I am pro-monarchy myself but I don't feel the need to worry about the motives of anyone who takes another view. We can afford to be civil and I am sure we will be civil.

I have no doubt that envy plays its part in some cases but the Royal Family has enough money to choke ten horses and we hear that their party was looked after by long term unemployed people who, for no pay, were denied a nights sleep and made to work all day without even the chance to go for a piss. Prince Philip knows what that can lead to. So I wouldn't be very judgemental about envy in this case even though its the most unattractive of the Deadly Sins.

[billybunter]

I'm certainly not envious of their wealth. But it could be used for lots of other things to help ordinary folks.
There is no middle ground on this thread. Either for or against. Everyone has a right to their opinion and we all should respect that.

[capricornius]

Back to the original question 'Are you a Royalist' Yes definitely I am, members of this thread have posted many pros and cons, whilst I accept there differing opinions for and against, that is forum democracy and all views are valid and welcome.

I personally feel the Royals are underrated, they do a lot of good that rarely makes the mainstream media, Prince Charles with Princes Trust foundation that helps 18-25 years to setup business enterprises, I should know, back in 1991 I received £5000 grant from them to set my first business up when no banks would come near me. Charities the likes of Help for Heroes receive great publicity from the young Princes and so forth.

From an international prospective, go to the farthest deepest corner of the earth and ask a native what do they know of Britain, the first thing they will say is the Queen, so all in all I personally think the Royals are a good thing, I may be biased, but thats my personal opinion on the matter.

Bring on the knighthood

[Markus R]

It has nothing to do with having a chip on the shoulder. I detest something that has not been democratically elected. The perfect example of this is the Royal Family and also the ridiculous House of Lords. We call ourself a democratic country but in actual fact, we are not.

[capricornius]

Originally Posted by Markus R

It has nothing to do with having a chip on the shoulder. I detest something that has not been democratically elected. The perfect example of this is the Royal Family and also the ridiculous House of Lords. We call ourself a democratic country but in actual fact, we are not.

Markus, I agree with you they're not democratically elected, however nor is a CEO of a company, the list can go on for ever. I'm not trying to justify their existence, I just feel there's over a thousand years of history that makes Britain what it is and personally I would not like to this eroded. Likewise we have the British Pound do we want to give this up and join the Euro definitely not, like I say having the Royals is a good thing, gives Britain a unique identity.

[capricornius]

Originally Posted by bradleystoke

Uniqueley deferential and stupid.

Like I have said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I have my views and you have yours!

Not sure I fully understand 'Uniqueley' ?!?!?

[haroldeye]

Why is the House of Lords ridiculous. It is a revising chamber with no power to stop legislation being enacted. If it were elected it would have to have power and would then be in contention with the Commons.

It needs reforming in that useless failed politicians are sent there, but otherwise as a revising chamber it works very well.

[windymiller]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Why is the House of Lords ridiculous. It is a revising chamber with no power to stop legislation being enacted. If it were elected it would have to have power and would then be in contention with the Commons.

It needs reforming in that useless failed politicians are sent there, but otherwise as a revising chamber it works very well.

To me this is the great problem with the current sytem in the UK. We have three tiers of government, one that is merely a figurehead with no power, another which you correctly point out only has revisional powers and therefore all the real power lies with the Prime Minister. What we end up with is an elected dictator. There are no checks and balances built in to the system. In theory, with the current coalition govenment the Lib Dems should provide a counter balance to the tories, but we dont see much evidence of this. David Cameron has implemented a right wing programme of policies that even Margaret Thatcher didn't dare dream of. Tony Blair took the country into an illegal war at the behest of the extreme right wing of the US Republican party and no one had the power to stop him. We need these other tiers of government to have some real power to provide these checks and balances and that power can only legitamitely come from the electorate.

[penfold007]

Originally Posted by windymiller

To me this is the great problem with the current sytem in the UK. We have three tiers of government, one that is merely a figurehead with no power, another which you correctly point out only has revisional powers and therefore all the real power lies with the Prime Minister. What we end up with is an elected dictator. There are no checks and balances built in to the system. In theory, with the current coalition govenment the Lib Dems should provide a counter balance to the tories, but we dont see much evidence of this. David Cameron has implemented a right wing programme of policies that even Margaret Thatcher didn't dare dream of. Tony Blair took the country into an illegal war at the behest of the extreme right wing of the US Republican party and no one had the power to stop him. We need these other tiers of government to have some real power to provide these checks and balances and that power can only legitamitely come from the electorate.

And yet, as I see it having an elected president, even a ceremonial one like the Irish have, would give them a mandate and the feeling they should exercise the power of the office possibly in contention with the elected parliament. So, one elected person overruling 650 others.

As it stands the fastest way for the UK to become a republic would be the queen acting contrary to the expressed will of parliament. The monarchy continues to exist on the basis set down in the Bill of Rights with its powers very restricted and exercised at the will of parliament.

The PM is not a dictator, MPs do not have to follow the party whip if they disagree and can vote the government down - how close did we come to that during the Major years. For this reason I would rather have a government with a small majority than a big one. I do think that the whips wield too much power over their party's MPs though.

The biggest reason not to change to a republic is who we would get as president, even a ceremonial one. Without doubt it would be a retired or failed politician. Plenty of precedent for that in Ireland - Mary Robinson, as an example, Mary McAleese for another (failed to be elected for Fianna Fail in Dublin). More politicians? No thanks, we have quite enough of them already.

In principle, I should be a republican, I am a firm believer in the principle of democratic government. I simply think that it would be much, much worse for Britain.

Do the other European countries with monarchies have the same level of angst about them as we seem to? Denmark, Norway, Sweden are all advanced liberal democracies yet I never hear of bad feeling about their monarchies from my friends in those countries.