'Should we ditch and switch the royals?' Poll Discussion
Former_MSE_Lawrence
Former MSE 975 Posts
Results: This poll ran between 11-18 Sept. Should we ditch & switch the Royals?
The civil list, which pays for the Royals to do their official work, costs UK taxpayers £7.9 million a year. On the other hand, the Royal family pay tax on their income, which doesn't just come from the list.
Whatever your view, as taxpayers' money contributes, it is a consumer decision, so which of these is closest to your view of what should happen with the Royal family?
A. Put them back in charge. Ditch all PMs & let them rule. 11% (717 votes)
B. No change. It’s fine as it is. 37% (2372 votes)
C. Deconstitutionalise them. Just leave a pure figure head monarchy. 21% (1336 votes)
D. Ditch ‘em. End the monarchy forever. 30% (1928 votes)
This poll has now ended, but you can still click reply and have your say below.
The civil list, which pays for the Royals to do their official work, costs UK taxpayers £7.9 million a year. On the other hand, the Royal family pay tax on their income, which doesn't just come from the list.
Whatever your view, as taxpayers' money contributes, it is a consumer decision, so which of these is closest to your view of what should happen with the Royal family?
A. Put them back in charge. Ditch all PMs & let them rule. 11% (717 votes)
B. No change. It’s fine as it is. 37% (2372 votes)
C. Deconstitutionalise them. Just leave a pure figure head monarchy. 21% (1336 votes)
D. Ditch ‘em. End the monarchy forever. 30% (1928 votes)
This poll has now ended, but you can still click reply and have your say below.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
Surely therefore we need to balance what they cost with what they produce for this country before being asked to vote on what appears to be a one sided discussion.
Those dependant on Tourism for jobs and income are only too well aware of some of the motivators that induce tourists to visit this country, not least of all the Royals our history, heritage and pageantry. This is borne out by the crowds and worldwide television audiences whenever major royal occasions take place.
Living and working in the North Cotswolds near to places like Stratford on Avon, we see many tourists that continue to express these reasons for making visits from across the world.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that these visitors spend considerable sums on food, accommodation and entertainment, visiting venues as well as many other aspects whilst here. Many have arrived here from London after visiting much of our Royal heritage at places like Buck House, Windsor and the like. In short they provide not just local but national income as well as providing people with employment, much needed requirements for those dependant on tourism for its local economy.
Therefore to establish the worth of the Royals instead of just 'knocking' them, can we have a balanced view and perhaps you can you provide an estimate of the Royals contribution to the economy as well as their cost?
Finally have we not already lost too much of our heritage and national pride, we were once a proud nation, rather than a Euro 'also ran'.
Regards
Tony
No seriously though, you make some valid points there...
I wouldn't call it a one sided vote, afterall one option was "maintain the status quo", it wasn't just 4 versions of get rid.
And then consider what it would have been like with President Maggie Thatcher the First!
Between them they were arrogant enough to pretty much usurp what remained of the Royal Perogative, yet they weren't even *elected* as leader. They just figured they could do it anyway.
Imagine what they would have been like if they could say "Well the People have elected us, so obviously they *want* us to do all of this", but they were both quite capable of ignoring anyone who disagreed with them.
Frankly I think the Royals are by far the lesser of any evils.
Of equally important consequence is what the royals represent. Our great country thrives on the principles of hard work and enterprise. Rather than look back historically in a rose tinted view of the development of our nation that the present royals represent we need to look forward. If we want to maintain our position in the world it's not by having a royal family, it's ensuring everyone has an opportunity to succeed and fulfil their potential, without the undue restrictions of position and class which the royals stand for. Only by encouraging wealth creation, enterprise and opportunity can our country survive in the future world. The royals represent the past. Let's commemorate our past achievements and work to achieve an even better future.
That's far more important than whether 39p per person is "good value for money".
Yes, President Blair would have been a nightmare, but then again, he did what he wanted to anyway, and he and his ilk do not care about the ordinary everyday people, as long as they can have ''power''. And, I suppose he is not on his own.
But, I just do not see the royals as been any better than any other person. I would refuse to bow, or have my wife courtsey, I feel it is demeaning, along with all the rest of the proceedures that are expected. I wish them no harm, but to me they are just not relavent.
Anyway, we're at the state where we are ruled by europe anyway now, so our independance is slowly being eroded to the point where we seem to be answerable to those we have not elected, perhaps this is going full circle?
The tourism argument is a non-starter. French and Russian royal palaces still pull in huge numbers of visitors. Arguably, a British Republic would have more to offer tourists on that front, as all royal residences could be opened to the public.
As for "heritage and national pride" - if the French can be proud of their republican status, why can't we? It's a bit much for Britain to be lecturing the world on democracy when we have an unelected, feudal head of state (and while we're getting rid of the monarchy, let's get rid of the unelected peers and Anglican clerics in the House of Lords).
The "President Blair" argument is also specious. Most republics (the USA being an obvious exception) have a constitutional president, who has little day to day power, and instead represents the country internatioanlly - the Irish (who haven't been struggling for tourists since they became a republic) do this very well. The Prime Minister would have no more power in a republic than they would under the current system. It would be the people who'd have more say. I'd rather have my country represented around the world by an elected statesman (or woman) than by the likes of the crass, ignorant Princes Philip and Charles.
I think it's disgusting that the Royal family should lead lives of such jaw-dropping privilege, sitting about eating caviar, reclining on diamond-encusted seats, and using toilet paper made of baby panda pelts, for doing so little, when the UK has some of the worst child poverty in Western Europe.
They're not worth 39p of anyone's money.
By definition of a monarchy we dont actually get a choice in the matter unless we turn to 'bloody revolution' or they decide that, "perhaps after all we'll just give up all our palaces, privileges etc."
So I think they will be around for a long time yet. I dont really care though I think a lot of 'stragglers' could be taken off the civil list.
However I was taught by my parents, teachers and peers that good manners and showing respect for other people are some of the basics in society. There are already many signs where lack of these elements is affecting our daily lives showing how this leads to a degeneration of morals resulting in abuse, violence and death to innocent victims.
No one suggests that you should 'bow and scrape' to anyone, but there is a thing called etiquette. Simple etiquette is to shake hands when meeting a person, to have the courtesy to listen when someone speaks to you, and to have the courtesy to acknowledge the standing of others in the community, which includes each and every one of us. Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself and remember as I was taught, what goes around comes around. Disrespect others and you in turn will earn no respect.
None of us have control over the background into which we are born, not even the queen, so before criticising perhaps she should be asked whether she enjoys the life she has to lead. It may look a bed of roses from the outside, but as often is the case, the 'grass is not always greener'. I have met a number of people that feel they are far better off, than being in the 'goldfish bowl' that many others in prominent positions find themselves, for there are always people prepared to throw stones, no matter what your own intentions.
Instead of always looking for the negatives in a situation, try looking for the positives, you may be surprised at what you see in your own as well as the lives of others.
As to the royals value, that is a topic that will always raise hot debate. The fact remains that they create an interest that brings people from far and wide which we should be proud about. Look around and try to find some national pride, it seems sadly lacking at the moment. There will always be those in society that want to 'rid' us of anything that stands for success or achievement. When they have succeeded at the first thing they go on the hunt for the next, to what greater benefit?
I wait to see the day when any of the royals will be seen holding a gun to someone's head saying 'You WILL like me', until then I will stick by the principles instilled in me, not least recognising their position in our society and
paying them the social courtesy and respect that I do to others.
At the head of every family there is someone who is looked upon as the figurehead, they don't always ask for that responsibility. Nonetheless that is their role and they should be given respect for being in that position and let's face a fact of life, every Captain has a few more privileges than the Cabin boy!