'Should we ditch and switch the royals?' Poll Discussion

DavidLaGuardia

An ideological debate about the merits of a republic vs a constitutional monarch is one thing, but the fact is the Royals cost us nothing.
George III gave up the revenue from the Crown Estates in return for a fixed civil list (effectively the income from the Dutchy of Lancaster). The profitability of the estates has grown much faster than the civil list, Today the crown estates give the treasury a surlpus income of over £200 million http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/annual_report/highlights-of-the-year.html
If you want to get into arguments of how the Crown Estates were originally acquired you get onto a slippery slope of questioning whether any one with inherited wealth deserves it.
If HM revenue and customs asked any other wealth family for its inherited income in exchange for a salary of less than 5% of the value of the income non one would accuse that familly of living at the tax payer's expense.

On the ideolgical side the current Queen is one of our most accomplished and experienced civil servants who prime ministers of all colours have benefited from her advice through a life of experience.

As to the republican debate, I rather like what Clive James said when the issue was raised in Australia [paraphrase] "it is not about the power the Queen has or hasn't got, it is about the power she prevents any individual from having"
If it ain't broke........

Gordon_the_Moron

I don't mind paying 39p per year just to not have Tony Bliar or Gordon Brown's annoying faces on my currency.

They do also draw in tourists a lot, if the places were kept open for tourists without a monarchy like someone said then the upkeep of this would probably be half as much as the family anyway.

Only the immediate family of the monarch should be entitled to any public money for anything and they should have to work for/justify that as well.

Making the likes of Gordon Brown or Tony Bliar head of state would only make them even worse.

barron_hard_up

How can we ever claim to be a democratic country when we are subjects, rather than citizens?[/quote]

I think there are many people who do not realise (and don't even care) that we are not citizens, this is a point that also is very important to myself, and many others I have discussed this point with. You have to admit, it's rather medievil to be a subject, and quite humourous that it is possible that there are those who believe they have subjects under them - you have to smile at that..

barron_hard_up

The royals don't exactly help themselves with what they get up to, do they? OK, the queen is devoted to her duties, but it takes more than that. Look how the queens children lost out in their childhood.... I also feel that the royal family are more of a southern thing - I'm showing my northern side here. By they way, I think the duke of Edinburgh is a hilarious guy, I love some of the things he's said on his trips abroad, you couldn't get away with some of those things if you wrote them as gags in a comedy show.

j_Wood-cowling

Tony abacus, you don't have to bow and scrape anymore or walk backwards, it was done away with. The creep subjects still like to do it, gives them a thrill I expect. The Duke of Edinburgh is not a nice guy he is a racist, I served with him in the Navy we called him Phil the Greek, a thoroughly nasty bit of work. Of course the Royal Family are an import German and Greek no English blood. The Queen has a drop of Scottish blood from her Mother.Another myth the can date her ancestry back to William the Conqueror? if that's true she is French! lastly she is not Queen Elizabeth the Second UK, she is the first Scotland never had a Elizabeth the first.

mhawkshaw

I'm pleased to see that (so far) the majority of people would like things to stay as they are, despite the terribly leading way the poll has been put. Really - if these polls can be useful, they must be worded in a non-biased way. I haven't found one yet on the site that hasn't been.

DavidLaGuardia

j_Wood-cowling wrote: »

the Royal Family are an import German and Greek no English blood. The Queen has a drop of Scottish blood from her Mother.Another myth the can date her ancestry back to William the Conqueror? if that's true she is French!

Firstly her ancestry can be traced back to the 7th century house of Wessex.

Secondly: William was Norman not French"The English" in the modern sense are a fusion of Anglo-Saxon (ironically made from tribes of mainly German origin themselves) and Norman (originally a viking Race). The modern English have a much greater owership of Norman roots than the French as a whole.

j_Wood-cowling wrote: »

lastly she is not Queen Elizabeth the Second UK, she is the first Scotland never had a Elizabeth the first.

This is nonsense, but a frequently made mistake. Monarchs were numbered separtely in England and Scotland from 1603 up until the union of 1707 under Queen Anne. While the English ordinals were adopted for a time thereafter, after the accession of Elizabeth II it became official to use the highest ordinal from either country (betwen Anne and her this is effectively what had happenned in any case). Hence if we have another King Robert he will be Robert IV of the United Kingdom.

rlouisa

i say keep em.if its about the money, it could as well b spent as a benefit ppl who may or may not deserve it. dear i say it...the royals may b the only british thing left in england.......and im not english so pls dont misconstrue this!!

teddyco

I had a discussion about the Royal Family with a few American friends on a recent business trip to the USA, and a lot of them would like to get rid of George Bush in favor of our monarchy.

They could not believe that so many Britons are against having a Royal Family that added so much flavor, tradition and foundation to the British way of life.

One thing I see all across this land is the change in traditional values and a desire to get rid of the old in favor of the 'new', whatever that is? Tony Blairs government has done more harm than good, and it amazes me that people don't see it.

Would the 'new' really change things for the better? Some people say a resounding YES, but many of us traditionalists know that bringing in something just because it is new or better doesn't always make the situation better; It merely moves one set of problems to another.

I can tell you, the European Union is chomping at the bits to destroy the Monarchy in favor of a United States of Europe. They want to destroy the currency of this country and replace it with monopoly money, and sneakily get us to sign up to their Mickey Mouse Constitution that is nothing more than a watered down version of absolutely nothing.

A lot of Britons don't like the mish-mash of systems that still exist in Britain. 30% of the land is still owned by the aristocracy and they still get tax payer assistance to maintain it. Yes, we could argue about who gets what and that's not fair, but it has been that way for one thousand years, and I think that's amazing.

Tradition is good for England, and I say 'keep the Royal Family'. More than ever, we need to get back to traditional family values if we want to see things get better.

economiser

You cannot have democracy and monarchy. The two terms are a contradiction.

We don't elect our head of state. We don't elect our Prime Minister (the Queen appoints - doesn't have to choose the biggest party leader - could choose a Lord - nearly chose Lord Halifax in 1940 in preference to Churchill). We don't elect our government (the PM does - again not necessarily from the Commons). We don't elect our Upper house.

Every four or five years we get a chance to vote for an MP, and if we live in a marginal constituency may effect the governing party. However MP's loyalty (with some notable exceptions) is to their party first (hope of a Government job or for older members a seat in the Lords).

The UK's political system is still in the 19th Century. We need to get with it.