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

pipk62

j_Wood-cowling wrote: »

tonyabacus, the cost of Royalty is far more than 39 pence! indeed the cost of the unelected Queen ( born to rule) is many times more than the cost of the President of the USA and france put together. France get's far more tourists than the UK. Can you justify the Duke of York using £26,000 of taxpayers money to fly to a Gulf course. It is our Democratic right to elect our President whoever he might be. I dread King Charles, and his awful wife!

The USA presidency isn't a partcularly 'good payer', and many CEO's get much more in their paypacket, which begs the question why bother?
Many people on boards such as this may make a good president, the more you read through the more you understand the heroes we have on sites like this; but George Bush would never fit into that category IMO.

And as for being elected, well, was he? seemed like a strange business that, especially in Florida! (referring to his first election victory especially)

So I'll rhetorically ask again Why bother?
IMO theres something more to be made long-term, and the way Bush is running the USA is frankly quite scary, he seems to want to 'take over the world', at the detriment to the US population.

The costs to USA taxpayers may not be much now, but how much eventual damage will he do to the world, and how much is that going to cost us all?

As far as I'm concerned the likes of Bush make me want to keep the monarchy for a long time yet.

BUT...
On one of your other points (Duke of York), No, thats not right!
Maybe we should 'thin out' the royal family, and not pay for the likes of the Duke of York at all, The Queen/King and the heir to the throne is all we should be paying for.

j_Wood-cowling

davidlagaurdia, you are quite wrong what you quote is a Royal myth, they cannot trace their ancestry back further than George the First, the line was broken, The Normans like the English are Vikings and descendants of Northern races IE Gauls, but they spoke French. The rest of your post, King Robert is utter nonsense of course, a Royal pretend myth.
Teddycoe, as you said a few American friends, I think you will find the majority of Americans are proud of being the first modern Republic, and along with the French defeated the English at Yorktown ,American war of Independence,

DavidLaGuardia

j_Wood-cowling wrote: »

davidlagaurdia, you are quite wrong what you quote is a Royal myth, they cannot trace their ancestry back further than George the First, the line was broken,

Perhaps you thought a bunch of people just popped over to the continent looking for king, arrived in Hanvoer and said "that sausage munching dude looks like a likely protestant sort to replace James II, let's have him!" ?
:rolleyes:
Or it be that you are referring to the same George I who was was actually a Great Grandson of James I & VI?
Who was a Great Great Grandson of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, the eldest child of Edward IV
Who in turn was the Great Great Grandson of Edward III
son of Edward II
son of Edward I
son of Henry III
son of King John
son of Henry II
son of Geoffrey Plantagnent and Empress Matilda the Great Grandchild of
William I

j_Wood-cowling wrote: »

The Normans like the English are Vikings and descendants of Northern races IE Gauls, but they spoke French.

Gauls = Celtic
Normans = Skandinavian

Ok Being a bit pedantic here: The Normans spoke Norman ok its a bit Frenchy, but Dutch is a bit Germany but we would avoid calling Dutch German. The French used later by the aristocracies of Europe as the language of court and diplomacy was not the same..

j_Wood-cowling wrote: »

The rest of your post, King Robert is utter nonsense of course, a Royal pretend myth.

This is official policy. and the same would apply to a king David, Malcolm..take your pick

merlin48

Perhaps we should do away with the monarchy, religion, the police, the army, social services, national health service et al. It would cost a lot less money and those of us still alive could spend more on things that we chose to. Why cant the British celebrate the good things about living here rather than a constant whinge about the things that some people treasure. For some it is the monarchy, for others our cultural diversity but, love it or hate it, it is the only place I would call home!

Gobosly

My response is "Why do we have to have a replacement? Why do we need a head of state? I'm sure I could live my life quite adequately without a president or queen ruling over me. I've never understood why we have to have a figurehead."

As I read through these posts I was just thinking the same thing myself. On the basis that in terms of ruling the Queen as "Head of State" is a purely ceremonial role, if the monarchy were to be abandoned why would they need to be replaced with an elected "Head of State".

You wonder whether the historical France and USA undertook to have "Heads of State" because that was what people knew at the time? Surely the Prime Minister in their current role would be a "Head of State" if you wanted to call it that.

This whole arguement is of course impossible, because no one can really tell if the current Royal family bring in more money than they cost to run; because no one can prove that the money they're bringing in would still come in any way even if they were not there.

Personally, I've never taken that much notice of them and always thought them fairly harmless. In reality they are of course just descendents of a long line of families that successfully invaded England a thousand years ago (The odd illegitimate line here and there along the way I'm sure) - Not that history was ever my strong point! (I agree that the lineage is very weak and convenience was often used to find an appropriate Monarch, such as George of Hanover). - We did of course breifly have a spell of republicanism under Cromwell, but that was obviously so bad, that afterwards people we couldn't wait to get Charles back.

Putting the money issue aside for the moment, one thing the Royal Family do represent is that the UK managed to move to a full democracy, a few steps at a time and without a massive (and usually bloody) revolutionary coup. They obviously represent this by the fact that they are still here , but yet have no power. My own experience is that our democracy is admired in other countries (Australia apart!) for this.

Of course other countries have also managed this, such as the Nordic countries, but for some reason those Monarchs are not as well associated with those countries. I suppose the strong Royal association with the UK is largely from the influence of the old Empire.

Just finishing off my ramble without really going anywhere, the thought of having to bow to say Prince Charles (or any other Royal) is actually an uncomfortable one (for me any way). For the simple reason that the act of doing it is a statement that there is a difference between us.

Out of interest, does anyone know what would happen if someone did not bow. (Other than hot the headlines of the tabloids that is). Would there really be a semi-serious consequence?

DontDoDebtKids

How much does Parliament cost? Surely £7.9 million a year is a better deal - put 'em back in charge!

On_South_Coast

Luigi_03 wrote: »

I wonder how many of the "anti bowers and scrapers" have met a member of the Royal Family? Or a tycoon, for that matter?

I was once fortunate enough to have lunch with the Duke of Edinburgh, who is an accomplished conversationalist, an intelligent and interesting man and someone who does not stand on ceremony. In my experience, those who most value "bowing and scraping" deserve it least!

Luigi_03

Yes, I've met Prince Philip and I would include myself in the "anti bowers and scrapers" faction, although this is a rather base way of describing an opinion that is formed on morality.

Intelligence is relative, as is the entertainment value of an 'interesting man'; and if the press is to be believed, then he's also a person of rather prejudiced view too. (I didn't spend enough time in his presence to witness any of his gaffes.)

I'm pleased to see that you consider that those who least value bowing and scraping deserve it the most, though we would of course be the last to want it. Or perhaps you didn't mean that.

As for whether royalty should remain or not, the arguments for NOT retaining or maintaining have been far more eloquently put by others in this blog. It doesn't require prescience to know that the ending of an unjust system would help address the moral question of inequality in our society. I'm talking, as others have, about inequality and poverty in the face of such privilege. Of course the ending of royalty would hardly begin to reduce poverty levels in our county, but I for one would like to have the choice of whether I contribute financially to the moral bankruptcy that is royal privilege. That the Queen should be head of the Church of England beggars belief....

lighter_2

Do we want all the hassle and fuss and fundraising that the Americans have every four years? £7.9m (before tax back) is probably cheap at twice the price. And a president wouldn't bring the tourists

rlouisa

i need to hang wit all u intelligent people more.if for nothing but to improve my written english:beer: .plzz keep the royals, i cant argue wot good they r but they r handy conversation topics..abit like talkin about british weather.great conversation starter!

Gobosly

Very impressed with the knowledge regarding various forms of Governance on this thread, but no one has managed to answer my previous question.

Does anyone know what would happen if you were introduced to a royal person, but didn't bow? Would there really be a punishment, on the basis that you can very kind, considerate and well mannered without bowing?