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

pipk62

Gobosly wrote: »

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?

I have met a few members of the royal family, which is quite strange, seeing I am from an ordinary working class family.

Prince Andrew in a pub in Somerset (near to the air base where he was stationed), where the pub dropped (not literally) everyones food/drink orders so they could serve him and his lackeys, I wasn't impressed and told him so.

Sarah Ferguson, who looked gorgeous btw, when she came out for a friendly chat with all the taxi/private hire drivers at a big do, she got someone to get all of us a cup of tea each, lovely woman.

Princess Anne when she was out riding on an estate near me, her horse trotted around a corner on a public footpath/bridleway and frightened my dog to bits, she apologised and went on her way.

didn't bow to any of them, and .... (just checking in the mirror)... I've still got my head,

Like you say, as long as you're kind, considerate and well mannered, and its not a formal situation than its ok.

madgas

The state is a necessary evil, and likewise the head of state. How much to pay for Eliz 2 (1 for Scots) and entourage, or Gordon and entourage? at present we are paying for both. Democracy seems to invite gross corruption. Lets bin the fascists for a while.:T
.

Need_More_Money_2

merlin48 wrote: »

Perhaps we should do away with the monarchy

Agreed

merlin48 wrote: »

, religion,

merlin48 wrote: »

the police, the army, social services, national health service et al.

The difference is that these actually serve a useful purpose!

merlin48

The difference is that these actually serve a useful purpose![/quote]

My point is that not everyone would agree. Depending on their stance some see the police as the enforcers of a fascist state, the army as a method for imposing a government's will on other nations, the social services as giving money and support to the lazy and undeserving and the national health service as a mechanism for keeping bureaucrats employed.

Others agree with you that they do serve a useful purpose but there again many believe that the royal family also come into that category.

I am afraid that it is those that oppose the status quo who have to convince the rest and judging by the poll, that does not seem to be happening.

Deals_2

the royals every year. if it costs us 39pence each per annum how much do we profit from it - if any? thanks

mcgazz

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

I'd be very wary of using a hereditary argument.

Any white, upper-middle class (and quite a few lower middle class) Briton can trace their ancestry back to the Anglo-Saxon ruling class - rich people multiplied like rabbits in those days.

If we want to get into hereditary minutiae - dozens of people with a better claim to the throne were disinherited for being Catholic, on Queen Anne's death in 1714. The Bavarian Von Wittelsbach family and the Spanish royals have a better claim on the throne than the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha.

Also, it was discovered a few years ago that Edward IV was illegitimate, meaning that the correct line of sucession wasn't followed. There's a bloke in Australia called Michael Abney-Hastings who, as a Plantagenet, has a better claim than the Queen.

Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was based on an illegitimate marriage (also, he was a member of the Beaufort family, who were legally disbarred from pursuing a claim to the throne).

The Queen is the result of years of inbreeding among Europe's ruling families; I'm descended from some Donegal peasants. So what?


"Why do we have to have a replacement?"

Why not have a governing council, rather than a single head of state? All decisions would have to be carried by a majority.


"And a president wouldn't bring the tourists"

5000 people visit the Whitehouse every day, according the the New YOrk times.

DavidLaGuardia

mcgazz wrote: »

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

I'd be very wary of using a hereditary argument.

Any white, upper-middle class (and quite a few lower middle class) Briton can trace their ancestry back to the Anglo-Saxon ruling class - rich people multiplied like rabbits in those days.

If we want to get into hereditary minutiae - dozens of people with a better claim to the throne were disinherited for being Catholic, on Queen Anne's death in 1714. The Bavarian Von Wittelsbach family and the Spanish royals have a better claim on the throne than the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha.

I think you mis understood the context of my post. The specific extract you quote wasn't an argument for or against the Royals.
It was a reply to another post that cliamed the curent famlly could only trace their roots back to Geroge I. I was merely pointing out the historical facts. I would concur with your views in the contect of a heritary claim. Henry VII knew his heritary claim was ropey pushed forward the idea of divine right to rule, a view that becaming arogantly ingrained and ultimately cost Charles I his head. :eek:

mcgazz

"I think you mis understood the context of my post. The specific extract you quote wasn't an agurment for or against the Royals."

Fair enough

ShellyMouse

What do the Welsh and Scottish think?

MS63

j_Wood-cowling wrote: »

... Queen ( born to rule) ...

No, she was not.

Her uncle, Edward (VIII), was "born to rule" but gave up that right 'for love' in 1936, after a reign of only eleven months. His brother Albert (George VI), our current Queen's father, acceded to the throne upon Edward's abdication. George was never meant to be King, nor his children to succeed him.

Gobosly wrote: »

...

Does anyone know what would happen if you were introduced to a royal person, but didn't bow? ...

Nothing would - or does - happen. Just watch the television coverage of ANY Royal occasion and you will see that, when introduced to the Queen, very few people bow or curtsey, some give a small nod of the head, and most just smile and shake hands.

To the question "Should we ditch and switch the royals?" I say a resounding "NO!". I would rather they were in charge than the bunch of self-serving, lying, cheating b*st*rds we have now. (Or had before this lot. I hold politicians of all flavours in the same contempt.)