I mean seriously, they are a parasitic clan that leaches off of common people in England. Lots of money is lost for this ornamental "symbol" of England of yesterera.
And plus, does anyone get the fact that it fosters the idea that some people were [italic]born[/italic] better than other people. Is this like the fucking middle ages, where people are born to be servants and can't move on to become greater things?
When I heard about Kate's new baby, I thought, who cares? Why couldn't we devote that attention to helping the poor or funnel into technology. I think the concept of the "Royal Family" is fucking shit.
Under Britain's unwritten constitution, the monarchy holds the whole framework of state together.
Paddy O'Brian should be coronation made to be King, and Queen, for a day
Maybe OP should know what he's talking about before having a hissy fit about it. There is no such thing as the Queen of England. Really.
Look it up. It's not that difficult to understand.
of course the "royal" family should be kicked to the curb. "Royalty" is an outdated, antiquated, archaic belief that has no place in the modern world. These inbred, tax-wasting beasts are no better than the rest of the UK citizens.
I say no! They are a boon to the economy and to the cultural and social fabric of the country! Plus when Charles and Camilla ascend, it will be SO fun! The comedians and the satirists will have a field day.
I can even see a TV series developing on a fictitious upper class family patterned on Charles and Camilla. Every single time I see photos of Charles he makes me smile. He is so absurd and Camilla will always and forever be the Rottweiler. I know it's unkind, but so what.
[quote]These inbred, tax-wasting beasts are no better than the rest of the UK citizens.
As opposed to the inbred, tax-wasting beasts currently running the U.S. Congress, half the Supreme Court, and most of the Midwest and Southern U.S. states?
It's pointless to pose the question. It's like asking if the solar system would be better off without the planet Jupiter. They're never going to get rid of them in our lifetimes--they make them too much money.
All told, the UK pays the royals about 40 million pounds a year to keep the pomp and circumstance going. The UK treasury takes in 200 million pounds a year in revenues from the royal lands alone. Add the tourism money that gets spread around to so many UK businesses and the royals end up being a great investment for the British people.
Advocate for getting rid of them if you want - just leave the money bitching out of it. The UK makes a very decent profit off of these silly people.
Also - Hot Harry.
As an American, I don't really care. If the Brits like the institution and want to continue supporting it, fine by me.
Anyway, many European countries who've lost their monarchy still have a ceremonial head of state that holds office (sometimes for life) and does the photo ops, visits hospitals and charities, and waves to crowds, etc, much like the British monarchy. President Nappy of Italy is like this. I would argue that Hollande is virtually becoming a ceremonial figurehead instead of something more substantial.
There are more important problems in the world.
7 - Indeed, whatever you think of the royals they are a HUGE drawer for tourism. The birth of Prince George on Monday led the news on virtually every Western news station from the US to France, Australia to Germany, they are part of what makes Britain Britain. In any case the idea that getting rid of the monarchy would help the poor or see investment in new technology is ridiculous, it would go instead to paying for a President Thatcher, Blair or Cameron without the work the royals for charity or promoting British industry and culture and the countryside
I understand it costs each U.K. taxpayer a pound a year. At the same time, the money spent on them is very little compared to the billions generated by tourists who want a glimpse of royal life.
Yes they are good for the economy and for tourism and when they travel abroad it isn't all ribbon cuttings and hospital visits. They are serious trade representatives and have meetings on behalf of the commonwealth about commerce.
Of course, not all of them are savvy enough to get into all of it that much, but they are practically brainwashed about the commercial aspects of "the job" as soon as they're able to grasp it.
They might be dim about literature or culture, but they know their history and they know their commerce.
Of course then you have people like Andrew & Fergie who are shady about it.
They are good for tourism the way export of tobacco is good for America's trade balance.
In the end, their primary appeal is to countries which are run as feudal domains, which is disastrous to human rights. The royals have no bigger fans than the Sauds, and there is no clan of murdering gangsters worse than the Sauds, who are also single handedly responsible for both most of the poverty of the Islamic world and its backwards Islamic fundamentalism, of which the Sauds are the only significant patrons.
Cut the Gordian knot. Throw out the royals and the third world killers they are providing with cover.
The queen is an institution that has an important role in protecting the status quo. Only when she has given assent, can anything become law. It's a check and balance that is fairly automatic, however it does stand in the way of a prime minister or political party voting lifelong government/dictatorship for itself.
Also, only the queen can authorise use of her army. She is generally bound by the wishes of parliament (Iraq war that the British people didnt want), but it's the reason the army has never been used against the people on mainland Britain.
It might not seem all that much, but it's better than not having it. (Praying for the poor Egyption people).
What R13 said.
Pointless thread because it's not happening.
The U.S. doesn't have a royal family and we don't funnel that much money into technology and we certainly don't help the poor.
Is the primary reason of the royal family's existence that they are paid about $40 million and they supposedly bring in three or four times that much to the UK in tourism? Is that really the primary reason to justify their existence?
In the end, does it matter (or shouldn't it matter) that their existence perpetuates a system that is unequal simply by a mere accident of birth? Should a system that treats a few versus the masses as better or more important than others be dissolved as archaic, irrelevant and unnecessary? Should tourism be taken out of the mix when considering this question?
No, the US doesn't have a royal family.Wait until the Duke of Florida ascends. Hehehehe.
19 - You could add the Clintons and the Kennedys to that list. The US does have a semi-royal family ie based on families who have produced at least one president and a serious presidential candidate, the Bush brand is clearly the most influential within the GOP, the Clinton and the Kennedy brand within the Democrats
As a brit, no.
They bring in way more than they cost, they pay income tax, and they're basically the only symbol of national pride we're allowed to celebrate anymore.
It's not the royals I'm so concerned about. They're basically harmless and good for tourism. It's the House of Lords that bothers me. A bunch of unelected toffs who wield actual political power. THAT needs to go.
22 They aren't toffs anymore, most hereditary peers were removed from the Lords in 1999, mostly they are life peers appointed because of success in their fields, whether business, academia, the arts, sports, politics, the law, the church etc
How exactly are the Royals parasites? They are the chief appeal for tourists. They bring the UK incredible wealth, glamour and distinction. America invented movie stars so it could have something to rival the Royals and look, that very industry now controls American society.
The social and governmental system in the United Kingdom is not predicated on some people being "better," OP, you uninformed nitwit. It is predicated on some people being members of nobility and royalty.
There is a difference, but you are too upset about your mum telling you to take the garbage out to understand that, aren't you, dearie? Power to the people, yes, indeed.
You are unaware, for example, that the queen cannot enter the CIty of London without permission. That true political power in the nation is concentrated in the hands of the House of Commons. That it has become standard for lords and ladies wanting to work in government to set aside their titles for the privilege. That the responsibility and cost of maintaining what you seem to imagine are expanses of forests and enormous estates where people work under servitude have not, in fact, broken most of the gentry, who have turned the estates over to the trust or others. That being a commoner is patently NOT being a servant, and that being subjects of the monarch is in fact a privilege of commonality shared by everyone, regardless of social or family position. And that the status is completely symbolic.
But I wouldn't wish to confuse you with facts. Not when you're pouting over that sack of trash in the kitchen corner, and feeling like mum is such a tyrant.
OP, the problem, as demonstrated in this thread, is that there is an incredible amount of misinformation spouted about the Royals and monarchists refuse to listen. Only the Guardian takes a slightly republic line - all the other media here tots out the usual lies that the Royals are good for tourism, don't cost much, etc.
Over and over again it's been pointed out that more tourists go to Versailles than ALL the UK Royal palaces and castles combined but the monarchists will not listen. Buckingham Palace does not even feature on the top 20 destinations but, oh no, they're good for tourism. Even the Torygraph knows this but the fanboys will keep spinning the same bullshit.
As for cost, I'd really like to know how some people here know exactly what the Monarchy costs. The Royals are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Can you image if the BBC, the NHS or any other state institution refused to cough up their exact cost? That £40m figure is the Palace's figure - not an independent figure. The true figure is more likely to be £150m but who knows?
Oh, but of course Harry is hot so it's all okay to support an expensive, undemocratic institution.
26 The royals also drum up business abroad, and do a lot of charity work, plus there is all the merchandise and souvenirs sold in connection with royal weddings, births etc
Is that the best you can come up with R27? Yes, Prince Andrew has been great for British trade. What a fucking joke he is. So what you're saying is that London would not be a major financial hub and we wouldn't be in the G8 if it wasn't for the Royals. Yes, let's completely ignore the hard work of millions of Brits working in charity, trade and international business. It's all the Royals. Well, if the Royals play a crucial part in our economy i'd like to see them held accountable now that things have fucked up. Maybe we can jumpstart the economy by making Prince George tea cosies.
28 Well all those selling souvenirs around Buckingham Palace etc clearly depend for their livelihoods on the royals. In any case the choice is not the royals or nothing, but the royals and a President Blair, Thatcher, Cameron etc who you would still have to pay for, but with nothing like the tourism revenue
You can get a very decent president for about $400k per year.
30 - Indeed, President Joachim Gauck of Germany does wonders for the nation's tourist industry doesn't he!
R25 and therein lies the problem. The idea of "nobility" and "royalty" are stupid, outdated concepts that have no place in the modern world. When someone is deemed "noble" or "royal" it is implied they are better by birth, which is pathetic. Those inbred tax money-wasters are no better than anyone else.
It IS time for the "royal" family to get the damn boot. Get with modern times, limeys.
Quotations are necessary for "royal" and "noble" because I don't believe in such silly concepts. Anyone supporting that shit is a fool.
That you must now alter the English language to exemplify your "position" and "beliefs" (see how silly?), R32 et al., is both unsurprising and further evidence of how potty and rancid you are.
Your ad hominem attack also is unsurprising, because that's what nuts do. Have you bothered to consult British law and budgets to see what the actual situation is? Of course not. And your naive use of "limey" may attempt to be provocative but merely shows that you yourself are not quite in the present century.
Feel free to continue making your absurd, unsubstantiated, ignorant points. People know how to step around the raving lunatic. That you could not address any of the lapses in your knowledge does show you to be not only a nasty little creature but unprepared to do anything except sit there and repeat yourself.
By the way, ass, have you ever bothered to investigate the return on the investment provided to the few royals on the lists, through tourism alone? Of course not. You just want to feel "special" by feeling like everyone else. Except nuts are NOT like everyone else, are they?
R33 you're a mess and you've exposed why you're so bothered that many of us are against this "royalty" and "nobility" bullshit. It is MEANINGLESS in the modern world. No one cares that your family has some pointless "title". We shouldn't be surprised you're so arrogant about keeping up this archaic tradition. The UK is cool except for this "royalty"/"nobility" idiocy.
[quote] No one cares that your family has some pointless "title".
I find it interesting for the history. If I knew a titled person, I would like to ask about their family history, tour the house, see the portraits and archives.
Anyone who has studied history knows that the nobility--or at least feudalism, which it is tied to--arose because it was the easiest way of organizing huge amounts of land, workers, and taxes when there was no currency. Whether you like it or not, that is part of our shared human history.
Whoopi Goldberg doesn't seem to think much of the royals, at least according to her and Baba Wawa's contretemps last week on "the View." Does her opinion count?
If anything, the USA needs a Queen.
The UK has clearly defined roles for the Prime Minister and the Queen, the PM lives (relatively) modestly and spends his days attending to the business of the Country will the Queen is off doing all the state dinners, ribbon cuttings, and goodwill visits to foreign countries.
In the USA we expect our President to juggle both jobs, and it doesn't work nearly as well. It makes the President too powerful, and too able to easily divert attention from things that matter by racing off to a visit to Japan.
Also as a Brit - yes, they should go. They are scroungers on the system.
R37. The United States already has too many bossy Queens.