The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 09-20-2009, 02:30 PM
auntie's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Middlesex, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,502
Very well said Jack! I agree, I even read somewhere that the , money the British economy makes from tourism due to the monarchy is more than the cost of upkeeping it!
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 09-20-2009, 02:53 PM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
Perhaps you are right Jack and I donīt want anyone to make a mistake and think I am anti-monarchy, quite the opposite, at least while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne, but I know that we are being told all the time how little the family costs each person each year and I feel that if you really think that is the correct amount well.......that is up to you, I donīt.
As to the point that the tourists only come to beautiful England because there is a Queen! I canīt agree with that argument, if it were true France would be empty in the tourist season......and many other countries as well.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 09-20-2009, 04:38 PM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
Is the question about what would happen to a third world country if all monarchies are abolished? If so, I feel that nothing will be done. The lives of these people will
not improve one iota. There are glaring examples of corruption in countries where massive foreign aid is being received only to pad the pockets of the dictators and their cronies.
Help has to come from within each country to help it own, regardless of the form of
government that rules.
A lot of people leave their country go abroad, study, improve their lot but never
return to help their own people. Money is not always the only answer.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 09-21-2009, 03:07 AM
auntie's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Middlesex, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,502
When I say tourism, I don't only mean coming to see changing of the gaurds at BPalace, also momentos and souveneirs, entrance fees to many places and so forth. The basic fact is that the 3rd world countries suffer has no connection to the amounts given to the royals all combined. It is many times due to politics and disfunctions in their own country by their corrupt government, how many times do we see upheavals and coups in those country with the deposed ruler in exile with a multi billion bank account in Switzerland? This money was aid money to feed hungry babies and vaccinate children. There are so many other causes, let our royals be!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 09-21-2009, 06:16 AM
Australian's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,152
I guess my question was mainly rhetorical. I know and agree with what you are all saying, its just that when you see the differences in class when its been smacked in your face for the first time, its just a big shock to the system. So I was just asking myself why there should be royalty when so many people are on the streets......it was just something i was thinking about while reflecting on my travels.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 09-21-2009, 06:33 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
Perhaps you are right Jack and I donīt want anyone to make a mistake and think I am anti-monarchy, quite the opposite, at least while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne, but I know that we are being told all the time how little the family costs each person each year and I feel that if you really think that is the correct amount well.......that is up to you, I donīt.
As to the point that the tourists only come to beautiful England because there is a Queen! I canīt agree with that argument, if it were true France would be empty in the tourist season......and many other countries as well.
When the royal family's accounts are published each year, a number of newpapers calculate roughly how much having a monarchy costs each man, woman and child in the UK and I am sure the figure came to about 61p but you are quite right Wisteria, the figure could be totally different and I don't think the calculation takes into account security which is astronomical! I think the question of whether being a constitutional monarchy adds much to the UK's tourist revenue is a totally different subject. We'd have to to do a poll of people living abroad who visit the UK and ask them why they come!
But the original question still has me thinking and there are so many things that come to mind about why should the taxpayer pay for the upkeep of the royal family when there are people living in poverty. It occured to me that if the taxpayer did not have to pay for a constitutional monarchy, would poverty cease to exist or the problem be lessened significantly enough to warrant the abolishion of the monarchy? Is it the royal family's obligation to live frugally in order to save other people from living in poverty? Should all heads of state live in small houses and eek out an existence on very little money? Does living in a palace constitute a crazy lavish lifestyle? The list is endless!
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 09-21-2009, 07:40 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian View Post
Well I just got back from visiting third world countries and I went on a missionary program. I don't want to talk myself up...but you asked. I am going away for 6 months next year to work in African countries too.
Thank you for telling us and I don't think it is talking yourself up at all. I admire and respect greatly people who try to do something to help the situation of those less fortunate than themselves. What I have no time for are the people who moralise about a problem but then sit back and say 'they should do something about it'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 09-21-2009, 08:31 AM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
Should all heads of state live in small houses and eek out an existence on very little money? Does living in a palace constitute a crazy lavish lifestyle? The list is endless!
I agree with all you have said but I wonder if it makes any difference to the tourists who stand outside Buckingham Palace peering through the gates whether the Queen is in residence or not....
I have never thought that a President or Monarch should travel on a shoestring and wear clothes from the local supermarket, they represent their country and should travel, dress and entertain accordingly.
My main problem is the money spent on the minor members of the royal family and I just donīt buy the excuse that most of the expense is from her
Majestyīs own pocket as if it had nothing to do with the British people.
I think it is admirable that Australian has found his social conscience and is doing his bit to help I only wish that all African leaders would follow his example.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 09-24-2009, 07:55 AM
Little_star's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,608
Personally I do not see the connection between royalty and corruption in the developing world.

There are many countries that do not have a King or Queen which are just as corrupt. For example, many African nations are run by presidents who sihon of their country's welath for their own purposes, hence widespread poverty.
__________________
Please give whatever you can to the DEC's Pakistan Floods Appeal. Millions of lives are at risk
http://www.dec.org.uk/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 10-13-2009, 04:28 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 177
Sadly once again we have fallen into the partisan trap of this discussion; monarchy is just one form of government. Most monarchies like most republics are not role models for good governance, however there are degrees: constitutional monarchies work because the head of state has no power. This charity thing is a red herring. A good Christian, as does a good Islamicist makes acts of quiet charity; if you have to hob nob with royalty before you will part with your alms then pity you.

It is true royalty can give glamour and glitz to many people in countries where daily life is dull and drab. Most princely families put on a front, this solidarity is to be applauded, it is an example to us all. There is the historical dimension too. Royalty are human, they have failings. Many don't really live up to expectations. Simply royalty can be an extremely good thing, but it is only as good as the members within it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 10-17-2009, 08:45 PM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
While it is sad that there is such a wide gap between First and Third World nations, I don't see how it relates to monarchies. History has taken its course and we have places with monarchies and some with republics. Some places are industrialised and some are in poverty. Getting rid of the gliz and glamour would not achieve anything in improving living standards - it would just take away what makes monarchy special.
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 10-17-2009, 09:27 PM
4Pam's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 2,812
^^^ Well said... Monarchs are the face of their countries and as that face you are required to dress and behave a certain way otherwise the world might not think so highly of you. It's like a large business and they are @ top representing the company trying to convince why others should do business with them... If you don't advertise/market yourself properly you're not going to get anything. So no, I don't think the royals should give up their lifestyles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 10-17-2009, 10:37 PM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 506
Quote:
Personally I do not see the connection between royalty and corruption in the developing world.

There are many countries that do not have a King or Queen which are just as corrupt. For example, many African nations are run by presidents who sihon of their country's welath for their own purposes, hence widespread poverty.
I afraid that's not entirely correct. Frankly, if we are talking about corruption and African nations taking advantage of their people, then let's not forgot that often times who puts the dictators in power, who supports them, who tolerates them. Furthermore, let's NOT forget the ROLE OF COLONIALISM which is DIRECTLY related to royalty and other forms of government.

Australian's question is coming from a very human place, and when people of good conscience (such as herself) see first hand the poverty that exist in the world, it makes them question things. I applaud your efforts and concerns! However, I agree with most of you that even if we no longer had the monarchy, the problem would still exist. It's very difficult to deal with distribution of wealth as greed (yes, CORRUPTION) almost always gets in the way.
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 10-18-2009, 04:29 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,252
I have to be honest. I don't see the relevency of this discussion. Some people feel the calling to go on a mission . . . . . . it's those that stay behind doing the daily grind to put their 10% in the plate to fund that mission.

Without a monarchy we still have politicians who, unfortunately keep getting caught with both their snouts and trotters in the trough. Both cost money but at least Royal Families practice faith of some sort or another, and devote both time and prayer to those less fortunate both at home and abroad.

So, without the glories of capitalism there is no 10% to enable those who can do the mission.

Therefore one can be a practicing person of faith as well as a supporter of the Monachies. They are not mutually exclusive ideals. Now to be a person of faith and go vote . . . . . . . well, that is in the hands of the gods.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 01-01-2010, 10:20 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 50
I love this thread! It finally talks about something that I find interesting!

I myself, not a avid monarchist like some of you. Although I respect you all's views. You have the right to speak your thoughts, just the same as I. I for one believe that countries around the world should shift from Monarchies and President's like the United States towards more figurehead head's of state. Who do nothing. That way you don't have to worry about another George Bush or King Mswati III.

You can have a President with no power. And maybe a Parliament that makes all of the decisions. That way the President is elected by members of Parliament, who are themselves elected to act on behalf of the people. That way you don't have to worry about ONE person taking control over a country. Because there would be groups of people who decide everything. I think that country would be very good. I hate the way the U.S. government is formed. I am actually making plans to relocate to another country because of it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 01-03-2010, 06:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
I think it's swings and roundabouts.

You could have a monarch who might be totally unsuited to the job of representing his/her country.

Or you could have a non-executive Head of State who could make his/her country a global laughing stock.

The latter happened to the Federal Republic of Germany when, a few decades ago, they elected an unsuitable Federal President who became a joke.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 01-06-2010, 09:00 PM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post

You can have a President with no power. And maybe a Parliament that makes all of the decisions. That way the President is elected by members of Parliament, who are themselves elected to act on behalf of the people.
Most parliaments in monarchies do exercise all of the legislative and executive functions of government and often choose which Royal House is suitable to reign depending of the circumstances of the country (eg The UK Parliament declared that James II and VII has abdcated via his flight form the country and then passed the Act of Settlement in 1701 to ensure that a member of the majority Anglican religion took the throne on the death of Queen Anne; therefore a course of action approved by the people the MPs represented was taken).

Based on existing practises in monarchies what you are arguing for is a change in the name of the status quo - a move that would be unnecessary and not deliver real benefits to citizens.
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 01-10-2010, 08:05 AM
SpeedDial's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 105
I'm from the US, and everything here is so modern and we have no real tradition. I'm facinated by monarchies and how they've been around for centuries and like others have said, royals act as good ambassadors for their country. So I think that as long as the royals are people with class and conduct themselves in a proper manner, then the monarchy in that particular country should stay. However, if there were a certain royal family where there were several royals that were a public embarassment to the country, well then I would say get a republic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 04-10-2010, 11:10 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: asdfjkl;, United States
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian View Post
Hi All

I have just got back from visiting many third world countries and it really opened my eyes.


"Mine" eyes would be the archaic form. I dislike how grammatical rules have changed.

[QUOTE]Why should countries be funding royal families when there are people living in poverty? I have been an avid royal watcher for some time now and all of a sudden I have had an enlightenment. Why should there be such things as royal houses these days? {/QUOTE]

To annoy those on the top floor here in America (i.e.: people in the Social Register), to know that they cannot buy their way into the Peerage/Nobility, much less Royalty.


Quote:
What makes royals better than commoners?
Nothing. Such artificially created divisions are meant to pass down social, cultural, and economic capital to their next of kin. These privileges give the illusion of "superiority". Here in America while titles of Nobility are forbidden, there are still nonetheless inherited social privileges. People send their children to Exeter, Andover, Farmington, Deerfield, Choate, Swiss boarding schools like Le Rosé in Gushtaad, which then feed into the Ivy League (or better, Oxford or Cambridge) and the social indoctrination and the acquired privileges and capital further cement one's place in the social system. It is simply outstanding the methods used to reinforce the social system. The government confiscated everyone's gold and reimbursed them with fiat money that isn't hedged against inflation.

Mine apologies for the digression, but when on the topic it's difficult to stop.

Quote:
Why should people fund crazy royal lifestyles? I know this is the way of the world. There will always be rich and poor people.
I avoid the phrases "rich" and "poor" since they are far too simplistic and polarized, apart from a purely economic context (e.g.: "Only individuals who are very rich can purchase property on the upper east side"). There are many social classes, not even entirely dependent on wealth. Certain working-class blue collar families might have higher salaries than their middle-class neighbors, but the middle-class has more social and cultural capital than the working-class (the working-class still has a lower average salary than the middle-class, however. Although welfare recipients, the lower-working class, may considerably bring the working class average salary down. The working-class simply wants to eat dinner with their family, then watch football or car racing, have a beer, and be happy.

Above the Middle-class is the Upper-Middle class. One must never confuse the Upper-Middle class with nouveaux riches raised middle-class. The nouveaux riches are like an entirely different parallel society with those who follow a working-class culture such as "entertainers", mobsters, and the like, while Bill Gates would be an example of a culturally Middle-class noveau riche.)

Quote:
I just am questioning my royal interest now.
It makes for a good sociological study. It isn't just the Royal and Peerage systems that are elitist, however. Here in America we have an affectation of Republicanism. One only needs study our history, you will find those who fought for the equal treatment promised by the constitution* met with a lot of resistance. There is a piece of folk wisdom: "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" yet, when the Irish and Italian immigrants did just that they passed prohibition laws. The American dream isn't something you earn; it's something you inherit. However, in the rare case you do "earn" it, you usually obtain it through an outside-the-box solution. Saving to do better for the next generation simply will not work.

*The Founders were also elitist; look up the whiskey rebellion and how the government acted as a buffer between the hoi polloi and the owners of the means of production. And how you needed to be White, male, and a property owner to vote
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 04-10-2010, 11:21 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: asdfjkl;, United States
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I have to be honest. I don't see the relevency of this discussion. Some people feel the calling to go on a mission . . . . . . it's those that stay behind doing the daily grind to put their 10% in the plate to fund that mission.

Without a monarchy we still have politicians who, unfortunately keep getting caught with both their snouts and trotters in the trough. Both cost money but at least Royal Families practice faith of some sort or another.
Here in America we have tres declasse politicians who want to teach the outre notion of creationism as if it were a fact. We have very religious politicians here, especially nasty are those from flyover country who are in churches that lack any legitimate pedigree. At least the Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Catholic Churches are grounded in centuries of tradition, and are good places to network. Although homophobia, bigotry, and sexism are common, disgusting traits, the bible itself unfortunately supports them. Philosophy, science, and knowledge have advanced so far since those times, and even for those times Palestine was relatively primitive compared to China, India, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Thus, giving those regions more credibility regarding philosophy. Although those ancient civilizations philosophical concepts are still primitive compared to Montesquieu, Kant, Adam Smith, etc. Although Eratosthenes accurately measuring the Earth's circumference was very amazing indeed, considering that before the common era Greeks were oblivious to the fact the western hemisphere and Pacific Ocean exists.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 884 11-02-2014 06:11 PM
Which country is likely to become a monarchy (again), and why? Lox General Royal Discussion 316 08-06-2014 01:08 PM
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne Ellie2 British Royals 147 06-15-2013 07:14 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
Summer 2006 Newsletter: Featuring Queen Elizabeth II & The Duchess of Cornwall GrandDuchess Picture of the Month, Special Features, Blogs & Articles 56 07-25-2006 09:46 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth brussels carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]