Is The Monarchy Worth Keeping?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it does have some culturally and political significance. It helps unify the British people as a whole and have a sense of unity. Politically it could be important, as my political science prof said the Queen holds great power in some ways but she will never use it. I think the power to dissolve parliament is indeed important if the British people ever end up in a situation like America... I agree that they shouldn't be spending dinero like that and somebody needs to kick their butts and have them quit acting like fools. So I guess my answer is right now no, but if young royals do not perform their duties and in some way benefit the country they should be cut back as a threat and not eliminated.
 
When Are The GREAT British People Gonna Get Honest?

I LOVE the British people, my ancestry is from there for the most part. I LOVE the British Monarchy and everything it entails, for the most part.

I am NOT being cute, clever or condescending here.

WHEN are the British people going to just fess up and admit that THEY WANT AND NEED THE MONARCHY FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES AND SPECIAL NEEDS?

The UK is a DEMOCRACY, the British people through their elected representatives could DISMANTLE the Monarchy tomorrow, should they really choose to. The Monarchy has NO LEGAL RIGHT TO EXIST FOREVER, it exists SOLELY at the graces of the British public?

Why do the British people therefore DEMAND that the Monarchy and it's family members OWE THEM SOMETHING?? This truly puzzles me.

The British public in it's majority numbers continue to want THE CLASS SYSTEM that the Monarchy established, folks WANT those titles and initials after their names, now that is just a fact.

What would happen if NO ONE agreed to courtesy, bow, defer, etc to the Monarchy starting tomorrow? How would British society be impacted so negatively?

See I know something about human nature, especially when we humans act in groups, the British Public are GETTING SOMETHING THEY PERCEIVE IS IMPORTANT out of the Monarchy OR THEY WOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR IT, just that simple.
 
Before answering this question, "Is the monarchy worth keeping?" there is something everyone must consider seriously.

Many people in the "real" (that is, non-TRF) world ask the question, "What is the point of the royal family? What do they do?"

Let's take the second question: "What do they do?"

It's easy to answer this question. They do the things that the US mayors do in their municipalities. They open hospital wings, new city constructions; they present awards. They are paid to do these things, as they should be.

Now let's answer a secondary question to the above:
* "Who would do these functions without the royal family, i.e. if the monarchy was abolished tomorrow?"

** I suppose, the Lords Mayor, the Lords LT, maybe even the Prime Minister (and/or the President of the new UK Republic?) for the really big stuff.

Now to the first question: What is the point of the royal family?
I believe the royal family is valuable and beneficial for multiple reasons. But relevant to the other questions, I believe the royal family performs the necessary task of easing the burden of the more arcane public functions which the politicians are too busy, or too bored, to be bothered with. These public functions may seem frivolous to some people, but they are still necessary. I think some US politicians may love to have a royal family to take on some such duties in their stead. I guess you could say, the royal family cuts the ribbons; Parliament makes the laws; and the government makes policy, or something. :huh:

People might say anyone can cut ribbons. Yes, anyone can. But anyone can't be royal. We saw that Sarah Ferguson found life as a royal impossible to bear. Does it make her a bad person? No. It just means that royal life was not suited to her nature.

Furthermore, there is much more to being royal than cutting ribbons. There is the power to influence people. There is the power to make a whole community light up with excitement by a simple visit. There is the power to bring knowledge to someone who otherwise would never have come upon that knowledge. I cannot begin to say how much knowledge I have gained from especially The Prince of Wales. And The Princess Royal has opened my heart to the International League for the Protection of Horses. The Duke of Edinburgh has taught me about wildlife conservation.
 
We British established during 1649 and 1658 that we need our monarchy, so I'm rather puzzled as to why you think we need to 'fess up' now, in 2008, when our ancestors 'fessed up' over three centuries ago.

Own purposes? Historcially speaking, we are very much a tradition based society and the monarchy links us with our past. It is a symbol of continuity in this ever changing world. This is something to be most proud of. Though with each generation it branches towards the future and remains a continual object of public approval and social stability, for the most part. It's purpose is to represent and to 'govern', and that it does.

Special needs? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The Royal family does wonders for the tourism sector and consequently, the economy.

The British have expectations of their royal family, and rightly so. We afteral pay our taxes, and in this way, it is no different to the expectations millions of Australian's would have of our Prime Minister or the Americans would have of their President. Whether hereditary or elected, these indaviduals or institutions are meant to govern in the interests of, and for, their people so to say that the monarchy owes nothing for its existance, is incorrect for without the people there would be no monarchy. I do find your argument somewhat scattered to be honest. You're not bringing anything to our attention which we weren't already privy too, nor do we deny it...:)

(Side note: The use of capslock can and often does give the impression the person is yelling their point across)
 
Last edited:
What are the British public getting that's important? Off the top of my head I'd say they're getting identity: somewhere to fit in, a sense of history, tradition, and continuity; and it gives them identity for the same reasons as a nation as well as individuals.

In a complex class structure, unless you are at the absolute top or absolute bottom, even though you have to bow to someone else, you know there is someone else who has to bow, metaphorically if not literally, to you. You have a place in society, and it's comforting. There's a line to that effect spoken by Kenneth Moore's character, the butler Crichton, in the film of The Admirable Crichton.

We saw the people demanding something of their monarch after Diana died. They demanded to be comforted, like children, but that sort of demand was part of the long-standing relationship with a monarch, I think, and that relationship is paternal/maternal to some extent, hence the demand for comfort. I think as well that some people make demands now because they know the RF is only there at the will of the public. The perception is that the RF gets loads of money and a cushy lifestyle and people have to bow and scrape and call them "Sir" and "Ma'am" and clear the streets if they want to drive by. But they can be turfed out of their castles in a blink if the public says it's had enough, and some people want them to know that they know that, and want to make them sing for their supper.

I think it's all fascinating stuff.
 
(Side note: The use of capslock can and often does give the impression the person is yelling their point across)

That is correct; all caps usually denotes shouting; however, its important to note that other forms of text manipulation can also have less than favorable interpretations. For example, the use of a smaller font size or the overuse of italics can be interpreted as sarcasm and may not be received so favorably by the target recipient.

So suffice it to say, that the more the text strays from the regular size font and formatting, the more likely the meaning of the words is to be open to misinterpretation on the boards. That is the same regardless of the type of type enhancement that is used.

But as long as the type is readable and not distracting, your formatting is after all your choice. Only the members themselves can decide how important it is that their words are not misunderstood.
 
I am NOT being cute, clever or condescending here.

You could have fooled me then.

Are you seriously saying that all Brits love the monarchy but they just don't show it? :D

I don't know if I buy that.
 
You could have fooled me then.

Are you seriously saying that all Brits love the monarchy but they just don't show it? :D

I don't know if I buy that.

What I am saying is that for all the complaining, bellyaching and whining about what the Royal Family OWES the British public, what they are FAILING to do, etc, YES, the British public LOVE the Monarchy or they would simply FAIL TO EXIST any longer. The UK is a democracy.

I am saying the British public RIGHT NOW are getting somethings that are VERY IMPORTANT to them out of the Monarchy or they would simply STOP opening their wallets and purses and paying their GBPs over to them, YES MAME. :D
 
We are an incredibly apathetic nation these days, just because people are not protesting en masse against the monarchy does not mean that they are universally loved.
 
What I am saying is that for all the complaining, bellyaching and whining about what the Royal Family OWES the British public, what they are FAILING to do, etc, YES, the British public LOVE the Monarchy or they would simply FAIL TO EXIST any longer. The UK is a democracy.

I am saying the British public RIGHT NOW are getting somethings that are VERY IMPORTANT to them out of the Monarchy or they would simply STOP opening their wallets and purses and paying their GBPs over to them, YES MAME. :D

Thanks for responding.

Well in answer to your question, I do have to agree with Little Star.

I do think people are more apathetic today, just not in the UK and just not about royalty. A lot of time, people put up with a less than good solution because they don't see anything better.

I don't think George Bush is universally loved in the US although he was elected to two terms. The American people just didn't see a better alternative.
 
Thanks for responding.

Well in answer to your question, I do have to agree with Little Star.

I do think people are more apathetic today, just not in the UK and just not about royalty. A lot of time, people put up with a less than good solution because they don't see anything better.

I don't think George Bush is universally loved in the US although he was elected to two terms. The American people just didn't see a better alternative.

George Bush is all but despised in the US, by the nation as a whole. Republicans have and continue to distance themselves from him in this election year, yes. BUT, the American people TWICE saw something in him that they liked and said YES to his leadership. I was not among them either time.

SHAME on both the peoples of the UK and the US then. We have been GIFTED with GREAT nations and we wind up not caring, that is unacceptable.
 
I'm reading the book Monarch, and in it he quotes Prince Philip:

"It is a complete misconception to imagine that the monarchy exists in the interests of the monarch. It doesn't. It exists in the interests of the people. If at any time any nation decides that the system is unacceptable, then it is up to them to change it."
--Prince Philip, speaking in Canada in 1969

In my own opinion, every country pays for the luxuries their heads of state enjoy, including the US and the UK, whether these positions are inherited or elected. I think the UK should be thankful that they have a say in financial matters of the state because many citizens of other countries, say from the Middle East or North Africa, do not. And many times, in these countries, their governments spend 10 times or more what the Queen’s spends in her annual budget.
 
But what Philip doesn't say is that we have a system that makes it exceptionally difficult to change things without resorting to revolution which would make the country unstable. As long as we have FPTP, it's almost impossible to remove the monarchy by the established channels.
 
SHAME on both the peoples of the UK and the US then. We have been GIFTED with GREAT nations and we wind up not caring, that is unacceptable.
I want the monarchy and the class system to continue (well I would wouldn't I, :ROFLMAO:). Why do we bellyache about the royals earning their keep, because we have throughout the centuries paid for the monarchy, whether in blood to keep good King ? in power, or tax to keep good King ? in comfort.

I care more about the monarchy than who is in government, at this moment in time. The Monarch can represent her subjects without prejudice, without appealing to the anti this or pro that factions that exist in politics. The jockeying, back stabbing or pushing that the likes of Blair (President of the EU to be :sick:) or any politician indulges in. The corruption exhibited to get this person elected or that person excluded.

With our monarch they are there because we are able to see that good or bad, the job was going to follow a certain birth line. Does that mean they can rest on their laurels, certainly not.

We do live in a democracy of sorts, otherwise anyone who speaks out against the monarchy or even the government would be removed from the country or executed for treason. :D
 
I want the monarchy and the class system to continue (well I would wouldn't I, :ROFLMAO:). Why do we bellyache about the royals earning their keep, because we have throughout the centuries paid for the monarchy, whether in blood to keep good King ? in power, or tax to keep good King ? in comfort.

I care more about the monarchy than who is in government, at this moment in time. The Monarch can represent her subjects without prejudice, without appealing to the anti this or pro that factions that exist in politics. The jockeying, back stabbing or pushing that the likes of Blair (President of the EU to be :sick:) or any politician indulges in. The corruption exhibited to get this person elected or that person excluded.

With our monarch they are there because we are able to see that good or bad, the job was going to follow a certain birth line. Does that mean they can rest on their laurels, certainly not.

We do live in a democracy of sorts, otherwise anyone who speaks out against the monarchy or even the government would be removed from the country or executed for treason. :D


Skydragon

Are you saying that British young people, TODAY, die for Queen Elizabeth and NOT the nation of and people of the UK? Really?

I believe another poster pointed out that the Queen could always take back her private income property and give up the Civil List payments, correct? She would certainly get an increase in income if she did that, right?

Explain this to me please, the Monarchy is based on birth, lineage. It is literally a family, how does a people control that and the individual personalities involved? If I take your example of Prince Andrew as being lazy and not earning his keep, in a practical sense, what do you do about that? You can suggest that he give up his HRH, but in a concrete way, how do you make that happen? Because the Monarchy is based on birth and not election, it is not subject to change via political processes.

When it is all boiled out, what choices do you have other than 1) accepting the Monarchy and it's members precisely the way they are, warts and all OR 2) using your democratic government and abolishing them? What other options do you really have that can guarantee real change?

It may be great fun to debate until the cows come home what if and they should or should not, but isn't it all really meaningless, as to being able to actually make anything happen?
 
Or you can try and modernise the institution.
 
Or you can try and modernise the institution.

OK, I am open to that, how do you that and achieve real, practical, measurable results? How do you in a practical way require, dictate or enforce such change?
 
Skydragon

Are you saying that British young people, TODAY, die for Queen Elizabeth and NOT the nation of and people of the UK? Really?
.....Explain this to me please, the Monarchy is based on birth, lineage. It is literally a family, how does a people control that and the individual personalities involved? If I take your example of Prince Andrew as being lazy and not earning his keep, in a practical sense, what do you do about that? You can suggest that he give up his HRH, but in a concrete way, how do you make that happen? Because the Monarchy is based on birth and not election, it is not subject to change via political processes.
I can only speak for the Army and RAF officers I know and each and every one of them will tell you they fight for Queen and country, in that order. Ask most (not all) non commissioned ranks what they think of HM and they will normally say something along the lines of 'she's special ain't she'. At the moment I really can't see a majority of non coms or officers attacking HM or the RF on the orders of a government or rabble.

Any hope of changing things within the royals is by the elected government explaining to HM that the country is demanding that Andrew and Edward (as an example) either pull their weight or lose their privileges. That the country is in uproar and if she wants to protect the monarchy, these are things she will have to consider. Our real hope of cutting out the wasters is in the hands of King Charles and his government. :flowers: I do think it is time that invented jobs for the likes of Andrew are withdrawn, or that he is given a schedule and told these are the events he has got to do. If he refuses or continues to make excuses, he has to learn to live on the money HM gives him, without the top up from the taxpayers.
 
Skydragon said;

"Any hope of changing things within the royals is by the elected government explaining to HM that the country is demanding that Andrew and Edward (as an example) either pull their weight or lose their privileges. That the country is in uproar and if she wants to protect the monarchy, these are things she will have to consider."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which has been my point all along, just as you said "That the country is in uproar and if she wants to protect the monarchy,..."

The only real bargaining position is one of threatening to abolish the Monarchy. Now, put yourself in HM position as of today. If you were HM and your Prime Minister said that to you, would you considering that 75% of the population supports you and the institution of the Monarchy be really concerned and would you accede to any demands, if you really did not want to?
 
Now, put yourself in HM position as of today. If you were HM and your Prime Minister said that to you, would you considering that 75% of the population supports you and the institution of the Monarchy be really concerned and would you accede to any demands, if you really did not want to?
The poor man would have had a sip of Whisky too many and tragically slipped down the stairs. Whilst the country lapses into electing another leader of the ruling party and the opposition calls for an election, I would play on the shock I have had and go for the sympathy vote. :ROFLMAO:
 
The poor man would have had a sip of Whisky too many and tragically slipped down the stairs. Whilst the country lapses into electing another leader of the ruling party and the opposition calls for an election, I would play on the shock I have had and go for the sympathy vote. :ROFLMAO:


:flowers::flowers::flowers:

I have always loved a practical woman.

Tell me this then, because it occurs to me that people of your social class are in a unique position to have some real, palatable influence.

Say for instance the case of Prince Andrew, Sky, is it not possible for you and those similarly situated to be polite, superficially cordial and respectful and yet clearly register your concern with him, to the point that he is uncomfortable? I have this feeling that if you chose, you could sit next to me at dinner, smile, we could have a conversation and when I left I would still know that you really despised me and yet could not point to one thing to illustrate that contempt. Do you think that is accurate?
 
OK, I am open to that, how do you that and achieve real, practical, measurable results? How do you in a practical way require, dictate or enforce such change?

George V started. Quite simply, slim the Royal Family down, end the Catholic ban, give equal succession rights, seperate Crown and Church, make the money a little fairer. All it'd need would be a few pieces of legislation - very easy.
 
George V started. Quite simply, slim the Royal Family down, end the Catholic ban, give equal succession rights, seperate Crown and Church, make the money a little fairer. All it'd need would be a few pieces of legislation - very easy.

OK, how does that translate into requiring any behaviors or behavioral changes from the RF?

If the UK did everything you have just stated, how do you compel Prince Andrew and his daughters for example to conform their conduct to that which is expected? You could limit recognition as far as taxpayer support to the sitting Monarch and heir apparent I would suppose?

You can legislate that X is required if tax money is forthcoming but you cannot dictate how within the RF private money is used, can you?
 
Well we'd cut off them off. All we really need is the King, Queen and their immediate family. Beatrice and Eugenie could get proper jobs and earn a living as Zara and Peter have done whilst Charles and Camilla, William and Harry do the Royal stuff. Andrew, Anne and Edward can carry on as they are until their demise and all we do is water the Royal Family down so that it isn't as big as it is now. I'm not sure where tax comes into but a financial investigation into what is theirs and what is ours would not come a-miss. And I think thats coming anyway tbh.
 
Well we'd cut off them off. All we really need is the King, Queen and their immediate family. Beatrice and Eugenie could get proper jobs and earn a living as Zara and Peter have done whilst Charles and Camilla, William and Harry do the Royal stuff. Andrew, Anne and Edward can carry on as they are until their demise and all we do is water the Royal Family down so that it isn't as big as it is now. I'm not sure where tax comes into but a financial investigation into what is theirs and what is ours would not come a-miss. And I think thats coming anyway tbh.

See BF, here is the rub to that.

Take Beatrice and Eugenie, their mother is independently wealthy in her own right and you cannot dictate what she does with her money. If she chooses her daughters can party 16 hours a day and sleep 8 hours a day for the rest of their natural life, whatever anyone else's expectations are. There is no doubt that neither the British public or government has any control whatsoever over Sarah, is there? There is nothing that you can do to require any of them to get a job or do anything, all you can do is cut off taxpayer money.

Having a financial investigation makes great sense to me, are you prepared for the potential outcome of such an investigation and the possible practical results?
 
I agree. Let Beatrice and Eugenie live off of Sarah's money. Suits me. Get them out of the way, fine. Fabulous.
 
Skydragon

Are you saying that British young people, TODAY, die for Queen Elizabeth and NOT the nation of and people of the UK? Really?

Maybe not so much young people today, although I've lived away from the country for so long that I can't say for sure. However, "for Queen and Country" has been a motto of the armed services for a long time.

When I first came to the USA, I was really surprised by the reverence the American people had for the flag - how there'd be pretty much a national convulsion if there were news photos of someone burning a flag in protest, and how children in school every day were expected to stand up and pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. But the flag is the symbol of national unity for you in a similar way to how the Queen is the symbol of national unity for us. It might not make a lot of sense to you, but you won't find many British people understanding how painful it is to Americans if someone is seen treating a flag disrespectfully.

I believe another poster pointed out that the Queen could always take back her private income property and give up the Civil List payments, correct? She would certainly get an increase in income if she did that, right?

I have a feeling it would need a law to be passed, it wouldn't just be the personal preference of the monarch.

Explain this to me please, the Monarchy is based on birth, lineage. It is literally a family, how does a people control that and the individual personalities involved? If I take your example of Prince Andrew as being lazy and not earning his keep, in a practical sense, what do you do about that? You can suggest that he give up his HRH, but in a concrete way, how do you make that happen? Because the Monarchy is based on birth and not election, it is not subject to change via political processes.

Things have changed in the monarchy over the last few decades. The number of royals supported by the Civil List has been greatly reduced; royal events are more inclusive and informal; senior Household members are being recruited from among ordinary people as well as the nobility and armed services; the Queen is paying taxes; Prince Edward's children aren't using their HRH styles; there's talk about shrinking the royal family in the future to something smaller along similar lines to the Euopean royals. This isn't happening just because the royals or their advisors have decided on a new tack for the sake of it; it's happening because they realised that the public were seeing the minor royals as freeloaders and believed that the Queen was too detached.

It isn't just a black-and-white case of letting the royals do whatever they like or getting rid of them. The shades of grey are less obvious, but they're happening.
 
Elspeth

First as regards the American flag, you are correct, but I must plead ignorance because I have never felt that way. It is a piece of cloth, nothing more and it represents a political entity not the heart and soul of the American people. But the majority of Americans do feel quite differently than I do on this issue.

I agree with you about the shades of grey, that makes good sense to me. What does not is that there is an expectation of any kind of those minor royals as you describe them when they are cut loose as you say?

I find this a fundamental issue of human rights. One cannot require that another person live their life for their benefit, neither can a group and not give then any choice other than expulsion and exile. That is fundamentally unfair on the face of it.
 
I agree with you about the shades of grey, that makes good sense to me. What does not is that there is an expectation of any kind of those minor royals as you describe them when they are cut loose as you say?

Well, there sort of isn't. However, a lot of people don't really appreciate the difference between a senior royal, a minor royal, and a close relative of the royals who doesn't happen to be royal. I know quite a few people back in the UK who don't understand that Princess Anne's children and Princess Margaret's children aren't royal or that the current Duke of Kent is royal but the next Duke of Kent won't be.

So when someone like Marina Ogilvy makes headlines for being pregnant out of wedlock and giving interviews to the tabloids about what ogres her parents are, and lets them publish the letter she sent to the Queen to plead her cause, the headlines are all about the scandal in the royal family and a lot of people don't realise she isn't royal. They just think, "there goes our tax money, being wasted on a worthless hanger-on who doesn't do anything to deserve it." The fact that Marina Ogilvy has never received Civil List money doesn't enter the equation because for most people it's enough that she's a royal relation, and so the rest follows as far as they're concerned.

Even though these non-royal relations aren't expected to perform royal duties and aren't given money from the Civil List or from the Queen, their actions still reflect on the royal family. For one thing, it makes better headlines that way. So I assume there's a certain amount of pressure on them to not make too many unfavourable headlines because of the wider damage they can do. After her antics at the time of her marriage, Marina Ogilvy wasn't welcome at royal family functions for a long time. I think Edward and Sophie's wedding might have been the first time she was invited to a royal family occasion since her marriage (I'm sure people who follow the Kents more closely will correct me if I'm wrong about that).

I find this a fundamental issue of human rights. One cannot require that another person live their life for their benefit, neither can a group and not give then any choice other than expulsion and exile. That is fundamentally unfair on the face of it.

Well, royalty is in the position of receiving extraordinary privileges, and with those privileges come some fairly major responsibilities. If royals, especially senior royals, are perceived to be revelling in the privileges and shirking the responsibilities, it can be very damaging because it gives the impression that they're no better than spoiled rich celebrities but without the talent (or whatever) that made the celebrities rich, just with the luck to have been born in the right family. People start thinking they're being played for fools by these idle royals who are sucking up tax money and doing nothing in return. The actions of Edward VIII show what sort of damage can be done when a senior royal appears to not be holding up his side of this bargain.

Individual royals do have the choice of renouncing their positions as Royal Highnesses and can step out of the line of succession, but then they become ordinary private citizens, as Edward VIII did and as Princess Margaret would have to have done if she'd married Peter Townsend. The thing which is very damaging to the image of the royal family and the monarchy as a whole is the case where a royal, especially a senior one, is happy to accept the privileges but refuses to shoulder the associated responsibilities. It's somewhat like a person wanting to draw a salary but not do any work for it.
 
Last edited:
Elspeth

I can go along with everything you have said, as long as there is a real choice there.

I agree, one cannot expect to receive the extraordinary privileges, benefits, perks for nothing. The resentments that would be forthcoming would be astronomical and rightly so.

Perhaps that privileges, benefits and perks need to be well defined, because I am not so sure that all of HM's children enjoy them?

I remain confused as to for example Prince Edward, the fourth child and third son of HM. For all practical purposes, he is never going to be King, his children do not have the HRH. IF he chose to go to mother and say "I don't want this for me or my family, I want out, I want an ordinary life." I do not understand what the problem with that would be, I honestly don't. The Monarchy remains intact. He leaves behind any benefits, he assumes a normal life. I just don't see a problem here.

To implicitly say that even if a Royal leaves and gives up everything that for some reason that person must be punished socially forever? That is cruel.

When HM abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson, he was for all practical purposes exiled to France to his death, why? His brother assumed the throne, the Monarchy continued?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom