Should the UK have a Royal Family?

[DSK-]

They bring in a great deal of money from tourism and the like. Besides, I like the tradition of having them.

 

[hawkeye52]

Remove them and nationalise all their land or reduce them to the state of say Hollands or Denmarks royal family. Why should we have to pay such extortinate amounts for their living expenses in return for land which the government could just sieze and let businesses build on and generate more revenue from.

Also If the royal family have the ability to make such huge profits from their land why don't they just revoke the voluntary agreement and live in larger opulence then they already do.

Also on the tourist front. Its one reason why people visit England not the reason. London by itself has a lot more to offer then a royal family and house that you can't even see for obvious privacy reasons. For example, The London eye, The natural history museam, West bank, Piccadilly circus, Covent garden and yet much more.

They may help on the political front because theirs a common belief held among they higher ups that they are above all politics hence the reason why Prince Albert I believe who is exceedingly racist and blunt is not being pursued because of this. Its just not a good symbolism in general to hold tbh.

The only real impressive thing about them is the fact that they all speak reasonable French and German.

 

[Handbag1992]

It's morally wrong.

But legally right. Find a law or start one that says the Royals can't keep the land. Otherwise your opinions hold no water.

 

[Hyperme]

Most of the Royals now a days have actual jobs. They don't just cruise around living off taxes. Unlike MPs. Since the Royals have no actual role in government beyond traditional garnish, Also, sending them off on visits to other countries doesn't stop the House of Commons things. We need Cameron and friends to shout with Miliband and friends, or our whole democratic system could break down.

See, the Royals are a support for the democratic system we all love, and they pay for themselves. Hurrah.

Also, they aren't the people running the country and causing all the problems. Which means focusing on removing them moves focus away from important things, like Riots, Murdoch and our debt.

 

[JoJo]

an apoltical figurehead as head of state symbolically representing all the people of the country is far more "valuable" than most people realise.

apart from anything is it keeps the similarly apolitical justice system, police, permanent civil service (including various arms of government) and the allegiance of the military out of the constitutional hands of bloody politicians.

This, I'd far rather have someone who's been trained from birth to be a head of state than an elected president, which would end up being a choice between President Blair and President Thatcher.

 

[Rylingo]

Considering the amount MPs are paid and their ridiculous bonuses (which were legalised after controversy activities), the Royal Family are not my first target for cuts.

 

[Treblaine]

I'd be sorry to see the Monarchy go, but I notice a lot of people wouldn't, and that many people have to have a reason. As far as I can tell, the Queen is a well-recognised head of state, brings lots of tourists' money and part of our national identity.
What do you think?

Yes for tourism and "peacock's tail"

The peacock's tail is an analogy to the strange evolutionary trait of peackocks to have hugely extravagant tail feathers. How can such features be evolutionary favourable? By the logic that only the must successful individuals could AFFORD the energy and inconvenience that is vital in courting ritual to show what virile partners they would make.

By extension, what would the world think of Britain if we apparently got so desperate for money we were willign to sell off the family silver.

Things like Will and Kate are ambassadors for the United Kingdom and not complete louts, William is a helicopter pilot for the British Army were he actually serves.

Other Princes have been instrumental tools OF the Prime Minister to have dialogue with other monarchical governments and even organisations that have leaders who fancy themselves emperors. Rich oil sheiks would much rather negotiate terms of exploiting oil rights with the British government via someone like Prince Andrew than some government bureaucrat.

Royal Formality may not matter within the UK, but it DOES matter around the world!

Keep em around but IF they don't pull their weight then they better realise then they'll get the chop (not literally... this time).

Tourism = been debunked several times in this thread if you bothered to read it.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about William & Kate. We don't need ambassadors whose only purpose is to waste our money flying around and being nice to heads of state who play by the rules of England's imperialist dogma, and frowning sharply at those that don't. Not to mention the fact that politically, England doesn't give a shit about the issues that really matter like human rights violations. And yes I know they frown at it publically, that doesn't mean shit.

William being a helicopter pilot for the army isn't exactly music to my ears. The army is just a tool used to seize and control assets vital to corporate interests that have governments around the globe bent over and taking it like champs.

The only Royal I ever respected was Princess Diana, and even then only because she was the best of a terrible bunch. And they fucking had her killed because of it, didn't they.

You don't care but other RICH COUNTRIES do. And we need their money. So if they want to throw a fucking party so that we don't seem like a load of socialist peasants, it's fine by me. We've blown money on far less effective vanity projects than the Royal Family

"The army is just a tool used to seize and control assets vital to corporate interests that have governments around the globe bent over and taking it like champs."

Well when you say it like that you make it sound like a bad thing.

"And they fucking had Diana killed because of it"

 

[The Funslinger]

I think that the royal family spends money that could be better used, and doesn't actually help anyone. So no, I don't think there should be one.

Well thing is they actually make money and are very useful for diplomatic events so they perform a very useful function. I say keep them!

This, and they perform a valuable service: They're a neutral party for the approval of bills. They don't get voted out so they don't have to pander to the masses. If we got rid of them, we'd end up giving someone a similar job and who's to say that replacement wouldn't be someone corrupt?

It sickens me when people say "Oh, we have government now, let's get rid of the Royals. They sit on their thumbs all day being rich off taxpayer money for nothing!"

Also, tourism, and tradition.

 

[Froken Keke]

I agree completely with Yosharian on this. He or she seems to be one of the few persons here who has their shit together.
As for the argumentation that people travel to so monarchs, I personally can't see that appeal at all. I haven't been to Great Britain, but I know that if or when I go, I'll have a lot of more interesting stuff to look at rather than some fucking king's house.

 

[God's Clown]

I think we should all just convert to the Qun. A purpose for everyone, and everyone with a purpose.

 

[Isalan]

While the royals are certainly handy for the cash, Prince Charles does have a habit of coming out with some appallingly stupid stuff sometimes. Such as when he got extrememly worried about nanotechnology turning everything into gray goo.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/apr/29/nanotechnology.science

Still, hopefully we'll skip him and go straight to Wills. He seems like a nice bloke.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

I think that the royal family spends money that could be better used, and doesn't actually help anyone. So no, I don't think there should be one.

Well thing is they actually make money and are very useful for diplomatic events so they perform a very useful function. I say keep them!

Plus they get last say on all things army wise, that I wouldn't trust the diplomats with.

I say keep em!

Besides, which other country can boast a lasting monarchy?