Should the UK have a Royal Family?

[Treblaine]

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.

I can see we won't agree on anything in this particular discussion! ^_^

Yep.

Lets end it here, Cheerio

 

[Jakub324]

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?

I was led to believe there would be a poll, but I see I was mislead.

The Queen does not bring in tourism. The locations do.

She's not part of my national identity.

She isn't the head of state.

I don't know why there is no poll - I must have buggered something up :S

 

[Wintermoot]

I live in Kingdom myself (not the UK) I think that a Monarchy is kinda discriminating the only way for you to be king or queen is if you marry into the family whilst a President ship is open to anyone with the right degree,s.

 

[YesIPlayTheBagpipes]

that is where you are in actual fact, wrong. Because of the Royal family we have less tax. It's explained better in this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

They bring tourist money. Simple as. Way more than they're spending.

This argument simply does not wash. They do not bring in tourist money. Their houses bring in tourist money.

If they didn't live in them anymore, then we could open up all of their estates in their entirety to the public and make even more money from tourism.

Imagine if you could go and walk through pretty much any room of Buckingham Palace any time you wanted, if it was opened up as a museum. It would surely still rake in the money, probably more than it does now.

More importantly I don't think we should have a monarchy because the very concept itself is disgusting, this is supposed to be the 21st century and we still have kings and queens, come on! How can we ever hope to have true equality whilst there is still a nobility?

Yes, houses that are maintained and run by organisations set up and managed by the Monarchy themselves, and at the moment at least neither the government nor other private charities would be able to take up the slack if the Monarchy were gone. This means the buildings would fall into disrepair and make no money at all.

Also, for a lot of the tourists the best thing about The Monarchy is not just it's history, but the fact that the history is still happening in some shape or form. Lot's of countries used to have a Monarchy, but ours is special to them because we're one of the very few countries left where the Monarchy can still be seen. So from that angle the people themselves are just as important as the buildings they inhabit.

As for your last point, before you decide to start chanting death to the aristo's, it might be worth thinking about the small fact that charities set up by members of the Royal Family and other wealthy individuals do more to help the underprivileged members of our society than the Labour Party has ever done.

Besides, no nation is ever going to have 'true equality', nobility or not (capitalism does more damage to the concept of equality than the aristocracy anyway). Sorry to disappoint you, but it's human nature at it's most basic. People need a structured hierarchy to function efficiently, just like all other species of ape, and the whole concept of a hierarchy requires that some individuals be of higher status than others. As well as that, not everybody in the world is a hardcore philanthropist and that will never change, because most people will always put themselves, their family, and their close friends first. After that other people are secondary considerations at best. It's just the way our minds are programmed to function and thanks to those two little nuggets of human behavior true equality can never be achieved. The sooner people realise that the safer everyone will be because every attempt in human history to change that has only led to suffering (see: USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea etc. etc.)

You sir have just won a cookie!

Plus the Monarchy makes more money then they take.

 

[thephich]

While I don't know the economics of it, I should say:
If they don't cost the tax payers anything - Or bring in more than they are paid - then sure.
If they cost more than they bring in, then no.

 

[orangeban]

no the royal family is an outdated symbol of higharchy. the first step to minimise the class difference in the UK should be to remove the royal family and elect a president.
also the money the royal family has and spends could go along way helping those in need in the UK.

You realise that if we disolved the monarchy we don't get their money, and actually lose the two hundred million pounds they give to us. We actually profit from the royal family, we give them some tax money, they give us all the rent they get from people on their land, it's a very good deal.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Income from Royal Family > Outgoings of Royal Family

English Pride ++

Stock cupboard full of material for any stand up comic.

Why the hell would we get rid of the Germans?

 

[orangeban]

They bring tourist money. Simple as. Way more than they're spending.

This argument simply does not wash. They do not bring in tourist money. Their houses bring in tourist money.

If they didn't live in them anymore, then we could open up all of their estates in their entirety to the public and make even more money from tourism.

Imagine if you could go and walk through pretty much any room of Buckingham Palace any time you wanted, if it was opened up as a museum. It would surely still rake in the money, probably more than it does now.

More importantly I don't think we should have a monarchy because the very concept itself is disgusting, this is supposed to be the 21st century and we still have kings and queens, come on! How can we ever hope to have true equality whilst there is still a nobility?

Yes, houses that are maintained and run by organisations set up and managed by the Monarchy themselves, and at the moment at least neither the government nor other private charities would be able to take up the slack if the Monarchy were gone. This means the buildings would fall into disrepair and make no money at all.

Also, for a lot of the tourists the best thing about The Monarchy is not just it's history, but the fact that the history is still happening in some shape or form. Lot's of countries used to have a Monarchy, but ours is special to them because we're one of the very few countries left where the Monarchy can still be seen. So from that angle the people themselves are just as important as the buildings they inhabit.

As for your last point, before you decide to start chanting death to the aristo's, it might be worth thinking about the small fact that charities set up by members of the Royal Family and other wealthy individuals do more to help the underprivileged members of our society than the Labour Party has ever done.

Besides, no nation is ever going to have 'true equality', nobility or not (capitalism does more damage to the concept of equality than the aristocracy anyway). Sorry to disappoint you, but it's human nature at it's most basic. People need a structured hierarchy to function efficiently, just like all other species of ape, and the whole concept of a hierarchy requires that some individuals be of higher status than others. As well as that, not everybody in the world is a hardcore philanthropist and that will never change, because most people will always put themselves, their family, and their close friends first. After that other people are secondary considerations at best. It's just the way our minds are programmed to function and thanks to those two little nuggets of human behavior true equality can never be achieved. The sooner people realise that the safer everyone will be because every attempt in human history to change that has only led to suffering (see: USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea etc. etc.)

You sir have just won a cookie!

Plus the Monarchy makes more money then they take.

Yeah, really the monarchy in today's society are just extremely rich and generous celebrities. I mean, it would be unfair to keep them if they had political power, but they don't. Basically if Bill Gates children gave the British government tons of money each year, no-one would call for them to have their money sapped, but there is fundamentally no difference between them and the royal family in that scenario.

 

[Richardplex]

...As much as I hate to say this, having the royal family is the lesser evil. Sure, I don't like how much money the royal family gets inherently, but then again, they bring in more money than they use. But it doesn't stop me crossing my arms, stamping my feet and putting on a dissatisfied face.

Yeah, really the monarchy in today's society are just extremely rich and generous celebrities. I mean, it would be unfair to keep them if they had political power, but they don't. Basically if Bill Gates children gave the British government tons of money each year, no-one would call for them to have their money sapped, but there is fundamentally no difference between them and the royal family in that scenario.

It's the fact that BIll Gates added to society and earned his money (leaving aside fairness of how much he earned), while the royal family were born into it.

 

[Nickolai77]

that is where you are in actual fact, wrong. Because of the Royal family we have less tax. It's explained better in this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

I never knew that, thanks for sharing.

As people have probably already said, the Royal Family bring in tourism income. What i would add however is that the Royal Family is a great instrument in projecting British soft-power interests abroad. Queen Elizabeth's visit to Ireland engaged with emotive issues between Ireland and Britain, and in the end result Anglo-Irish relations were further strengthened. Same goes for when William and Kate visited Canada. I mean, sure we can send David Cameron over to Canada, but who's going to win the general admiration and respect of the Canadian populace? A PM, or a newly wed Prince and Princess, heirs to the throne of Great Britain?

 

[Gladiateher]

They bring tourist money. Simple as. Way more than they're spending.

This argument simply does not wash. They do not bring in tourist money. Their houses bring in tourist money.

If they didn't live in them anymore, then we could open up all of their estates in their entirety to the public and make even more money from tourism.

Imagine if you could go and walk through pretty much any room of Buckingham Palace any time you wanted, if it was opened up as a museum. It would surely still rake in the money, probably more than it does now.

More importantly I don't think we should have a monarchy because the very concept itself is disgusting, this is supposed to be the 21st century and we still have kings and queens, come on! How can we ever hope to have true equality whilst there is still a nobility?

If it's open to the public the rioters will burn that fucker to ashes though

 

[Rawne1980]

We don't have a royal family.

We have a few posh speaking muppets that act as a tourist attraction but thats about it.

 

[ultimateownage]

Well then we'd be too much like France, wouldn't we?

 

[Ammutseba]

Of course not. They're too expensive, they're not professional ambassadors, they have no good reason to live in a palace. Stop giving them money for being snobby, don't lie about how they are useful at all as ambassadors, use the palace as a hospital or something.

 

[orangeban]

They bring tourist money. Simple as. Way more than they're spending.

This argument simply does not wash. They do not bring in tourist money. Their houses bring in tourist money.

If they didn't live in them anymore, then we could open up all of their estates in their entirety to the public and make even more money from tourism.

Imagine if you could go and walk through pretty much any room of Buckingham Palace any time you wanted, if it was opened up as a museum. It would surely still rake in the money, probably more than it does now.

More importantly I don't think we should have a monarchy because the very concept itself is disgusting, this is supposed to be the 21st century and we still have kings and queens, come on! How can we ever hope to have true equality whilst there is still a nobility?

If it's open to the public the rioters will burn that fucker to ashes though

I wish that video someone posted earlier was mandatory viewing to get on this thread. The monarchy brings in huge amounts of money for Britain, even if you forget tourism.

Also, they are hardly a nobility, they are glorified celebrities. People get angry that they are born into money and power but surely that's true for the children of all rich people? And don't say the rich people earned it and the monarchy didn't, because they had to win a war to rule this country, and that is pretty damn hard work.

 

[orangeban]

Of course not. They're too expensive, they're not professional ambassadors, they have no good reason to live in a palace. Stop giving them money for being snobby, don't lie about how they are useful at all as ambassadors, use the palace as a hospital or something.

Just like to point out that A) the monarchy gives the UK government the rent they collect from their (considerable) land assets, which actually gives the government net profit, even factoring in taxes we give them and B) they own their palace, if we declared that they were no longer royalty they still keep their palace.

 

[orangeban]

...As much as I hate to say this, having the royal family is the lesser evil. Sure, I don't like how much money the royal family gets inherently, but then again, they bring in more money than they use. But it doesn't stop me crossing my arms, stamping my feet and putting on a dissatisfied face.

Yeah, really the monarchy in today's society are just extremely rich and generous celebrities. I mean, it would be unfair to keep them if they had political power, but they don't. Basically if Bill Gates children gave the British government tons of money each year, no-one would call for them to have their money sapped, but there is fundamentally no difference between them and the royal family in that scenario.

It's the fact that BIll Gates added to society and earned his money (leaving aside fairness of how much he earned), while the royal family were born into it.

Well, the monarchy did get that money at some point. I mean, first they had to conquer Britain in order to rule, in times gone past. Secondly when they ruled absolute they had to make sure not to drive the country into the ground, so really Bill Gates kids get money from their father, the monarchy from their ancestors. No practical difference.

 

[AngelBlackChaos]

4) They only own this land because they conquered it ages ago. That doesn't morally give them the right to hold onto it. BTW your Zoo analogy is utterly flawed, I don't even know where to begin, it's so inappropriate for this.

This is quite ridiculous. In the modern age, Most people DO have some sort of heredity or something that came from their parents or ancestors. So, say someone's great grandfather dies, leaving a heir with a house, a car, and a good amount of money. Well, he earned that ages ago, so what gives his heir the right to own it? BECAUSE ITS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS. Yes, many people went into following and conquering things for the kings and queens of old. But, they let the king have it, and it was in ownership of that monarchy. Since that monarchy, and its heirs, are still alive and want their properties, they have rights to it.

I would be pissed if I ended up with a crapload of land and properties, and when I passed on, everyone took it away from my heirs because they felt it was right. We live in the day where we all have properties, and the UK doesn't take property from people just because the people think that person has too much for their own good.