The British Royal Family

[{paintedroses}]

After not being able to escape seeing Prince Harry on TV this morning I thought I'd bring up the topic of the royal family. I'd be interested to hear anyones opinions towards them.

If anyone wants a laugh, have a read of the comments about Harry on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4246970.stm

My personal favourite:

So some spoilt rich boy is 21 and it's a major story. Sad, sad country.

 

[DrTeeth]

I think it's quite embarrassing that a modern democratic country still has a monarchy, but that's just me.

 

[Vincent Vega]

The Netherlands itself is a modern democratic country with a monarchy, isn't it?
As long as the politicial influence of the monarchy isn't existing I don't have a problem with that.

I think it's nice of the British Royals to be that funny.

 

[TheQuiet1]

My favourites are torn between the ones who describe Harry's mistakes as "typical teenage mistakes". (Oh PR, I just found that whole 'Nazi uniform' stage of my teenage years sooooo embarassing to look back upon in the photos, don't you?). And this one:

I take it that the reference to being in a ditch in Wales is connected to his Army life rather than stumbling out of a local pub after some birthday drinks....

 

[DrTeeth]

The Netherlands itself is a modern democratic country with a monarchy, isn't it?

That's what they say yes, but don't expect me to become a monarchist soon.

 

[Vincent Vega]

And we got rid of our last emperor in the Netherlands

 

[Irvine511]

they're fun, i suppose. Wills is certainly attractive.

but they do seem anachronistic.

 

[{paintedroses}]

As long as the politicial influence of the monarchy isn't existing I don't have a problem with that.

Unfortunately the royals' political influence here is underestimated.. they have a worrying amount of power and have abused the court system to silence dissent and issue injunctions to stop any publishing of their embarrassing secrets. Important political decisions have been heavily influenced by monarchs in the last century such as the appeasement of Hitler!

Also politically, if the monarchy is meant to represent what the country stands for they don't do it in a particularly good light. Elitism, discrimination, diminishing of society...

 

[verte76]

I find the British Royal Family to be interesting from a historical point of view. Since I'm not British I don't think it's my place to tell the British that they should or shouldn't have a monarchy, it's their choice.

 

[{paintedroses}]

I take it that the reference to being in a ditch in Wales is connected to his Army life rather than stumbling out of a local pub after some birthday drinks....

Actually the first thing I thought of when I read that was him in a drunken state!

 

[{paintedroses}]

I find the British Royal Family to be interesting from a historical point of view. Since I'm not British I don't think it's my place to tell the British that they should or shouldn't have a monarchy, it's their choice.

If only it was our choice!

 

[TheQuiet1]

Important political decisions have been heavily influenced by monarchs in the last century such as the appeasement of Hitler!

The appeasement was necessary IMHO. We should have nipped it in the bud as soon as he remilitarised the Rhineland but we didn't. By the 'Peace in our Time' stage it was far too late. At the same time as signing the Munich Agreement Chamberlain was agreeing to massive public spending on the armed forces. The UK was one of the few countries to stick to the Treaty of Versailles and start demilitarising. Therefore by 1938 Nazi Germany was far far stronger in military terms than the UK following years of secret then open rearmament. If we'd put our foot down in 1938 then we might not have won. It was a delay for time as much as anything else.

But then again wasn't the Duke of Windsor supposed to have Nazi connections?

I don't mind having a royal family at all. It provides a good balance between PM and Royalty. People might say it isn't democratic but Hitler was elected democratically. That said the Queen at the minute has always seemed like a very sensible one, I don't know what would happen if we got a 'bad' monarch.

But I can see where the arguments against a royal family come in. I just think that there are worse, more immediate issues in this country that need to be addressed first.

 

[U2democrat]

My best friend seriously wants to marry Prince Harry and have his babies....


She's crazy.

 

[nbcrusader]

My best friend seriously wants to marry Prince Harry and have his babies....

I bet she would be on a very long list of women with similar desires. My wife's niece has made similar statements to us in the past.

 

[melon]

The royal family, itself, is fine if the British people continue to want them, but I would be quite incensed if my tax dollars were being used to support their posh lifestyle.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

The royal family, itself, is fine if the British people continue to want them, but I would be quite incensed if my tax dollars were being used to support their posh lifestyle.

Melon

Consider the Monarchy a commercial enterprise. The UK takes in considerable $$$ from tourism and an active monarchy is a big tourist draw (think of all the people who line the streets to see the Queen Mum's new hat).

 

[TheQuiet1]

There's an oft-quoted statistic that the royal family costs a tax payer less than a pint of milk.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Consider the Monarchy a commercial enterprise. The UK takes in considerable $$$ from tourism and an active monarchy is a big tourist draw (think of all the people who line the streets to see the Queen Mum's new hat).

Queen Mum's new hat with Queen Mum still wearing it?

 

[{paintedroses}]

Consider the Monarchy a commercial enterprise. The UK takes in considerable $$$ from tourism and an active monarchy is a big tourist draw (think of all the people who line the streets to see the Queen Mum's new hat).

I don't think tourism would suffer that much without an active monarchy. If the monarchy was abolished all parts of royal palaces and castles could be open to the public all year long. The Palace of Versailles in Paris draws in more tourists than Buckingham Palace. The royal arts collection could also be released and displayed in galleries which would bring in tourism from inside the UK as well as other countries.

 

[{paintedroses}]

There's an oft-quoted statistic that the royal family costs a tax payer less than a pint of milk.

Multiply that by the amount of people in the country and see if you can't think of something better to spend it on.

 

[TheQuiet1]

^^Agree about tourism. Although you'd lose some events (no changing of the guard, state opening of parliament etc) Buck palace would become access all areas so to speak. It might actually raise tourism!

^True enough. I guess the compromise would be to follow Norway's example (still have royal family but less glitzy). It is supposed to be the best place on Earth after all so they must know something.

 

[beau2ifulday]

As much as I may dislike our current royal family, I know that I would miss the tradition that they carry if they were to be overthrown tomorrow.
I was very resentful towards them at one point, but i've come to value the traditional values that Britain holds on to. I know most people my age don't feel the same way though.

 

[nbcrusader]

I don't think tourism would suffer that much without an active monarchy. If the monarchy was abolished all parts of royal palaces and castles could be open to the public all year long. The Palace of Versailles in Paris draws in more tourists than Buckingham Palace. The royal arts collection could also be released and displayed in galleries which would bring in tourism from inside the UK as well as other countries.

The mystique of places like Buckingham Palace is based largely on an active Monarchy. There are plenty of old buildings throughout Europe to visit. Not having access to one actually makes it more interesting in a way.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Most people I know are travelling to London because of the city, not that much because of the monarchy. Of course, they are visiting Buckingham Palace and like to see the change of guard, but in first place they like to visit the city, or other sites of England. Others are more interested in Scotland or Wales.
So, I think most people won't stay out of the country if there was no monarchy. Or I know the wrong persons

 

[{paintedroses}]

Yeah I personally find it a little insulting when people think the only reason anyone visits here is for one family.

 

[nbcrusader]

Yeah I personally find it a little insulting when people think the only reason anyone visits here is for one family.

Who said that? I said the Monarchy is a tourist draw - not the "only reason" to visit the city.


Please don't look for reasons to be insulted.

 

[{paintedroses}]

Who said that? I said the Monarchy is a tourist draw - not the "only reason" to visit the city.


Please don't look for reasons to be insulted.

No no I wasn't aiming it at anyone in this thread, just some people's opinions in general! Sorry

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

for some reason, my friends are normally suprised to find i'm not the ardent republican they expect me to be.

i wouldn't be too heartbroken if the royal family were to be abolished (the institution, not the individuals in question -- i'd be very upset if someone decided we should start executing royals) but i also don't see any point in investing time and money in getting rid of the royal family.

firstly, the queen is our head of state and as a parliamentary democracy we need a head of state. if we were to abolish the royal family we'd need to choose (presumably by election) an alternative person to fulfil that role and not only pay their salary and expenses but also fund an alternative venue for state dinners, entertaining foreign dignitaries and such since buckingham palace and other royal residences wouldn't be in use.

secondly, and as nbc pointed out, the royal family act as a tourist attraction. certainly they aren't the main reason people visit the uk, but as a british person who's spent time living overseas i can definitely say that one important for some people's interest in the uk is the royal family -- i lost count of how many times i was asked if i'd visited buckingham palace, seen the queen etc.

thirdly, for all you may wish to criticise the royal family they do a lot of important work for charities, voluntary organisations and the like. people seem to have this idea that the queen spends all day sitting in her residence ordering servants to fulfil her every wish -- in fact she works what is essentially a full-time job, although i probably shouldn't get too carried away with that argument since most people would be happy to do her work in return for the affluent lifestyle she has.

fourthly, it's just a nice tradition. i'm one of the least traditionalist people you could meet, but i don't see the point in attacking tradition for the sake of it -- if there's no compelling reason beyond "it's old-fashioned" to abolish the monarchy then let's leave it alone. (and yes, i realise there are other compelling reasons -- i'm just saying that i think that argument in particular is very weak.) people like the monarchy -- young people feel proud of receiving their duke of edinburgh award from the actual duke of edinburgh; nhs workers, teachers, public servants who get invited to one of the events the royal family hold to honour those who have made a real contribution to society; some people just enjoy seeing the royal family on the news or in magazines. certainly the nice tradition/people like them argument wouldn't be a persuasive argument in isolation, but i think there are plenty of other reasons to keep the royal family and the people like them argument is just a postscript to that.

let the "fizz, i'm disappointed in you! how can you support such a reactionary old institution?" comments begin. just kidding.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I think the countries having a monarchy are doing very well with it.
I see no reason to abolish them and to replace them by a president or something else.
They are making a good job and still are very important for those countries, if it is charity, or entertainment, or representing or whatever. And they create a special kind of culture which is really nice.
But they shouldn't abuse their status, and they should have a connection to the people of their country, so they represent them really.

 

[VertigoGal]

Personally I think Harry's better-looking than Will, but the whole Nazi thing, ehh not so much.

Anyway I suppose the tabloids need something to write about, although I wouldn't want my tax dollars funding it.