Poll: What should we do with the Queen?
This poll is closed.
Keep Royal Family 64.29% 9 64.29%
Replace with politician 35.71% 5 35.71%
Total 14 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2013, 08:47 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
I dont care how much money or how many people come over to the UK, none of them pay to see the royal family. Instead they pay to visit historic landmarks, which would exist regardless of if the royals were alive.

I also find it sad how money is the biggest factor in arguing to keep the royals or not.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 08:47 AM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2013 09:33 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 04:34 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  I am glad there is a nice mix of nationalities here, with a wide range of views.

There is much discussion, regularly, globally about the role of the British royal family in the commonwealth and the role as head of state for GB.

With Scotland trying to declare independance (with them completely forgetting the british RF are technically Scottish heritage more or less since the hanover dynasty stem from the Stuarts) I feel the importance of a head of state is a question to be raised.

I am a royalist, I want the Royal family there, I want them because i dont want any more f*cking politicians.. They occupy a ceremonial position only, the powers she has is that she can dissolve parliament, she can sack a prime minister, she can break a treaty, she can declare war, etc. The only specific laws I know of that restrict her power are that she can not raise an army on her behalf, that she can not raise taxes on her behalf, and that she can not make and enforce any new law.

Nothing there would be done without the best politicians advice.

What she is paid, is reasonable, compared to the costs involved with having a politician head of state (some say obama is costing up to 20 times what the royal family cost).

I understand that getting rid of the queen would save taxpayers money, but then the replacement would drain it again, as much if not more to do the same job (and pull in a LOT less tourism and kudo's).

I cannot find reasonable evidence to begin to understand the republican point of view on this, I hope y'all could help point out why when we have 30% voter turnout, we need to replace a figurehead, with an elected figurehead and for what reasons.

Personally, I dislike the Royals. Highly. And honestly, there is no real reason aside from their existence owing to an out-dated archaic system of governance which assumes natural born superiority, the fact that the media even in Australia fawns over their every fucking move effectively pushing out any real news of the time, and that their station and fame in life is, in my opinion totally unearned and almost offensive with the 'born into it' side of things.

That said, I realise that they do have some uses; for the UK and for reasons which are as far beyond my comprehension as Quantum Mechanics, they attract a massive amount of tourist revenue. However, I do question if it's the Royals themselves or their massively extravagant palaces and what-not (I'm leaning toward the second option, myself).

Plus, as the hollow figure-heads they really are, they do have some use opening national projects and other 'formality' things that politicians and public figures of real importance are generally too busy to deal with (same goes for the Governor General in Aus). However, I would argue that you could pluck a hobo off the street and pay them with a liveable house and food with a fraction of the Royal or GG's wage and he/she'd probably be just as effective at the job and likely be far more cost-effective too. Or maybe have the PM do it as part of their job description and not give them a dumb amount of money for the mundane tasks.

I would like to see the Royals go fuck off to some farmland or whatever and go back into the obscurity from which they came and die out peacefully like any normal family, but because people are strangely attached to their traditional figureheads (again, for reasons I don't understand), I doubt that will ever be the case. In fact, I would be just as happy if they just left Australia alone and people (media) stopped giving a fuck here as the majority of people seem to, but again, that does not seem to be the case, at least any time soon.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 08:49 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 06:00 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I cannot deny the ROI (anglo-french pun intended) but it's the concept I have a problem with.

It's elitist and that is shit.

It smacks of in-groupiness and inner sanctums and club-houses.

That is all.

And that would change if there wasn't a royal family how?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 08:57 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 08:47 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  ...
the fact that the media even in Australia fawns over their every fucking move effectively pushing out any real news of the time,
...

... and that's the advertising that Bucky mentioned... free air time ... brand awareness.
Other countries have castles and history and stuff but not the brand awareness.


(27-11-2013 08:49 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 06:00 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I cannot deny the ROI (anglo-french pun intended) but it's the concept I have a problem with.

It's elitist and that is shit.

It smacks of in-groupiness and inner sanctums and club-houses.

That is all.

And that would change if there wasn't a royal family how?

Didn't say it would.

Just saying that elitism and sycophancy makes my gorge rise.

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 08:59 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
Of course it's an unfair inheritance.

That's inevitable. Even assuming all else to be equal there will be people at the top of a statistical distribution and people at the bottom of a statistical distribution. I really can't understand anyone caring about this. You might as well get mad at the sunrise.

There are two things that really matter, and only one of them really matters.

What is the best way to maintain a stable and effective government? I mean, have you seen what happens when a political head of state argues with the legislature? I freely admit that I might be a little biased. But having a harmless nobody to preside over state functions doesn't seem like a big deal.

Second being cost, but that is, naturally, less important. The salaries we pay for the Governor-General and Lieutenant-Governors are basically peanuts, and that's essentially the only direct cost. Plus, Crown property is long since de facto government held and administered and would be the world's biggest clusterfuck to divest.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
27-11-2013, 09:04 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
I want to ask when you abolish the monarchy, are you intending to replace it with something else? How much would that something else cost?

Would that be better spent on schools and hospitals?

Whatever arrangement we have for the head of state, surely we should use something that gives us a return on investment.

Dont know where this elitist notion comes in.. do you really think these people you vote into the house of commons are not elitist? Those that get high ranking jobs are not elitist? They all shit and piss like the rest of us. We give them a bit of respect as they are working (quite hard sometimes) for us, they support our charities, reward the people who contribute to society (even if it is just ceremonial) they actually are more beneficial than our government regardless of ruling party.

As I said there is no republican argument that holds water yet, I really would like to consider one, but so far it just seems the good ol' rebellion for rebellion sake.

I may be royalist and support the royal family, but that does not mean i support the lord system or the huge amount of hangers on that try to bleed the system. I agree for reform, but not replacement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PursuingTruth's post
27-11-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 09:04 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  I want to ask when you abolish the monarchy, are you intending to replace it with something else? How much would that something else cost?

As far as I know, my nation doesn't actually get anything from being a constitutional monarchy tied to the English Royals anyway, so all we'd need to do is replace the Governor general with somebody equally meaningless and we're done, with little to no real loss outside silly traditions.

As for the replacement of the Queen as Sovereign/HoS and the GG HoS, I re-suggest the following:

As far as I am concerned, it makes sense for the head of state to be the one who is actually in charge of things, I.E. the President, Prime Minister or whatever the position is called.
OR if that is unsatisfactory, give the title to the nations leader and give the ceremonial part of the job to a hobo randomly plucked from the street and paid with a liveable house and an average wage, perhaps with some help with education thrown in too, (cause lets face it, chances are it'd do them a world of good) for a tenure of I dunno how many years, five sound good? After which a new random hobo would be selected, so as to allow the PM or whatever to do their job and not be interrupted by ceremonial horse-shit.
The hobo thing would have a comparatively small cost (little more than the average Joe most likely), and the elected leader of the nation to me seems like it should be part of his or her damn job description when in office to be the Head of State.

(27-11-2013 09:04 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  Would that be better spent on schools and hospitals?

What few funds from the change would be redirected, were I in charge and able, to the Medical and Educational sectors of government, to try and boost the amount of people getting jobs and education in the medical industry (doctors, nurses etc). In addition to funding other vital infrastructure if possible.

(27-11-2013 09:04 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  Whatever arrangement we have for the head of state, surely we should use something that gives us a return on investment.

We don't really lose anything so... Have fun with that. Thumbsup

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 10:14 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
I do repeat herein the UK we have the brand to lose. Tourism etc linked to it.

Elsewhere in the commonwealth, I was under the impression that this was already the arrangement.. that you have your own president/prime minister who runs things, and you elect a governor. As far as I am aware the commonwealth is not under the queens control, and exists as simply as a group of like-minded countries that wish to get along together.

There is research into the benefits of using the commonwealth as an economic community, which would be beneficial to all parties in the commonwealth.

The vote for any commonwealth country to lose the queen as 'head of state' is really a vote for nothing. May as well vote for painting the government offices blue instead of red, it has the same level of impact. (okay maybe save the wages of 1 guy or so).

I see it as voting yourself out of a group of friends, because you think one of your friends is trying to mind control you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
I know little about the weight the royals have in the UK. As an American and influenced by the celebrity-drive society here, I have to say I have always been interested in the royal family. I know it's totally superficial on my part but the idea of princes and princesses goes back to the fairy tales of my childhood. While change is often good I also think it's sometimes a positive thing to hold on to the historical.

As for what it does to the economy and politics of the UK, I see them as pretty much ceremonial, but I don't have the knowledge of a citizen that lives with the monarchy. Does it seem they have an obscene amount of wealth...absolutely. But there are people at the top of the economic heap in all countries, many just don't have the notoriety of the British Royal Family. Can I fault them for inheriting their wealth and fame...no more than I can fault those here that are trust fund babies thanks to the efforts of those that came before them.

--I will duck and run now--

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 10:53 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 05:54 AM)Caveman Wrote:  So I'd say: seize their property, give them a couple of tiny abandoned houses with farmland and forget about them.

Are you suggesting this be a moral, reciprocal law that applies to everyone (the government seize EVERYBODY's property)? Or you want the government to let you keep YOUR property and only seize SOMEONE ELSE's property?

As far as the public just picking people they don't like and confiscating their property, that's just mob rule. Lest you reply that the royal family's ancestors originally got that land through oppressing others, that's a valid point there. BUT, my guess is that most Brits have inherited property that at some point in history was obtained through oppression. So, again, if the law is going to be moral, fair and reciprocal, you'd need to confiscate EVERYBODY's property that was inherited and not earned.

I too despise the elitist class hierarchy. But, be pragmatic. You don't want to return to the medieval days where the laws you were subject to depended on what class you were born into. It's not fair that someone who was born into a family of servants, through no fault of his own, should have special restrictions applied. Yet, you're doing the same thing, only in reverse. You're saying that if you're born into a royal family, something you again had no control over, there should be special restrictions, such as preventing you from inheriting property.

I believe that all men are created equal, and thus should be equal under the eyes of the law, with no special state privileges for anyone. So I agree that unilaterally removing all titles and special inherited powers from everyone, including the royals, is good and fair, and that the relation between the Queen and State should purely be a financial one. If the State wants the revenue from her land, and in return agrees to pay her expenses, then this is a voluntary contract between consenting adults. If you don't like it, let her keep her land and do with it what she likes.

But going in and saying "I think you're an elitist snob so I'm going to take your home at gunpoint", that's just reactionary thuggery driven by jealousy, imo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: