Poll

Well - scroungers or the bestest peoplers EVER! You decide!

Keep them (I Live in the North of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or Cornwall)
64 (13.3%)
Keep them (I live elsewhere in the UK - probably the South or Midlands)
39 (8.1%)
Bin them  (I Live in the North of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or Cornwall)
151 (31.5%)
Bin them  (I live elsewhere in the UK - probably the South or Midlands)
83 (17.3%)
Keep them (I'm not from the UK)
26 (5.4%)
Bin them (I'm not from the UK)
76 (15.8%)
More cheese, Gromit?
41 (8.5%)

Total Members Voted: 480

Author Topic: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?  (Read 54330 times)

Offline beardsley4ever

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,204
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2016, 08:44:20 am »
Purely an economic argument for me. If she is net positive economically to the UK, then keep her. If not, then bin her. Not particularly arsed otherwise, although probably moderately a fan of keeping the role, if I was forced to choose.

Offline Red Beret

  • Yellow Beret. Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King. Bed-Exiting / Grunting / Bending Down / Cum Face Champion 2023.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 51,323
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2016, 11:44:26 am »
I'm a committed Republican when it comes to the Monarchy, but right now I'd rather put Lilybet in charge and jib Cameron off.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline Pheeny

  • Captain Pheeny of Maastricht
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,847
  • "Go and wake your kids up!"
  • Super Title: The King of Belgium
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2016, 01:30:47 pm »
there was no option for me so I voted "Bin them (I'm not from the UK)"

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2016, 01:40:22 pm »
Pragmatically they are not big issue. They perform a figure head role in an apolitical way - and generate a fair wedge of tourist dollars. President Thatcher was always the compelling case against for me. As others have said, they are fairly low down the list of governance items to sort for this country. As an institution it works, and it's continued presence has little serious consequences.

The separation of the figurehead role from the governing role is desirable. From here, the figurehead dimension of the POTUS always feels uncomfortable.

Offline gregor

  • Partial to a Swiss Roll
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,692
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2016, 07:29:23 pm »
I don't like the institution of monarchy, but I assume it would take a referendum to abolish them. That won't happen, and even if it did it would be a landslide in favour of keeping the monarchy. That might change under Charles but I still don't think there would be anywhere near enough support to abolish it.

Offline TravisBickle

  • KnowsVotersAreFickle!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,808
  • RAWK n' Roll
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2016, 10:49:57 pm »
 No country which claims to genuinely care about meritocracy can have a monarchy. It simply doesn't work. The idea that someone can be born not only into immense wealth and privilege but the title of head of state is the absolute antithesis of what Britain largely came to accept as the 'new normal'.

 I wouldn't mind all that much to be honest, it's just the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw more than anything. That and the complete and utter morons who fawn over them. What sort of fucking idiot fawns over people as a result of the circumstances they were born into? It genuinely baffles me.
"My idea was to build Liverpool into a bastion of invincibility. Napoleon had that idea and he conquered the bloody world! And that's what I wanted; for Liverpool to be untouchable. My idea was to build Liverpool up and up and up until eventually everyone would have to submit and give in."

Online oldfordie

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,351
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2016, 11:04:06 pm »
No country which claims to genuinely care about meritocracy can have a monarchy. It simply doesn't work. The idea that someone can be born not only into immense wealth and privilege but the title of head of state is the absolute antithesis of what Britain largely came to accept as the 'new normal'.

 I wouldn't mind all that much to be honest, it's just the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw more than anything. That and the complete and utter morons who fawn over them. What sort of fucking idiot fawns over people as a result of the circumstances they were born into? It genuinely baffles me.
Well it's been working fine for quite a while now. the problem was a Monarch having the power over government and the people and the British public would never stand for that.
They do support a monarchy however, even the most ardent anti royals know which way a referendum would go.
Am not a passionate Royal supporter so wouldn't be the end of the world to see them go but to call every person who supports them complete and utter morons is not really a convincing argument.
It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
               Emily Maitlis

Offline TravisBickle

  • KnowsVotersAreFickle!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,808
  • RAWK n' Roll
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #47 on: April 25, 2016, 12:30:24 am »
Well it's been working fine for quite a while now. the problem was a Monarch having the power over government and the people and the British public would never stand for that.
They do support a monarchy however, even the most ardent anti royals know which way a referendum would go.
Am not a passionate Royal supporter so wouldn't be the end of the world to see them go but to call every person who supports them complete and utter morons is not really a convincing argument.

 I didn't call everyone who supports the monarchy morons at all. There are loads of sensible people who back the concept, just as there are absolute dickheads of republicans.

 My point was that the people who do fawn over them (you know the types) just put me off the idea even more than I'm already inclined to. The jubilee the other year was a perfect example of that.
"My idea was to build Liverpool into a bastion of invincibility. Napoleon had that idea and he conquered the bloody world! And that's what I wanted; for Liverpool to be untouchable. My idea was to build Liverpool up and up and up until eventually everyone would have to submit and give in."

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2016, 12:49:02 am »
I didn't call everyone who supports the monarchy morons at all. There are loads of sensible people who back the concept, just as there are absolute dickheads of republicans.

 My point was that the people who do fawn over them (you know the types) just put me off the idea even more than I'm already inclined to. The jubilee the other year was a perfect example of that.

And Peter Tatchell puts you off the whole concept of gay rights?

Offline TravisBickle

  • KnowsVotersAreFickle!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,808
  • RAWK n' Roll
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2016, 12:58:02 am »
And Peter Tatchell puts you off the whole concept of gay rights?

I like Peter Tatchell. What's your point?
"My idea was to build Liverpool into a bastion of invincibility. Napoleon had that idea and he conquered the bloody world! And that's what I wanted; for Liverpool to be untouchable. My idea was to build Liverpool up and up and up until eventually everyone would have to submit and give in."

Online oldfordie

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,351
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2016, 01:11:56 am »
I didn't call everyone who supports the monarchy morons at all. There are loads of sensible people who back the concept, just as there are absolute dickheads of republicans.

 My point was that the people who do fawn over them (you know the types) just put me off the idea even more than I'm already inclined to. The jubilee the other year was a perfect example of that.
Sorry. assumed you meant anyone who stood in the streets waving a flag cheering.
Am not actually arguing in support of the monarchy I can just see where there coming from. The Queen represents our history, our identity, her connection to so many powerful historic people we have all spent many hours studying at School etc. that's her charisma and it's very powerful for many people.
Never met the queen myself but had the opportunity locally once to stand in the crowd, never bothered. met Diane very briefly for a few passing words once while she was married to Charles. she was radiant. gorgeous, now I would of stood around to meet her again but it wouldn't have been because she was a royal. :)
It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
               Emily Maitlis

Offline zebenzui

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,923
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2016, 10:26:00 am »
And Peter Tatchell puts you off the whole concept of gay rights?

Are you comparing equal rights for homosexuals to divine rights to privilege and status through birth?

Online Libertine

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,470
  • Nothing behind me, everything ahead of me
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2016, 11:46:54 am »
As a matter of principle I am against any monarchy and hereditary titles in general. Think they have no place whatsoever in a modern and supposedly meritocratic country.

I've never really understood the argument that with an elected head of state you get someone you don't want (the dreaded President Thatcher, Blair etc) but with an unelected head of state you get someone you do want. That seems a fundamental contradiction and one which places little faith in the people's ability to choose an appropriate head of state to represent them. Also winds me up when people want to express a preference for which member of the royal family they would like on the throne - "we should skip Charles and Camilla and go straight to William and Kate - they're so much younger and cooler". With a monarchy, you get no say. Period.

Having said that, in my country (Republic of Ireland), for several decades the presidency was indeed a retirement home for ex politicians - old, gray, white men who brought little to the role and certainly weren't symbolically representative of the country and its people. Luckily that changed in the early 1990s with the election of Mary Robinson and the bar has since been set much higher for the kind of person we want in the role (the current incumbent may seem like a return to the days of the old retired politician but he's actually quite a unique and interesting figure). I'm quite proud of the system and the fact that the president generally performs their role with quiet dignity and without all the celebrity-like attention that's associated with royal families.

Is it the most important issue facing the UK? Certainly not - the scandal that is the House of Lords should be top priority for constitutional reformers. And to be honest there is very little point in campaigning for an elected head of state - it will never happen (certainly not in any of our lifetimes), the royal family is simply far too popular, especially in our celebrity-addled times.


Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2016, 12:24:29 pm »
The Queen has no electoral mandate. So she only does ceremonial duties. As soon as you get a politician in that role, it fundamentally changes that role. Politicians are by their very nature, political. The current set up has a powerless figurehead, that does all of the pageantry in an apolitical manner. When you lose that, you get a figure that is far more divisive. Most of the people that would be driven to seek such an office, would then feel obligated to use that office.

The queen standing around waving means that those that actually govern don't have to do all of that malarkey. It's not how you would design it, but it works better than any of the alternatives that I could see Westminster devising.

Practically implementing a presidential system would be hugely divisive. People by and large are well disposed to the royal family, and they loathe politicians. It would make the Brexit debate look civil. It would be a truly loathsome campaign from both sides. And the cost is just not worth it. It would make no difference to the lives of the vast majority of the public. It would not save (or cost) any significant sums on a national scale.  There is an idealogical case, but there are many more pressing issues that will be less acrimonious and enrich the lives of many more people.

Offline JerseyKloppite

  • HE'S THE DADDY!!! Staff Room Gimp. Very excited, but cheapened, mail order scam victim with bling headphones. Lovespuds. Jaqen H'ghar, the Mod without a Face.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,425
  • Exiled to Formby
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2016, 01:19:15 pm »
Pragmatically they are not big issue. They perform a figure head role in an apolitical way - and generate a fair wedge of tourist dollars. President Thatcher was always the compelling case against for me. As others have said, they are fairly low down the list of governance items to sort for this country. As an institution it works, and it's continued presence has little serious consequences.

The separation of the figurehead role from the governing role is desirable. From here, the figurehead dimension of the POTUS always feels uncomfortable.

Pretty much my opinion.

Offline reniformis

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,884
  • Innocence and Arrogance Entwined
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2016, 03:04:20 pm »
The Queen has no electoral mandate. So she only does ceremonial duties. As soon as you get a politician in that role, it fundamentally changes that role. Politicians are by their very nature, political. The current set up has a powerless figurehead, that does all of the pageantry in an apolitical manner. When you lose that, you get a figure that is far more divisive. Most of the people that would be driven to seek such an office, would then feel obligated to use that office.

The queen standing around waving means that those that actually govern don't have to do all of that malarkey. It's not how you would design it, but it works better than any of the alternatives that I could see Westminster devising.

Practically implementing a presidential system would be hugely divisive. People by and large are well disposed to the royal family, and they loathe politicians. It would make the Brexit debate look civil. It would be a truly loathsome campaign from both sides. And the cost is just not worth it. It would make no difference to the lives of the vast majority of the public. It would not save (or cost) any significant sums on a national scale.  There is an idealogical case, but there are many more pressing issues that will be less acrimonious and enrich the lives of many more people.

Pretty much what I think. Economic arguments don't really work. We aren't paying to 'fix up her houses', the Crown estate is ultimately owned by the state, you and me if you like, albeit in a trust bound to the role. We are her landlord and employer, as you say we've just subcontracted the role of ceremonial head of state to one family company, Windsors Inc. We gain far more income from the crown estates (quantifiable) and the Royal family itself (unquantifiable) than we pay out via the civil list. Sure, she personally owns Balmoral and Sandringham and some swans and receives Ł40m a year from the civil list but to put it in context that's equivalent to just three Wayne Rooneys. And there's dozens of those fuckers, most of whom do fuck all for the rest of us.

I've never really understood the argument that with an elected head of state you get someone you don't want (the dreaded President Thatcher, Blair etc) but with an unelected head of state you get someone you do want. That seems a fundamental contradiction and one which places little faith in the people's ability to choose an appropriate head of state to represent them. Also winds me up when people want to express a preference for which member of the royal family they would like on the throne - "we should skip Charles and Camilla and go straight to William and Kate - they're so much younger and cooler". With a monarchy, you get no say. Period.

I suppose it's a question of whether you need or want a ceremonial head of state separate from the person who actually has to do the work of running the country. The US don't have one, by default it's the President and First Lady. Seems to work fine for them, but then again they vote for president with that in mind and you end up with the likes of Reagan or Trump, someone with charisma but with zero experience in the job and it's the party machinery and civil servants that make the decisions. I suppose that could work here, but I'd only accept it if it was a Michael Sheen rather than a Katie Hopkins. And the idea of the people choosing the ceremonial head of state, no thanks. We'd end up with Posh and Becks. Like Boaty McBoatface or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson as London Mayor, or putting 'Jedi' as a religion on the national census 'for a laugh' because it doesn't really matter. As for which of the Royal family we'd want on the throne next, of course we, or they, have a choice. We don't have a written constitution, we can make it up as we go along, I believe the rule of males having priority of succession has been scrapped relatively recently with little fuss (2011 I think?) so why not other changes to allow William or whoever to be the next monarch without creating a constitutional crisis?

None of this is to say I'm in favour of the monarchy as is, of course. I'm ambivalent about it and I'm more concerned about the EU referendum, the House of Lords, Tory gerrymandering, TTIP and the NHS, first past the post v PR, privatisation, tory austerity policies and many other things that will impact my life far more than some symbolic change to please ideologues.

And not to mention that in these turbulent times in the west, there are many lefty liberals like myself who look at the Scandinavian countries with their sustainable education, healthcare and welfare systems and smaller inequality gaps and are envious. Yet they have monarchies?
The Past Is Only The Future With The Lights On

Online Libertine

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,470
  • Nothing behind me, everything ahead of me
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2016, 03:21:46 pm »
I suppose it's a question of whether you need or want a ceremonial head of state separate from the person who actually has to do the work of running the country. The US don't have one, by default it's the President and First Lady. Seems to work fine for them, but then again they vote for president with that in mind and you end up with the likes of Reagan or Trump, someone with charisma but with zero experience in the job and it's the party machinery and civil servants that make the decisions. I suppose that could work here, but I'd only accept it if it was a Michael Sheen rather than a Katie Hopkins. And the idea of the people choosing the ceremonial head of state, no thanks. We'd end up with Posh and Becks. Like Boaty McBoatface or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson as London Mayor, or putting 'Jedi' as a religion on the national census 'for a laugh' because it doesn't really matter. As for which of the Royal family we'd want on the throne next, of course we, or they, have a choice. We don't have a written constitution, we can make it up as we go along, I believe the rule of males having priority of succession has been scrapped relatively recently with little fuss (2011 I think?) so why not other changes to allow William or whoever to be the next monarch without creating a constitutional crisis?

By President Thatcher/Blair, I meant the situation where retired politicians end up being elected as head of state (similar to Eamon De Valera who went from Taoiseach, head of government, to ceremonial President in Ireland) - an argument often used against the idea of a Republic in the UK. I definitely agree that it's best to separate the head of state and head of government roles.

As to not trusting the electorate to elect someone appropriate, and assuming they will choose a retiring politician or a non-serious celebrity, that's a pretty bleak view to have of the people in a democracy. Other countries manage to elect suitable heads of state, why couldn't the UK in theory?

Offline reniformis

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,884
  • Innocence and Arrogance Entwined
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2016, 03:23:03 pm »
By President Thatcher/Blair, I meant the situation where retired politicians end up being elected as head of state (similar to Eamon De Valera who went from Taoiseach, head of government, to ceremonial President in Ireland) - an argument often used against the idea of a Republic in the UK. I definitely agree that it's best to separate the head of state and head of government roles.

As to not trusting the electorate to elect someone appropriate, and assuming they will choose a retiring politician or a non-serious celebrity, that's a pretty bleak view to have of the people in a democracy. Other countries manage to elect suitable heads of state, why couldn't the UK in theory?

I totally agree about the retired politicians thing, we've got a House of Lords and a European Parliament full of them. It's like a state funded rest home for the terminally short of relevance. And yes, it's a bleak view of the UK electorate but I still haven't got over the fact that 'we' elected the tories, with an actual majority this time, in 2015 despite of their cuntishness of the previous 5 years. It's those same shy tories that in the event of the abolition of the monarchy would probably vote for Elizabeth Windsor as head of state in an election just to re-establish the status quo and stick it up those republicans. Yes, I'm cynical.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 03:50:36 pm by reniformis »
The Past Is Only The Future With The Lights On

Offline Les Willis

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,453
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #58 on: April 25, 2016, 04:15:00 pm »
I kind of understand the Irish presidential model which seems to be an apolitical head of state (please correct me if I'm wrong). The French model though, is slightly more confusing as The President seems to often hold more power than the Prime minister.

Still not sure that there's that much more of an advantage of having an apolitical President over an apolitical King/Queen. I suppose the main thing there would be the ridding of the aristocracy a la French Revolution though I don't think us Brits are up for that.

Online oldfordie

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,351
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2016, 05:15:26 pm »
I kind of understand the Irish presidential model which seems to be an apolitical head of state (please correct me if I'm wrong). The French model though, is slightly more confusing as The President seems to often hold more power than the Prime minister.

Still not sure that there's that much more of an advantage of having an apolitical President over an apolitical King/Queen. I suppose the main thing there would be the ridding of the aristocracy a la French Revolution though I don't think us Brits are up for that.
I don't understand why having a president is even a consideration here.
This is not about choosing a ruler to rule over us every few years or so.
This is about our Royal family and the direct line of succession.
If for arguments sake many of the public started getting fed up with the House of Windsor being the line of succession to the throne and believed we had the right to choose another family to take there place then they would have completely misunderstand what our monarchy is about. the only choice they have is to get rid of the monarchy or stay as we are.
 This is a very important point as it shows this is not so much about wanting a Queen and a Royal family to reign it's about having a direct line of succession stretching back something like 500yrs and a family connection over a 1000yrs to reign. as another poster mentions, there is no choice, the rules were wrote hundreds of years ago to stop all the civil wars over who was the rightful heir to the throne.
As you say the Monarch should stay out of politics and vice versa. the monarchy is not a political issue therefore Parliament should have no say on whether we have a monarchy. that is for the people to decide.
The British public would probably accept the result of a referendum they would be on the streets if the government kicked them out of power.
 The biggest danger is if the army and maybe the police believe the government have abused there power and insist on either a general election or a referendum before the Monarch leaves the Country.
Would have been a good story line for a very British Coup. :)
It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
               Emily Maitlis

Offline Mutton Geoff

  • 'The Invigilator'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,663
  • Life is a journey, not a destination.
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #60 on: April 25, 2016, 06:06:58 pm »
So lets say we become a republic and next year we are looking at the UK equivalent of  Mrs Clinton or Donald Trump as our future president ; let's say Mrs Balls or Boris,

 Do you still want a republic ?
A world were Liars and Hypocrites are accepted and rewarded and honest people are derided!
Who voted in this lying corrupt bastard anyway

Offline sms1986

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,644
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #61 on: April 25, 2016, 06:13:39 pm »
I think we wouldn't give any future non-monarchical head of state much, if any, power, so they would be mostly if not entirely ceremonial.

Offline Mutton Geoff

  • 'The Invigilator'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,663
  • Life is a journey, not a destination.
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #62 on: April 25, 2016, 06:16:50 pm »
I think we wouldn't give any future non-monarchical head of state much, if any, power, so they would be mostly if not entirely ceremonial.

when has that worked in any republic, it will be power struggles everywhere
A world were Liars and Hypocrites are accepted and rewarded and honest people are derided!
Who voted in this lying corrupt bastard anyway

Offline TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 93,657
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #63 on: April 25, 2016, 06:19:05 pm »
I think we wouldn't give any future non-monarchical head of state much, if any, power, so they would be mostly if not entirely ceremonial.
There is an advantage of that system.....

Currently, the birth of a Royal is effectively a prison sentence...

Your life effectively determined from birth, hounded by the press, little to no privacy....Youncan abdicate of course... But you would still be hounded..

Of course, there is also a life a luxury which seems appealing, but I would pick a free life myself...

I've always considered it a misfortune to be born Royal..
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2016, 06:22:53 pm »
I think we wouldn't give any future non-monarchical head of state much, if any, power, so they would be mostly if not entirely ceremonial.

So why elect them in the first place?
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline TravisBickle

  • KnowsVotersAreFickle!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,808
  • RAWK n' Roll
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2016, 06:58:23 pm »
So lets say we become a republic and next year we are looking at the UK equivalent of  Mrs Clinton or Donald Drumpf as our future president ; let's say Mrs Balls or Boris,

 Do you still want a republic ?

 What's your point? We could easily end up with Boris as PM with zero constraints on his power under the current system.
"My idea was to build Liverpool into a bastion of invincibility. Napoleon had that idea and he conquered the bloody world! And that's what I wanted; for Liverpool to be untouchable. My idea was to build Liverpool up and up and up until eventually everyone would have to submit and give in."

Online Libertine

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,470
  • Nothing behind me, everything ahead of me
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #66 on: April 25, 2016, 07:05:05 pm »
when has that worked in any republic, it will be power struggles everywhere

Works perfectly well in a number of Republics, including Ireland. As long as the largely ceremonial duties of the head of state are clearly spelt out in the constitution, there is no question of any power struggles.

So why elect them in the first place?

To give the people a say in who represents them as a people and a country of course.

Offline wellred82

  • Now considers himself properly educated around the significance of his birthday.....
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #67 on: April 25, 2016, 07:09:24 pm »
It's amazing how things work in other countries. If you even asked this question in somewhere like Thailand you'd almost certainly be thrown in jail. For some reason the King there is held in such high regard it's almost like he transcendeds religion.

In terms of here though I don't see any point for them to be honest. Just a drain on public resources. Bin.


[You may have an iPhone but you are still using the free version of Tapatalk and spamming us with that knowledge]

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #68 on: April 25, 2016, 08:11:30 pm »
Works perfectly well in a number of Republics, including Ireland. As long as the largely ceremonial duties of the head of state are clearly spelt out in the constitution, there is no question of any power struggles.

To give the people a say in who represents them as a people and a country of course.

But what difference does it make if they have no ability to change anything? Are you saying we just run a national popularity contest every few years? It's hard enough to get people to vote when it matters. Getting people to vote for nothing at all just further debases the process, surely?

I'm not 100% sold on the Monarchy, but I see no point whatsoever in electing someone to a position with absolutely no power or influence. Why not do it by pub quiz or a tombola?
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Mutton Geoff

  • 'The Invigilator'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,663
  • Life is a journey, not a destination.
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #69 on: April 25, 2016, 09:08:17 pm »
I am fairly neutral on some of the Royal Family but to be honest if we didn't have them a massive and extremely profitable industry would not exist here,

some Brits might not rate them but a hell of a lot of the rest of the world does and travels here in droves.
A world were Liars and Hypocrites are accepted and rewarded and honest people are derided!
Who voted in this lying corrupt bastard anyway

Online Libertine

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,470
  • Nothing behind me, everything ahead of me
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #70 on: April 25, 2016, 09:20:21 pm »
But what difference does it make if they have no ability to change anything? Are you saying we just run a national popularity contest every few years? It's hard enough to get people to vote when it matters. Getting people to vote for nothing at all just further debases the process, surely?

I'm not 100% sold on the Monarchy, but I see no point whatsoever in electing someone to a position with absolutely no power or influence. Why not do it by pub quiz or a tombola?

Well it's not going to make any practical difference replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, which is one of the reasons it will never happen.

But it's hardly voting for nothing. The president is the symbolic head of the country and it's representative to the world (on state visits etc).

Last Irish presidential election, the turnout was 56%. A little less than in the general election, but not much.

Offline armchair-fan

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,252
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #71 on: April 25, 2016, 10:02:30 pm »
Having a hereditary Head of State should be the preserve of crack pot lunatic rogue states like Swaziland, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

The Royalists are lucky that for the past 60+ years Elizabeth has been absolutely exemplary in her conduct and scrupulously non political, as far as we can tell.  But that is largely because she is an extraordinary individual.  Her son certainly isn't, with his rambling letters to government ministers, his tampon sex talk and antediluvian views on architecture, agriculture and no doubt many other topics.  Her Uncle wasn't with his meddling in government affairs and his desire to ally with fascists.

The point is, good, bad or indifferent - we can't get rid of them.

As for the tourist argument - we can still keep Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace and the tourists will still flock to visit.  Tourists brave jihadi attacks to see the dusty remains of Egyptian pharaohs and they haven't reigned in over 2,000 years.

Personally, I'm an advocate of something along the lines of the US or French models, with an active President who is effectively the head of the executive branch of government.  I appreciate it is what we are used to, but a system where cabinet members are also supposed to act as constituency MPs and be involved in drafting legislation is illogical and bizarre.

However, if the idea of that sort of Presidency isn't to your liking, and you are scared of President Thatcher/Blair/Corbyn (delete as appropriate), there are plenty of other systems which allow for a ceremonial Head of State - the Germans and Italians seem to manage alright.

Being a subject is something for medieval peasants, throw off your chains and become a citizen.

Online oldfordie

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,351
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #72 on: April 25, 2016, 11:30:13 pm »
Having a hereditary Head of State should be the preserve of crack pot lunatic rogue states like Swaziland, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

The Royalists are lucky that for the past 60+ years Elizabeth has been absolutely exemplary in her conduct and scrupulously non political, as far as we can tell.  But that is largely because she is an extraordinary individual.  Her son certainly isn't, with his rambling letters to government ministers, his tampon sex talk and antediluvian views on architecture, agriculture and no doubt many other topics.  Her Uncle wasn't with his meddling in government affairs and his desire to ally with fascists.

The point is, good, bad or indifferent - we can't get rid of them.

As for the tourist argument - we can still keep Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace and the tourists will still flock to visit.  Tourists brave jihadi attacks to see the dusty remains of Egyptian pharaohs and they haven't reigned in over 2,000 years.

Personally, I'm an advocate of something along the lines of the US or French models, with an active President who is effectively the head of the executive branch of government.  I appreciate it is what we are used to, but a system where cabinet members are also supposed to act as constituency MPs and be involved in drafting legislation is illogical and bizarre.

However, if the idea of that sort of Presidency isn't to your liking, and you are scared of President Thatcher/Blair/Corbyn (delete as appropriate), there are plenty of other systems which allow for a ceremonial Head of State - the Germans and Italians seem to manage alright.

Being a subject is something for medieval peasants, throw off your chains and become a citizen.
:)
I bet Mel Gibson wishes he would have thought of that line for Braveheart
It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
               Emily Maitlis

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #73 on: April 25, 2016, 11:56:05 pm »
Well it's not going to make any practical difference replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, which is one of the reasons it will never happen.

But it's hardly voting for nothing. The president is the symbolic head of the country and it's representative to the world (on state visits etc).


Still don't see what there is to vote for there. There would be a symbolic head either way, and they'd be obliged to toe the party line of the sitting government. We send ambassadors all over the globe without anyone suggesting that the public has to vote them in, and they are political positions with actual power and significance.

How can you vote if there's no platform, what are you voting for? Vote for me and... Absolutely nothing. It's a parody of democracy and makes the whole idea of voting less important and significant.

Even the Irish president has some powers.

If you want an elected head of state, you have to treat that as a serious position, or you know that the British public will vote for "votey mcvoteface" Roy Chubby Brown or someone. Why not?
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline jamie_c

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,315
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #74 on: April 27, 2016, 10:02:36 pm »
Personally think they are a waste of space but they don't impact my life and other people seem to care so happy to leave them to it.

Offline Dizzyfinn

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #75 on: April 28, 2016, 03:18:32 am »
I like the monarchy but at the same time hate everything it represents.  If that makes any sense.  I like the link to our past and the apolitical imagery. It makes us "us" without ignoring the socio-political changes of the past 150 years. I'm ok wit the world thinking of Britain as a land of kings and queens while celebrating the welfare state and NHS as our proudest achievements. Its more preferable to me than a democratically elected president...largely because I don't trust the electorate.  Meh.

Offline redmark

  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,395
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #76 on: April 28, 2016, 01:01:31 pm »
Pragmatically they are not big issue. They perform a figure head role in an apolitical way - and generate a fair wedge of tourist dollars. President Thatcher was always the compelling case against for me. As others have said, they are fairly low down the list of governance items to sort for this country. As an institution it works, and it's continued presence has little serious consequences.

The separation of the figurehead role from the governing role is desirable. From here, the figurehead dimension of the POTUS always feels uncomfortable.

I pretty much agree with this, other than the fact that they own a great deal of land and property, directly as a result of their inherited position (regardless of whether it's now deemed public or private wealth). That still needs to be rectified, regardless of the 'figurehead' point.

I'm a republican, but have some increasing respect for the queen as an individual over the years (or I'm just a sucker for their PR). William seems pleasant enough (no idea why so many people seem to think Harry's so nice). But abolition on the culmination of the longest serving monarch would seem entirely fitting.
Stop whining : https://spiritofshankly.com/ : https://thefsa.org.uk/join/ : https://reclaimourgame.com/
The focus now should not be on who the owners are, but limits on what owners can do without formal supporter agreement. At all clubs.

Offline CheshireDave

  • quite apt, as he's from Gloucestershire and his name's Norman
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,871
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #77 on: April 28, 2016, 01:10:51 pm »
They're like reality TV for old people. Like Big Brother and the like they should too be axed.

Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus

Offline SamAteTheRedAcid

  • Currently facing issues around potty training. All help appreciated.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,203
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #78 on: April 28, 2016, 03:42:18 pm »
They're like reality TV for old people.
:lmao that is a very funny take on it.
get thee to the library before the c*nts close it down

we are a bunch of twats commenting on a website.

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?
« Reply #79 on: April 28, 2016, 04:34:33 pm »
For me it really comes down to what we mean by "keep" the royals. At the moment we are really keeping them, paying them from public money. They could easily continue to serve their constitutional, diplomatic and ceremonial functions without a penny of that.

They are independently wealthy with staggering annual incomes and estates worth billions. The subsidy we provide is a drop in the ocean to them. They don't need it. We should stop paying that.

As for the rest of it, yes they are a medieval anachronism and all the rest of it, but I've yet to hear an attractive alternative.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA