God save the Queen?

[johnhpus]

I was thinking about how the U.K. still has royalty, and how as an American, it seems kind of cool to have a Queen. But that on the other hand, I think if I had been born British that I would resent paying taxes to give some mascot a decadent lifestyle.

How do you U.K. taxpayers feel about your royalty?

And a second, sillier question... if the royalty called for a revolt against the elected leadership, would they have any chance of persuading the public?

[btmorex]

I only know 2 Brits well, but they're both big fans of the royalty. I don't think many British people have a problem with it (in fact, I think a lot of people prefer it the way it is).

[mr. iknoweverything]

as far as my (limited) experience goes, trying to argue about the royals with a british yields the same results as trying to talk about religion with somebody coming from the arab countries - bad idea. you're automatically classified as some kind of an arrogant crusader trying to make the other bend over rethorically. probably rightly so

[Kencho]

We spanish people also have royalty, and this divides us in two (equally large) groups. I myself find it useless, though it's just my opinion. Why? First of all, monarchy is really problematic (it was for us in the 16th/17th century), as the new king isn't picked by the people themselves. The chances to get a king not ready or not able to govern is really high, and can sink a country in no time. As right now the monarchy is delegated to a second plane, my other concern arises: They enjoy a luxury life, paid by our taxes, without the responsibility of noticing us where our money went, and as said above, without any other responsibility. That is, they get paid just for their blood, not their sweat.

Monarchy is cool in fantasy stories, but not in real life

[sinbad]

Brits range from die-hard monarchists to republicans, just like Kencho describes with the Spaniards.

I'm not a die-hard monarchist, but personally I think the monarchy serves a purpose. The perception of it being decadent is exaggerated - these aren't the times of Louis XVI anymore. In fact, it's a double-edged sword - sure you get to live in palaces, get a great education and never worry about money, but at the same time you get very little choice about how you live your life. The royals at the fringes are the ones I hate - they don't have to do anything but get all the benefits. The main royal family however has what I would consider to be at least a full-time job with the level of engagements they have to do. Their purpose is to serve as figureheads, representatives of state that are apolitical, and custodians of history.

I think the apolitical aspect is important. Politicians, presidents etc come and go. They all have a small window of opportunity and sometimes they take advantage of it - look at the presidential pardons, the scandals etc. The royal family is at least always there - they don't have any real power over anything in practice, but they do have to maintain an appropriate image for the country, 24x7x365, throughout their entire lives. And they don't get to retire - until they die anyway. The Queen is in her 80s and still has more work engagements than I do. There's no short-term gains to be had while in office where they can weather a scandal and then disappear into obscurity with their spoils, they have to live with any scandals long-term, and that's a huge incentive not to end up looking like a tit. As representatives of state I think having more incentive to maintain a good public & international image above all else is an important feature. Therefore I think in parallel to the political system, the monarchy has a practical purpose.

Just get rid of all the hangers-on like Fergie and all the other peripheral cousins who perform absolutely no useful purpose other than being a bloody embarrassment.

As for rising up - that's happened before (Cromwell - do they even teach that in US schools?). Britain was a 'republic' for all of 4 years in the 17th century - really it was a dictatorship under the 'Lord Protector' under the pretense of a republic in my view. The monarchy was reinstated because people preferred it to being lorded over by a puritan I think. I mean, who likes puritans? They're just no fun Luckily they all buggered off to form the USA shortly afterwards

[leon]

I agree that it is the fringe royals that are the really annoying part of it. The main family works really hard and earn their position. As far as the tax goes it is said that the royal family earn more money for the country than is returned to them. I don't know for sure if that is true but it is an argument that always pops up when the royal family are discussed. I also like the way that one or two of them seem to uphold the stereotype of the mad European royals. The duke of Edinburgh, get well soon, for instance is constantly in trouble for some glib remark he makes and his sons relationship with plants is also a grin maker.

I like them and think it would be a sad day if they ever disappear.

[sinbad]

Oh yeah, huzzah for Prince Phillip - who else could regularly insult other heads of state and get away with it? I think he & Boris Johnson should form a double-act, they'd be endlessly entertaining.

[Kojack]

Looks like australia is finally bringing back the republic debate.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx? ... ntID=66718

About time.

[warmi]

Looks like australia is finally bringing back the republic debate.

Does it even matter ?

[warmi]

I mean, who likes puritans? They're just no fun Luckily they all buggered off to form the USA shortly afterwards

Having watched a show on G4 about a giant annual porn industry “Get-Togetherâ€

[MikeR80]

My view is that most of them should be removed leaving only the current monarch and the direct line intact, if you are more than fifth in line for the throne then sod off and earn your own way in life. They also only need one castle/palace.

Edit:

On the topic of Boris Johnson if I was from London I would vote for him just for the comedy value of him being Mayor.

[paddy]

I mean, who likes puritans? They're just no fun Luckily they all buggered off to form the USA shortly afterwards

Having watched a show on G4 about a giant annual porn industry “Get-Togetherâ€

[Evak]

I think the royal family serves its purpose. Not sure who should replace the queen. The whole royal family thing has become a bit of a soap opera in the last couple of decades.

I'm mostly concerned about the Government, and having lived in California these past 9 years I'm starting to appreciate a few things here. Like actually electing a leader. The current Prime Mnister was handed his position without a vote.

Personaly I think that a general election should have been called for straight away, the minute that Tony Blair stepped down. As for Boris Johnson, I think he's just what London needs right now . Ken Livingston the current mayor of london seems to act like he's the dictator of his own little kingdom. Hopefully not for too much longer.

[MikeR80]

I'm starting to appreciate a few things here. Like actually electing a leader. The current Prime Mnister was handed his position without a vote.

Personaly I think that a general election should have been called for straight away, the minute that Tony Blair stepped down.

A General Election was not needed because in the British Election System you vote for the party into power not the individual. Nobody voted Tony Blair into power they voted the labor party to power. The labor party would still have come to power if they won the majority of seats and Tony Blair had lost his seat.

[betajaen]

A General Election was not needed because in the British Election System you vote for the party into power not the individual. Nobody voted Tony Blair into power they voted the labor party to power. The labor party would still have come to power if they won the majority of seats and Tony Blair had lost his seat.

Still people assumed and wanted a General Election (myself included). Even if Gordon Brown stayed as a temporary prime-minster for a few months until the General Election was finished, and everyone had a say over the new party. Sure we elect parties in British governments but these days with the heavily influence of American politics these days I/we expected to elect a person not an organization.

[Kojack]

Does it even matter ?

Well, it matters to many Australians (like me).

Although our current method has worked rather well. Instead of going to war to get away from england, we just ignored them (except for their tv shows).
It would still be nice to make it official.


In general I'm strongly against the idea of royalty. It basically says that certain people are superior and should lead us just because of their bloodline, rather than skill. If they do good stuff like charity work or whatever, then that's cool. But any public figure could do that.

[paddy]

I'm mostly concerned about the Government, and having lived in California these past 9 years I'm starting to appreciate a few things here. Like actually electing a leader. The current Prime Mnister was handed his position without a vote.

Personaly I think that a general election should have been called for straight away, the minute that Tony Blair stepped down. As for Boris Johnson, I think he's just what London needs right now . Ken Livingston the current mayor of london seems to act like he's the dictator of his own little kingdom. Hopefully not for too much longer.

Forgive me if I am missing something, but how is this different from when Nixon resigned as US president? Vice President Gerald Ford became President until the next regularly scheduled election, which Ford lost.

[pjcast]

I'm mostly concerned about the Government, and having lived in California these past 9 years I'm starting to appreciate a few things here. Like actually electing a leader. The current Prime Mnister was handed his position without a vote.

Personaly I think that a general election should have been called for straight away, the minute that Tony Blair stepped down. As for Boris Johnson, I think he's just what London needs right now . Ken Livingston the current mayor of london seems to act like he's the dictator of his own little kingdom. Hopefully not for too much longer.

Forgive me if I am missing something, but how is this different from when Nixon resigned as US president? Vice President Gerald Ford became President until the next regularly scheduled election, whch Ford lost.

Well, when Nixon was elected, so was his Vice President - knowing full well if anything were to happen to president, he would be next in line. However, I feel that once the President is facing impeachment and is forced to resign, it feels pretty corrupt that his VP is next in line and can easily pardon any wrong doing on the others part (unrelated to this topic - sort of)

[SpannerMan]

I would hate to be a royal. People think they can do what they want and go anywhere whenever they want, but the truth is they have very little freedom. Being born into that level of media attention is never going to fun.

To me the idea of ruling royalty is rediculous, but luckily they dont (appear) to have any substantial power anymore - they cant even control their own press coverage. The Royal family and the assets they own / live in are a huge part of the UK's tourism. Also bearing in mind that they do a massive amount of work towards charities, I dont think they are a bad thing. As long as people continue to pay to go to shitty London and look at some dirty buildings, I say keep them around

[Quall]

I live in the US, but I personally would not mind paying taxes for this, even we had a Queen. Frankly, there are other things that I dislike paying taxes on, even more. I imagine that it brings brits a lot of tourism.

If my area had an attraction that required me to pay a small tax, but would result in more tourism and a nicer, well kept, and safer city because of it, I would welcome it with open arms.

[Kojack]

but luckily they dont (appear) to have any substantial power anymore

The english royal family might not, but there are many others. Wikipedia lists 29 current royal families around the world (although they don't list the Al Maktoum family of Dubai, I'd consider them a royal family)

[Y_Less]

I would hate to be a royal. People think they can do what they want and go anywhere whenever they want, but the truth is they have very little freedom. Being born into that level of media attention is never going to fun.

To me the idea of ruling royalty is rediculous, but luckily they dont (appear) to have any substantial power anymore - they cant even control their own press coverage. The Royal family and the assets they own / live in are a huge part of the UK's tourism. Also bearing in mind that they do a massive amount of work towards charities, I dont think they are a bad thing. As long as people continue to pay to go to shitty London and look at some dirty buildings, I say keep them around ;)

Correction - they contribute to LONDON'S tourism, not England's/the UK's. Coming from the North of England we pay taxes to pay for London attractions and London transport (the underground is subsidised by NATIONAL taxes, not local taxes, but that's an entirely separate matter), but this doesn't help us in any way.

And you say the buildings are important tourist attractions - this is very true, but the people who live in them aren't. Most of the time you go to Buckingham Palace and look at it from outside the gates, a few hundred meters away. I'm sure they'd get MORE tourism if the place was fully open.

If you couldn't tell I'm strongly anti-royalist, at least in their current state. The only ones I support are Princes Harry and William as they are trying to reprise the old role of leading the army in battle, or at least being part of it, making them not entirely pointless. And yes, the rest are pointless, many other countries quite clearly get on fine without a Royal Family, why shouldn't we?

[jjp]

Think about all the tabloid writers that would be sitting on the streets if there was no royality. Who knows what depraved things these rotten people might do instead then