Royal Family
GeminiUK
Join Date: 2003-12-30 Member: 24880Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-12-30 Member: 24880Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Waste Of cash?</div> I think The Royal Family are a waste of space. Money is taken from tax so the Royal Family can do sod all. I know They are A tourist attraction but couldnt buckingham palice be made into a museum?
(or Football stada)
(or Football stada)
Comments
<span style='color:white'>Nuked - the previous topic was closed for a reason, not to mention you were spouting a well-worn myth. This is not the offtopic forums and the next violation will result in your suspension from posting here.</span>
And while we're at it, let Australia, Canada, Jamaica and whatnot go.
It is much the same as it is with religion (which often enough <i>is</i> the heritage of a nation): "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." -- Voltaire
See that's the funny thing. When we informed the Queen that we were going to have a referendum on the issue of becoming a republic, the Royals didn't even bat an eyelid. They honestly couldn't care less if we split away. But we stupidly blew our chance. I can only hope a new political leader such as Mark Latham will gain office so the republic question can come up again and Australia can finally be allowed to govern itself.
On the subject of the Royal Family, as an Australian I hate the fact that they still rule over us but I don't hold any grudges against the people themselves. I have no great love for them either. If they were disbanded or whatever tommorow I wouldn't really care, except it would (presumably) free Australia. Come to think of it, what would happen to the various Commenwealth states still tied to the crown if the Royal Family was disbanded? Who becomes the head of state? What happens to "Crown Land"? Any colonial administration lawyers around?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. The Royal Family goes back hundreds of years and it is the only government of its type to be ruled byy a king or queen.
However, I do agree also with the majority in the fact that it is really a tourist attraction.
thats what im talking about man u hit the nail right on the head there.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The thing is, it seems it has become a tradition, and if the people feel strongly about it then I wouldn't say to them "You're wrong the king must go." Even though I do that often, I wouldn't in this case.
Some argue that it's tradition. Lots of things were tradition as well. Horse drawn carriages, blacksmiths, cobblestone, etc. But traditions change and evolve over time as they become less useful. It's no different from the monarchy. Whatever useful purposes they may have served is now irrelevent. They are now a bottomless pit for tax payers money that could be used to help the ailing NHS.
For thsoe that argue they are a good tourist traction; fair enough. But are you certain that the amount of money required to sustain the Royal Family is offset by the revenue earned not from the tourist industry, but from the MARGINAL increase in tourist indutry PROFIT gained from the Royal Family. I would guess not.
They are more a convenient target for tabloids and watercooler talk, and are certainly not for me.
...no, no I don't see a real point in them, beside the fact they draw tourists to Britain...just...have some old lady wear a burger-king crown and sit on a lawn chair outside Buckingham Palace....there we go, money saved - problem solved.
All my examples were part of the british empire, the same way Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia, and Canada remain today. After you have been colonized for hundreds of years, it is of course tradition.
If you want to talk about the traditions of the English monarchy, should I bring up Edward I supression of the Scots, Richard the Lionhearted and Crusades, or perhaps George III and the American colonies?
Do you think I'm not being serious? Are we not allowed to disagree and discuss with you, here in the Discussion forums? If you cannot take dissent, I suggest not posting in here - this is not a quilting club.
On the subject of the Royal Family, as an Australian I hate the fact that they still rule over us but I don't hold any grudges against the people themselves. I have no great love for them either. If they were disbanded or whatever tommorow I wouldn't really care, except it would (presumably) free Australia. Come to think of it, what would happen to the various Commenwealth states still tied to the crown if the Royal Family was disbanded? Who becomes the head of state? What happens to "Crown Land"? Any colonial administration lawyers around? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hrrrmmmm - Royals "Ruling over us" eh. Australia missing the chance to "rule over itself". Yet they didnt bat an eyelid when we said we wanted to try things without them. Talk about the Iron Fist of the British Bulldog.....
Give up Republicans dang it! They dont rule us and we all know it. They're just part of our heritage so we keep em around - thats what we voted for and thats what we got. Its not like the glorious future of Australia can only eventuate if we throw off our British figureheads and rubberstampers.
Monse - all those examples you listed threw off someone ELSES monarchy and gained a new sense of national pride and identity. Are you trying to tell us that the British throwing away a major part of their history and identity - the monarchy - is somehow going to strength national pride? I've probably got mixed up with what you were saying, so please feel free to shut me down.
The British have had the monarchy for ages, even after the established what was pretty much the first true democracy. Giving it the chuck now IMHO isnt a good idea. What Britian needs, as it has always needed since Parliament, is a quiet ruler. A decent king - like the one they have through World War Two. As has been said before - boring kings and queens make the best kings/queens. That way they are forefilling there duties, and not embarrasing the entire nation by smoking weed etc...
I believe all he suggested was that getting rid of them would NOT hurt your national pride/identity.
He did this by naming off a number of former colonies of England that rid themselves of their loyalties to the crown and without any loss to national identity or pride.
Maybe they will be called on again, like they were in World War II when they defied advice to visit the sites of the bombings, to lift the nation.
But the reason I wouldn't get rid of the monarchy is the same reason I wouldn't knock down the castles, plough up the white horses, bulldoze stonehenge, sink the Victory or strip the cave paintings. They're a living connection to the past that reminds me of the rich heritage of my country. Both the good and the bad.
Give up Republicans dang it! They dont rule us and we all know it. They're just part of our heritage so we keep em around - thats what we voted for and thats what we got. Its not like the glorious future of Australia can only eventuate if we throw off our British figureheads and rubberstampers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Whitlam Dismissal Marine: that alone says it all. We're a democracy ruled by a person we didn't elect, or even have a say in determining who they are. The powers of the Governer General are quite extensive; he just doesn't use them very often. But once was more than enough. I for one don't want our head of state to have that much power and not be elected.
And Marine, newspoll recently found that only 1 in 3 Australians want the Queen as our head of state. The only reason the republic referendum failed was that people didn't like the model being presented. The fact is that a majority of Australians want to be a republic. As I assume from your response that you're a monarchist, why exactly should we keep the Queen as our head of state?
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tradition' target='_blank'>Show me where it does in the definition</a>. It may to you, but that's only because you don't correctly understand the word. There are plenty of bad traditions that are followed all the time - it's a tradition in many african countries to circumcise their women; this does not automatically make it have value.
Stop complaining about people having disagreements with you in the thread. Send a PM if you're that worked up. Final warning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the colonist were English in New England. Same values, same traditions, minus the Church of England of course. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not even close<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is it not close? Are you saying that the American way of life does not closely mirror its founding English culture?
She has weekly meetings with the Prime Minister in which see can raise issues, she also has briefing papers from Government departments.
Also even since the reign of Henry VIII, and even before, it has been noted that real authority comes from a King in Parliament, this was also one of the factors in the English Civil War, whether power laid with the King or Parliament, and even afterwards when Britain became a Commonwealth Republic Cromwell ruled over the land as a King.
In addition the British Monarchy allows for closer relations with other European Monarchies, furthering British interests and allowing for a better Europe.
Indeed, a point missed by many is the fact that quite a few European Countries are Constitutional Monarchies, however though they are quite different then that of Britain.
There are 10 Countries who have monarchs in Europe, these are: the Kingdoms of Denmark; Sweden; Spain; the Netherlands; Belgium; Norway and the United Kingdom; the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg; and the Principalities of Liechtenstein and Monaco.
The European models of monarchy vary in style and outlook from the British model. There is no coronation service in Norway, Sweden or Denmark. Scandinavian monarchs are seen doing "ordinary" things. The Queen of Denmark often goes shopping in Copenhagen for additions to her hat collection, and if I remember correctly Norway's King goes skiing using public transport to get to the piste.
However, just because their ways are different does not mean they are better.
Britain is a multi-cultural place, and that is something to be proud of. The Monarchy allows us to remember that we are an Ancient Nation and all the formalities embody our heritage the thing that can link all Britons, from all races, colours, and creeds, together is the fact that the Queen is our Queen.
Also unfortunately unlike Scandinavian Countries our Monarchy cannot be as open with the population, due to reasons of security, and even in Sweden the King's security is a lot higher than others, possibly due to the 1986 assassination of the Prime Minister Olof Palme.
In the United Kingdom, the monarch has no real power, only influence. In the words of Walter Bagehot, "The Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights -- the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn." (Bagehot W., The Monarchy, 19th Century.)
In addition most estimates of the Queen's wealth are speculative and most include her art collection that in fact belongs to the nation.
Whilst the Royal Family does in fact own quite a few properties, such as St James's Palace, Kensington Palace, and Hampton Court Palace, a Republican Government would still have to pay for them as they are national treasures. The same thing is in place in other European Monarchies.
Here is a statement for Republicans "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." (Cary, L., A Discourse of Infallibility, 1660.)
She has weekly meetings with the Prime Minister in which see can raise issues, she also has briefing papers from Government departments.
There are 10 Countries who have monarchs in Europe,
Britain is a multi-cultural place, and that is something to be proud of.
In addition most estimates of the Queen's wealth are speculative and most include her art collection that in fact belongs to the nation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make a lot of positive points about the monarchy and they very well may be true. But are those benefits worth the COST of the monarchy? Could that money be used for other purposes (NHS for example) that would have MORE benefits?
Does the UK need to pay the queen that much to be a guardian or meet with the PM?
Do you need to pay off the queen every year to promote multiculturalism, or can it be accomplished in another, more economical fashion? I'm not so much concerned about current wealth, I'm concerned about the here and now. How much is spent sustaining this figurehead, and do the benefits out weight the cost?
The fact that other countries have monarchies does not exempt the UK, or even themselves, from the above criticism.
(or Football stada) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lmao FOOTBALL STADIUM?? Really man, what are you chatting....
She has weekly meetings with the Prime Minister in which see can raise issues, she also has briefing papers from Government departments.
There are 10 Countries who have monarchs in Europe,
Britain is a multi-cultural place, and that is something to be proud of.
In addition most estimates of the Queen's wealth are speculative and most include her art collection that in fact belongs to the nation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make a lot of positive points about the monarchy and they very well may be true. But are those benefits worth the COST of the monarchy? Could that money be used for other purposes (NHS for example) that would have MORE benefits?
Does the UK need to pay the queen that much to be a guardian or meet with the PM?
Do you need to pay off the queen every year to promote multiculturalism, or can it be accomplished in another, more economical fashion? I'm not so much concerned about current wealth, I'm concerned about the here and now. How much is spent sustaining this figurehead, and do the benefits out weight the cost?
The fact that other countries have monarchies does not exempt the UK, or even themselves, from the above criticism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you look at the <a href='http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page433.asp' target='_blank'>Official British Monarchy Website</a> one can see that the average "cost" of the Royal Family is £36.2 million, down from £87.3 million in 1991-92, which is remarkably little in the grand scheme of things.
Also I was not using the fact that other countries have monarchs to deflect criticism just to point out to many that Britain isn't some backwater place that keeps a decrepid form of government around when everyone else is moving to the future, or some such nonsense.
did the myth happen to be related at all to the victoria's secret undies company? X3
And for the people who don't know about the Sultan of Brunei, he's a dictator with quite a few human rights violations behind him. Sure, it's one thing to say 'democracy might not be the best option for all countries' in the NS forums, but it's a different thing for a king to praise a brutal dictator for the openness of his rule.
<a href='http://www.iht.com/articles/129899.html' target='_blank'>Linky</a>