Is there any point in the Royal Family?

Share This Article

Wealthy without lifting a finger

We all basked in the accumulation of a few extra days off in June, thanks to Her Majesty’s determination to not budge from her throne – I bet every Brit and their dog were singing her praises back then.

That opening line alone makes my opinion on the matter seem somewhat anarchist, but that couldn’t be more further from the truth. One of the challenges with the Royal Family is that many of us might visualise their vast abundance of financial wealth and endless hectares of estate and assume that they’re fundamentally unnecessary and costly to the taxpayer.

It’d be a fairly naive assumption should this be your logic, because in all seriousness if you weigh up the pro’s and con’s, of one of the worlds most famous families, then you’d certainly gather a more accurate understanding. So here’s my question to you…

Does Britain still need the Royal Family?

All in favour – say aye

Let’s start with the simple numbers; the Royal wedding cost approximately £20m and it is calculated to have generated £1bn for the economy.  Now I’m no financial guru, but according to my calculations, that’s a hefty profit. God knows what the Jubilee did. OK, so we’ve established the wedding may have helped our struggling economy, but how else do we benefit from royalty?

Aside from the millions of pounds earned from tourists visiting their endless estates and fancy buildings, the Royal Family are highly respected worldwide, they continue to generate healthy relations which more importantly affects Britain. There aren’t many guests that arrive at the White House to which the President (at the time) is wearing a white-tie dinner suit – in fact the Queen’s the first for this. Pretty good PR for Team GB, don’t you think?

Then there’s all the charity work they’re involved in, and to be honest this is where they excel, take the example of the Prince’s Trust. Important not to under-estimate this ambassadorial role for stuff that matters.

No way

So I’ve painted a pretty picture of the Monarchy, now it’s time to flip the argument.

First of all there’s the cost, to fund their living this year it cost us £32.3m. That’s right, the tax payer pays for them to swan around in their oversize bulletproof Bentley’s, whilst onlookers eagerly await in the rain, for that limp wrist to twist around and address them. So there’s the cost and although the Queen may be a constitutional monarch, in which she’s the head of the state, her roles are mostly just symbolic, as she occasionally represents Britain in her state visits – so her holidays are covered as well?

The Royal family aren’t elected, which can be seen as undemocratic. They inherit their status and for this to apply to a nation that’s so heavy on encouraging democracy it may be seen as hypocritical, this isn’t an issue worth getting work up over, but it’s just another factor that makes royalty seem fairly pointless. All a bit dated really, and just because we’ve had a royal family for so may generations doesn’t mean it’s still relevant today, there was a time when things worked without royal families before, too. 

I’m not going to reveal my own opinion on the matter, that’s for you decide. But I will leave you with this; it’s estimated they cost the taxpayer approximately 52p each year, so would you rather have those pennies to indulge in an extra chocolate once a year, or does the prospect of a extra day off here and there favour you?

The anthem got me thinking…

I can’t turn away from the Olympics and after watching the footy the other day, it came to my attention the anthem used to represent all four nations is God Save The Queen.

Fair enough if this was a collective song for Britain, but it’s not. When the Welsh and English rugby lads meet, you don’t hear a joint rendition of the same song, do you? No, you hear two countries respectively blast out their own anthem – imagine the uproar if the Welsh GB players turned said “Why don’t we all sing the Welsh anthem at the start of this match?”

The English would go mad, so what’s the difference? There needs to be an anthem for all four nations, it’s all about equality and right now, the arrogance from the English is quite disturbing.

Another point worth mentioning…although it’s not often reached the fourth verse reads “rebellious Scot to crush” just thought that’s worth mentioning!

Do you think we should change the English national anthem? What would your British anthem be?

Share This Article

Comments

158 comments
adelelsteele
adelelsteele

I can't think of many other countries (even ones with a royal family), that change their lyrics according to whether a male or female was 'ruling the roost', I mean to me a National anthem should be about the country and the 'proud feeling' one has belonging to that country, we are in a way just singing a 'song for the queen/king', I mean when it is song they don't even sing the anthem, does this therefore mean they are not patriotic owing to the fact that they don't sing the 'national song' for the country of England?


I am not a royalist, so I also feel disenchanted with the national anthem and thus on a larger scale, my country as because there is a intrinsic link with the royal family and the national anthem then I feel I can't really have a lot of pride for my country on a personal basis, as there is too much connection with the royal family.

peonybloomer
peonybloomer

I don't understand serving some people who "call" themselves a "royal family". To me, a royal family is nothing compared to the universe. They aren't really royal. They are just some human being, related to every other living organism on our Earth in some way. They were just born into some small family pool of power hungry psychopaths. Funny how monarchies called themselves absolute and rose from GODS in the past. We've come a long way, yet we haven't really.

draker
draker

No and no government

LiamLavery1
LiamLavery1

This is interesting. However, there is a lot more to it. There's been songs released calling the monarchy a "fascist regime" and opposing them quite heavily. The problem i have with the monarchy is a moral issue. They receive everything for free. ANYTHING they want. Then there's people in the street who can't afford a meal or clothes. It's the height of unfairness. 

 

I have no problem with with the individuals. It's the system and the positions. They can't help being born into the positions, but it is 2013, not 1313. The Queen has absolutely no power in the UK today. People will say "she passes laws". She really doesn't. The monarch hasn't stopped a law passing since the 18th century, and it will never happen again. But that's her job? She's the head of state, she's meant to make important decisions. She doesn't though. So in my point of view, she's irrelevant. 

 

Tourism. Lots and lots of people say the monarchy is needed for tourism and the economy. That's NOT what it's there for. It's there for political reasons. I think the UK would work better with a semi-presidential system, like France. More democracy, more accountability. It would work. The regime needs modernised. It's really out of touch with the UK society.

 

@Joey7Barton   

 

 

Kearnsy
Kearnsy

I took the step of rewriting the national anthem a while back

 

This is what it REALLY should be...

 

Why do we have a Queen

Do you know what i mean

It seems obscene

Is she notorious

Really inglorious

It's really quite laborious

Under her regime

 

I'm onto all your lies

There's no God in the sky

Once and for all

I won't fall for your tricks

Nor for your politics

I'd rather listen to Bill Hicks

So I won't play ball

 

What do I pay you for?

Send poor kids off to war?

That seems insane

What is your history?

Is Phillip a Nazi?

What about all the slavery

That had been forseen?

BrunoCompassi
BrunoCompassi

sorry this is going to sound very harsh but they are just product of a bygone era and i think it should be abolished , no i don t believe they earn what they get, they are just a pot of fading flowers and a grand balcony ! i would say the same if we had them in France, the jubilee was a ridiculous money waste 

BillyCrawford9
BillyCrawford9

Some good points made there. I have always argued that England should have their own national anthem, as other countries in the UK do. Also it is one of the only anthems in the world that does not mention the country at all in it's lyrics, only a monarchy that many people do not agree with. This leaves many patriotic English people who happen to hold non- monarchist views without an anthem to sing, eg. Gary Neville. It is true that the monarchy attracts tourists but tourists would still flood to see Buckingham Palace etc if they were historic institutions and econimists differ about the amount of money they bring into the economy.

While all of this is a matter for debate, what seems certain is that if the monarchy is to continue in modern Britain they will have to adapt and change. William and Kate have led the way in this, by being more accessible to the public than their predecessors. No more must we have stories of royal excess such as demanding vastly expensive chartered planes when arrangements had been made for them to fly first class, as Charles and Camilla did this year. The modern Royal Family must continue to live more in touch with their subjects if they are to survive as an institution in a democratic 21st Century Britain.

 

northantsnobody
northantsnobody

An article from the Belfast Telegraph Tuesday Jan 10 2012 : Britain's Duchess of Cambridge has been credited with giving the UK economy a £1 billion boost after sales of her most popular wardrobe choices have risen.

Marketing experts have worked out that British women are spending an average of £250 a year to emulate Britain's Prince William's wife's classic style.

Following the royal wedding in April 2011, females all over the UK have been copying the Duchess' trademark fashion and beauty staples, including her bouncy blow-dries, nude tights and rich brunette hair colour.

 

Just 1 example of money generated by having a Royal Family

 

WKZero
WKZero

DrNakano - the pressures of work are not physical in their origin, they're psychological. Swanning about, opening functions, shaking hands, reading out speeches, cutting ribbons, etc, can be incredibly exhausting - especially when you have to do it all the damn time, and expecially when you're introverted by nature as the Queen is. Add to that the knowledge that there's always someone out there who wants to put a bullet between your eyes and makes a 48 -our week of road digging look like a doddle. Rather her than me.

 

 

DrNakano
DrNakano

Yeah, swanning about, opening functions, shaking hands, reading out speeches, cutting ribbon -- proper hard graft that.

northantsnobody
northantsnobody

The majority of us do not serve Queen and Country. One thing that is FACT is that The Queen serves our country. Her workload is enormous and always has been. I do not see her going on strike because she has to work longer and pay more to get a pension. She is 86 and The Duke of Edinburgh is 91 and they are still working. They will keep on working until they do not have the strength to do so.... out of duty! 

DrNakano
DrNakano

The royal family is an outdated remnant of colonialism and needs to go; the notion that being born into a certain reptillian bloodline means you should be extended titles and priveliges flies in the face of democracy. Get rid of the lot of them, dastardly lizards

WKZero
WKZero

The Crown Estates, lands and properties that rightfully belong to the Royal Family, return at least £210 million per-year. The profits returned from the Crown Estates are paid directly to Government in return for the Royal family receiving a payment from the Civil list, a payment from the taxpayer, and this Civil List payment is somewhere between £40-£50 million per-year. By my reckoning we make at least £160 million per-year from the Royal Family so the question as to whether or not the Royal Family are good value for money is obviously yes, they are extremely good value for money. The argument for doing-away with the Royal Family on financial grounds is null and void.

 

Having a Monarchy makes no difference to the validity of our democracy. Just so long as the Monarchy doesn't interfere with the democratic process of the nation then they are nothing more than national figureheads with no real power or influence. That is the case here in Britain and if people are genuinely concerned about the state of our democracy than they need to stop looking at the Royal Family and start looking at the House of Commons and the House of Lords. You will find it is here in these two houses that democracy is being eroded, and you will find that it is here in these two houses where democracy can ONLY be eroded. Remember when Blair brought in over 3000+ laws designed to take away almost all of our civil liberties? Didn't that bother you? Of course it didn't which is a great pity because if some of you had have actually made some noise about the attacks on our democratic and civil rights back then, as you are making now with the Royal Family, together we may have stopped that psychopath dead in his tracks. Drawing attention to the Royal Family as an example of a poor democracy does nothing more than to distract our attention away from the real culprits who will quite happily  turn us all into drones - drones will do as they are told and question nothing. Full focus should be put on the politicians and the Lords as they are the only ones who can destroy our democracy, and over the past few decades they have been doing a very good job of it.    

 

God Save the Queen is an anthem for all of Britain and some other Commonwealth realms. Problems exist because of several reasons - firstly, because the anthem is seen by many Scots and Welsh as an anthem that is English as well as British due to the fact that the English do not have their own national anthem and have to sing God Save the Queen as an English anthem as well as a British anthem, secondly because many Scots and Welsh are anti-British and do not want to be seen as supporting anything that is perceived as being British, and thirdly because the anthem is also sung in praise of royalty which many Scots, Welsh AND English do not support. The solutions are simple - first you create a British/UK anthem that praises nothing more than the nations and people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and ensure that this anthem is the ONLY anthem that is used by the Britain and the UK at events where Britain and/or the UK is being represented, and secondly you create an English anthem that praises nothing more than the English and England and you ensure that this anthem is the ONLY anthem that is used by England at events where England is being represented. It's long overdue.

damo27
damo27

 @Lpicks  You should read over what you posted im going to quote you here "we would not have had an Empire with out a king or Queen" then you go on to say would we have then have had enough economical power within the world to grow to where we are ....So invading countries for financial gain is ok then just because the king or queen of the day said so ..nick there wealth destroy there heritage get a few quid in the bank not bad in a days work for a king or queen .you realy dont understand the whole monarchy thing do you .lets say scotland breaks away from the uk and then decides it want to take parts of the north east with them for financial gain .you be happy with that then i doubt it .Get out your history books and have a good old read about the empire then if you come back and tell me if you still feel the same way that BRITAIN  would have only got where they are because of the monarchy and could not have done it on there own i will change my name to Tony Blair 

CrsBrh
CrsBrh

Good topic, all you need is one on religion and that is the big 3 covered.

Anyway, I would like to paraphrase your question. Instead of, “Is there any point in the Royal family?” how about, does this country need the Royal family?

With this question we have to be objective, and put aside any personal feelings towards the Monarchy as we are simply asking would the country be better with or without them.

For me, it has recently bought about a rather reluctant turn around in my own feelings towards them which have always been anti however, when I look at this country and what I perceive the Royals carry out on behalf of it, I have come to the conclusion that we would be better with them…at this time anyway.

I do not have any references or material to back up my own conclusions, so these are simply just thoughts, as I am not inclined to read historical links, Royal related economic data etc. What I base these thoughts on is what I read across the media and my own general perception.

Now, don’t mistake me for a Royalist, like a previous poster, I support them like I do the Red Arrows…they serve a purpose, they serve us, and not the other way round, and when they stop doing that they should go.

I have nothing against them personally, as I am a humanist at heart and these people are simply other human beings born into their roles. I even quite like some of them, or at least how they come across through the media.

Why should they stay? Well, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I believe they act as a good diplomatic resource for our country. I think of them as travelling sales people for our country, and I believe rightly or wrongly that when these people go away to, or host other nations, they sell us, maybe not directly in speech but they do so perhaps even at subconscious level to other leaders throughout the world. I ask myself, would a President of this country have the same diplomatic and sales impact that the Royals currently have? At present, I think not.

This is not to say I would not make changes to the current set up within the Monarchy. I believe changes could and should be made to their statuses in terms of wealth, land ownership etc. I think their status and wealth should be reduced to that of senior ambassadors and protocols surrounding them be made a lot less formal.  I can still remember the sycophantic coverage by the BBC of the jubilee. These are just people, and in agreement to a previous American poster, all the bowing and lickspittle can stop.

Like I say, unless convinced otherwise, which deep down I really want as personally I can’t really stomach a Monarchy, but it is not about just me, it is about the country.

damo27
damo27

 @Joey B I agree with you joey the British did do a lot of positive things During the days of the Empire even here in Ireland but as you well know joey you are never remembered for the good things you have done only the bad .The problem is some people still think there is an Empire what Made Great Britain great are the ordinary people the down to earth fella you see in the pub ,the women bringing there kids to school each morning ,Britain has a class system which to be honest is going to rip that country apart .And the royal family are a symbol of that class system and divide.And how is it you are been called Unpatriotic where you born when Lizzie took the throne did you demonstrate try to ruin it all of course not did anybody of course not back then people where just mere sheep they followed .Now your just sharing your point of view Thats what living in a democracy is all about ..by the way loved the banter on twitter yesterday (pure twitter porn) great stuff keep it up .....

cinnamon_graeme
cinnamon_graeme

A good topic to bring up but I think a little more research into figures is required so you can really bolster the argument. The royals have very good PR people and are often misleading on their expenses. 24million was the cost for police and security at the Royal Wedding,not to mention everything else. We also need to take into account the loss to the economy from everyone having a day off. 1billion in revenue? from where? people watching on the tv? There are only 1.4 tv sets in world. Also the '54p each' I think is taken from the royal living expense, this was then divided by the population of the uk. however none of this included their travelling and security (if it was 20 million for one large event imagine what it could be yearly) so not only is there further costs than their living expenses but you can't just divide it by a nation because children, students etc don't get taxed.

Joey B
Joey B

Does anyone know what these points against the side of the name are? Some form of ranking system im sure but how does it collate?  

Joey B
Joey B

I am really proud of this website and what it stands for. Some great discussion on here now. Very interesting comments pro and con. I am learning a lot. Thank you to all for taking the time to post.

ProRevo1
ProRevo1

All this about the Charity work the Royals do sickens me....There are a vast number of people do a lot of good charity work all around the Globe,yet it doesn't put them on such a pedestal. The Monarchy are obliged to assist charities in my book, the rest of us do it with Passion, in which I hasten to add....I can honestly say I have never seen that in all my years from any member of the 'Family'.....Good topic Joey.

dioannides
dioannides

Remove their power, keep them around for the cash! Simple! F****** simple actually... is everyone  except me retarded or something?

Lpicks
Lpicks

Move to another country. There are plenty of countries in Europe that will accept you. 

Please do not feel that you have to stay in  country that you seem to hate, go away!

lordf34
lordf34

People are missing the point here. the Royals - even The Queen - pay taxes as well. In theory, the reigning Monarch - whoever he or she may be - can refuse to give assent to any act the government may wish to pass. Okay, it may be seen as rubber stamping nowadays, but without the facility we could have had General Blair or Major Thatcher or - worse. and look around the world and see the troubles dictators have caused.....The Monarchy serve as a buffer between democracy and dictatorship - just as the government is there to curb the  'power' of the Monarchy.

For all the fact that we 'subsidise' them, they all work incredibly hard both for charity and cementing relations with other countries and governments. Did not Her Majesty herself go 'on tour' last year? At her age?

It is not a question of whether we  'like' or 'respect' the present incumbents, the real truth is that we NEED the Royal Family....

Whitehawk
Whitehawk

Well written, but I'd like to see references to some of the facts... It appears to me that the boost the Royals give to economy is eronious... On one hand royalists use this fact to support the monarchy, but in the next breath the government was blaming the royal wedding for our economy slowing down- so which is it? The jubilee is reported by the government to be partly responsible for the -0.7% reduction in GDP... Extra holidays are expensive In actual fact if you look at the most visited tourist destinations in the UK the palaces and castles don't really feature- the Bristish History Museum is no1 for London for example, although the ToL is high on the list, the queen no long beheads people there and is of more a historical significance. Does it matter that our unelected head of state is a nominal post, a figure-head if you will?? Yes if course, when the Royals go on state visits they represent the UK, they represent you and I! The issue is they don't represent me! I have no say in it what so ever- very undemocratic! They may only cost us 52p each (I've heard that figure too), but when children are being born into poverty, I'd rather it be spent on other things... But I have no say, I can't vote against it! I'd like to see their estate divided up and used to towards free post-16 education for all! Viva La Republic!

McGreegs
McGreegs

I'm Scottish through and through (although live in Newcastle), however I believe the Royal Family are good for the country(s)....the UK. They may be funded by us and most of the money they bring in probably goes down south, however we all must admit a wee jubilee etc brings the nations together. As for the anthem.....I would sing Rule Brittania, but fecking no chance of God Save the Queen! P.s Joey do you really write this shite? or do you have a wee PR girl to do it? You sound pretty sound considering your such a heid the baw on the pitch. P.p.s.....when you've been thrown out of the Premiership and can't get into a team in the Championship, come and play for Hearts in the SPL. We'll have you. You'll love the weather....however you'll have to wind yer neck in a bit, the jocks dinnae like growlers (well apart from ugly growlers after 10 pints).

damo27
damo27

Ha Ha brilliant piece joey it amazes me as an irish man how much we know about british history than the british do themselves .maybe it is because in our schools we are taught what queen and country was really all about and not the imperial nonsense that floats about thats enough on the politics side leave that to you joey ..some of the comments left say about the royal family being a tourist attraction so there the disney land of london then least at disney land you get to shake mickeys hand and have a photo taken with him ..Oh and just to throw something out there hey every one your royal family are germans they changed there name at the  out break of WW1 so basically there imigrants ..Only reason i brought that up is been a lot of stuff in the news about immigrants .....good luck to ya joey 

MegLeeChin
MegLeeChin

 @northantsnobody This phony old "boost to the UK economy" argument is clutching at straws. It's not as if there are polls taken at Heathrow to determine why people come to Britain. If there was no Kate, the money would have been spent emulating some other useless celebrity. Sheeple are quite happy to follow anyone.  The fact is the Royal Family have a wonderful PR machine to spin the figures and create the illusion that they make good financial sense. I say abolish the Royals and use the money to create a  Royal theme park. There could be animatronic Royals playing "It's a Knockout" and a robot Queen who stands in a balcony  waving and grimacing. THAT should bring in some cash for those worried that Britain won't survive without the cheesy figureheads.

Bilkiboy
Bilkiboy

@northantsnobody Lets get fact right here, the royals cost us more like £200million. All of these figures like £32mil are just plucked out of the air. Even the Conservative newspapers admitted that GB remained in recession because of the Jubilee weekend (and the year before was a financial dead loss because of the wedding), don't believe the propaganda. The only people who work hard around the monarchy are the press office - who spout lies to justify the unjustifiable. No one is better or worse than you, and on that premise it's time to end the heiriachical principle at the head of our great country

northantsnobody
northantsnobody

 @DrNakano Work is work. You're one of these people that are reverse snobs. Look down on people just because they come from a wealthy background and speak differently to the rest of us. That is just as bad as people born into money that look down on people that come from a poor background.

 

It is not what you have that makes you a good person, it is how you conduct yourself. Nobody gets to choose what life they are born into. You will be brought up a certain way, by parents, teachers, the state and employers. Despite this, we all have the right to make decisions that make us individuals that other people can judge. There are good people from poor, working, middle and upper classes. Just as there are idiots from all of these backgrounds.

 

The royals are in a position where they are judged by more people than you or I. Some of the lesser Royals, I agree, need to sort themselves out and do something productive with their lives but the main royals do a sterling job in promoting Great Britain.

 

We live in a democracy that CHOOSES to have a Queen as head of state. If there was a vote tomorrow, I'm sure that more than 75% of people would vote to keep the monarchy.

 

Yes, every now and then the republicans stir a bit of publicity up and make it seem as if they have a lot of support but they don't. They are a small minority! Why is it that when anarchists cannot win by democracy, they choose to riot and cause pain to law abiding citizens?

northantsnobody
northantsnobody

 @ProRevo1 You're right, they ARE obliged to do charity work. They do not have the choice to sit with their feet up Tweeting all day. You are blind if you think they do not do it with passion. Look at the charity work the young princes do both in this country and abroad. The passion The Prince of Wales shows with The Princes Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh with his work with children. I believe the question was "Is there any point in the royal family?"..... ask people that have benefited from these charities!

MegLeeChin
MegLeeChin

 @Lpicks Why should he leave. He didn't say he disliked Britain, just  the monarchy. They are not the same thing.                     

dioannides
dioannides

 @lordf34 So the monarch can refuse to give assent to any act the government may wish to pass... and you think this is a good thing??? Sure, the Queen's fine, and Prince William seems like a nice guy, but what if a less moral monarch of the future refuses to pass a good law because they have a vested interest? I suppose this must be why we give them all the money anyone could possibly want - no desire for money equals no vested interests!

The power in any country belongs to the army generals and whomever they put their backing behind. To suggest that the monarchy could prevent us becoming a dictatorship is just preposterous. If any British government passed a law that stopped us from being able to vote them out, they'd lose army backing in a flash - not to mention the people would take to the streets!

 

If we removed their actual power and kept them in a symbolic role, couldn't we keep all/most of the economic benefits as well?

Bilkiboy
Bilkiboy

@Whitehawk There are no economic benefits in having a royal family, you are being hoodwinked by propaganda. They are merely there as a last vestige of a medieval heiriachical system, who have been kept in place by social climbers and toadies

Joey B
Joey B

 @Whitehawk This is not the encyclopaedia britannica but I will try. Still getting used to this mate. Thanks for the comments, some good points. 

Joey B
Joey B

 @damo27 a lot of our education system has taken the real stuff of the curriculum. Its only when you do a little investigating yourself that you find out what really happened in some places. Scary stuff. The English/British were bastards. No doubt about it, this generation of Brits are paying for their forefathers mistakes. I agree with you that there is a lot of school educated propaganda out there and this needs addressing. On the other side the British have given the world lots of positive things via empire. Ok, it came at the cost of a oppressive regime but every cloud...

900degrees
900degrees

 @DavidJackson1 

Maybe next time you post a stupid statement on the internet you should firstly do some research, otherwise you might make a fool of yourself......Again.

MegLeeChin
MegLeeChin

 @DavidJackson1 Where exactly do these figures come from? - the ones that say millions of tourists come just for the Royal family and not for : Shakespeare, David Beckham,  The Beatles,  The Stones, The Sex Pistols, Elizabeth Taylor, Steven Hawking, Carnaby Street, London, Jack the Ripper, Rocky Horror, Andrew Lloyd Webber, JK Rowling, Tim Berners Lee, David Bowie, T-Rex, the Prodigy, Twiggy, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Kate Moss, the Loch Ness Monster, the Spice Girls, Motorhead, Black Sabbath, Massive Attack, Blur, the Cure, Killing Joke, Depech Mode, Siouxie Sioux, Mike Oldfield, Dizzee Rascal, Harrods etc.etc.etc (I could fill 5 pages).

 

Did someone take a poll at the airports and ferries? 

MegLeeChin
MegLeeChin

 @DavidJackson1 The nonsense about the Royal Family being economically worthwhile is trumped up propaganda. The entire Royal Family could be easily replaced by a theme park or a rock band and Britain have had plenty of the latter. Just who calculates these authoritative figures which claim the RF are good value for money? The psychological loss to the population is impossible to calculate but I suspect if it were so, people would be shocked. The culture of entitlement based on birth rather than merit has stifled the people. What price can we put on that? The multicultural diversity of the people is what makes Britain great, not a bunch of stuck up toffs who believe they are entitled to the best of everything based on birthright.  They should be scorned not celebrated. It's an insult that visitors to the Olympics were COMMANDED to bow to the Queen. What a disgrace! How dare they? There are far more deserving people on planet Earth upon which I wish to grant respect. 

 bswyman73
bswyman73

 @DavidJackson1 Dont' understand the point about getting rid of Barton?  Don't hate on someone because they have a talent that others only wish they could do. One may be born with sporting talents, but I can assure yout that those talents only get you so far. Practice and hard work are the only way to get to the top of any sport or even in the business world. Make me King of England. I was born and can walk around looking pretty and important. No talent or hard work was needed by any of these royals. Lmfao

Bilkiboy
Bilkiboy

@northantsnobody @DrNakano We don't live in a democracy that CHOOSE to have a queen as head of state. We don't have a choice at all, how do you know 75% would vote for a queen? If all the facts were there for all to see (and not hidden by Freedom of Information act etc) people would think more about their abuses of power and question whether they are an asset or not.

DrNakano
DrNakano

 @northantsnobody Not at all, I'm actually from a wealthy background myself. I'm just deeply opposed to the notion of calling anyone 'your majesty' or bowing to anyone based on their birth not their achievements. All men are created equal...

 

What exactly is the statement about our country that the royals are promoting?? That if you are from a certain interbred bloodline you can enjoy splendid wealth at the expense of the hard-working populus???

 

As for popularity, I couldn't care less. Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner... All innovative ideas start in the minority...

Lpicks
Lpicks

 @MegLeeChin he is saying that he does not like smething about the country. if he does not like it you do not have to be here. if the american way of life is so good then live there.

Also this country/empire would not be here wthout the Royal family, it was not democracy that built the empire. we should be proud of our country and what it stands for. Life in this country is not bad, there are things that are not brilliant but overall good. (Go try Greece).

 

If we as a country spent half the time being positive (like the americans) than always looking for things to moan about, we as a country would be in a much better place.

Whitehawk
Whitehawk

 @Joey B

Thats a fair point my friend.  I was genuinely serious when i said i thought it was well written.  I thought you offered a balanced argument, even if you did shy away from concluding it with your honest opinion as good blogger should :-) - over all I'm really enjoying reading whay you have to say

 

My problem is that i don't have a balanced argument, i'm a socialist at heart disagree with everything they stand for in society.  I suspect that if there was a referendum on the royal family there would be majority in favour...  You'd just think that if they created wealth for themselves, they wouldn't have to sponge off the state

 

we only need to look at British Olympians at london 2012 to see what coming from a prividged background can do for you!  Only 7% of kids go to private school in our society, but over 50% of Team GB went to privately funded schools! 

DavidJackson1
DavidJackson1

 @900degrees  Explain where it was stupid, why is your opinion correct? Your comment sounds very lame and pathetic to be quite honest...Fool.

Bilkiboy
Bilkiboy

@MegLeeChin @DavidJackson1 Good for you MegLeeChin

Lpicks
Lpicks

 @MegLeeChin i'm talking about the Empire. We would not have had an empire without a king or queen. No one ever put together an army and said go, kings and queens did that. would we have then had enough economically power within the world to grow as quickly as we have?

 

MegLeeChin
MegLeeChin

 @Lpicks So using this logic if you do not like 100% of everything in this country than you should leave? What exactly do you mean when you say this country would not be here without the Royal Family? Are you saying England would cease to exist? Are you saying England's many achievements are down to one rich family rather than its 60 million inhabitants? Did Prince Charles write "Yesterday"?

Lpicks
Lpicks

 @Joey B  @MegLeeChin I'm just saying that there are other places to live if you do not agree with something. 

I understand your point on democracy and the 21st century but this is how our country is, my opinion is that I'm proud of the Royal Family. I think that they are changing for the good to fit into the 21st century.

I'm not an expert on US politics but from what  i have read and researched the power is with a few (corrupt or not) and this is the same in most cuntries in someway, we have 2/3 factions working together and some times apart to improve/run  country. 

The Queen, house of commons and house of lords all have there ideas of what we should be doing, so between them surely they all control any radical ideas.

 

 

Joey B
Joey B

 @Lpicks as  @MegLeeChin pointed out. Nobody is saying they hate Britain. I cannot understand how you have perceived an opinion about the monarchy, to be a hatred for Britain. I am aware of this countries past and how 'great' that was. Not all of it was as 'great' as we have been led to believe by the way. All I am doing is making a point of is the contradiction between a 21st century democracy and our old fashioned system that is based on good old imperialism. 

  • Joey On Sport
  • Joey On Culture
  • Joey On Politics
  • Joey On The Journey