So, the British Royal Family...

[Augustus]

I think the household staff of the Queen are beholden to the Queen.

I mean... that's obvious.

I think the royal family have a lot of people on staff that make decisions on their behalf without actually sitting down with the queen to ask her permission or ask her preference. Don't you?

It's just like any centuries old bureaucracy.

I am still continually surprised by the number of people who go to bat to defend the idea of unelected, hereditarily appointed heads of state for life.

I mean... what is wrong with us as a nation that we still defend this facet of our own nation despite how blatantly and obviously wrong it is?

Some people like the royals.

Some are indifferent, but see them as pragmatically slightly better or no worse than the alternative.

Some people hate them.

Either way, the life of the average person is not going to be markedly better or worse regardless so not something I'm going to shed any tears over it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think the royal family have a lot of people on staff that make decisions on their behalf without actually sitting down with the queen to ask her permission or ask her preference. Don't you?

I think the hiring and firing policies of people directly in the employ of the Royal family can be considered a reasonable reflection of the values of the Royal family, especially when said family get special permission to ignore certain laws regarding discriminatory employment practices.

Some people like the royals.

The question is "why"?

Some are indifferent, but see them as pragmatically slightly better or no worse than the alternative.

I don't see how any reasonable person could possibly conclude that a hereditary monarchy is no better or worse than a democratically elected head of state.

Some people hate them.

As people, I have just a very low opinion of them.

What I hate is the idea of roles of significant influence and power which are largely tax-payer funded being appointed to people by virtue of their birth. Even if the Royal family were the nicest people on the planet, I sould still oppose the idea of hereditary monarchy. The fact that they are also racist, ignorant, and utterly callous people just makes the fact that so many people in this country seem so desperate to defend them all the more bewildering to me.

Either way, the life of the average person is not going to be markedly better or worse regardless so not something I'm going to shed any tears over it.

So the hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money that goes to the Royal family and the carrying out of their various "duties" wouldn't make a significant differece to the average person compared to, say, putting that money towards the NHS?

But leaving the money argument aside, this is just a terrible argument. If Britain had taxpayer-funded seal clubbings in which we shipped members of parliament to a distant island once a year to club baby seals to death, it would be pretty asinine to defend this practice by saying "well, the life of the average person isn't really affected by it, so there's no reason to get upset over it".

Hereditary monarchy is wrong. It should be abolished. I have yet to see a coherent argument against that.

 

[Stevicus]

In most countries they are not though.

Head of government is the highest political authority, whereas head of state plays a constitutional, ceremonial and diplomatic role but is not involved in the general running of the country.

In America these are combined into the figure of the President, but most other countries have them split with the head of state either being a constitutional monarch or an elected figurehead with minimal political power.

I've been told (and even read here on occasion) that the UK has no written constitution. There's nothing actually codified or written into law that would officially make the monarch into a figurehead with little to no actual power. Is that correct?

Suppose Charles becomes King and turns into some kind of Trump on steroids, would there be anything, short of military coup or outright revolution, which could prevent him from doing so?

My perception has always been that, politics is politics. I've never believed in the notion that any branch or part of government can be considered to be "above politics," even as many people try to pretend that that's really possible. A lot of people say that about the judicial branch of government here in the U.S., almost to the point of thinking that they're not even part of the government at all.

 

[Augustus]

I think the hiring and firing policies of people directly in the employ of the Royal family can be considered a reasonable reflection of the values of the Royal family, especially when said family get special permission to ignore certain laws regarding discriminatory employment practices.

Decisions made at mid levels of large bureaucracies are often reflective of the values of the person who made them, rather than the values of the nominal head of the hierarchy.

I don't see how any reasonable person could possibly conclude that a hereditary monarchy is no better or worse than a democratically elected head of state.

I don't see how any reasonable person could fail to see there are arguments for and against regardless of their own personal opinion on the issue.

So the hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money that goes to the Royal family and the carrying out of their various "duties" wouldn't make a significant differece to the average person compared to, say, putting that money towards the NHS?

Most of that money would still have to be spent on the President and other state officials who would replace the roles filled by the royals, upkeep of state properties, travel and security for public engagements and entertainment of foreign dignitaries, etc.

Hereditary monarchy is wrong. It should be abolished. I have yet to see a coherent argument against that.

Somebody needs to fill the ceremonial head of state position, as such the decision should be based on what is best for the people of the country.

Some arguments for:

• Apolitical head of state yet still subservient to parliament
• Good for marketing and promotion of UK
• Good for entertaining foreign dignitaries and business leaders which in turn can benefit the country as they like the pomp and tradition
• Tradition and institutions help to create a sense of national identity that integrates a diverse population into community.
• Aesthetic/emotional reasons
• etc.

 

[Augustus]

I've been told (and even read here on occasion) that the UK has no written constitution. There's nothing actually codified or written into law that would officially make the monarch into a figurehead with little to no actual power. Is that correct?

With an unwritten constitution, it doesn't need to be codified into law. It is accepted custom.

While the monarch technically holds power, they can't use it on their own volition. They just do what they are told.

If King Charles decided he wanted to use his powers for himself, the government would just ignore him and pass laws to circumvent this.

Suppose Charles becomes King and turns into some kind of Trump on steroids, would there be anything, short of military coup or outright revolution, which could prevent him from doing so?

Yes, the custom that makes the monarch subservient to parliament.

If Britain ever was to become a republic, it would happen as an Act of Parliament regardless if the monarch agreed with the decision.

No Cromwellian head chopping need occur

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Decisions made at mid levels of large bureaucracies are often reflective of the values of the person who made them, rather than the values of the nominal head of the hierarchy.

Again, they are directly in the employ of the Royal family, and the Royal family were given special permission to not have to follow equality laws. These two factors are not a coincidence.

I don't see how any reasonable person could fail to see there are arguments for and against regardless of their own personal opinion on the issue.

There are arguments FOR an unelected head of state for life?

Most of that money would still have to be spent on the President and other state officials who would replace the roles filled by the royals, upkeep of state properties, travel and security for public engagements and entertainment of foreign dignitaries, etc.

Which would all be considerably less than hundreds of millions of pounds, plus expenses. It is much cheaper to look after one person and provide them with security and travel than it is to look after an entire family and provide them with security, travel, upkeep of various homes and properties, and the numerous and completely unnecesary wastes of money that comes with all their ceremonial garbage, extravagant weddings, funerals and parades.

And even if it weren't, all of that money going to someone who was ELECTED TO USE IT is still better than it simply going to someone who happened to be born into a particular family.

Somebody needs to fill the ceremonial head of state position, as such the decision should be based on what is best for the people of the country.

Nope. We don't need a ceremonial anything.

Some arguments for:

• Apolitical head of state yet still subservient to parliament

Which makes them functionally useless, since they don't actually make any decisions and are just an unnecessary extension of parliament.

• Good for marketing and promotion of UK

In what way? Do you have any figures to demonstrate the marketing value of the Royal Family? Almost every country above the UK in the global wealth and tourism index doesn't have a monarchy, so what are they promoting?

• Good for entertaining foreign dignitaries and business leaders which in turn can benefit the country as they like the pomp and tradition

See above. Also, they're creepy racists. Also, maybe it's wrong to expect this job to be in the hands of unelected people?

• Tradition and institutions help to create a sense of national identity that integrates a diverse population into community.

This is just waffle that you can't possibly provide evidence of. Again, countless countries without monarchies achieve multiculturalism while practicing a national identity just fine. Many of those countries are more attractive to migrants (and less racist) than the UK. What are the monarchy achieving?

• Aesthetic/emotional reasons

In other words, irrational reasons.

• etc.

I find it amusing that you had to include this on a list of bullet points because the list was so small.

I would also like to point out that literally nothing on this list requires the existence of a hereditarily appointed head of state for life. Not a single one of these arguments comes close to an actual justification for the continued existence of the Royal family.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think the royal family have a lot of people on staff that make decisions on their behalf without actually sitting down with the queen to ask her permission or ask her preference. Don't you?

It's just like any centuries old bureaucracy.



Some people like the royals.

Some are indifferent, but see them as pragmatically slightly better or no worse than the alternative.

Some people hate them.

Either way, the life of the average person is not going to be markedly better or worse regardless so not something I'm going to shed any tears over it.

And some neither like, hate, or are indifferent to them - but just see monarchy (wherever) as the anachronism that it is in the 21st century.

 

[Augustus]

Again, they are directly in the employ of the Royal family,

We'll agree to disagree whether the values of mid-level figures in bureaucracies are necessarily reflective of the nominal head of that bureaucracy

Which makes them functionally useless, since they don't actually make any decisions and are just an unnecessary extension of parliament.

An apolitical head of state is not 'functionally useless' hence all the roles they perform.

In what way? Do you have any figures to demonstrate the marketing value of the Royal Family?

The same way you value any other 'brands'.

You think Harry/Megan got millions of $$$ because of their individual merits?

Asset valuation agency Brand Finance said the monarchy was one of Britain’s most valuable brands, run professionally like a firm and set to contribute an estimated 1.9 billion pounds to the British economy this year while costing 250 million pounds.

Royal baby worth his weight in gold to the Firm

See above. Also, they're creepy racists. Also, maybe it's wrong to expect this job to be in the hands of unelected people?

Most diplomatic roles are filled by unelected people.

You don't think 'dinner with Queen' is more appealing to many powerful and status seeking individuals than 'dinner with a civil servant'?

This is just waffle that you can't possibly provide evidence of.

You don't think there is a link between tradition and culture?

In other words, irrational reasons.

Like yours which amount to "the royal family is wrong because I don't like the idea for emotional reasons".

Nothing wrong with this, values tend not to be rational for us all and aesthetics and emotion are an important part of human existence.

It's not like your opinion is based on a rational cost/benefit analysis though. You would oppose them even if they provided net benefits.

Hence your inability to see why anyone reasonable could disagree with you.

 

[Augustus]

And some neither like, hate, or are indifferent to them - but just see monarchy (wherever) as the anachronism that it is in the 21st century.

Worthwhile tradition/anachronism.

Tomayto/tomato

 

[Mock Turtle]

Worthwhile tradition/anachronism.

Tomayto/tomato

Like honouring slave traders, for example, so as to keep their statues intact? At what point do we break with the past to move on? We might lose so much from getting rid of monarchies but perhaps gain so much more?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We'll agree to disagree whether the values of mid-level figures in bureaucracies are necessarily reflective of the nominal head of that bureaucracy

Actually, we neither agree nor disagree on your goalpost-shifted version of what we are discussing, and I think it is very telling you are are editing out parts of my posts that are obviously very relevant.

An apolitical head of state is not 'functionally useless' hence all the roles they perform.

Which you already acknowledge are ceremonial. AKA, functionally useless. A chimp with a pen could perform the same apolitical role the Queen does. We don't need a monarch to do it.

The same way you value any other 'brands'.

You think Harry/Megan got millions of $$$ because of their individual merits?

Asset valuation agency Brand Finance said the monarchy was one of Britain’s most valuable brands, run professionally like a firm and set to contribute an estimated 1.9 billion pounds to the British economy this year while costing 250 million pounds.

Royal baby worth his weight in gold to the Firm

I would LOOOOOOVE to see how those numbers are broken down. There is absolutely zero evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism. People don't come to the UK because we just HAVE a monarch. It's not as if visiting Britain guarantees you a tea with the Queen, and the idea that even anything more than a handful of tourists would claim "the monarchy" is a reason for visiting the UK is laughable. For further proof of this, France is currently the most visited country in the world for tourists, and they killed their monarch over two hundred years ago.

What's more, I'm willing to bet that if we abolished the monarchy and opened Buckingham Palace to the public it would INCREASE tourism significantly. Don't believe me? Check out how many people currently visit the Palace of Versaille every year, and then compare it to Buckingham palace (and maybe have a sad comedy trumpet "wah-wah" sound effect ready in the background). See, it turns out a palace open to the public, with all of its accompanying history and culture, is actually a draw for tourists. Standing outside of a house, because that's the Queen's house and she still lives here so you gave to stand far, far away and take pictures, isn't so much.

Among the numbers factored into the money is also "royalties", which would likely include royalties from Royal land. Which we would STILL RECEIVE even if the Royal family weren't Royal anymore. In fact, we don't need to subsidise the family at all for their fame, celebrity and status to influence intenational perceptions, so why should we? Our economy can still get basically all the benefits we currently get from the Royal family even if we don't spend anything on them or give them completely undeserved power and status.

There is basically not a single thing the Royal family actually DOES to generate revenue for this country that they couldn't do without being Royal, or without taxpayer support. In fact, there is only one thing that they COULD do to significantly improve our economy that they could only do by being Royal. And that is abdicate.

Most diplomatic roles are filled by unelected people.

They are mostly filled by the party put into power democratically and hand-picked for that job. Also, the "Royal family" is not a diplomatic role. We don't send Prince Charles to negotiate peace deals. They are an offensive puppet show used when we need to "charm" foreign dignitaries who don't have the backbone to see a dinner with a Royal for the shameless insult it actually is.

You don't think 'dinner with Queen' is more appealing to many powerful and status seeking individuals than 'dinner with a civil servant'?

I think anybody pathetic enough to find that appealing probably shouldn't be in a diplomatic position.

"You don't think 'dinner with a person qualified to talk to about diplomatic relation' is more attractive than 'dinner with an unelected, powerless figurehead'?"

You don't think there is a link between tradition and culture?

Nope. I just don't think the Royal family any longer has a remotely significant impact on our culture. They are an anachronism at best, and an insulting stereotype and signal of our ignorant, backwards and irrational mentality at worst. I feel embarassed by them.

Like yours which amount to "the royal family is wrong because I don't like the idea for emotional reasons".

Have you even been reading my posts?

You seriosly think "democratically elected officials ate superior to hereditary monarchies" is an EMOTIONAL position? Are you kidding?

Boy, that American revolution sure was emotional! Yep! There was no even a single good moral or logical reason for THAT thing to happen!

Nothing wrong with this, values tend not to be rational for us all and aesthetics and emotion are an important part of human existence.

Which has no relevance whatsover to justifying the cost of the Royal family and their continued existence in the modern world.

It's not like your opinion is based on a rational cost/benefit analysis though. You would oppose them even if they provided net benefits.

Yes. Because hereditary monarchies and positions of significant diplomatic, social and hierarchical advantage supported by public funding for life are MORALLY ABSURD.

It just so happens that while I have the moral high ground on the fact that hereditary monarchies are morally unjusifiable, I ALSO have the rational high ground, because the Royal family also happen to be a massive and unnecessary drain on the country and a detriment to our culture.

Hence your inability to see why anyone reasonable could disagree with you.

No, the reason for that is because nobody can present a reasonable argument against abolition. Even you are utterly failing (and resorting to goalpost shifting and snipping my arguments) in order to defend them.

Just admit that you like the Royal family for no good reason and think people like me, who actually like democracy and don't like unjust hereditary power structures (i.e: moral people who have thought about the Royal family for more than five minutes), are poo-poo meany heads being mean to poor, old Lizzy-Bizzy and her huggable family of fun-time demagogues.

I would respect you a lot more for doing that than for presenting all of these terrrible, terrible arguments.

 

[Augustus]

Actually, we neither agree nor disagree on your goalpost-shifted version of what we are discussing, and I think it is very telling you are are editing out parts of my posts that are obviously very relevant.

Both were related to the decisions of bureaucrats, and the second part was covered in the article:

"Buckingham Palace was prepared to comply with the proposed law, but only if it enjoyed similar exemptions to those provided to the diplomatic service, which could reject job applicants who had been resident in the UK for less than five years."

You are assuming that the only reason there could be an exemption is that the Queen is racist, and that the values of a middle manager must reflect those of the nominal head of the bureaucracy.

I would LOOOOOOVE to see how those numbers are broken down.

There you go:

https://brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf

In fact, there is only one thing that they COULD do to significantly improve our economy that they could only do by being Royal. And that is abdicate.

Many economists and financial experts disagree. I don't really have the ability to judge the evidence, but believe it is not unreasonable to assume they do contribute something as branding, publicity, etc. are generally considered positive assets for organisations.

Rationally, why should we take your non-expert word on an issue you haven't studied as gospel?

You seriosly think "democratically elected officials ate superior to hereditary monarchies" is an EMOTIONAL position? Are you kidding?

The following are certainly emotional positions:

They are an offensive puppet show used when we need to "charm" foreign dignitaries who don't have the backbone to see a dinner with a Royal for the shameless insult it actually is.

I think anybody pathetic enough to find that appealing probably shouldn't be in a diplomatic position.

They are an anachronism at best, and an insulting stereotype and signal of our ignorant, backwards and irrational mentality at worst. I feel embarassed by them.

Yes. Because hereditary monarchies and positions of significant diplomatic, social and hierarchical advantage supported by public funding for life are MORALLY ABSURD.

Don't forget, the public can get rid of them any election they want to.

Ultimately they serve due to democratic assent.

It just so happens that while I have the moral high ground on the fact that hereditary monarchies are morally unjusifiable, I ALSO have the rational high ground, because the Royal family also happen to be a massive and unnecessary drain on the country and a detriment to our culture.

Your opinion is that a constitutional monarchy where the monarch can be replaced at any time by the people is "morally unjustifiable" and constitutes a "moral high ground" is an emotional belief not a rational, evidence based argument.

If most people in the country agreed with you, there would be no Queen.

Also, as noted above, many people with more expertise on the issue disagree with you regarding the cost. So why is your unsupported assumption the "rational high ground"?

Surely the "rational high ground" is to state that you do not actually know the economic benefit to the country, but that you accept either a positive or negative impact as a possibility.

No, the reason for that is because nobody can present a reasonable argument against abolition.

You seem to be confusing your subjective opinions and value judgements for objective facts.

Just admit that you like the Royal family for no good reason and think people like me, who actually like democracy and don't like unjust hereditary power structures (i.e: moral people who have thought about the Royal family for more than five minutes), are poo-poo meany heads being mean to poor, old Lizzy-Bizzy and her huggable family of fun-time demagogues.

I would respect you a lot more for doing that than for presenting all of these terrrible, terrible arguments.

Nope. You couldn't be more wrong. But, your position that "the only reason people could disagree on with me on this highly subjective issue is that they are dishonest and unreasonable" tends not to be a good start point for rational consideration of an issue.

We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Augustus]

Like honouring slave traders, for example, so as to keep their statues intact? At what point do we break with the past to move on?

You treat each thing on its own merits.

Replacing statues is just as traditional as having statues is anyway

We might lose so much from getting rid of monarchies but perhaps gain so much more?

What do you think is the so much more we would gain?

 

[Mock Turtle]

You treat each thing on its own merits.

Replacing statues is just as traditional as having statues is anyway

What do you think is the so much more we would gain?

Perhaps a more equal society - given that the honours associated with royalty might eventually go too - and where merit became more important for civil honours. I suppose there is merit in having a benevolent head of state (not guaranteed though) that pulls in the tourists and ties (binds) us to the past, but we might only know the value of getting rid of the monarchy some time later. A bit like how we have left slavery behind, and public punishments, and gunboat diplomacy (haha). Not that it is going to happen. The USA will get rid of their guns before we get rid of our monarchy in my view, and that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Both were related to the decisions of bureaucrats, and the second part was covered in the article:

"Buckingham Palace was prepared to comply with the proposed law, but only if it enjoyed similar exemptions to those provided to the diplomatic service, which could reject job applicants who had been resident in the UK for less than five years."

You are assuming that the only reason there could be an exemption is that the Queen is racist, and that the values of a middle manager must reflect those of the nominal head of the bureaucracy.

I refuse to engage in your strawman.

There you go:

https://brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf

Ahhhh, just I thought. It's total garbage.

Take a look at the tourism section alone. It literally asserts that the monarchy are the reason why people visit any of the Royal palaces, and therefore attributes all money generated from those tourists visiting to money generated by the Royal family. As I covered in my previous post, this is obviously nonsense. The existence of Royal palaces does not depend on the continued existence of a Royal family, and other countries without a Royal family get significantly more visitors overall (including visitors to their palaces).

This is just blatant Royalist propaganda.

Many economists and financial experts disagree.

Name them.

I don't really have the ability to judge the evidence, but believe it is not unreasonable to assume they do contribute something as branding, publicity, etc. are generally considered positive assets for organisations.

It would be reasonable to assume that they contribute SOMETHING, yes. It would not be reasonable that assume that they contribute significantly more than the hundreds of millions they cost, or that in order to generate what little amount they do they are required to still be officially recognized Royals and receive tax-payer funding.

Rationally, why should we take your non-expert word on an issue you haven't studied as gospel?

Neither of us are experts, and I've never said you should take my word as gospel. Obviousy, you're just forming another strawman.

The point is that your arguments to support the continued existence of the Royal family are a failure.

The following are certainly emotional positions:

Taking quotes out of context is dishonest. None of those things are reasons I gave for why the Royal family should be abolished.

Don't forget, the public can get rid of them any election they want to.

Ultimately they serve due to democratic assent.

This is just a flat-out lie.

Your opinion is that a constitutional monarchy where the monarch can be replaced at any time by the people is "morally unjustifiable" and constitutes a "moral high ground" is an emotional belief not a rational, evidence based argument.

Once again, you are just lying. There is no vote for the monarch.

If most people in the country agreed with you, there would be no Queen.

Those people never got a choice, because never had been a choice. I think it is better to have someone in a position of power who is democratically elected.

Also, as noted above, many people with more expertise on the issue disagree with you regarding the cost. So why is your unsupported assumption the "rational high ground"?

I have already supported it, and you completely ignored all of those points. And the only "expertise" you can call upon falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.

Surely the "rational high ground" is to state that you do not actually know the economic benefit to the country, but that you accept either a positive or negative impact as a possibility.

I accept what the evidence suggests. To date, I have seen no evidence whatsoever of the overall benefit of a continuing Royal family.

You seem to be confusing your subjective opinions and value judgements for objective facts.

I am the one being objective in this instance. Hence my actual arguments compared to your constant appeals to emotion, appeals to authoity and appeal to majority.

Nope. You couldn't be more wrong. But, your position that "the only reason people could disagree on with me on this highly subjective issue is that they are dishonest and unreasonable" tends not to be a good start point for rational consideration of an issue.

It is not a subjective issue. The value of democracy vs. Monarchy is not subjective. The lack of benefit to the country is not subjective.

We'll agree to disagree.

Nope, you're just wrong.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps a more equal society -

Countries that we see as amongst the most equal like Holland and Sweden are also monarchies so don't think it will make much difference in that regard.

we might only know the value of getting rid of the monarchy some time later

It can't be ruled out, but I'd be very surprised if it made much difference either way.

Whether positive or negative, the impact is not going to be huge in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Countries that we see as amongst the most equal like Holland and Sweden are also monarchies so don't think it will make much difference in that regard.

It can't be ruled out, but I'd be very surprised if it made much difference either way.

Whether positive or negative, the impact is not going to be huge in the grand scheme of things.

Well I certainly can't see any change soon but on the other hand I also can't see it surviving for say another century or two - if we survive that long.

 

[Augustus]

Well I certainly can't see any change soon but on the other hand I also can't see it surviving for say another century or two - if we survive that long.

Maybe, maybe not.

That's for the people to decide.

 

[Augustus]

It is not a subjective issue. The value of democracy vs. Monarchy is not subjective.

The preference for a democratic republic over a democratic constitutional monarchy is not subjective?

You're intelligent enough to understand why that is obviously nonsense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The preference for a democratic republic over a democratic constitutional monarchy is not subjective?

Yet more shifting of goalposts. Why can you not debate this subject honestly?

You're intelligent enough to understand why that is obviously nonsense.

And you're intelligent enough to know that you are wrong. So why not admit it already?

The monarchy should be abolished and there is no good reason not to. You know this.