Why does the UK have royalty?

[Smoke]

I concur. The princes seem... lacking and inadequate

I have to admit that my feelings about it stem largely from the fact that I admire the Queen but don't think much of the princes.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, alrighty.

At least they're EXTREMELY cheap entertainment to us Yanks. Keep it coming!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

we don't need a Monarchy , we choose to have one.

We did? I don't recall anyone ever asking me... though I am just one of the Colonials. Maybe things are different back in the Old Country.

we have what a lot of countries don't have and that's a History rich with tradition.

... a history and tradition that includes things like Oliver Cromwell executing the reigning monarch, and William and Mary (with the help of assorted English nobles) deposing the reigning monarch, and countless monarchs killing their relatives and rival claimants for the throne... etc., etc. If British history speaks to anything in all this, it's that everything is in flux, and the status quo need not be accepted without question.

To me the Queen personifies England and Britain. She is a figurehead for the nation and having a monarch gives me a sense of pride in my countries history .Financially i am not sure if it all even out what with tourism, trade deals etc etc.

at the end of the day we have a monarchy because we want one.

And you're welcome to her. I'd rather Canada didn't have a monarch, though... especially one that, as you point out, personifies another country.

 

[Smoke]

Well, alrighty.

At least they're EXTREMELY cheap entertainment to us Yanks. Keep it coming!

I don't find the excesses and scandals of the younger royals -- or those not so young anymore, either -- any more entertaining than the excesses and scandals of those Hollywood celebrities who seem be celebrated mainly for being celebrities.

But one member of the Royal Family I've found very entertaining is Prince Michael of Kent. He's an amateur historian (amateur in the good sense) and has done some interesting tv programs. He has a particular interest in Russian history, as I do, and looks a great deal like the last Tsar, which I don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

For a difference in perspective on that cost, on an ongoing basis, that amount of money could allow approximately 400,000 schools or villages to have a reliable clean water supply.



(based on numbers here: cost per well of $3000 US with a service life of 20 years, for an amortized cost of $150 per year per well)

Fair point. On the other hand, those amounts pale before the costs of typical space programs and of war research and funding. The earlier is of arguable benefit, the later is all-out shameful in its scale.

If even a halfway decent case can be made that the Monarchy somehow helps in avoiding military expenses (to say nothing of actual engagement), then it is certainly a better option.

One of these days I will need to begin a thread on military expenses. The subject just keeps haunting me.


Military budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NASA Budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kathryn]

I don't find the excesses and scandals of the younger royals -- or those not so young anymore, either -- any more entertaining than the excesses and scandals of those Hollywood celebrities who seem be celebrated mainly for being celebrities.

True - the difference being that celebrities are not supported by the state or born into some sort of position.

we have what a lot of countries don't have and that's a History rich with tradition.

All countries have traditions after a few decades. And though citizens from other countries may think those traditions are interesting, quaint, or quirky - they're not generally revered outside of their country of origin.

As I said earlier, I'm an Anglophile and I am fascinated by British history. In fact, I chose my online name because of my admiration for a British queen - Catherine of Aragon. I'm not debating the concept of royalty simply to engage in a ******* contest about whose country is the "best." I'm just saying I don't much see the point in having royalty in the 21st century. I think we've outgrown the concept.

But to adapt a great line from a great movie (Fiddler On the Roof) - "God bless and keep the Queen - far away from us!"

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Both the Queen and prince Charles would be better off living off their private estates.
No one would chose to live in Buckingham palace and Windsor and pay for the Up keep.

If the queen abdicated, these places would be occupied by the next head of state and be the same cost to the nation. as would the security costs, international entertaining, and transport.

An elected head of state is unlikely to be able or willing to subsidise these costs from their own money as the Queen does.

Any one taking the place of a senior Royal in the role of representing the Head of State abroad would want as much or more than the allowance given to Royals.

I am not sure that sending someone like Tony Blair, would have either the kudos or be less costly than sending prince Andrew.

What ever might be said about the validity of Royalty ( and in truth there is no validity ) It removes the political element from the Position of Head of State.


And think what costs are involved in electing the American President every four years.

We get the Queen on the cheap........

 

[kai]

We did? I don't recall anyone ever asking me... though I am just one of the Colonials. Maybe things are different back in the Old Country.
i am sure if the majority of the population didn't want the monarchy we wouldnt have it.

... a history and tradition that includes things like Oliver Cromwell executing the reigning monarch, and William and Mary (with the help of assorted English nobles) deposing the reigning monarch, and countless monarchs killing their relatives and rival claimants for the throne... etc., etc. If British history speaks to anything in all this, it's that everything is in flux, and the status quo need not be accepted without question. yep a rich tapestry indeed and nothing needs to be accepted without question does it


And you're welcome to her. I'd rather Canada didn't have a monarch, though... especially one that, as you point out, personifies another country.

I said that's what she means to me, its up to you what you do. If Canada doesnt want the Queen so be it after all no ones forcing you.

 

[Revoltingest]

This reminds me of the gun ownership discussion. It's a perfect opportunity for some smart alec to chime in with...

"When will the UK join the more advanced societies & dump their monarchy?"

Of course, I wouldn't say such a thing. I've no problem with your quaint institutions....except for that wearing of wigs in court thingie.

 

[kai]

This reminds me of the gun ownership discussion. It's a perfect opportunity for some smart alec to chime in with...

"When will the UK join the more advanced societies & dump their monarchy?"

Of course, I wouldn't say such a thing. I've no problem with your quaint institutions....except for that wearing of wigs in court thingie.

well it would be similar if you had replica guns because the queen can no longer kill anyone. she is a figurehead. we have already dumped our Monarchy in the true sense of the word, what we have is a constitutional Monarchy.

 

[Revoltingest]

well it would be similar if you had replica guns because the queen can no longer kill anyone. she is a figurehead. we have already dumped our Monarchy in the true sense of the word, what we have is a constitutional Monarchy.

I'm issuing you a ticket for violating the community standard prohibiting serious analysis of a silly joke.
And yes, the points added to your record will cause you debate insurance to go up.

 

[kai]

I'm issuing you a ticket for violating the community standard prohibiting serious analysis of a silly joke.
And yes, the points added to your record will cause you debate insurance to go up.

Ah ! yes! Humour

 

[Aquitaine]

we don't need a Monarchy , we choose to have one./ we have what a lot of countries don't have and that's a History rich with tradition. To me the Queen personifies England and Britain. She is a figurehead for the nation and having a monarch gives me a sense of pride in my countries history .Financially i am not sure if it all even out what with tourism, trade deals etc etc.

at the end of the day we have a monarchy because we want one.

It's a shame but it seems we always disagree on everything. However, considering I'm English too, I have to disagree with you entirely (again)

I think the idea of an entire nation being somewhat dependent on a Monarch in terms of Culture and Tradition is somewhat depressing IMO. Kinda reminds me of North Korea and how everyone revolves around Kim-Jong Il (to use an extreme case, but you get what I'm saying right?).

 

[kai]

It's a shame but it seems we always disagree on everything. However, considering I'm English too, I have to disagree with you entirely (again)

I think the idea of an entire nation being somewhat dependent on a Monarch in terms of Culture and Tradition is somewhat depressing IMO. Kinda reminds me of North Korea and how everyone revolves around Kim-Jong Il (to use an extreme case, but you get what I'm saying right?).

i do but its not relevent to the UK, the Monarchy is dependant on the nation,not the other way around, its a symbol of our culture and tradition like the union flag.

 

[Aquitaine]

i do but its not relevent to the UK, the Monarchy is dependant on the nation,not the other way around, its a symbol of our culture and tradition like the union flag.

How is our Monarchy a symbol of our culture? What is our culture? Don't people decide for themselves what their cultural practices are?

 

[perthwatch]

I can only remember what my mother used to say, that having a monarchy was ridiculous. Then in the next breath, catching sight of the queen on the telly, she'd say, "Oh look, there she is, isn't she beautiful?" In other words, I can't explain it either.

 

[Smoke]

No one would chose to live in Buckingham palace and Windsor and pay for the Up keep.

If the queen abdicated, these places would be occupied by the next head of state and be the same cost to the nation. as would the security costs, international entertaining, and transport.

Well, you make a good point, and one I hadn't thought of before. It's true the Royal Family benefit from the public funds spent on state-owned royal residences, but it is money that would be spent anyway. That is, unless somebody is suggesting selling Buckingham Palace to Rupert Murdoch and St. James's to Madonna.

 

[Smoke]

I can only remember what my mother used to say, that having a monarchy was ridiculous. Then in the next breath, catching sight of the queen on the telly, she'd say, "Oh look, there she is, isn't she beautiful?" In other words, I can't explain it either.

The Queen has a certain mystique that seems to beyond just her royal status. Time and time again, people who meet her come away saying thinks like, "Oh, I didn't realize she was so beautiful," "She was so kind," "She's so gracious." She seems to make a good impression.

 

[Kathryn]

You haven't dumped your monarchy till they're off the tax payers' backs. All you're doing now is paying them to do even LESS than they did before.

Which might not be a bad idea, since they had the rather unpleasant habit of beheading people - for some of the darndest reasons!

"Off with her head!"

 

[Smoke]

You haven't dumped your monarchy till they're off the tax payers' backs. All you're doing now is paying them to do even LESS than they did before.

Which might not be a bad idea, since they had the rather unpleasant habit of beheading people - for some of the darndest reasons!

"Kings and queens may do wicked things, but they don't nag. One thing I like about Bloody Mary: she never said one word about lung cancer."

(Florence King -- quoted from memory, so the quote may not be exact.)