What is a Monarchy for?

[GreiginFife]

Phew, you really know how to wound with that sardonic wit of yours eh?

I am visibly hurt.....

Uh-huh. I'm sure those wounds will heal.
If all you are here to do is troll then please do run along, I feel that I made it clear at the start the purpose of the thread. There are a few on here that really want this place to fail and it's sad more than anything.

 

[Iaing]

Did they also pay their back taxes like you and I would have had to?

 

[GreiginFife]

Back to the thread. I don't know what you are possibly hoping to achieve with such a divisive topic. There won't be any consensus and no-one will change their mind.

What I hope to achieve is a discussion that is sensible about why we need a monarchy. I realise it's divisive, which is why I asked people to be sensible at the start.
I was under the impression that we can talk about things without name calling and deliberately trolling.

I don't want people to change their mind, I want to engage in debate on how we seem tied to the past on some issues but not on others. Nothing more sinister than that.

 

[Snelly]

Uh-huh. I'm sure those wounds will heal.
If all you are here to do is troll then please do run along, I feel that I made it clear at the start the purpose of the thread. There are a few on here that really want this place to fail and it's sad more than anything.

A poor response. The insinuation that I want the forum to fail is pretty silly.

I am not the bloke or girl who is starting pointless posts that are entirely divisive with no possible chance of consensus.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

They are there to generate business for UK plc. I like the royal family but feel that the monarchy in its traditional format has perhaps had its day and if Charles succeeds and keeps the status quo then I fear we may get left behind as the world moves forward. I think the young generation like Wills and Harry have the ability to take the monarch on and keep it relevant

 

[GreiginFife]

A poor response. The insinuation that I want the forum to fail is pretty silly.

I am not the bloke or girl who is starting pointless posts that are entirely divisive with no possible chance of consensus.

No, you are just the one that degenerates it.
What's pointless about asking a question on a national subject that people have different opinions on? What is the purpose of wanting a consensus? I don't want a consensus. I asked a question in order to spark a debate, a discussion where people's opinions differ BUT where it remains sensible.

The remark on wanting the forum to fail may be flippant, however considering the number of warnings recently on conduct, you still throw about insults that, while they don't bother me, may bother others. Porridge gargler indeed, you wouldn't gargle the stuff the Mrs makes, build a wall with it maybe but gargling? No chance.

 

[Iaing]

I believe that foreigners view the Monarchy as the epitome of British eccentricity, and love it.

 

[Wenglish]

The money they generate is difficult to actually put an exact figure to but for example my street had a jubilee party, we all bought bunting and food and a whole bunch of rubbish that we have never used again and most went in the bin after the day. But the local butchers who I bought all the bbq meat from wouldnt normally get all that buisness, and I know that the day of the street party when I went in to collect it you were lucky to find a bone in the back with some meat on it that hadnt been sold already.
As far as im concerned they are a great resource that brings much needed money into the economy in the same way hosting a major sporting event does.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Snelly you really can't expect every one to agree with you or blow your trumpet on every post :ears:

 

[ger147]

To stop folk like Tony Blair and Alex Salmond becoming President.

 

[Hobbit]

To stop folk like Tony Blair and Alex Salmond becoming President.

Thank you for putting it so succintly.

I was going to post about not wanting to be part of a federal state but you've pretty much captured the essence of it.

 

[Foxholer]

Pretty much ceremonial, diplomatic and touristic these days.

Queen has been the voice of reason and common sense amid all the political shenanigans that is the baggage of Democracy!

 

[blackpuddinmonster]

BPM, I don't think they have become more open. Yes, they may now pay tax but I think it is pretty much still pretty closed loop in terms of access.
It all seems to come back to history and tradition which was kind of my point about moving on. Who do "we" need to identify ourselves to in the 21st century? Empires have come and gone as part of that "moving on" but we still seem to cling on to relics when it suits IMO.

I think there is a role for history/tradition. Our history is who we are.
But yes nothing winds me up more than the "little Englander",
harking back to the days of empire.
I think we do have a problem accepting our place in the world today. Yes we are still a global power but the "good old" days have long gone.
Perhaps the role of a modern monarchy could help ease that transistion.
Its a reminder of our once great power, but in William and Kate a reminder that things move on ??

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Someone mentioned earlier about the lack of empires these days. I would say that if you look at the countries still in the Commonwealth, a lot of them see the Monarchy as a strong link back to the UK. Without a monarchy, would these strong links still exist? It may be that maybe the links themselves don't add much for us, but maybe they mean a lot more to other countries?

 

[Foxholer]

My only other point on this thread is a prediction - within 20 posts, this will disintegrate into a Scotland versus the world thread. As usual.

Well, that prediction seems to have been wrong - unless you count your own as one.

There's a first time for everything I suppose....

Seems so!

I don't actually believe that consensus is actually required anywhere - except maybe on Rules. Just an appreciation, if not respect, of the other point of view.

 

[GreiginFife]

Well, that prediction seems to have been wrong - unless you count your own as one.



Seems so!

I don't actually believe that consensus is actually required anywhere - except maybe on Rules. Just an appreciation, if not respect, of the other point of view.

Very well put FH.
BPM and CH I see your points and agree with the point on links to commonwealth countries. I wonder if business could replace the monarchy links though.
But stopping Ecky and Dave from presidency is an excellent reason.

 

[SocketRocket]

The Queen is the head of state, She is the Monarch and we are Her Subjects, thats the way our nation is organised. I have no real problem with that in essence as long as she has no real power but I do feel our Monarchy is somewhat old fashioned compared to the way many other European Monarchies operate. The Queen IMO is now too old for the post, she is of a past generation and out of touch with modern life in Britain. If we keep a Royal Family then they should be more approachable and in touch with the people, Elizabeth still has this aura of being untouchable and a product of a ruling class now mainly defunct.

IMPO!!!! She should have abdicated around the time the Queen Mother died and let her son have a share of the role before he is also too old.

 

[Cherry13]

I for one am a huge fan of the royal family, and I believe they offer a great deal to the UK and Commonwealth. People often mention tourism as there first response as its possibly the most tangible, you go to places like Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace etc and you can see the number of tourists quite readily. Also you hear the figures they generate every year and its generally a plus.

I do think that there are other factors as well though, they bring huge kudos to several institutions/charities through there work with them, especially the Princes Trust. They play a HUGE part in sports and representing those sports and its interests around the world (William with the FA, Anne/Zara with horse riding, Andrew with the R&A, and several more) They also do exactly the same with trade.

However, I do think that they do need to modernise and it will be interesting to see if William, Harry and the younger generation (Zara, Beatrice etc) can carry this on and what role Harry etc will take up when the army has served its purpose for him.

I think its good that we have them and the associated history that it maintains, the Americans have there flag, and we have our Royal Family to give us some national identity.

Oh, and if everyone on this forum agreed with each other everytime it would be very boring!!

 

[Cherry13]

IMPO!!!! She should have abdicated around the time the Queen Mother died and let her son have a share of the role before he is also too old.

I for one will be interested to see what happens when Phillip passes on, I think the recent events around Europe with the other Royal Families and the pope will make it easier for the queen to abdicate when that time comes. She is obviously very religious and firmly believes that she was 'chosen' for this life, so has maybe never thought it would be something that would be accepted but recent events may have changed that perception.

 

[Bomber69]

I am a Royalist and I think it is fantastic that we have a Royal Family in the UK.

In terms of why and what for? The arguments are detailed, complex and I am not about to get into them. However what I would say is that the Firm are figureheads for the nation and help shape our identity and connect us all to our country's history.

In addition, last year, a think tank called Brand Finance produced a report that concluded that the Queen and her relatives are said to bring in £500million a year in extra tourism. That figure was said to be worth £16billion as an “intangible asset in perpetuity”.

In other words, for a cost of 69p per person per year, I think the Crown does enough to justify it's existence.

Long live the Queen!

:thup: Well said.