Do I believe King Charles will do as good a job as Queen Elizabeth II did - what did she exactly do? I believe HRH the Queen demonstrated a real sense of duty and commitment to service for our country - How exactly? something that does seem to be in short supply in today's world - again doing what exactly? She gave 70 years in service to the United Kingdom - Doing what exactly? With that service came a privileged life in materialistic terms - yup, not many ordinary people get to own multiple palaces and priceless artefacts stolen from all over the world while the subjects she cares so much about and preaches to every Christmas while sitting on her golden throne are starving and dying. but she gave up the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted in our everyday life - like what exactly? HRH the Queen demonstrated values and ethics I aspire to - when and where exactly? like lobbying to hide her actual wealth, using tax havens, secretly influencing the formation of British laws to her own benefit? We all know the British Royal family creates tourism in the UK - hardly worth mentioning at all. If your source is the 500 million from VisitBritain a freedom of information request found they don't even know where that figure came from and Chester Zoo actually brings in more tourism. She worked tirelessly for 70 years as our Monarch - doing what exactly? I identify as British, English and a subject of the British Monarchy - people identify as helicopters these days.
I mean I didn't actually specify how low the bar of honesty and trustworthiness was being set by the politicians.
Well **** I'm enough beers deep for this. The Monarchy can serve to offer a sense of tradition. While that may not be as popular a concept today, tradition is still important. You know what else was tradition? Owning slaves - We did it here too y'know. You know what else was tradition? ****ting in a bucket that got thrown in a hole. It was traditional that only a man and woman could get married. That was ****in' stupid too. What's my point? Clinging on to things becuzmahtradition is whole-heartedly dumb. It offers no security to anyone, except the insecure. It was traditional thinking that ended up with the UK, in 1952, royally ****ing over India when we 'gave it back' (Because traditionally we rocked up to places, shot the locals, and planted our flag and called it ours.. Then stole their **** and called it ours. It's tradition that The Koh-i-Noor is part of the British Crown Jewels. We nicked that from India. No prizes for guessing where I think it should go. The only traditions of the UK are telling people they're under the control of the crown because ??? and putting the ones who disagree to death. Tradition can go **** itself. A constitutional monarchy offers some stability within that political system.~~wafflesnip~~This avoids radical swings to the far left or right. As a contrast, look at the United States, a federal republic. There are often lengthy debates with regards to policy and legislation, with approximately 90% of bills failing to pass the committee stage. Except. It doesn't. The Queen might have had the power to tell parliament to jack it in and sod off until they get their heads right, but has she ever done it? No. Because Parliament holds the purse strings for her hat budget, and well. She liked a good hat, she did. If you think there aren't radical shifts in stance from left, right, or fence-post-up-the-arse-centrist then you're as deluded as can be. The UK now has a PM and home secretary that are likely to reintroduce a bumble****wit version of Section 28 because those two haggard old crones don't like people being gay, bi, or trans. That's a pretty hard shift right, that was enabled by the conservatives, who have been in power for twelve years. If the Queen worked as diligently as you claim, and provided a stabilising presence as you claim, then the present ****wittery might not be a thing. But it is is. Because the monarchy sits around and fingers their arsehole until they get caught doing it and then stone-faced lie to anyone asking questions.Protect the institution, don't you know. I identify as British, English and a subject of the British Monarchy. I choose this identity. Many other people around the world choose to identify as members of the Commonwealth of Nations, with the Monarch as the head I am a British English person, too, but I do not find myself beholden to the stupid, expensive, stolen jewel hat or whoever's bonce it sits on a few days a year. I do not choose your identity and many don't. I'm pretty sure based on as much research as you've got for your point that many commonwealth nations just don't give enough of a **** to bow out. HRH the Queen demonstrated values and ethics I aspire to, I want my children to aspire to and I respect. Her work ethic, commitment~~wafflesnip~~She worked tirelessly for 70 years as our Monarch, being an ambassador for our nation, without once complaining or giving up Yes, she stands silently as one of her literal children ****ed one, probably more, kids. Those are some fiiiine ****in' ethics right there. I also want children to respect child-****er enablers and protectors. She worked tirelessly alright. Waving her hand at the crowds of poors that were gathered before her. Jetting off to walk around with her racist as **** husband. Generally wafting about like she owned the place and doing **** all else of any particular meaning. I'm sure the trade deals negotiated by the EU and indulged in by the UK really depended on her waving hand and paedophile protection. We all know the British Royal family creates tourism in the UK, which generates income. In addition to this, The Royals acting as ambassadors for the United Kingdom helps bring in trade Except, most of that trade seems to have been because of EU deals and not because of some nonce in an extravagant hat. See the mass exit from the UK courtesy of Brexit, the sudden and totally unpredictable queues at Dover. So it's really just the tourism thing. But tourists just look at empty buildings or buildings that might as well be empty with a union Jack on the flagpole. If they bring in as much as they cost, I'd be ****in' staggered. But I'm not aware of any direct research on the topic, so. To me it seems like a big case of 'sunk cost fallacy'. For the record: I am sorry for the people who lost a mother - Except the kid ****er - and the ones who lost a grandmother. I don't think it's entirely right to celebrate anyone's death, but I understand that some nations have an exceptionally different view because they suffered at the hands of the monarchy's indifference, so. Well. Let them pop the champers. I won't, because to me it seems uncouth, but I'm a generic white man with all the privilege that entails, so I have no frame of reference for anything else. Edit: Ahem. Lol. https://nypost.com/2022/09/09/what-does-queen-elizabeth-iis-death-mean-for-the-monarchy/ I suspect there might be some rescinding of the not giving enough of a **** to bow out mentality of multiple commonwealth nations. ****ing shocking. To no one, I should hope.
Fence sitting doesn't seem a common option in the thread, but at least we're getting to the "tell us how you really feel" bits now. I am however just going to sit on the fence, read peoples arguments, decide which I agree with and which I don't, then after careful consideration, I'll just keep my mouth shut whatever I decide and stay friends with everyone (or no-one if it really is that divisive)
You know what else was tradition? Selling them. Yes you did. England was also among the first nations to abolish the institution. I think that's something even a generic white man (your own words) such as yourself should be proud of.
I respect you more for it. Fence-sitting is not just advantageous, it should be the default. The carefully engineered unfashionability of fence-sitting is the main reason so little progress is made in most discussions, everywhere, ever. I'm well on the fence on the royals. Both sides obviously have merit: they are a waste of money, but they do provide national identity and unifying imagery for people to latch onto. The main argument against their providing unifying values and imagery seems to be "well I don't find them unifying or get anything from their existence" but the point is that millions of people do. Arguably the most psychologically shaky and fearful people, people who need desperately to feel like there's some tribal continuity and shared experience to the nation. Those people need keeping on board. All the flag waving and royal motorcades and so on is a bit silly (to me) but if it makes those people feel like team players, and helps them feel less murderous and curtain-twitchy, then great. On the other hand, the material excesses of the royals are undeniable and vast. But it's tricky, because they're inextricably tied up in the definition of royalty; cut it back, and their ability to provide that sense of grandeur, pomp and ceremony would diminish. Be willing to admit it when something is a conundrum, lads, there's no prizes for acting like a difficult question is super simple. Keeping the royals is a ****about. Getting rid of them would be a ****about. It's a weird situation.
I think the presence of a monarchy is contemptuous towards a democracy. If the monarchy is largely symbolic then its a monarchy that is symbolically contemptuous towards democracy. Neither is particularity good. If I were British I'd try and swap one monarchy for one written constitution. But I'm not British so you do you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There are ten constitutional monarchies in Europe alone, six in the EU. The monarchy will not go overnight, I would not be adverse to ours falling into similar roles and responsibilities akin to those other countries.
12 - 7 kingdoms [UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium], 3 Principalities [Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein], 1 Grand Duchy [Luxembourg] and then whatever the **** the Vatican is [a partridge in a pear tree?]. And the death of Elizabeth II means Margrethe II of Denmark is the only female monarch in Europe.
In a way, yes, we should be proud that we recognised slavery for the utter bullcrap that it was fairly early on, 1833 springs to mind, but could be wrong, but still. It was tradition, and my point was solely that tradition is hornswaggle to get people to do ridiculous things that are no longer relevant in the modern day. Like prop up some rich people that swan about doing... Nothing.
Of course it’s time to abolish the Monarchy, it is an anachronism of monumental proportions- in truth I’m surprised the poll in here is so evenly split. Have respect for the current Queens passing, but this should be the trigger for a change to a republic.
Why do you find this surprising? Were you surprised that there are still plenty of people in general who want to retain the Monarchy or did you expect a more one sided result leaning towards abolishing the Monarchy just in these forums? Genuine question there. The Queen's diary was pretty full every year until recently with ill health but even then she done what she could. Whether you hold any value to these engagements or not, they were duties she carried out as our Queen. She still chose to carry them out even when her health was failing her, well into her 80's and 90's. If that doesn't show commitment and dedication, lets see if you could keep up when you're in your 80's and 90's. It's easy to dismiss what she done, apparently, but for 70 years she worked and worked hard. How about having to conform to what is expected of you as a Royal in your private and public life. Knowing your life is mapped out for you, even on your death bed, and there is no deviation from that. At the age of 21 years the Queen declared her commitment to the United Kingdom and she never gave up on that commitment. Then there are simple things we all take for granted. Being able to choose our friends, being able to nip down to the pub or shops. Making an arse of ourselves in our teens and early twenties, living a free life. How many 21 year old kids take on such responsibility and see it through till they are in their 90's and then till their death? I already stated the values and ethics I want to aspire to, I'll spell it out again for you though. Work ethic, sense of national duty and commitment. She has demonstrated these in buckets. You choose to ignore them for your own reasons. See above answers for why I think she has demonstrated each of these. In terms of tourism, I may have to cede the point as I can't find any sources that do a stand up job of quantifying the amount the Royal Family can actually generate with tourism. I did find some report but that doesn't go anywhere near far enough in validating the claims it makes. https://brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf See above. And? So I choose to identify as I do, as do the "helicopters", your point is?
We'll still be a badly governed, rigidly class based, inequality rife, backwards looking backwater even if the Windsor's get kicked into touch. People [and i don't mean you specifically] seem to be under the impression that the continued presence of the Windsor family is the only thing stopping the UK being some kind of egalitarian utopia. The Murdoch and Rothmere families are far more toxic a presence/influence and Eton a more damaging anachronism. while i won't shed many tears over the monarchy going, they're not at the top of the list of **** that needs fixing imo.
For clarity, the Monarch has three income streams The Sovereign Grant The money given to the Royal Household from the British taxpayer. More info here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...11-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance Privy Purse and Duchy of Lancaster A portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the Sovereign in his/her role as Sovereign. More info here: https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/financial/ The Monarch's personal wealth and income The Monarch’s personal income, derived from their personal investment portfolio and private estates, is used to meet their private expenses. The actual figure has never been divulged by the Royal family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#Estimates_of_personal_wealth Would a Monarch that does not receive the Sovereign Grant be more palatable for those who oppose a Monarchy? Or does that not go far enough? Interested enough to ask.
Nope, last time I saw a figure I think it worked out at costing the average taxpayer £3 a head per annum, which dosen't amount to a whole hill of beans (yeah I know people are struggling right now) It's one of those things, and for me there aren't many, but I can't quantify or rationally justify my objection to the monarchy, it's just wrong, so wrong I can feel in it my bones.
