Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The benefit of the crown.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    It varies daily.
    Posts
    1,698
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts

    The benefit of the crown.

    Hi, a little while ago I had made a post I regret about the royals on the royal distraction thread.
    A good rule would be do not comment on something you nothing about. I seem to violate that rule from time to time.

    So if you do don't mind I would like to know more about your feelings about the royals.

    For example how do they affect government policy and so on. There is a lot I need to learn, and if I am going to be able to talk about it, I need to learn about it.

    Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by Durzo Blint; 25-11-2010 at 10:23 AM. Reason: missed word

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    4,806
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 373 Times in 283 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The benefit of the crown.

    OK DB always good to converse with people from a different culture who wish to understand differences before commenting on them so my tuppence worth on the issue of royalty. I'm a republican I think the monarchy is anachronistic and anti-democratic and should be reformed. I'm not talking abolition necessarily or revolution in the old sense, but I do think disestablishment would be to the benefit of not only the country but the Royals themselves.
    I actually admire and respect the Queen, in all her years on the throne I can think of only one occasion when perhaps she got it wrong, by not returning to Buckingham Palace after hearing of the death of Diana. Even then I think it was a PR slip rather than one of judgement, a press release along the lines of "I need to put the welfare of my grandchildren above the nation for a while by keeping the boys away from public scrutiny, so whilst we weep and comfort each other as a family please be patient and I will lead the healing process as a nation once they are stronger" would have been a wise move. However this leads me to why reform would benefit the Royals themselves, the Queen was brought up not only in a time of austerity, but after the abdication of her Uncle any rebellion or softness was almost squashed out of her for fear of history repeating, leading to that famous but sad scene of her shaking her eldest son's hand after a six month absence in 1953 (is it any wonder how screwed up the man appears). Despite all her hang ups (and I was no big fan) I think Diana did a lot to move that on and it certainly seems as if William is a far more rounded person than his Father.
    Here is what I would propose though, disestablishment - freeing the Royals and the Church to be as critical of government policy as they feel fit. Now it is an undeniable fact that the Monarchy bring in revenue from tourism and I would suggest that the State continues to pay for the upkeep of palaces etc. as well as provide the main members with a salary to provide a kind of super diplomat role, very much along the lines of the Swedish monarchy.
    "The people who have sacrificed their view in order to get to the top have very often left no footprints in the sands of time." Tony Benn

  3. #3
    Major Sinic Guest

    Re: The benefit of the crown.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opinionated View Post
    OK DB always good to converse with people from a different culture who wish to understand differences before commenting on them so my tuppence worth on the issue of royalty. I'm a republican I think the monarchy is anachronistic and anti-democratic and should be reformed. I'm not talking abolition necessarily or revolution in the old sense, but I do think disestablishment would be to the benefit of not only the country but the Royals themselves.
    I actually admire and respect the Queen, in all her years on the throne I can think of only one occasion when perhaps she got it wrong, by not returning to Buckingham Palace after hearing of the death of Diana. Even then I think it was a PR slip rather than one of judgement, a press release along the lines of "I need to put the welfare of my grandchildren above the nation for a while by keeping the boys away from public scrutiny, so whilst we weep and comfort each other as a family please be patient and I will lead the healing process as a nation once they are stronger" would have been a wise move. However this leads me to why reform would benefit the Royals themselves, the Queen was brought up not only in a time of austerity, but after the abdication of her Uncle any rebellion or softness was almost squashed out of her for fear of history repeating, leading to that famous but sad scene of her shaking her eldest son's hand after a six month absence in 1953 (is it any wonder how screwed up the man appears). Despite all her hang ups (and I was no big fan) I think Diana did a lot to move that on and it certainly seems as if William is a far more rounded person than his Father.
    Here is what I would propose though, disestablishment - freeing the Royals and the Church to be as critical of government policy as they feel fit. Now it is an undeniable fact that the Monarchy bring in revenue from tourism and I would suggest that the State continues to pay for the upkeep of palaces etc. as well as provide the main members with a salary to provide a kind of super diplomat role, very much along the lines of the Swedish monarchy.
    If I had to choose between a monarchy or a republic I would choose our monarchy every time. Frankly the thought of someone like Blair or any one of a number of our pompous and very common Lords as Head of State fills me with horror and contempt. That said I find myself agreeing that Op's compromise is well on the way to being acceptable. In reality the Queens constitutional role as Head of State is titular only, and if the disestablishment of the Royal Family paves the way to the reform of that far bigger constitutional white elephant, the House of Lords, then it would be a massive democratic step forwards.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    5,935
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The benefit of the crown.

    I would tend to agree with the Major on this. The idea of Britain becoming a republic would be an anathema to me, and I suspect the majority of British people.
    The Royal family, particularly the Queen is viewed with great affection, admiration and respect by the vast majority of British people. The only fly in the ointment as far as I am concerned is her half whitted, chinless, Islam sympathising idiot of a son Charles. One can only hope that the Queen outlives him and the crown is passed to William.
    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours ." Steven Roberts

    The likelyhood of you being observed is directly proportionate to the stupidity of your actions.

    Barack Hussein Obama, the president that got Bin Laden!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: The benefit of the crown.

    You have all forgotten to give Durzo some critical information about the Royal family, that is paramount to his question.

    The Queen's full title is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith...(Known to her family as Lizzie )

    However the Queen is a purely Constitutional Monarch. All her duties are ceremonial and apart from respect for her as a very well educated, informed and intelligent lady who has the utmost dignity, the patronage paid to her by politicians has no political reverence connected to it.

    Since 1703, the Monarch of the United Kingdom has had no political powers, and whilst the Government of the day may "seek counsel" of the Monarch for the dissolution of Parliament to call an Election, and they may attend the Palace to present the new Government before and following an election respectively, there is no legal precedence for doing so, and neither does the Government require the Monarch's approval or authority. It is purely and 100% tradition and ceremonial.

    People in the UK have this belief that their Monarch has real powers, but this is not the case, the Monarch is a puppet of the State who is forced to live in the fish bowl of 24hr news and often scurrilous tabloid jingoism to which is is almost impossible for them to respond without appearing to damage the Office of the Crown.

    Be under no illusion, when you hear the term, "The Crown", legally this is the State and not the ruling Monarch.

    I was always indifferent to the Royal family, but several years ago the Sun ran a campaign to get peoples thoughts on this matter and give ideas as to who could be a non-political head of State (Similar to the Irish President). Over 80% of suggestion went for Marj Proops, a news paper agony aunt whose whole family was a walking disaster. That galvanised my thinking a little and I realised that as a Non-Partisan and Politically Neutral Head of State the Monarch is ideally placed to Represent the PEOPLE of Britain and not the Government, and this is a very good thing as she is one, if not the, most respected people alive today. I don't know her personally but I have the utmost respect for how she undertakes her duties, ignores criticism, some of which is very personal, and carries on with her head held high. It is only a shame that more people in this world cannot do the same.

    I am all for Supporting the Royals, the immediate Family costs the UK tax payer a fraction of the money brought to these shores as a result of their actions, duties and presence. Even though many people dislike Charles, and I accept he sometimes could choose his words better, he is a TAX payer in the country who is entitled to have his view on this nation. My only critique of the Queen would be that I feel there are times she should write her speeches herself, especially at Christmas, and say what is on her mind and how she truly feels. The service she has given this nation has afforded her that right.
    Left for a place without a childish and spite filled Moderator with a Hitler complex. A place of democracy and common sense where questions can be asked with a Mod getting their knickers in a twist because they lack confidence and are on a power trip.

    bet this gets edited. Take care all the decent people here. have fun.

Similar Threads

  1. Paedophile ring leader Colin Blanchard jailed at Bristol Crown Court
    By soloman in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-01-2011, 09:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •