• 121 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by Grimhild (721 posts) -

I tend not to weigh in on political topics, because they usually devolve into shit flinging flame wars that are completely pointless and arbitrary opinions of the "us and them" flavor.

That being said, I was skimming Hizang's thread on the 4 day weekend of the Queens Diamond Jubilee and came across a post by Moreau_MD:

@Moreau_MD said:

Working...but, to be honest, I find the fact that we still have a monarchy (powerless though it may be), and this whole event in general, nauseating. This isn't helped by the fact that the Windsor family are all thick as shit, yet have had undeserved adoration and wealth bestowed upon them since the beginning. It's embarrassing that we're in a recession that has cost many their jobs and purpose in life, and yet, we still spend millions to see an old biddy, her inbred ghastly progeny, and her two dogs float down the Thames...

This makes me curious as what it is that's keeping the so-called powerless Monarchy present in Britain besides tradition and the disruption of government, I suppose, and what your general street level consensus is and why. I'm not saying this as flame bait, I just have no personal opinion on it since it doesn't directly affect me and I'm not living in Britain, ergo I have no standard of comparison, but I'm genuinely interested. I have to say, though, that when I occasionally skim through C-Span and manage to catch coverage of the House of Commons, I find it very entertaining for some reason.

Thanks!

#2 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -
#3 Edited by Canteu (2821 posts) -

I have no idea what the "street level consensus" is as I generally do not roll around the streets asking people if they like our monarchy or not, since I'm not a crazy person.

Personally, I couldn't care less about them. They're just figureheads and symbols, nothing more.

I guess they're there for stupid/ignorant people. Give's them something to believe in I guess.

#4 Posted by wigg (52 posts) -

It doesn't bother me at all. I'm not excited about the jubilee or the royal family in anyway, there's much more egregious things to get bent out of shape at. and she does do a lovely wave.

#5 Posted by Grimhild (721 posts) -

@Mackinder:

Thanks for the link. That's odd that a majority of the "Conservative" segment of the polls would be in favor of it, if it's just another money sink for your government to foot for a family of figureheads.

#6 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

I understand why most people seem indifferent to the idea of still having a royal family... but, gah... I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way.

As for the Conservatives being in favour of the Monarchy; despite the fact that it is a money sink, it's also tradition. The Conservative have generally been resistant to large changes to our uncodified constitution and systems - they're opposed to large changes to how peers are elected to the House of Lords for example. The biggest change the part has committed to in recent years is simply reducing the amount of MPs that sit in the Commons (from 440 to 400 or something I think).

#7 Posted by believer258 (11629 posts) -

I guess because most people like her?

#8 Posted by Metzo_Paino (318 posts) -

Though a royal family is an outdated idea at this point, they make a tonne of money every year for our economy. Far more than we spend on them.

There is also traditions and theoretically a Prime Minister is only borrowing power from the monarchy so if one of them turned out to be a crazy person it means in theory they can be easily stripped of power. Not that that would necessarily work in the real world.

#9 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

Well, her popularity has had significant dents over the last 60 years. I think some people simply like the idea of the Monarchy more than just the person who is current reigning. I really think there is just an attachment of people thinking it's a uniquely "British" thing. Even though it's totally not unique and I definitely don't feel more British for having it.

#10 Posted by wigg (52 posts) -

I'm sure it would be worse for public image of the country if we ousted them, England is already in an odd place.

#11 Posted by M_Shini (550 posts) -

I would assume the majority of commoners like myself have little to zero affection for the royal family from the generally opinions myself and friends have, i myself barley even knew about the queens jubilee untill internet duders mentioned it, people from outside my own country pay more attention to what's going on with the royal family than i do.

#12 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

Well we could keep them but further remove power they have. People go on about how they're just symbolic, but they're not. They do wield significant influence and power over political systems, even at the international level. I find that most annoying, we have royals who interfere with the democratic process. Royals who go out and act as trade ambassadors on a totally official, but totally unchecked, manner.

#13 Posted by Grimhild (721 posts) -

@Mackinder

I guess my follow up question would be why there's split between people favoring Charles over Williams if they have no real hand in the day to day politics of the country, beside possibly removing a Prime Minister from power (although I'm sure there's more to it that I'm missing). Is this just primarily who the people want to be identified as the head of the country?

#14 Edited by Metzo_Paino (318 posts) -

@Grimhild said:

@Mackinder

I guess my follow up question would be why there's split between people favoring Charles over Williams if they have no real hand in the day to day politics of the country, beside possibly removing a Prime Minister from power (although I'm sure there's more to it that I'm missing). Is this just primarily who the people want to be identified as the head of the country?

People prefer William over Charles because William is younger, more charismatic and dashing. Charles is also quite politically interested, and may not be a good king in the sense of interfering when he should stay away.

Really it's just because it is easier to identify with the prince who married a common (though very rich) girl than an old guy who divorced the nation's favourite princess.

#15 Posted by Metzo_Paino (318 posts) -

@Mackinder said:

Well we could keep them but further remove power they have. People go on about how they're just symbolic, but they're not. They do wield significant influence and power over political systems, even at the international level. I find that most annoying, we have royals who interfere with the democratic process. Royals who go out and act as trade ambassadors on a totally official, but totally unchecked, manner.

It can also be a plus though. Our royals for some reason capture the world's imagination, making them very handy for negotiations and such, or visiting countries with problems. I doubt it does much behind the scenes, but publicly it can look favourable.

#16 Posted by GunslingerPanda (4630 posts) -

The monarchy is there so that yanks come over and spend money on seeing their castle, basically.

I personally propose they get a fucking job.

#17 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (910 posts) -

The OP annoys me because he keeps saying England

#18 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

Well the Monarchy would never forseeability remove the actual democratic portion of Britain, even though technically the army are at the Queen's command. Like... that's what annoys me. All this is like a technicality. Anyway, yeah it's kind of just, who people feel should represent Britain. Unlike in the US people don't generally have that much patriotic pride via the Prime Minister (I know the US President certainly has his detractors, but talking in large generalisations here), so it kind of gets funnelled through the Monarchy. And the fact that the Monarchy themselves don't make huge decisions that impact the population, they can always be kept at an arm's length away from any disdain - like right now, during a recession.

So people still feel that Charles should take reign, because he's actually next in-line to the throne, but also I guess he's been waiting a while (it's a common joke that Charles is waiting for the Queen to die). But depending on how long she reigns for, I wouldn't be surprised if public opinion has turned in favour of William and Kate - they're very popular now, and I can't see why their popularity wouldn't continue to grow.

#19 Posted by SpacePenguin (476 posts) -
@spiderbat87 said:

The OP annoys me because he keeps saying England

Yeah same, they said a 'Question for British', but then kept saying England.
#20 Posted by Grimhild (721 posts) -

@Mackinder:

Excellent. Pretty much what I was asking when I created the topic.

Posts and insight much appreciated, even you

#21 Posted by AlexW00d (6182 posts) -

@GunslingerPanda said:

The monarchy is there so that yanks come over and spend money on seeing their castle, basically.

I personally propose they get a fucking job.

Bingo.

@SpacePenguin said:

@spiderbat87 said:

The OP annoys me because he keeps saying England

Yeah same, they said a 'Question for British', but then kept saying England.

Shame he didn't include Canadians and Australians right?

#22 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

@Metzo_Paino said:

@Grimhild said:

@Mackinder

I guess my follow up question would be why there's split between people favoring Charles over Williams if they have no real hand in the day to day politics of the country, beside possibly removing a Prime Minister from power (although I'm sure there's more to it that I'm missing). Is this just primarily who the people want to be identified as the head of the country?

People prefer William over Charles because William is younger, more charismatic and dashing. Charles is also quite politically interested, and may not be a good king in the sense of interfering when he should stay away.

Really it's just because it is easier to identify with the prince who married a common (though very rich) girl than an old guy who divorced the nation's favourite princess.

The research actually showed Charles still being more popular. Although It totally see that changing for the reasons you mentioned.

Also you are right about the Queen being good for negotiations - she was present for the G8 in 2005 and, according to Tony Blair in his memoires, she was definitely an important role in helping... can't think of the right word, so I'll say a wrong word... seduce world leaders into a friendly, and more co-operative, manner.

#23 Posted by Sneakybadger (224 posts) -

Sure she's a drain on our taxes, but I think that the money we gain from tourism on her must equal it.

also she's a badass :

#24 Posted by Metzo_Paino (318 posts) -

@SpacePenguin said:

@spiderbat87 said:

The OP annoys me because he keeps saying England

Yeah same, they said a 'Question for British', but then kept saying England.

In fairness it is very confusing.

#25 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (910 posts) -

@Metzo_Paino said:

@SpacePenguin said:

@spiderbat87 said:

The OP annoys me because he keeps saying England

Yeah same, they said a 'Question for British', but then kept saying England.

In fairness it is very confusing.

I can save you a whole lot of time here and say: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland = British. Republic of Ireland = Not British

#26 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (910 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@GunslingerPanda said:

The monarchy is there so that yanks come over and spend money on seeing their castle, basically.

I personally propose they get a fucking job.

Bingo.

@SpacePenguin said:

@spiderbat87 said:

The OP annoys me because he keeps saying England

Yeah same, they said a 'Question for British', but then kept saying England.

Shame he didn't include Canadians and Australians right?

Or Scotland or Wales or even Northern Ireland

#27 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

Hehe. Looking at how the British flag is actually composed helps you understand it. To be fair I call the Netherlands as just Holland... so...

#28 Posted by Inkerman (1449 posts) -

I'm from Australia, so I'll put in my two cents. I'm a big supporter of the Monarchy and no one has ever given a good argument to get rid of them, least of all in England where they generate money. I never understood the 'they're outdated' argument. The American Presidency is more than 200 years old and nobody is calling it outdated. Frankly I see such opinions as nothing more than whining.

Online
#29 Posted by Niall_Sg1 (362 posts) -

They have no real power, bring in more money than we give them..I don't see whats wrong with having them about.

#30 Posted by Wraxend (551 posts) -
#31 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

My argument isn't as such "against" them, it's more of an argument for further improving the system as a whole for the UK. I'm talking about a fully elected second chamber, a system of separation of powers, a codified constitution (just not including as many principles as in the US) and a whole bunch more. Basically I'm a Republican. http://www.republic.org.uk/index1.php But I'm also realistic about the fact that this will almost certainly never actually take place. :P I don't get all fussy and angry about it though, it's not a huge deal and as people we're pretty well represented and protected as citizens (sorry, "subjects"). Shit, there are those faaaaar worse off around the world with their governments.

#32 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

@Wraxend said:

@Grimhild: You should check out the Republic movement http://www.republic.org.uk/ for why we should be rid of this dated system.

Dang, beat me to it!

#33 Posted by Grimhild (721 posts) -

@spiderbat87 said:

@AlexW00d said:

@GunslingerPanda said:

The monarchy is there so that yanks come over and spend money on seeing their castle, basically.

I personally propose they get a fucking job.

Bingo.

@SpacePenguin said:

@spiderbat87 said:

The OP annoys me because he keeps saying England

Yeah same, they said a 'Question for British', but then kept saying England.

Shame he didn't include Canadians and Australians right?

Or Scotland or Wales or even Northern Ireland

Well, I apologize if I offended your sensibilities, but I often forget that the royal family still has a hand in several other nations since said nations seem to have increasingly independent identities of their own. When I think of Canada or Australia, I don't think of Queen Elizabeth, and I guess I assumed that you wouldn't want to be either, given your opinions and sense of nationalism.

#34 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (910 posts) -

I want an independent Scottish republic but I'd settle for just independence

#35 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (910 posts) -

@Grimhild said:

@spiderbat87 said:

@AlexW00d said:

@GunslingerPanda said:

The monarchy is there so that yanks come over and spend money on seeing their castle, basically.

I personally propose they get a fucking job.

Bingo.

@SpacePenguin said:

@spiderbat87 said:

The OP annoys me because he keeps saying England

Yeah same, they said a 'Question for British', but then kept saying England.

Shame he didn't include Canadians and Australians right?

Or Scotland or Wales or even Northern Ireland

Well, I apologize if I offended your sensibilities, but I often forget that the royal family still has a hand in several other nations since said nations seem to have increasingly independent identities of their own. When I think of Canada or Australia, I don't think of Queen Elizabeth, and I guess I assumed that you wouldn't want to be either, given your opinions and sense of nationalism.

Scotland, England and Wales are still one country, none of them have full independence. Some people seem to forget it was the King of Scots that became the first King of Britain and started the whole thing in the first place

#36 Posted by Hunter5024 (5538 posts) -

Excuse me, but the proper term is "Duderette"

#37 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

Hey man, if you want to leave us then fine. ;(

In all seriousness though the Scottish independence thing confuses me. I understand the nationalism argument and point of view, just as I do with the Monarchy, I just don't understand, or rather disagree, on a more factual basis.

#38 Posted by Neurotic (632 posts) -

Well, really not much besides those two things. Our system is a constitutional monarchy except without a codified constitution, like you guys have. We kinda just go on what works and what seems right so the political system is very much based on tradition. So naturally, the end of the monarchy would require restructuring our political system. That's a lot of effort and even our supposedly progressive parties wouldn't want to do it.

However, perhaps more in line with your question, the monarchy and their various palaces and properties are a tourist attraction which generates a lot of revenue. Although I've always been a little sceptical as to exactly how much 'a lot' actually is.

On a patriotic level, the older generations are still into it as a heritage thing but the younger ones are either really against it or are indifferent (I fall into the latter category) so I think its days are ultimately numbered. I don't care for all this Jubilee nonsense but a lot of people do and it's not as if we're forced to join in (although I'm unable to order anything online till at least Wednesday since the mail isn't running). I find that people who get really, really worked up about the monarchy are misdirecting their anger to be honest. The same thing happened with the Royal Wedding last year, although that was a lot more dumb in my opinion.

As a side note, the Commons can be entertaining but mostly it's just awful. I actually like the fact that our politicians call each other out a lot but I don't like the jeering whenever anyone tries to say something. It's dumb. Also, since it's a pretty hostile environment that is almost always televised now, all the politicians seem to believe they're under pressure to 'entertain' and come up with funny, hip insults. It's like your dad trying to use text-speak or memes. It's nauseating. But they can't just come right out and literally call each other idiots which would be more honest and funny. The Prime Minister got in trouble for that recently.

#39 Posted by Grimhild (721 posts) -

@spiderbat87:

I understand, and I agree, for what it's worth. My point was that I focused on England primarily because that's where the divide in opinion seems to be the most prevalent, which is one of the reasons I created the topic. I know North Ireland and Scotland, for the most part, want their independence. As a result, I have a pretty good idea on how those country's citizens feel on the matter ;) And again, the royal family are not how I identify those nations.

Also, "you annoy me because you keep saying 'he'"

OHHHH WHAT NOW?! jk

#40 Edited by Wraxend (551 posts) -

What really bugs me about the should we have a monarchy or not is the old argument that what the Queen brings in on tourism makes up for what we spend on them. The monarchy brings on average about £190million a year while it costs us about £202million to have them. So thats a loss of about 12million a year.

@Mackinder: Sorry dude thought someone would have already pointed out the Republicans lol.

#41 Edited by Grimhild (721 posts) -

@Neurotic said:

As a side note, the Commons can be entertaining but mostly it's just awful. I actually like the fact that our politicians call each other out a lot but I don't like the jeering whenever anyone tries to say something. It's dumb. Also, since it's a pretty hostile environment that is almost always televised now, all the politicians seem to believe they're under pressure to 'entertain' and come up with funny, hip insults. It's like your dad trying to use text-speak or memes. It's nauseating. But they can't just come right out and literally call each other idiots which would be more honest and funny. The Prime Minister got in trouble for that recently.

I can understand that. It's mostly entertaining to me since it really has no direct effect on my life, which is somewhat selfish, I admit. Also, being a shameless Python fan, it seems like it's one step away from a skit breaking out.

#42 Posted by AlexW00d (6182 posts) -
@spiderbat87 I was being sarcastic. Most Scots and Irish people would like nothing more than to be independent from the Queen, so I dunno why a fuss is being made.
Also to the dude who proposed the republicans? Fuck off with that shit. We do not need this country to become a republic.
#43 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (910 posts) -

@Grimhild said:

@spiderbat87:

I understand, and I agree, for what it's worth. My point was that I focused on England primarily because that's where the divide in opinion seems to be the most prevalent, which is one of the reasons I created the topic. I know North Ireland and Scotland, for the most part, want their independence. As a result, I have a pretty good idea on how those country's citizens feel on the matter ;) And again, the royal family are not how I identify those nations.

Also, "you annoy me because you keep saying 'he'"

OHHHH WHAT NOW?! jk

She, sorry lol

#44 Posted by SomeJerk (3138 posts) -

I live in Sweden, and to the death I will defend my opinion that we should keep the royals around, just for how bad their mere existence pisses these republic-wannahavers (who always seem to be of the extreme left? Idgi..) off more than anything else, ever. When we're out sailing the stars, colonizing arms on the other side of the galaxy, I want royal families and monarchies to be there as long as there's if there's people around to get upset by it.
 
May god attack the queen / Send big dogs after her / That bite her bum

#45 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Well, I can't really speak from a British perspective, but Serbia used to have a monarchy until the commies with the help of the British ran them out for their neutral stance during WWII. Now i hear the remains of King Peter II of Yugoslavia are supposed to be returned and while it won't change anything I'm happy to hear it. Will a constitutional monarchy happen in Serbia? Never, too many corrupt politicians on top. But i really wouldn't see a problem with a monarchy as long as not too much is spent on it, which is, obviously, not true in Great Britain's case.  
In a world wide economic crisis spending millions and millions on a symbol seems insane, so i can understand why some people are pissed. But if i was British I'd want the monarchy to stay, if for nothing else, tradition. 

#46 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (910 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@spiderbat87 I was being sarcastic. Most Scots and Irish people would like nothing more than to be independent from the Queen, so I dunno why a fuss is being made. Also to the dude who proposed the republicans? Fuck off with that shit. We do not need this country to become a republic.

Well that's not really true, there is still a lot of people in Scotland that like the Queen as her line is descended from a Scottish King and not an English one

#47 Posted by Grimhild (721 posts) -

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

Well, I can't really speak from a British perspective, but Serbia used to have a monarchy until the commies with the help of the British ran them out for their neutral stance during WWII. Now i hear the remains of King Peter II of Yugoslavia are supposed to be returned and while it won't change anything I'm happy to hear it. Will a constitutional monarchy happen in Serbia? Never, too many corrupt politicians on top. But i really wouldn't see a problem with a monarchy as long as not too much is spent on it, which is, obviously, not true in Great Britain's case. In a world wide economic crisis spending millions and millions on a symbol seems insane, so i can understand why some people are pissed.

Did not know that. Interesting. themoreyouknow.gif and all that.

#48 Posted by Mackinder (73 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@spiderbat87 I was being sarcastic. Most Scots and Irish people would like nothing more than to be independent from the Queen, so I dunno why a fuss is being made. Also to the dude who proposed the republicans? Fuck off with that shit. We do not need this country to become a republic.

Even if you don't want a republic, the arguments they present for reasons why there shouldn't be a Monarchy can be examined.

#49 Posted by Eviternal (191 posts) -

@Grimhild said:

@Neurotic said:

As a side note, the Commons can be entertaining but mostly it's just awful. I actually like the fact that our politicians call each other out a lot but I don't like the jeering whenever anyone tries to say something. It's dumb. Also, since it's a pretty hostile environment that is almost always televised now, all the politicians seem to believe they're under pressure to 'entertain' and come up with funny, hip insults. It's like your dad trying to use text-speak or memes. It's nauseating. But they can't just come right out and literally call each other idiots which would be more honest and funny. The Prime Minister got in trouble for that recently.

I can understand that. It's mostly entertaining to me since it really has no direct effect on my life, which is somewhat selfish, I admit. Also, being a shameless Python fan, it seems like it's one step away from a skit breaking out.

Speaker: "The Minister for Health will now address the House re the issue of abortion."

Minister: "Altogether now! Every sperm is sacred..."

(On topic, I'm Australian and am ambivalent about monarchies/republics.)

#50 Posted by Grimhild (721 posts) -

@Eviternal:

Exactly lol Or something involving Cardinal "So-called" Richelieu. I'm not sure what, that always just pops into my head.

"A-hah! He fell for my little trap... *paces hurriedly/puffs pipe*"