Do we actually need the Royal family?

[pinkpolkadot]

Seriously, you guys are suggesting you may prefer to have no say in who runs your country? I am absolutely amazed!

 

[deafgal]

Which btw, a president can only pass or veto a bill.. which appears somewhat similar what the queen does. He doesn't really have much power.people vote to make sure certain bills get passed or veto.

 

[Pearls18]

Seriously, you guys are suggesting you may prefer to have no say in who runs your country? I am absolutely amazed!

I’m not saying that, I’m saying the Queen doesn’t rule the country, she is a figure head, she has some limited power which is steeped in tradition but has no influence on our day to day lives. That’s not to say I don’t think the institution doesn’t have its place, I think it has the right balance for 21st Century Britain.

There are plenty of powerful people in countries like the US who are only powerful because of the families they were born into, that doesn’t change in a Republic, how many US presidents come from Brooklyn? The Royal family are just little bit more upfront about that, and they don’t get the job “for free” in my opinion.

 

[deafgal]

More of elite , or higher class, "connection" , especially fraternity and expensive schooling, helped presidents get into presidency.

 

[pinkpolkadot]

Seriously, you guys are suggesting you may prefer to have no say in who runs your country? I am absolutely amazed!

I’m not saying that, I’m saying the Queen doesn’t rule the country, she is a figure head, she has some limited power which is steeped in tradition but has no influence on our day to day lives. That’s not to say I don’t think the institution doesn’t have its place, I think it has the right balance for 21st Century Britain.

There are plenty of powerful people in countries like the US who are only powerful because of the families they were born into, that doesn’t change in a Republic, how many US presidents come from Brooklyn? The Royal family are just little bit more upfront about that, and they don’t get the job “for free” in my opinion.

Sorry I know, I was referring to the posts below yours

Yes I agree there are plenty of powerful people who are there because of their family history, I'm sure most republics are far from perfect but this is something we need to be working towards changing.

 

[Pearls18]

Seriously, you guys are suggesting you may prefer to have no say in who runs your country? I am absolutely amazed!

I’m not saying that, I’m saying the Queen doesn’t rule the country, she is a figure head, she has some limited power which is steeped in tradition but has no influence on our day to day lives. That’s not to say I don’t think the institution doesn’t have its place, I think it has the right balance for 21st Century Britain.

There are plenty of powerful people in countries like the US who are only powerful because of the families they were born into, that doesn’t change in a Republic, how many US presidents come from Brooklyn? The Royal family are just little bit more upfront about that, and they don’t get the job “for free” in my opinion.

Sorry I know, I was referring to the posts below yours

Yes I agree there are plenty of powerful people who are there because of their family history, I'm sure most republics are far from perfect but this is something we need to be working towards changing.

Why do we need to though? If we have acknowledged people shouldn’t have great power through inheritance and adjusted the system accordingly, what do we need to do to become more fair? (Genuine question) Are we going to have to start positive discrimination for the voting in of MPs, only have a certain number from Eton and Harrow, to give the “everyday man” a fairer chance? Are we going to have to stop people from being allowed to inherit their parent’s wealth?

 

[pinkpolkadot]

More of elite , or higher class, "connection" , especially fraternity and expensive schooling, helped presidents get into presidency.

Yes you're right and that's wrong too, we have a long way to go in the area of equality but at least it is a step in the right direction in terms of offering a choice.

 

[smokey]

Except in U.S. a president can only serve two terms (8 years total) we can't vote them back even if we really like them. Not sure how prime ministers work.

Thats what i ment, re electing them for a second term.

 

[deafgal]

On the other hand, no one really would vote for Donald Trump. He is just not a president material. He came from a street smart background (and poor) so I guess that's why.

 

[smokey]

On the other hand, no one really would vote for Donald Trump. He is just not a president material. He came from a street smart background (and poor) so I guess that's why.

I think its more of a fact hes a d*ck and some of his views and attitudes are discusting is more the reason people wouldn't vote for him.

Speaking of presidents only doing 2 terms doesn't this kind of backtrack on the idea of a democracy?
After 2 terms if they are doing a great job and loved by everyone its still a case of tough luck your out, time to get a novice in again who could screw it all up.
Surely if someone is doing such a great job it makes more sense to be able to vote again and again for that person until they sre seen as no longer doing a good job.

 

[deafgal]

If he was born into a politic instead of business type of family, his views may be different. His family would most likely teach him to be careful how he thinks and say.

 

[pinkpolkadot]

Seriously, you guys are suggesting you may prefer to have no say in who runs your country? I am absolutely amazed!

I’m not saying that, I’m saying the Queen doesn’t rule the country, she is a figure head, she has some limited power which is steeped in tradition but has no influence on our day to day lives. That’s not to say I don’t think the institution doesn’t have its place, I think it has the right balance for 21st Century Britain.

There are plenty of powerful people in countries like the US who are only powerful because of the families they were born into, that doesn’t change in a Republic, how many US presidents come from Brooklyn? The Royal family are just little bit more upfront about that, and they don’t get the job “for free” in my opinion.

Sorry I know, I was referring to the posts below yours

Yes I agree there are plenty of powerful people who are there because of their family history, I'm sure most republics are far from perfect but this is something we need to be working towards changing.

Why do we need to though? If we have acknowledged people shouldn’t have great power through inheritance and adjusted the system accordingly, what do we need to do to become more fair? (Genuine question) Are we going to have to start positive discrimination for the voting in of MPs, only have a certain number from Eton and Harrow, to give the “everyday man” a fairer chance? Are we going to have to stop people from being allowed to inherit their parent’s wealth?

How about offering more oppotunities to kids from lower classes so more go into politics. Eton is a training camp for PMs, it has produced an exraordinary number of PMs and politicians. Having such an enequal representation of the British public running the country surely can't be fair, perhaps they like it that way, I suspect so.

At my state school, I remember any dreams of granduer (Graphic Designer in my case at the time, hardly unobtainable for me) were met with 'OK but what is your back up plan' by the careers advisor. We were hardly being encouraged to be futrure PM's let alone persue a career in politics. Hell starting my own business wasn't even presented as an option to me in school, it took me 10 + years to realise that is what I really wanted to do all along, wish I would've done it earlier.

No I don't think we should stop people inheriting their parents wealth but it would be nice to see wealth/resources being redistributed to an extent, I have been reading about Norway's system which seems to work well (aside from their royal family of course ) but I have only touched on this, don't know the ins and outs.

 

[pinkpolkadot]

On the other hand, no one really would vote for Donald Trump. He is just not a president material. He came from a street smart background (and poor) so I guess that's why.

I think its more of a fact hes a d*ck and some of his views and attitudes are discusting is more the reason people wouldn't vote for him.

Speaking of presidents only doing 2 terms doesn't this kind of backtrack on the idea of a democracy?
After 2 terms if they are doing a great job and loved by everyone its still a case of tough luck your out, time to get a novice in again who could screw it all up.
Surely if someone is doing such a great job it makes more sense to be able to vote again and again for that person until they sre seen as no longer doing a good job.

Agree with this, as long as they are voted in, I don't see why this has to be the way, anyone know the reasons for this?

 

[pinkpolkadot]

If he was born into a politic instead of business type of family, his views may be different. His family would most likely teach him to be careful how he thinks and say.

He may still have the same views but he might be a better liar

 

[Natsku]

On the other hand, no one really would vote for Donald Trump. He is just not a president material. He came from a street smart background (and poor) so I guess that's why.

I think its more of a fact hes a d*ck and some of his views and attitudes are discusting is more the reason people wouldn't vote for him.

Speaking of presidents only doing 2 terms doesn't this kind of backtrack on the idea of a democracy?
After 2 terms if they are doing a great job and loved by everyone its still a case of tough luck your out, time to get a novice in again who could screw it all up.
Surely if someone is doing such a great job it makes more sense to be able to vote again and again for that person until they sre seen as no longer doing a good job.

In Finland they used to have no term limits for the President and then Kekkonen served for nearly 30 years, he was going senile for nearly the last ten years so after him they changed it to a two term limit so that couldn't happen again! (and quite a few other changes limiting the power of the President!)

 

[deafgal]

Our founders explained why.

I think it is easy for a person to get too powerful where people would refuse to vote for anyone else. I will use an small example what I mean. When I used to work in a nursing home, they made me change floor to work with different residents. I always wanted to work with the same people so I can get used to reading their lips (or speech reading) . They told me I can't for their own protection because if I did, I can easily cover my tracks of my own wrongdoing.

 

[Pearls18]

Seriously, you guys are suggesting you may prefer to have no say in who runs your country? I am absolutely amazed!

I’m not saying that, I’m saying the Queen doesn’t rule the country, she is a figure head, she has some limited power which is steeped in tradition but has no influence on our day to day lives. That’s not to say I don’t think the institution doesn’t have its place, I think it has the right balance for 21st Century Britain.

There are plenty of powerful people in countries like the US who are only powerful because of the families they were born into, that doesn’t change in a Republic, how many US presidents come from Brooklyn? The Royal family are just little bit more upfront about that, and they don’t get the job “for free” in my opinion.

Sorry I know, I was referring to the posts below yours

Yes I agree there are plenty of powerful people who are there because of their family history, I'm sure most republics are far from perfect but this is something we need to be working towards changing.

Why do we need to though? If we have acknowledged people shouldn’t have great power through inheritance and adjusted the system accordingly, what do we need to do to become more fair? (Genuine question) Are we going to have to start positive discrimination for the voting in of MPs, only have a certain number from Eton and Harrow, to give the “everyday man” a fairer chance? Are we going to have to stop people from being allowed to inherit their parent’s wealth?

How about offering more oppotunities to kids from lower classes so more go into politics. Eton is a training camp for PMs, it has produced an exraordinary number of PMs and politicians. Having such an enequal representation of the British public running the country surely can't be fair, perhaps they like it that way, I suspect so.

At my state school, I remember any dreams of granduer (Graphic Designer in my case at the time, hardly unobtainable for me) were met with 'OK but what is your back up plan' by the careers advisor. We were hardly being encouraged to be futrure PM's let alone persue a career in politics. Hell starting my own business wasn't even presented as an option to me in school, it took me 10 + years to realise that is what I really wanted to do all along, wish I would've done it earlier.

No I don't think we should stop people inheriting their parents wealth but it would be nice to see wealth/resources being redistributed to an extent, I have been reading about Norway's system which seems to work well (aside from their royal family of course ) but I have only touched on this, don't know the ins and outs.

It is hard because equality, in my view is unobtainable, do we really all want to be equal? I am happy to let someone else go to Oxford Uni and have the pressures of the world on their shoulders and become PM, I am happy for them to be paid a lot more for it. Equal opportunities of course are important, but we have to be realistic, is it wrong to expect people to have a back up plan? Can we raise every child to think yes you could be PM, but what if they just aren’t smart enough, are we discriminating by not letting them? Will state education be good enough to breed PMs? My dream society is based on a meritocracy, however, I don’t think we should be all made to start from the same post, if I work hard I would like my son to inherit whatever it is I have obtained for him, to me whatever your lot if you work hard you deserve what you have, whether that is inherited like the Royals who work damn hard, or whether you are a postman going to work 6 days a week. Perhaps in a dream world babies are born equal, but I don’t know if that would be good for society either, some of the most successful people who have done the best things for society are those who have overcome a difficult start. I don’t know if I am making sense, but basically, for me personally the Royals are not irrelevant to a modern society on the basis that equality is the overall aim, I don’t think equality is necessarily the best for a functional society, not if we still want freedom of choice and without too much control from the government. Equality would equate to a lot of intervention, I feel.

But I totally acknowledge the irony of having a Royal family in a democratic society, but the way I see it, we have the best of both worlds

Norway seems an awesome country on so many levels, I always hear good things lol.

 

[deafgal]

Why two terms:https://uspolitics.about.com/od/history/a/Why-Presidents-Can-Serve-Only-Two-Terms.htm

 

[Pearls18]

Just to play devil's advocate, coincidentally someone posted this on facebook this morning and I admit I was surprised, I am a big Royal fan I won't lie however, I don't believe they should play an important part in our political system for exactly the reasons stated in this thread (democracy) so I was surprised to read this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html

 

[pinkpolkadot]

It is hard because equality, in my view is unobtainable, do we really all want to be equal? I am happy to let someone else go to Oxford Uni and have the pressures of the world on their shoulders and become PM, I am happy for them to be paid a lot more for it. Equal opportunities of course are important, but we have to be realistic, is it wrong to expect people to have a back up plan? Can we raise every child to think yes you could be PM, but what if they just aren’t smart enough, are we discriminating by not letting them? Will state education be good enough to breed PMs? My dream society is based on a meritocracy, however, I don’t think we should be all made to start from the same post, if I work hard I would like my son to inherit whatever it is I have obtained for him, to me whatever your lot if you work hard you deserve what you have, whether that is inherited like the Royals who work damn hard, or whether you are a postman going to work 6 days a week. Perhaps in a dream world babies are born equal, but I don’t know if that would be good for society either, some of the most successful people who have done the best things for society are those who have overcome a difficult start. I don’t know if I am making sense, but basically, for me personally the Royals are not irrelevant to a modern society on the basis that equality is the overall aim, I don’t think equality is necessarily the best for a functional society, not if we still want freedom of choice and without too much control from the government. Equality would equate to a lot of intervention, I feel.

But I totally acknowledge the irony of having a Royal family in a democratic society, but the way I see it, we have the best of both worlds

Norway seems an awesome country on so many levels, I always hear good things lol.

Oh yes I agree, there is a role for everyone, not everyone, least not me wants to be PM, I just feel the opportunity needs to be presented and encouragement given to all kids rather than just the select few, IF they want to persue it. I guess equal opportunities as you said is the way I should have worded it

I hear you about some of the most noteable people coming from difficult backgrounds and yes I have no doubt it has made them who they are. I imagine there are many more kids like this with huge potential just waiting for a bit of encouragement.

Re wealth distribution, I do think it's a bit sad that intervention is required but when the gap between rich and poor keeps growing I don't see another way. On the whole compassion seems to be sadly lacking when it comes to looking after those less fortunate than oneself, although there are of course exceptions.