Do we actually need the Royal family?

[fantastica]

Just to play devil's advocate, coincidentally someone posted this on facebook this morning and I admit I was surprised, I am a bit 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

It doesn't really surprise me, this is exactly why we shouldn't have a royal family and if we do, then I agree with you they shouldn't play any role in politics. Apparently Prince Charles does a lot of lobbying behind the scenes, so it's more of a worry for when he is King.

 

[pinkpolkadot]

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

Wow thanks for posting this, I am actually surprised at their level of involvement!

 

[Pearls18]

Just to play devil's advocate, coincidentally someone posted this on facebook this morning and I admit I was surprised, I am a bit 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

It doesn't really surprise me, this is exactly why we shouldn't have a royal family and if we do, then I agree with you they shouldn't play any role in politics. Apparently Prince Charles does a lot of lobbying behind the scenes, so it's more of a worry for when he is King.

Lobbying does happen in Republics too, not condoning what is in the link as I say I was surprised, but you only have to look at the power of pharmaceutical companies and the lack of universal medical care in the US to see that powerful people have vested interests which are put before those of the majority of the population because of the pressure they can put on the government. I don't think our society is very different to a Republic in terms of the "corruption" and power of the elite whether Royal or not, which is why for me Royalty isn't the route to all evil, but not saying it is perfect either.

 

[deafgal]

I am sure they try to be careful with their decision. I mean, look what happened to Tsar and the family.

 

[fantastica]

Just to play devil's advocate, coincidentally someone posted this on facebook this morning and I admit I was surprised, I am a bit 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

It doesn't really surprise me, this is exactly why we shouldn't have a royal family and if we do, then I agree with you they shouldn't play any role in politics. Apparently Prince Charles does a lot of lobbying behind the scenes, so it's more of a worry for when he is King.

Lobbying does happen in Republics too, not condoning what is in the link as I say I was surprised, but you only have to look at the power of pharmaceutical companies and the lack of universal medical care in the US to see that powerful people have vested interests which are put before those of the majority of the population because of the pressure they can put on the government. I don't think our society is very different to a Republic in terms of the "corruption" and power of the elite whether Royal or not, which is why for me Royalty isn't the route to all evil, but not saying it is perfect either.

Oh yeah definitely, completely agree here. But just because there are powerful people in every country, doesn't mean we should have an unelected head of state.

 

[Pearls18]

Just to play devil's advocate, coincidentally someone posted this on facebook this morning and I admit I was surprised, I am a bit 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

It doesn't really surprise me, this is exactly why we shouldn't have a royal family and if we do, then I agree with you they shouldn't play any role in politics. Apparently Prince Charles does a lot of lobbying behind the scenes, so it's more of a worry for when he is King.

Lobbying does happen in Republics too, not condoning what is in the link as I say I was surprised, but you only have to look at the power of pharmaceutical companies and the lack of universal medical care in the US to see that powerful people have vested interests which are put before those of the majority of the population because of the pressure they can put on the government. I don't think our society is very different to a Republic in terms of the "corruption" and power of the elite whether Royal or not, which is why for me Royalty isn't the route to all evil, but not saying it is perfect either.

Oh yeah definitely, completely agree here. But just because there are powerful people in every country, doesn't mean we should have an unelected head of state.

It's a fair point. The thing is with the Royal Family is that the majority of people like them, they like the history, they like their personalities, they like how they represent Britain, this is emotional and for this reason it won't always be rational. We can back things up with the tourism argument and so forth, but at the end of the day most people want them even if there isn't much need and even if it contradicts our political system somewhat. Because I don't feel the Royal Family do any damage (although would like to read more into the info on that link) I think this is ok, I don't think they are a negative symbol because they are good people doing good things most of the time, even if it isn't through choice. The positives they bring to the UK far outweigh the negative contradictions and for this reason I don't think they will be going anywhere anytime soon, but they will need to continue to keep "up to date" with society, but on the whole they do a good job of this, I genuinely feel they do this as duty to the country and not because they think it is their inherent right to do these things.

If a corrupt monarch came to the throne I can promise you they would be gone very quickly, the institution is great but the power of the people and the government is far greater now, and they respect that.

 

[Foogirl]

Oh yeah definitely, completely agree here. But just because there are powerful people in every country, doesn't mean we should have an unelected head of state.

But is doesnt't mean we shouldn't.

Point is nether system is better nor worse than the other. Both have elected politicians to represent the people. And those elected people are corrupted by outside influences who are deemed too powerful to ignore. I really have yet to hear a good argument for getting rid of them. I actually think having a head of state for a prolonged period of time when all our other leaders change every decade or so, has a stabilising effect. And it's not as if they are a dictatorship so what the problem with being unelected is, is beyond me.

 

[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.

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!)

The Uk also has a no term limit with a re election every 4 years so that if the public feel they are no longer preforming or loosing the plot they have the chance to kick them out and elect a new one but as long as they are doing a good job they can stay.
I know US didn't always have the 2 term limit, Rooservelt served 4 didn't he?

 

[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!)

The Uk also has a no term limit with a re election every 4 years so that if the public feel they are no longer preforming or loosing the plot they have the chance to kick them out and elect a new one but as long as they are doing a good job they can stay.
I know US didn't always have the 2 term limit, Rooservelt served 4 didn't he?

Yeah it wasn't official until after Roosevelt, then they made it law.

They had elections I think every 5 years for President here but they had electoral college then instead of direct vote (another thing that was changed after Kekkonen) and also he somehow managed to get a 4 year extension on his 3rd term by some emergency law. Sounded like it was all a bit dodgy to me so I guess thats why they changed it here.

 

[Pearls18]

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!)

The Uk also has a no term limit with a re election every 4 years so that if the public feel they are no longer preforming or loosing the plot they have the chance to kick them out and elect a new one but as long as they are doing a good job they can stay.
I know US didn't always have the 2 term limit, Rooservelt served 4 didn't he?

But unfortunately we get little say in who actually runs our country!

 

[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.

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!)

The Uk also has a no term limit with a re election every 4 years so that if the public feel they are no longer preforming or loosing the plot they have the chance to kick them out and elect a new one but as long as they are doing a good job they can stay.
I know US didn't always have the 2 term limit, Rooservelt served 4 didn't he?

But unfortunately we get little say in who actually runs our country!

My husband always used to ask me why I didn't vote (this was years ago, I do now) and my answer was "they are all the same in the long run, none of them will keep to promises and they all lie, the only difference is what they lie about" that's why it took me years to actually vote because there was so little variation in who we actually voted for.

 

[hayz_baby]

Sorry if this has been mentioned in regards to a democracy and birth right, one person I know said that is what makes our democracy good, there are people who will work towards votes weather it's right or wrong (doing the wrong thing coz u know it will vote you out of office eg higher taxes to stop your country going into debt) then lords and such who aren't voted in who have a say so wont necessarily give into the pressures of that as such and will go down to what they think is morally right (eg agree to the higher taxes as they understand the country needs to extra money) so it works as a good balance instead of relying on just one

 

[WelshOneEmma]

I must admit I am a royalist. I like them, I do think that Queenie does a lot. I also think that when Charles becomes King he will streamline them slightly. Queenie understands that everyone is short of a few bob these days and they need to show austerity. I do think they are worth whatever it is it costs us in tax.

I am trying to remember some of the other comments on here so excuse me if this is a bit discombobulated:

inheritance tax - i thought they did pay this? wasn't their 'outrage' when it was reported William and Harry would lose some of their money from Diana's estate to inheritance tax?

i dont understand why people get funny about them inheriting property etc. would you not be pissed off if everything you worked for could not be left to your children? yes its back from the 'old days' but to be annoyed about what someone is born into is silly.

i think that today's celebrities are a far worse example to children than royals or aristocrats. over indulgence, showing off for the sake of appearing better (i know some aristocrats do this too, but its often seen as bad taste) and having a throw away attitude is wrong.

Schools like Eton - yes you need money but the point of paying for a good school is its a good school! if i could afford to send my kids to private school i will as i want the best for them and that includes education.

we will never have an equal society and i think people should be awarded for hard work. if we were all equal that would never happen.

 

[Harveysmum369]

I think William will bring in a new era for the Royals...He is lot more down to earth,although I think Charles is getting that way too

You would never have caught the Queen scrubbing a toilet floor like William did....x

 

[smokey]

I don't understand how a country could survive if everyone was equal.
If everyone had the same amount of money and the same status then no one would do jobs like cleaners, street cleaners, dishwashers, home care, serving workers, all jobs that are typicaly seen as below most people yet someone has to do them and they are often done by people because they at least bring money in.
I have done some jobs I would ideally never want to do again like cleaning toilets at 3am, cleaning peoples puke and poo off the floor, climbing into huge wheelie bins that's had rotten food and waste in them to wash them out, stuffing envolopes (not that bad but sooo boring) all because I had to bring money in and im too proud to go on benafits but ill be the first to admit that if I had a share of everyone else money and didn't have to do these jobs to survive I wouldn't.

 

[hayz_baby]

That's pretty much communisim it a round about sort of way which IMO doesn't actually work x

 

[deafgal]

I don't think people really want communism. But I am sure they want opportunity.But I can see how a queen can oppress others and there is little they can do about it. Such as no funding for qualified , but low income, student to enter a good prestigious college to give her a boost. We have scholarships and grants for those type of students . Of course I never live in UK so I don't know how they do things over there.

 

[Tasha]

We have scholarships, grants, student loans and the amount universities can charge is capped per year.

 

[smokey]

I don't think people really want communism. But I am sure they want opportunity.But I can see how a queen can oppress others and there is little they can do about it. Such as no funding for qualified , but low income, student to enter a good prestigious college to give her a boost. We have scholarships and grants for those type of students . Of course I never live in UK so I don't know how they do things over there.

The queen could in theory oppress but she doesn't, it works so as others say if its not broke why fix it.
The royal family is still doing more good then harm so just leave it the way it is.
Trust me if the monarch was a bad one and didn't do right by their country and people the general "commoners" have more power then the monarch will ever have and would be overthrown in a heart beat if needed.
But as it is they are not bad so its fine as it is

 

[pinkpolkadot]

Hi guys just wanted to clarify when I mentioned equality I was talking more equal opportunities than communism!

Nobody but those born or married into Royalty will have the opportunity to become head of state if they want to. It is also clear that kids from lower classes are not being provided with adequate opportunites, support or encouragement to persue careers in politics if that's what they want to do.