The English Monarchy

summerskin

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Did you see the word "history" there at all? Also did you see the end of my post?

I did, and don't know where you get the idea that there is less willingness to resign, here's an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Illsley and he was never left vast amounts of land.

Beefy78

summerskin wrote: »

I'm english and i'd vote to get rid of them. Unfortunately though, after spending well over 30 years living there, I can tell you i am in a small minority. If it went to a vote i can guarantee the result would be about 85% in favour of the monarchy, particularly as more pensioners vote as a %age of population than any other group, and my god, they love the royals...

The majority of english republicans are under 40, often under 25 even, well-educated (the royals actually have huge support in areas with a lower socio-economic profile) and well travelled. And hugely apathetic when it comes to polling day...

I haven't voted in a British election in a long time but I'd vote in that referedum and would vote to keep the Monarchy. I'd bet that three quarters of people who'd vote would do likewise.

Long to reign over us.

Mardy Bum

OS119 wrote: »

its a reason that isn't reasonable - it also shows an ignorance of modern political history.

the early to mid-1980's the Labour party got pretty close to putting the abolition of the Monarchy in their manifesto, most of the shadow cabinet of the time were somewhere between agnostic and hostile, the SNP have been on and off with it for years though they've rowed back on it recently, the LibDems went through a period of abolitionism soon after they were formed, and the pollsters regularly ask 'do you want the monarchy to be abolished?'.

if any of the political whores parties thought there was mileage in it they'd campaign on it, but there isn't, so they don't.

as an Irish Citizen living in the UK you have the right to stand for election to parliament - you are free to do so and campaign on an anti-monarchy ticket. if you are as correct in your case as you believe yourself to be you will have no problem whatsoever being elected.

Obviously there will be parties who will and have campaigned on that ticket, its an excellent area to get votes as they are correct in their grievance and a lot of people will support it. By "ingrained in the psyche" I do not mean that the whole populace support the monarchy obviously there are dissenters, yet despite all the dissenters nothing has changed.

Happyman42

OS119 wrote: »

as an Irish Citizen living in the UK you have the right to stand for election to parliament - you are free to do so and campaign on an anti-monarchy ticket. if you are as correct in your case as you believe yourself to be you will have no problem whatsoever being elected.

But you would have to swear allegiance to the monarchy you are against......which presents a problem for an honest democratic politician. (See Tony Benn)

Beefy78

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

So nobody should have an opinion about anything that doesn't directly affect them?

Regarding the issue at hand, 32m pounds seems a little low in upkeeping such a huge family. Are they just taking into account the queen, Charles and his kids?

Charles doesn't take a penny from the State pot. His income is from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is a portfolio of investments and properties along the West coast of the UK.

He voluntarily pays a huge amount of tax on his estate.

I've not seen where the £32m figure comes from but the figure that is usually quoted includes payment for the upkeep of the Royal Palaces which would need to be paid anyway. The UK Monarchy is actually extremely good value for money if you compare it to the cost of Presidencies around the World. You wouldn't be able to run a Presidential election for that price, let alone pay for the upkeep of the institution itself.

getz

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Obviously there will be parties who will and have campaigned on that ticket, its an excellent area to get votes as they are correct in their grievance and a lot of people will support it. By "ingrained in the psyche" I do not mean that the whole populace support the monarchy obviously there are dissenters, yet despite all the dissenters nothing has changed.

if it is a choice between a royal family,or a [political]president,i know where my vote goes

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

But you would have to swear allegiance to the monarchy you are against......which presents a problem for an honest democratic politician. (See Tony Benn)

It's only a problem if you decide to take it as literally as you want to take it.

The idea of having politicians, judges and the military swearing allegiance to the head of state rather than to the Government or some other such institution is so that they are swearing allegiance to an embodiment of the country rather than to a Government which could be of a different political persuasion to themselves.

Governments come and go but the Monarchy is a constant, hence it is what MPs are asked to swear an oath to.

Happyman42

Beefy78 wrote: »

Charles doesn't take a penny from the State pot. His income is from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is a portfolio of investments and properties along the West coast of the UK.

And he aqquired this portfolio and investments how?:rolleyes:

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I said earlier, it a precarious knife edge of support, many tolerate it mainly because the incumbent is an elderly woman.

Do you have a source? Every poll I've seen in recent years shows broad support across generations and social brackets.

There's a huge number of problems in Britain, but I can't think of any which can be solved by giving more power to a career politician.

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

And he aqquired this portfolio and investments how?:rolleyes:

The same way most land owners got their property.

getz

Beefy78 wrote: »

The same way most land owners got their property.

there was a bit of that going on in ireland in the 1920s

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

there was a bit of that going on in ireland in the 1920s

If I had compared the system we have here to the existence of monarchies then you might have a point. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

Beefy78 wrote: »

The same way most land owners got their property.

Hard graft and sweat or by being given it?

Beefy78

I think Charles has put more than his fair share of graft in over his life. As has his Mum.

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

Hard graft and sweat or by being given it?

he inherited it....the same way as 99% of big landowners do, in the rest of the world......

especially in ireland....

Happyman42

Beefy78 wrote: »

I think Charles has put more than his fair share of graft in over his life. As has his Mum.

Let him live on his wealth then, let the tourists come and oogle at them if that is what you both want. (I suggest Charles would quickly tell them to sling their hooks!):rolleyes:
Remove the system of privilege and patronage that the monarchy shores up and modernise. Allow people to be citizens not subjects, then it can be called a democracy.

Beefy78

The Guardian (hardly a pro-establishment publication as I'm sure we'd all agree) did a handy breakdown of the £32m a few weeks ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/interactive/2012/may/30/queen-elizabeth-diamond-jubilee-interactive

As I'd suggested earlier, the biggest item is upkeep of the buildings which would need to be paid for anyway through either tax money or charitable donations. Salaries, administration and travel would be replaced like-for-like in a Presidency.

You could probably save the 1.2% spent on ceremonial functions, to be fair.

Administration is less than 4% of the cost.

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

Let him live on his wealth then, let the tourists come and oogle at them if that is what you both want. (I suggest Charles would quickly tell them to sling their hooks!):rolleyes:
Remove the system of privilege and patronage that the monarchy shores up and modernise. Allow people to be citizens not subjects, then it can be called a democracy.

surely....democracy is what people want.......

as there is more talk about the british monarchy......on an irish forum....than there is in the uk......it seems to be a problem in ireland...and not in the uk....

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

Let him live on his wealth then, let the tourists come and oogle at them if that is what you both want. (I suggest Charles would quickly tell them to sling their hooks!):rolleyes:
Remove the system of privilege and patronage that the monarchy shores up and modernise. Allow people to be citizens not subjects, then it can be called a democracy.

He does live on his wealth. That's the point I was making.

What you call privilege and patronage I'd call responsibility and duty. No way would I swap places with any of them.

People in Britain are citizens and subjects. Legally I'm a British Citizen.

Democracy is a sham, and that isn't limited to Britain. I don't think you improve democracy by adding more elections. Elections are a tool of democracy, nothing more.

Happyman42

Beefy78 wrote: »

What you call privilege and patronage I'd call responsibility and duty.

We are talking about what a monarchy props up, not Charles's personal accounts.
Everyday there are people born into privilege in a monarchy, bestowed upon them, not because of anything they have personally achieved, but because of who they are. That is wrong, that is an insult to the individual in a modern society.
While a majority may find it hard to turn on an old woman, (whose only responsibility and duty seems to be to waste a life and stay aloof and 'dignified') I think it wouldn't take a huge change in circumstances to see the majority wanting to pull that system down.

Beefy78

golden lane wrote: »

surely....democracy is what people want.......

as there is more talk about the british monarchy......on an irish forum....than there is in the uk......it seems to be a problem in ireland...and not in the uk....

To be fair, I think you'd get a similar spectrum of opinion if the topic were to come up on a British message board. I understand where Happyman42 is coming from and there are plenty of Republicans in the UK who would have similar opinions.

The thing is that there isn't a British equivililent to this Irish forum. Britain is a country which finds it very difficult to know itself. We're told me can't be proud of our past, our flag is/used to be a rallying symbol for racists, we have no national day to celebrate, our sportsmen break our hearts, our politicians shame us at home and abroad.

There could well not even be a Britain in a few years.

The monarchy fills a role. It's an embodiement of a Britain which people can look to and feel good about. I wasn't at home for the Jubilee (although was in London a few days before and had never seen so many Union Jacks everwhere - I half expected to see Austin Powers leading a team of 300 extras in a musical number down Regents Street) but I was there for the Royal Wedding last year and it was brilliant to see people in London in pubs and street parties so confident in their national identity.

If you were setting up a country today you wouldn't choose a Monarchy. But it works. It's a typically British pragmatic compromise, but it works. And ultimately that is all that really matters.

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

We are talking about what a monarchy props up, not Charles's personal accounts.
Everyday there are people born into privilege in a monarchy, bestowed upon them, not because of anything they have personally achieved, but because of who they are. That is wrong, that is an insult to the individual in a modern society.
While a majority may find it hard to turn on an old woman, (whose only responsibility and duty seems to be to waste a life and stay aloof and 'dignified') I think it wouldn't take a huge change in circumstances to see the majority wanting to pull that system down.

I respectfully disagree.

SusieBlue

My tax doesn't pay their wages so I don't really have an opinion on whether they deserve the money they're getting or not.

I find them really fascinating, I watched all of the coverage on William & Kate's wedding. I just think they're an interesting family Prince Philip is hilarious!

They also do a lot of charity work and all the younger Royal's do service for their country.

Its not as though they all just sit around drinking tea all day.

Happyman42

Beefy78 wrote: »

To be fair, I think you'd get a similar spectrum of opinion if the topic were to come up on a British message board. I understand where Happyman42 is coming from and there are plenty of Republicans in the UK who would have similar opinions.

The thing is that there isn't a British equivililent to this Irish forum. Britain is a country which finds it very difficult to know itself. We're told me can't be proud of our past, our flag is/used to be a rallying symbol for racists, we have no national day to celebrate, our sportsmen break our hearts, our politicians shame us at home and abroad.

There could well not even be a Britain in a few years.

The monarchy fills a role. It's an embodiement of a Britain which people can look to and feel good about. I wasn't at home for the Jubilee (although was in London a few days before and had never seen so many Union Jacks everwhere - I half expected to see Austin Powers leading a team of 300 extras in a musical number down Regents Street) but I was there for the Royal Wedding last year and it was brilliant to see people in London in pubs and street parties so confident in their national identity.

If you were setting up a country today you wouldn't choose a Monarchy. But it works. It's a typically British pragmatic compromise, but it works. And ultimately that is all that really matters.

Well, anybody who was around and watching dispassionately when Diana died would know that it hasn't always been so. The monarchy where very firmly made aware what the populace wanted and they grudgingly complied with the people's wishes.
To suggest that the monarchy represents a nation happy with it's 'identity' is a bit of an overstretch though, especially when it is on the heels of major riots of dis-satisfaction.
Britian has yet to come to terms to what it is in an 'identity' sense.

golden lane

Beefy78 wrote: »

To be fair, I think you'd get a similar spectrum of opinion if the topic were to come up on a British message board. I understand where Happyman42 is coming from and there are plenty of Republicans in the UK who would have similar opinions.

The thing is that there isn't a British equivililent to this Irish forum. Britain is a country which finds it very difficult to know itself. We're told me can't be proud of our past, our flag is/used to be a rallying symbol for racists, we have no national day to celebrate, our sportsmen break our hearts, our politicians shame us at home and abroad.

There could well not even be a Britain in a few years.

The monarchy fills a role. It's an embodiement of a Britain which people can look to and feel good about. I wasn't at home for the Jubilee (although was in London a few days before and had never seen so many Union Jacks everwhere - I half expected to see Austin Powers leading a team of 300 extras in a musical number down Regents Street) but I was there for the Royal Wedding last year and it was brilliant to see people in London in pubs and street parties so confident in their national identity.

If you were setting up a country today you wouldn't choose a Monarchy. But it works. It's a typically British pragmatic compromise, but it works. And ultimately that is all that really matters.

the stability of a country.....depends on the strength of it's institutions.....

can you imagine a civil war in the uk.....no...

but there are many countries where you could.....including ireland......

keep the monarchy, and all the rigmarole that goes with it......

Pedant

I know people talk about lots of profit being made through tourism, however, is this a real justification for monarchy? You have a family that's basically brought up in privilege just because of their birth and funded to live that life by the taxpayer. The logic behind it is highly undemocratic. No one man/woman should be held in such esteem by virtue of their birth and their family bloodline. Respect and ones place in society should be earned. State institutionalized privilege is wrong.

golden lane

Pedant wrote: »

I know people talk about lots of profit being made through tourism, however, is this a real justification for monarchy? You have a family that's basically brought up in privilege just because of their birth and funded to live that life by the taxpayer. The logic behind it is highly undemocratic. No one man/woman should be held in such esteem by virtue of their birth and their family bloodline. Respect and ones place in society should be earned. State institutionalized privilege is wrong.

what people want....is never wrong....

the uk allows for an monarchy party....where is it........

i lived in ireland..40s 50s 60s.........there was so much priviledge..it was frigtening.......the only people who got jobs....were the ones who had fathers brothers cousins working.....the rest was an undrerpriviliged class.....

guiness and suchlike companies....never advertised for workers....dockers handed down their union buttons to their relations.etc....

even doing casual work.....there were places you could not enter without a union ticket.....you could not join...unless somebody recommended you..

that is priviledge..........

Happyman42

golden lane wrote: »

what people want....is never wrong....

the uk allows for an monarchy party....where is it........

i lived in ireland..40s 50s 60s.........there was so much priviledge..it was frigtening.......the only people who got jobs....were the ones who had fathers brothers cousins working.....the rest was an undrerpriviliged class.....

guiness and suchlike companies....never advertised for workers....dockers handed down their union buttons to their relations.etc....

even doing casual work.....there were places you could not enter without a union ticket.....you could not join...unless somebody recommended you..

that is priviledge..........

Nobody is comparing it with Ireland though. But as you mention the above.....would the same thing happen now? I think not. We are a young country, we are refining our version of democracy and a democracy it certainly is.
The class system in Britian is however, centuries old and is as embedded as it ever was.

bwatson

Pedant wrote: »

I know people talk about lots of profit being made through tourism, however, is this a real justification for monarchy? You have a family that's basically brought up in privilege just because of their birth and funded to live that life by the taxpayer. The logic behind it is highly undemocratic. No one man/woman should be held in such esteem by virtue of their birth and their family bloodline. Respect and ones place in society should be earned. State institutionalized privilege is wrong.

Who are you to tell a nation that the way they chose to run themselves is wrong? Staggeringly arrogant, don't you think?

Happyman42

bwatson wrote: »

Who are you to tell a nation that the way they chose to run themselves is wrong? Staggeringly arrogant, don't you think?

It's quaintly called 'freedom of thought', it's possible to do in all democracies. You should try it sometime.

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nobody is comparing it with Ireland though. But as you mention the above.....would the same thing happen now? I think not. We are a young country, we are refining our version of democracy and a democracy it certainly is.
The class system in Britian is however, centuries old and is as embedded as it ever was.

not from my observations in the last fifty years........

best country in the world.......not perfect....but nothing like this forum makes it out to be.........

60 million people here.....the papers etc report about a few.....life is not like that......

if the people want to get rid of the monarchy...so be it........but except for a few moaners on the telly......i have never heard people moaning about it.....

the rigmarole provides jobs...overseas visitors......yes, all benifit to the economy......

they recent riots were not about the country....they were about selfishness, and greed......

most have been caught and taken to court.........

59,999.000 go about their daily business here......happy to live in this uk.....

Happyman42

golden lane wrote: »

they recent riots were not about the country....they were about selfishness, and greed......

That is what the establishment press have been very vociferous about saying. However, the nderlying cause was dis-satisfaction amongst a section of the population used to seeing how the system works. They just decided to take their share. Swept under the carpet for now, but it will re-emerge again and god knows what the targets will be.

bwatson

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is what the establishment press have been very vociferous about saying. However, the nderlying cause was dis-satisfaction amongst a section of the population used to seeing how the system works. They just decided to take their share. Swept under the carpet for now, but it will re-emerge again and god knows what the targets will be.

Who are the "Establishment Press"?

Do you think those who rioted in Tottenham or Hackney or Croydon know anything about how British society works? Do you think they keep up to date with current affairs and political issues? And do you really think that their opportunistic crimes while the police were fairly stretched can really be regarded as them taking their share? If so, I couldn't disagree with you more, and furthermore I don't think you know very much about Britain at all.

Happyman42

bwatson wrote: »

Who are the "Establishment Press"?

I don't see why I should have to educate you in what are quite well known terms. Use google.

Pedant

bwatson wrote: »

Who are you to tell a nation that the way they chose to run themselves is wrong? Staggeringly arrogant, don't you think?

That's what the this thread is about, isn't it? And by the way, I apply what I said to all forms of monarchy and it's very principle.

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is what the establishment press have been very vociferous about saying. However, the nderlying cause was dis-satisfaction amongst a section of the population used to seeing how the system works. They just decided to take their share. Swept under the carpet for now, but it will re-emerge again and god knows what the targets will be.

biggest load of rubbish i ever heard...........

there are a section of the population who will never agree with anything....except sitting on their backsides all day.....stop reading and listening to crap.........

spoilt brats......

bwatson

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't see why I should have to educate you in what are quite well known terms. Use google.

You have a very condescending tone about you which is most unbefitting considering the often hypocritical, often classless, and often uninformed posts you make.

golden lane

bwatson wrote: »

Who are the "Establishment Press"?

Do you think those who rioted in Tottenham or Hackney or Croydon know anything about how British society works? Do you think they keep up to date with current affairs and political issues? And do you really think that their opportunistic crimes while the police were fairly stretched can really be regarded as them taking their share? If so, I couldn't disagree with you more, and furthermore I don't think you know very much about Britain at all.

nothing whatsoever....imo....

Happyman42

bwatson wrote: »

You have a very condescending tone about you which is most unbefitting considering the often hypocritical, often classless, and often uninformed posts you make.

Attack my posts, not me, please.

ZeRoY

IvySlayer wrote: »

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

Interestingly there are a few arguments on this, mainly that the UK would get just as much if not more tourists should the family be out as buildings would remain. Cant find exact numbers but I read before that Paris with Versailles (so just monuments) brings more money than the Royal Family does in England.

Happyman42

golden lane wrote: »

....except sitting on their backsides all day.....stop reading and listening to crap.........

spoilt brats......

Ach now, Charles does a bit of gardening now and again!

A Dub in Glasgo

I think the OP got the thread title correct, the monarchy are only really popular in England, not throughout the whole of the UK

Happyman42

bwatson wrote: »

and furthermore I don't think you know very much about Britain at all.

golden lane wrote: »

nothing whatsoever....imo....

Here's somebody from the 'establishment press' who agrees with my opinion on what happened after Diana's death.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561776/Royal-respect-at-new-low-since-Dianas-death.html

What it doesn't mention is my further opinion that a decision was taken to make sure Charles did not succeed, they knew the damage that could potentially cause. So, the royals live on for another few years on the popularity and coat tails of an old woman. But they'll manage to mess up again and that popularity will begin to fall again.

There are many, many articles and deconstructions on the riots in Britian that support my view, shall I google them or will you? 'Spoilt brats' just doesn't cut it as an explanation of what happened.

I understand your defence of the royals and where it comes from but please stop trying to halt the debate just because you don't like what you are reading.

AngeGal

hondasam wrote: »

why would you care what it cost to keep the royal family unless you are paying for it?
It's nothing to do with anyone other than the people in the UK.
Having an opinion on something we can change is one thing but having an opinion on something that is out of our control is something else.

You said it costs us nothing so we shouldn't have an opinion, it seems rather flawed logic to me. A lot of things don't cost me anything but I would still consider myself perfectly entitled to have an opinion on them. There are a lot of things we can't change, I fail to see why that should deny someone an opinion either.

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think the OP got the thread title correct, the monarchy are only really popular in England, not throughout the whole of the UK

Then why is Alex Salmond pro Royalty?

The royals are, after all, more Scottish than English.

Quinzy

I like democracies and I like republics. But I'm not a Republican by the standard Irish definition.
You've got to find a balance between idealism and realpolitik. The monarchy is not ideal for a republican or democrat.
But realistically it doesn't matter. They fill the same role as a president.
What matters with a republic is the ability to elect officials. The UK has that ability with parliament.
With a democracy what matters is the ability to directly vote on matters. The UK has that ability.
Daily life is not impacted by the existence of the monarchy. There's no point in stirring things up until they become a problem;
there are other more important things to sort out. Ultimately if the populace wants the monarchy gone, a referendum will be had.

youreadthis

Mr_Spaceman wrote: »

Nonsense.

Scotland has a separate legal, educational and church system for a start and always has done.

Culturally, it is distinct from England.

I'm sure the average Scot, Northern Irish and Welsh person will be delighted to hear you tell them they are 'basically' English.

Scotland isn't culturally distinct from England, nor is Ireland. Vietnam and Italy? Yes.

There are regional variations in culture (proper culture, stuff that defines average people every day, not maypoles and kilts). But these don't stop and start at borders on a map. There is a difference between those in central London and Cornwall, and huge similarities between the rural populations of southern Scotland and northern England, who are a bit different from rural home counties.

Happyman42

Quinzy wrote: »

I like democracies and I like republics. But I'm not a Republican by the standard Irish definition.
You've got to find a balance between idealism and realpolitik. The monarchy is not ideal for a republican or democrat.
But realistically it doesn't matter. They fill the same role as a president.
What matters with a republic is the ability to elect officials. The UK has that ability with parliament.
With a democracy what matters is the ability to directly vote on matters. The UK has that ability.
Daily life is not impacted by the existence of the monarchy. There's no point in stirring things up until they become a problem;
there are other more important things to sort out. Ultimately if the populace wants the monarchy gone, a referendum will be had.

Which is all very well when you get to squeeze into the end of the trough or get enough scraps from the table to satisfy you.
And no, the monarchy does not serve the same purpose as an elected president, because a president doesn't shore up a class system. And that is why monarchies are wrong and in particular the British version.

And are you suggesting that the existence of the class system in Britian isn't a daily problem???

NinjaK

jesus if ever you need confirmation boards is west brit.ie

Happyman42

NinjaK wrote: »

jesus if ever you need confirmation boards is west brit.ie

I see it as more evidence of the Irish Inferiority Complex which affects some Irish, typically those, who for one reason or another, where against the fight for a republic.
Criticism of the royals is seen as somehow vindicating those who fought for our republic, therefore all monarchies are ok.:rolleyes:
Hugely evident at the time of the visit was the ability to forget the suffering of their forebears at the hand of this institution and worse, the shunning of those who fought to change that. All done in order that they wouldn't be dammed in the eyes of the royal visitor.
They demand apologies from the IRA but Mrs Winsdor only has to utter a cupla focal and gave a mealy mouthed acknowledgement of what her forbears and army did and she and the monarchy she represents is clasped to the Irish breast once again!
Crazy logic, but there you go....crazy country sometimes.