Should we abolish the Royal family?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Kirkland, you complain about the German and French media but yet you say nothing about the subservient US media???

As for Mitterand, I don't know if the French people didn't know or they just didn't care. They do have a different culture, I remember them thinking America was crazy for what happened with Bill Clinton and his escapade with Monica Lewinsky. I distinctly remember the democrats and the acquiescent news media citing the French saying something to the extent of "So your President got a blowjob from someone other than his wife, what's the big deal? All of the French leaders have affairs and it's just kind of accepted"

---

They're just the same. They turned a blind eye to JFK shagging half of Hollywood, plenty huge stories they just ignored. Since US media became tiny parts of other corporations who do huge business with the government, something illegal in every other democracy, they're even less likely to go after a prez. The Monica Lewinsky thing only happened because of the newfangled internet, they had no way of preventing it getting out. If you remember no major media outlet touched the story until it was common knowledge.

I voted no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

They're just the same. They turned a blind eye to JFK shagging half of Hollywood, plenty huge stories they just ignored. Since US media became tiny parts of other corporations who do huge business with the government, something illegal in every other democracy, they're even less likely to go after a prez. The Monica Lewinsky thing only happened because of the newfangled internet, they had no way of preventing it getting out. If you remember no major media outlet touched the story until it was common knowledge.

---

That's all I wanted, thanks for not being difficult for once

....also the US media turned a blind eye on FDR and his woman being a raging lesbian, her mistress lived in the White House, and nothing was said, but then again nothing was ever said of FDR being crippled by Polio either. If anything had been written about it some think he would never have been elected just on account of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

They're just the same. They turned a blind eye to JFK shagging half of Hollywood, plenty huge stories they just ignored. Since US media became tiny parts of other corporations who do huge business with the government, something illegal in every other democracy, they're even less likely to go after a prez. The Monica Lewinsky thing only happened because of the newfangled internet, they had no way of preventing it getting out. If you remember no major media outlet touched the story until it was common knowledge.

---

That's all I wanted, thanks for not being difficult for once

....also the US media turned a blind eye on FDR and his woman being a raging lesbian, her mistress lived in the White House, and nothing was said, but then again nothing was ever said of FDR being crippled by Polio either. If anything had been written about it some think he would never have been elected just on account of that.

---

I've always wondered what a raging lesbian is? Was Eleanor Roosevelt really some violent, wild lesbian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

The monarchy may not directly prevent anyone from getting on in the world, but in my view it represents the system that STILL does prevent people from progressing.
You are right that there is more opportunitys now than ever before. But there still isnt equality of opportunity, only less inequality. I simply believe that the removal of the monarchy will in time help to see the ingrained class system further eroded. Even if it would only make a tiny difference i think it would be worth it as they serve very little purpose. Furthermore, im morally opposed to the idea that anybody is deserving of anything by virtue of 'birth right'. So even if they only cost taxpayers 00000.1p a year for me that would be 00000.1p too much.

---

The royals actually save you money. If we did have a president it would allow another layer of corruption to the ones we have already. Germans for instance are currently being stung on gas, water, telecoms, credit cards, all directly because their prez lobbied for certain companies to get business without any effective competition. Same in France. And you can't find out about it because the media in France/Germany won't go anywhere near a president, he's just too powerful. French people didn't even know Mitterand (ex-prez) had two lovers and half a dozen kids while in office because the press didn't report it till after he was dead. There's no reason to boot them except spite and there are endless reasons to keep them.

---

My argument is not an economic one, it is based mainly upon the fact that the Royal family is an outdated institution with no real role to play in the system besides signing off a few goverment documents. Their positions are inherited and that is something that I firmly believe is wrong. I don't want to cut off their heads nor punish them, but I would like them to recieve public school education and to work their way up the ladder like the rest of us have to. I see no reason why they should be treated any different from the rest of the population.

You mention Germans being stung on things such as water, gas, credit cards and telecoms, but I look at the UK and see people being stung terribly too. I don't see what the Queen has to do with that though. And as for the French and German media having no balls. Well, I don't see the connection. We have a decent media overall, but I don't think it's down to having the Queen as head of state. The Royal family gets a hard time from them, but that's more the way we are culturally. Nobody is allowed to get off the hook for their private indiscretions.

---

I don't understand your reasoning at all Miles.

You are aware that we didn't invent the Royal family right? A government didn't come up with the idea and think it would be good for tourism and so built a load of grandiose buildings and bequethed them all to the Windsors.

Their assets are theirs! They are not for the state to take away, because they arn't the states to begin with, the land and property owned by the Royal Family is their own legally owned property.

Secondly, this ridiculous notion you have of inherited wealth being wrong. What about the children of celebrities, or the offspring of industrial leaders, bankers, hoteliers etc? Should we take all of the Beckham's money and property away as well, or at least take away Brooklyn, Paris and La LA or whatever the fuck the Beckham kids are called and foster them into a working class home to appease your sense of egalitarianism?

Thirdly, the Royal family's wealth is different to the wealth inherited by everybody else, because theirs comes with responsibility.

Honestly, Miles, can you really say, in your heart of hearts that the Queen has been bad for this country, or that she isn't due respect for the job she does? Would you really want to be King?

It's a thankless task, one of a lifetime of servitude. Sure she eats well and get dressed up in fancy royal garb, but her life is just one of ceremonial service to her nation. She has to live an explempary moral life, carry out a million and one different social and international engagements every year and even in her 80's is still tirelessly carrying out her role.

I think the queen has been AMAZING for this country, a source of pride and inspiration for millions of hardworking people of Britain for well over half a century.

Even the rest of them are ok. Prince Charles has been a powerful voice for enviromental change and green issues, and the two sons are growing up to be fine young upstanding men.

They represent an important part of British history, and are more representative of the people than any political party could ever be. The people of Britain will never unite behind a political party,there is always division, but a royal family belongs to everybody, the entire people of Britain.

Their's is not a life I would want, the constant scrutiny, the forced adherence to endless ceremonial rituals and traditions, they are ambassadors for this country, and the Queen especially is magnificent in her role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I've always wondered what a raging lesbian is? Was Eleanor Roosevelt really some violent, wild lesbian?

---

...she's the Queen of Bull Dykes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The royals actually save you money. If we did have a president it would allow another layer of corruption to the ones we have already. Germans for instance are currently being stung on gas, water, telecoms, credit cards, all directly because their prez lobbied for certain companies to get business without any effective competition. Same in France. And you can't find out about it because the media in France/Germany won't go anywhere near a president, he's just too powerful. French people didn't even know Mitterand (ex-prez) had two lovers and half a dozen kids while in office because the press didn't report it till after he was dead. There's no reason to boot them except spite and there are endless reasons to keep them.

---

My argument is not an economic one, it is based mainly upon the fact that the Royal family is an outdated institution with no real role to play in the system besides signing off a few goverment documents. Their positions are inherited and that is something that I firmly believe is wrong. I don't want to cut off their heads nor punish them, but I would like them to recieve public school education and to work their way up the ladder like the rest of us have to. I see no reason why they should be treated any different from the rest of the population.

You mention Germans being stung on things such as water, gas, credit cards and telecoms, but I look at the UK and see people being stung terribly too. I don't see what the Queen has to do with that though. And as for the French and German media having no balls. Well, I don't see the connection. We have a decent media overall, but I don't think it's down to having the Queen as head of state. The Royal family gets a hard time from them, but that's more the way we are culturally. Nobody is allowed to get off the hook for their private indiscretions.

---

I don't understand your reasoning at all Miles.

You are aware that we didn't invent the Royal family right? A government didn't come up with the idea and think it would be good for tourism and so built a load of grandiose buildings and bequethed them all to the Windsors.

Their assets are theirs! They are not for the state to take away, because they arn't the states to begin with, the land and property owned by the Royal Family is their own legally owned property.

Secondly, this ridiculous notion you have of inherited wealth being wrong. What about the children of celebrities, or the offspring of industrial leaders, bankers, hoteliers etc? Should we take all of the Beckham's money and property away as well, or at least take away Brooklyn, Paris and La LA or whatever the fuck the Beckham kids are called and foster them into a working class home to appease your sense of egalitarianism?

Thirdly, the Royal family's wealth is different to the wealth inherited by everybody else, because theirs comes with responsibility.

Honestly, Miles, can you really say, in your heart of hearts that the Queen has been bad for this country, or that she isn't due respect for the job she does? Would you really want to be King?

It's a thankless task, one of a lifetime of servitude. Sure she eats well and get dressed up in fancy royal garb, but her life is just one of ceremonial service to her nation. She has to live an explempary moral life, carry out a million and one different social and international engagements every year and even in her 80's is still tirelessly carrying out her role.

I think the queen has been AMAZING for this country, a source of pride and inspiration for millions of hardworking people of Britain for well over half a century.

Even the rest of them are ok. Prince Charles has been a powerful voice for enviromental change and green issues, and the two sons are growing up to be fine young upstanding men.

They represent an important part of British history, and are more representative of the people than any political party could ever be. The people of Britain will never unite behind a political party,there is always division, but a royal family belongs to everybody, the entire people of Britain.

Their's is not a life I would want, the constant scrutiny, the forced adherence to endless ceremonial rituals and traditions, they are ambassadors for this country, and the Queen especially is magnificent in her role.

---

My argument is quite simple. Long ago the Royal family was able to rule with impunity and gradually their power has receded through the evolution of a progressively more dominant form of rule for the goverment. The Royal family of the past 200 years has been nothing more than a figurehead head of state. They are unelected and just there because of the circumstances of their birth. If their only purpose is to sign off and process what the government is going to do anyway, then it's a position that no longer has any value. I struggle to see any merit in it, it should at leat be replaced with something more representative than solely being a hereditary position.

I don't care so much about them keeping Buckingham palace, but I feel strongly that a family that is supposedly independantly wealthy shouldn't be able to take money away from every taxpayer in the country to subsidise leaky roofs and mowing the lawn. Surely it's about time they started paying for this themselves. If my grandmother can't just claim taxes to fix her home then neither should the Queen. Again, it's a case of of a rule that only applies to to a few "haves" at the expense of all the "have nots". It's not a massive amount of money....what with being only a few millions quid here and there, but that kind of money is a fortune to most ordinary people.

When it comes to inherited wealth, I suppose I am more extreme than some. I think inherited wealth should be taxed to death and used to provide quality public services and opportunities for social advancement for all. In this regard I am perhaps too idealistic. An extended inheritence tax would most likely be used to fund more military armament, but ideally I would like the wealth of the rich to be taken to reduce inequalities in society and stimulate greater equality of opportunity. I have no qualms with the children of the rich and famous being made to start out on a more level playing field along with the children of families of the middle classes. I'm not saying "take away everything!", but certainly to curb the excess. It's a complicated process and there is no reason why parents couldn't hand over huge sums before passing away which would kind of defeat the purpose. But in principle, I would like for such a system to try and exist. In the future, as a parent I would like to teach my children how to stand on their own two feet rather than wait for my eventual demise and an easier life brought along through a pot of money.

I don't have any negative feelings about the Queen herself. But I disagree with what she represents and don't feel a monarchy has any relevance in a democracy. She is probably a nice person, but I don't think that justifies her recieving tax payers money nor representing Britain as head of state. All in all I would like to see the Royal family slowly phased out once and for all.

Military commanders are expected to tell the inquiry into the Iraq war, which opens on Tuesday, that the invasion was ill-conceived and that preparations were sabotaged by Tony Blair's government's attempts to mislead the public.
They were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told.
The lengths the Blair government took to conceal the invasion plan and the extent of military commanders' anger at what they call the government's "appalling" failures emerged as Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry's chairman, promised to produce a "full and insightful" account of how Britain was drawn into the conflict.
Fresh evidence has emerged about how Blair misled MPs by claiming in 2002 that the goal was "disarmament, not regime change". Documents show the government wanted to hide its true intentions by informing only "very small numbers" of officials.......

One commander said the government "missed a golden opportunity" to win support from Iraqis. Another commented: "It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves". One, describing the supply chain, added: "I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert".
Some troops were deployed in civilian flights to countries neighbouring Iraq with their equipment "brought in by hand baggage". Items considered dangerous, including penknives and nail scissors, were confiscated from them................













Significantly, the documents support what officials have earlier admitted – that the army was not allowed to prepare properly for the Iraq invasion in 2002 so as not to alert parliament and the UN that Blair was already determined to go to war.
The documents add: "In Whitehall, the internal operational security regime, in which only very small numbers of officers and officials were allowed to become involved [in Iraq invasion preparations] constrained broader planning for combat operations and subsequent phases effectively until Dec 23 2002."
Blair had in effect promised George Bush that he would join the US-led invasion when, as late as July 2002, he was denying to MPs that preparations were being made for military action. The leaked documents reveal that "from March 2002 or May at the latest there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation".
Documents leaked in 2005 show that, almost a year before the invasion, Blair was privately preparing to commit Britain to war and topple Saddam Hussein, despite warnings from his closest advisers that it was unjustified. They also show how Blair was planning to justify regime change as an objective, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, that the "desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.






Leaked documents reveal No 10 cover-up over Iraq invasion | Politics | guardian.co.uk


This is the problem with having politicians as head of state. One morning you wake up and find there's a war criminal in charge. As long as Britain is going to continue behaving like it's still the nineteenth century, which would appear to be the forseeable future, you can't let somebody sending the army into illegal oil/etc. wars then take the highest office. So for the forseeable future replacing the Queen, who hasn't put a foot wrong in over half a century representing the country and will never have stuff like this turning up in the papers, is impossible.

I voted yes but in all fairness the only way that would ever happend was if there was some sort of Revolt against Queen and HER country. (Which just so happens to include the British Army).... So i doubt i'd actually like that at all, given the most likely successor outside of the Royal family to be Al-Qaeda :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I voted yes but in all fairness the only way that would ever happend was if there was some sort of Revolt against Queen and HER country. (Which just so happens to include the British Army).... So i doubt i'd actually like that at all, given the most likely successor outside of the Royal family to be Al-Qaeda :-\

---

At least they'd be cheap on our taxes seeing as they all live in caves ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I voted yes but in all fairness the only way that would ever happend was if there was some sort of Revolt against Queen and HER country. (Which just so happens to include the British Army).... So i doubt i'd actually like that at all, given the most likely successor outside of the Royal family to be Al-Qaeda :-\

---

At least they'd be cheap on our taxes seeing as they all live in caves ;D

---

Well that's just the leaders and such like individuals. The rest live in Upton Park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I voted yes but in all fairness the only way that would ever happend was if there was some sort of Revolt against Queen and HER country. (Which just so happens to include the British Army).... So i doubt i'd actually like that at all, given the most likely successor outside of the Royal family to be Al-Qaeda :-\

---

At least they'd be cheap on our taxes seeing as they all live in caves ;D

---

Well that's just the leaders and such like individuals. The rest live in Upton Park.

---

Isn't that basically the same thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

At least they'd be cheap on our taxes seeing as they all live in caves ;D

---

Well that's just the leaders and such like individuals. The rest live in Upton Park.

---

Isn't that basically the same thing?

---

Queue HMH

That sounds ominous :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

My argument is not an economic one, it is based mainly upon the fact that the Royal family is an outdated institution with no real role to play in the system besides signing off a few goverment documents. Their positions are inherited and that is something that I firmly believe is wrong. I don't want to cut off their heads nor punish them, but I would like them to recieve public school education and to work their way up the ladder like the rest of us have to. I see no reason why they should be treated any different from the rest of the population.

You mention Germans being stung on things such as water, gas, credit cards and telecoms, but I look at the UK and see people being stung terribly too. I don't see what the Queen has to do with that though. And as for the French and German media having no balls. Well, I don't see the connection. We have a decent media overall, but I don't think it's down to having the Queen as head of state. The Royal family gets a hard time from them, but that's more the way we are culturally. Nobody is allowed to get off the hook for their private indiscretions.

---

I don't understand your reasoning at all Miles.

You are aware that we didn't invent the Royal family right? A government didn't come up with the idea and think it would be good for tourism and so built a load of grandiose buildings and bequethed them all to the Windsors.

Their assets are theirs! They are not for the state to take away, because they arn't the states to begin with, the land and property owned by the Royal Family is their own legally owned property.

Secondly, this ridiculous notion you have of inherited wealth being wrong. What about the children of celebrities, or the offspring of industrial leaders, bankers, hoteliers etc? Should we take all of the Beckham's money and property away as well, or at least take away Brooklyn, Paris and La LA or whatever the fuck the Beckham kids are called and foster them into a working class home to appease your sense of egalitarianism?

Thirdly, the Royal family's wealth is different to the wealth inherited by everybody else, because theirs comes with responsibility.

Honestly, Miles, can you really say, in your heart of hearts that the Queen has been bad for this country, or that she isn't due respect for the job she does? Would you really want to be King?

It's a thankless task, one of a lifetime of servitude. Sure she eats well and get dressed up in fancy royal garb, but her life is just one of ceremonial service to her nation. She has to live an explempary moral life, carry out a million and one different social and international engagements every year and even in her 80's is still tirelessly carrying out her role.

I think the queen has been AMAZING for this country, a source of pride and inspiration for millions of hardworking people of Britain for well over half a century.

Even the rest of them are ok. Prince Charles has been a powerful voice for enviromental change and green issues, and the two sons are growing up to be fine young upstanding men.

They represent an important part of British history, and are more representative of the people than any political party could ever be. The people of Britain will never unite behind a political party,there is always division, but a royal family belongs to everybody, the entire people of Britain.

Their's is not a life I would want, the constant scrutiny, the forced adherence to endless ceremonial rituals and traditions, they are ambassadors for this country, and the Queen especially is magnificent in her role.

---

My argument is quite simple. Long ago the Royal family was able to rule with impunity and gradually their power has receded through the evolution of a progressively more dominant form of rule for the goverment. The Royal family of the past 200 years has been nothing more than a figurehead head of state. They are unelected and just there because of the circumstances of their birth. If their only purpose is to sign off and process what the government is going to do anyway, then it's a position that no longer has any value. I struggle to see any merit in it, it should at leat be replaced with something more representative than solely being a hereditary position.

I don't care so much about them keeping Buckingham palace, but I feel strongly that a family that is supposedly independantly wealthy shouldn't be able to take money away from every taxpayer in the country to subsidise leaky roofs and mowing the lawn. Surely it's about time they started paying for this themselves. If my grandmother can't just claim taxes to fix her home then neither should the Queen. Again, it's a case of of a rule that only applies to to a few "haves" at the expense of all the "have nots". It's not a massive amount of money....what with being only a few millions quid here and there, but that kind of money is a fortune to most ordinary people.

When it comes to inherited wealth, I suppose I am more extreme than some. I think inherited wealth should be taxed to death and used to provide quality public services and opportunities for social advancement for all. In this regard I am perhaps too idealistic. An extended inheritence tax would most likely be used to fund more military armament, but ideally I would like the wealth of the rich to be taken to reduce inequalities in society and stimulate greater equality of opportunity. I have no qualms with the children of the rich and famous being made to start out on a more level playing field along with the children of families of the middle classes. I'm not saying "take away everything!", but certainly to curb the excess. It's a complicated process and there is no reason why parents couldn't hand over huge sums before passing away which would kind of defeat the purpose. But in principle, I would like for such a system to try and exist. In the future, as a parent I would like to teach my children how to stand on their own two feet rather than wait for my eventual demise and an easier life brought along through a pot of money.

I don't have any negative feelings about the Queen herself. But I disagree with what she represents and don't feel a monarchy has any relevance in a democracy. She is probably a nice person, but I don't think that justifies her recieving tax payers money nor representing Britain as head of state. All in all I would like to see the Royal family slowly phased out once and for all.

---

Ditto.