Should we abolish the Royal family?

[Fenster]

Blimey, Hammer, you are one sad bastard mate.

[JazMerkin]

No, I don't think we should. Whilst they are largely insignificant for me & I'm no fan, they are both good for economy & more importantly they mean something to a substantial number of British people. So yeah, I believe we should keep them.

[Kev]

Of course we shouldn't abolish the monarchy. It's an absurd idea based on some ridiculous understandings of history.

The monarchy isn't something that the people of Great Britain or an earlier government invented they are the Royal family because they were the rulers of this country for the best part of a 1000 years. All of their historic buildings and palaces are theirs, owned by them not the state.

How can the state abolish them and take away their stuff? It's fucking ridiculous, how would you like it if the state decided to abolish you and gave all your possessions to the state?

It's such a flawed understanding of history it makes me laugh.

Secondly the Royal family is tremendous value for money. They provide a cornerstone and bedrock of traditional British values. I find it remarkable that those who oppose rampant immigration and the growing multicultralism in our nation would vote for removing something that is the very fabric of Britishness.

Overseas we are known for our Royal Family and our castles. Get rid of them and we are known for Eastenders and Coronation Street.

The Queen is our head of state and I will be so bold to say hands down the best Head of State in the world!

Why?

Because she is the only head of state who can occupy from a position of neutrality. It's an amazing thing. She represents Britain itself rather than any political party, religious group or social agenda.

As Kirkland Laing wisely pointed out, who would you replace her with

Who wants as head of state a politician who represents a party, who may be seen disfavourably by the people. Look at how popular or not Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have been both domestically and abroad.

To some people, in the event of a tragedy for example people would see it as an insult to be met with such a figure representing their countries condolences when many blame them for whatever tragic fate has befallen them.

The queen does FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more for the good of this country than David Beckham or any number of vastly overpaid professional footballers and BBC television presenters.

They are great value for money and one of the few things in this country to be proud of.

Yet because they are not entertainment people resent paying for them, whilst happily handing over £40 a month to Sky, it's fucked up.

Also the Royal Family and the Queen especially is a priceless asset in times of natural disaster and war. We are an afluent nation right now living in peace times but the Royal Family went a long way to keep morale going historically in times of war and disaster. Such a bedrock is NEEDED for a strong civilisation to unite behind.

The last time we abolished the monarchy look how that went. Cromwell was such a cunt he even banned Christmas. When he died the nation rejoiced and immediately invited back Charles II, the son of the king they had beheaded to rule over them once again.

Keep the Royal Family, they are an invaluable asset to this country.

[Andre]

I saw some documentary a while back where they traced the real direct descendant that should be the real King going by pure bloodline.

You have yourself some German ring ins there that got placed into power.

[Nameless]

No, I don't think we should. Whilst they are largely insignificant for me & I'm no fan, they are both good for economy & more importantly they mean something to a substantial number of British people. So yeah, I believe we should keep them.

If not abolish them, stop feeding them with peoples and tax money at least. As I stated, I am not necessarily for giving them the booth but it is about time nobody pay for them anymore as they could probably survive without that extra income coming out from peoples pockets who do not always have enough to feed them.

[erics44]

dont be daft

people complain about the money they take from taxes but they bring multiple times that back into the country

they give england an identity, which attracts millions of tourists every year, it creates jobs for many many people both directly and indirectly

England would lose out massively financially and culturally if the royal family was abolished

crap idea

[Kev]

dont be daft

people complain about the money they take from taxes but they bring multiple times that back into the country

they give england an identity, which attracts millions of tourists every year, it creates jobs for many many people both directly and indirectly

England would lose out massively financially and culturally if the royal family was abolished

crap idea

What you have to understand is that Miles holds ideals that do not need to be held up to financial or practical scrutiny.

But if we didn't have the monarchy it's a fair bet that whoever became our head of state would have to be paid many times more to do the job.

Let's look at public offices as an example.

Our prime minister, like our queen is paid a modest salary considering the importance of his position, £142,500 per year. Cabinet ministers get £134,565

These salaries reflect the fact that the job they do is paid for by the tax payer, and should not be excessive.

Now let's look at what happens in the public services.

Currently there are a staggering 1700 council workers who receive a wage of greater than £100,000 per year. One executive in Cornwall earns over £410,000 or over 3 times the amount of the prime minister.

Let's look at Europe. The foreign secretary William Hague earns £134,565 per year for his role. The EU secretary Baroness Ashton earns a staggering £230,702 for doing what is essentially a non job.

Even more outrageous she has over 100!!! staff members working for her who earn more than William Hague and the Prime Minister!

How can this excess possibly be justified?

If we abolished the Royal Family, the position of Head of State still needs to be filled. We still need diplomats and dignitaries but now they would be employed with public funds and paid in accordance to the scales above. Furthmore they would no longer be politically neutral but would represent a political party, have their own stance on Europe and other agendas etc.

It would be an infinitely worse system, a tremendously bad idea, but this does not matter to Miles because he has his ideals and they are not subjected to such criticism. They are altogethy too lofty and virtuous for such things.

[erics44]

What you have to understand is that Miles holds ideals that do not need to be held up to financial or practical scrutiny.

But if we didn't have the monarchy it's a fair bet that whoever became our head of state would have to be paid many times more to do the job.

Let's look at public offices as an example.

Our prime minister, like our queen is paid a modest salary considering the importance of his position, £142,500 per year. Cabinet ministers get £134,565

These salaries reflect the fact that the job they do is paid for by the tax payer, and should not be excessive.

Now let's look at what happens in the public services.

Currently there are a staggering 1700 council workers who receive a wage of greater than £100,000 per year. One executive in Cornwall earns over £410,000 or over 3 times the amount of the prime minister.

Let's look at Europe. The foreign secretary William Hague earns £134,565 per year for his role. The EU secretary Baroness Ashton earns a staggering £230,702 for doing what is essentially a non job.

Even more outrageous she has over 100!!! staff members working for her who earn more than William Hague and the Prime Minister!

How can this excess possibly be justified?

If we abolished the Royal Family, the position of Head of State still needs to be filled. We still need diplomats and dignitaries but now they would be employed with public funds and paid in accordance to the scales above. Furthmore they would no longer be politically neutral but would represent a political party, have their own stance on Europe and other agendas etc.

It would be an infinitely worse system, a tremendously bad idea, but this does not matter to Miles because he has his ideals and they are not subjected to such criticism. They are altogethy too lofty and virtuous for such things.

it would also cost a hell of a lot of money to abolish and replace in the first place

so in summary, it would cost lots to do, and cost more to be different, and be less financially profitable

[Kev]

What you have to understand is that Miles holds ideals that do not need to be held up to financial or practical scrutiny.

But if we didn't have the monarchy it's a fair bet that whoever became our head of state would have to be paid many times more to do the job.

Let's look at public offices as an example.

Our prime minister, like our queen is paid a modest salary considering the importance of his position, £142,500 per year. Cabinet ministers get £134,565

These salaries reflect the fact that the job they do is paid for by the tax payer, and should not be excessive.

Now let's look at what happens in the public services.

Currently there are a staggering 1700 council workers who receive a wage of greater than £100,000 per year. One executive in Cornwall earns over £410,000 or over 3 times the amount of the prime minister.

Let's look at Europe. The foreign secretary William Hague earns £134,565 per year for his role. The EU secretary Baroness Ashton earns a staggering £230,702 for doing what is essentially a non job.

Even more outrageous she has over 100!!! staff members working for her who earn more than William Hague and the Prime Minister!

How can this excess possibly be justified?

If we abolished the Royal Family, the position of Head of State still needs to be filled. We still need diplomats and dignitaries but now they would be employed with public funds and paid in accordance to the scales above. Furthmore they would no longer be politically neutral but would represent a political party, have their own stance on Europe and other agendas etc.

It would be an infinitely worse system, a tremendously bad idea, but this does not matter to Miles because he has his ideals and they are not subjected to such criticism. They are altogethy too lofty and virtuous for such things.

it would also cost a hell of a lot of money to abolish and replace in the first place

so in summary, it would cost lots to do, and cost more to be different, and be less financially profitable

Yes the initial upheaval would be in the billions of pounds as the government would need to buy property from the crown, pay vast sums of rent and/or move into alternative buildings.

The first problem would be where to actually run parliament seeing as the Crown owns Westminster. So that would need to be bought from the Royals or else the whole government would have to move somewhere else.

Of course any upheaval of this magnitude would have to be subject to a referendum which would cost hundreds of millions of pounds also, with the result far from guaranteed. The people would most likely oppose so to go against them would lead to the court of human rights and british courts becoming involved leading to further action.

It's possible the most loyal of the Commonwealth nations would also object mightily wondering how their relations with Britain might be affected.

[erics44]

i dont know which idea is worse, this one or the one to create a super heavyweight division as suggested in the other thread

what do you think?

[Gandalf]

Privatise the Royal fucking family then. Let them inflate their price so that only daft Yanks with no history pay to look at them. The Prime Minister should be head of state, not some outdated Queen. Why have both when you can pay for one? I don't care about tourism, I care about democracy and a monarchy is anti-democratic.