Should we abolish the Royal family?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

the divide between rich and poor HAS grown.

social mobility has DECREASED.

If you're born poor you are less likely to ever change that.


The monachy is not directly responsible for that. Government and our own attitudes are.

This is a different issue to that of the monachy.

[HattonTheHammer]

the divide between rich and poor HAS grown.

social mobility has DECREASED.

If you're born poor you are less likely to ever change that.


The monachy is not directly responsible for that. Government and our own attitudes are.

This is a different issue to that of the monachy.

Thats complete b*llocks

50 years ago if you were born poor yes indeed the chances of you making it were slim to none

But in this day and age stockbrokers, bank managers etc come from all spectrums of our great land.

If your 45 and living off welfare its not the f*cking royal familys fault or even the fact society hasnt given you a chance. The options out there are endless its just about being ruthless enough to take them when they come along!!

[ryanman]

the divide between rich and poor HAS grown.

social mobility has DECREASED.

If you're born poor you are less likely to ever change that.


The monachy is not directly responsible for that. Government and our own attitudes are.

This is a different issue to that of the monachy.

Although i accept the monarchy doesn't have a DIRECT impact on social mobility or equality the issues are not entirely separate.
The Royal family sit at the head of a system of inequality. That is just as it is. It is this system that limits social mobility. But i actually agree with a part of what hammer said, it is easier now for someone 'to get on' in life than it has ever been.

I accept that losing the royal family wouldn't on its own make much practical difference. Which is why it is essentially a MORAL argument.

How can it be morally right for there to be some people sleeping in their palaces tonight, served by 100s of people, stomachs filled with the finest food, none of it paid for, whilst there are others more able and hard working that will consider themselves fortunate if they don't go to bed hungry - and all based on so called 'birth right'. How can this be right? How can it be supported?

[Kirkland Laing]

How come this country could not exist without the royals? That doesn't make sense. Im not sure they are 'beloved' either.

If you believe in equality of opportunity hammer, as im sure you must, then how can you support something that is the living embodiment of INequality?
Don't you realise that the royal family represent the head of the class system?
Don't you realise that this class system is what serves to keep people 'in their place'? In the past the class system made it impossible for certain people, however willing or able they were, to achieve what they were capable of. In the modern day it does not make it impossible, but it still makes it far harder than it should be. It serves to place limits on what heights people can reach, not through fair means such as determination, ability and tenacity, but purely through the circumstances in which a person is BORN into. The class system may have been eroded, but it still exists.
As Miles has said, its not about socialism. For me it is about the simple fact that what a person can achieve in life should be based solely on factors such as ability, determination, tenacity, work ethic. It should NOT be based on the family to which you are born. As i have said, the royal family represent the head of this disgusting system.

Cut off the head and the monster will fall.

It is those that have least that the howls of protest should be loudest from. Sadly, it is those that have least that often are the most loyal. Like a beaten dog faithfully returning to its master.

The monarchy existing does nothing to prevent anybody from a lower class getting on in the world. Quite the opposite in fact. And what little remains of the class system doesn't prevent anybody from getting on either. If you're a bright hard-working person there's never been more opportunity than there is now to get on, much more than even twenty years ago, the existence of the monarchy hasn't prevented that from happening.

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.

[Gandalf]

The monarchy existing does nothing to prevent anybody from a lower class getting on in the world. Quite the opposite in fact. And what little remains of the class system doesn't prevent anybody from getting on either. If you're a bright hard-working person there's never been more opportunity than there is now to get on, much more than even twenty years ago, the existence of the monarchy hasn't prevented that from happening.

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.

[El Kabong]

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"

[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.

The two most simple yet important points.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

Some fucker has to get treated different from the rest of us. It's only a question of inherited versus elected.

The monarchy works just fine in a whole bunch of modern countries, Holland, Denmark, Norway etc. It doesn't matter that one family inherit the position. Look at the alternative. You'd have President Grin with his gruesome moneygrabbing letterbox-mouthed wife sitting in Buckingham Palace. He's made millions on the back of bullshitting the country into an illegal oil war which he got caught red-handed making bs intelligence up for before the invasion. She's also made millions from the country. When Blair first took office the first big thing he did was introduce a ton of human rights legislation, which changed the face of the legal system. And despite having no more qualifications than any other barrister, who ended up becoming the head of the dominant London chambers of the dominant human rights law outfit, an endlessly lucrative position she can hold as long as she wants? So if you're talking parasitic motherfuckers, the royal family are vestal virgins compared to our elected represenatives.

Read this.

Sue Carroll on how money-grabbing schemer Cherie Blair is up to her old tricks again - mirror.co.uk

Imagine that piece of shit representing the country.

And then go one prez back, it would have been John Major. Another guy who enriched himself with an oil war. Just as Blair was Bush Junior's cabin boy, Major was Bush Senior's. After he left office he became a board member of the Carlyle Group, an organisation set up by Bush Senior to sell tons of advanced weaponary to oil-rich dictators whose bacon we saved, stuff their armies don't even have the capability to use, stuff that is rusting away unused inwarehouses. basically take billions in kickbacks from the Saudis and Kuwaitis for sorting Saddam out. And Major is part of that, because if there's one thing a huge/government level international arms/equity dealing firm needs, it's advice from a former Surrey bank manager. At least his wife would have been relatively presentable. A little horse-faced, though so are plenty royals, but at least she wouldn't be flogging twenty quid models of Buck House to the tourists like Cherie.


Without the Queen these motherfuckers would be inserting themselves into every major decision the country made and getting a big chunk of cash out of every one, to add to all the existing corrption down the food chain. The Queen has saved Brits billions over the years.

[Kev]

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.