Should we abolish the Royal family?

[El Kabong]

NO! You have to keep the royal family....it helps us hate you and also when would we ever get to hear Sir Elton John's 'Candle In The Wind' if there was no Royal Family I simply didn't hear that song enough after Princess Di died.

....sorry for the rant, but I got a little fed up with the attention Americans pay to the British Royal family, we did fight 2 wars to have them NOT be any part of this country. That and when the US media dubbed the Kennedy's "America's Royal Family" got me a tad steamed too, it made me want to break out the fucking guillotine!!!

[HattonTheHammer]

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

[Howlin Mad Missy]

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

you silly tart

[El Kabong]

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

I can't decide if you Brits think you live in some fantasy wonderland with castles and dragonsor if you're all just a bunch of Mo's


....it's even more funny when you try to figure out which group the Chav's fit in.

[porkypara]

I voted no even though I am not a big fan of the royals as such.


Who would take the queens place as head of state?

I would rather the queen as head of state rahter than a washed up politlcian.



I know its not a perfect system but its as good as any thing else on offer.

[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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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!!

No.

Britain's closed shop: damning report on social mobility failings | Society | The Guardian

and if you dont trust the lefty Guardian.

Disturbing finding from LSE study - social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining - 2005 - News archive - News - Press and Information Office - External Relations Division - Home

Try the LSE
In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility
Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable
Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity


And if it wasn't an issue we wouldnt need organisations like this.
Social Mobility Foundation

Yes, Britain and America are dead last in terms of social mobility in advanced economies. So it's not down to having a monarchy. And Denmark and Norway are top of the list for social mobility and they both have constitutional monarchies like we do. So having a monarchy has nothing to do with it. What creates social mobility is access to education. here's the lefty FT making the same point :

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - The mobile society stalls at the gates of academe

[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.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

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!!

No.

Britain's closed shop: damning report on social mobility failings | Society | The Guardian

and if you dont trust the lefty Guardian.

Disturbing finding from LSE study - social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining - 2005 - News archive - News - Press and Information Office - External Relations Division - Home

Try the LSE
In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility
Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable
Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity


And if it wasn't an issue we wouldnt need organisations like this.
Social Mobility Foundation

Yes, Britain and America are dead last in terms of social mobility in advanced economies. So it's not down to having a monarchy. And Denmark and Norway are top of the list for social mobility and they both have constitutional monarchies like we do. So having a monarchy has nothing to do with it. What creates social mobility is access to education. here's the lefty FT making the same point :

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - The mobile society stalls at the gates of academe

I never made the direct correlation between the UK having a monarchy and social mobiltity. Social conformity and norms are more subtle than that.

AND access to education is not the 1 factor that allows S.M to take place.

[ono]

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

Fuck me, we're as intelligent as Bees

[ono]

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

Actually, where does wanking fall into that?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

Actually, where does wanking fall into that?

Standing proud thinking of the Queen

[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.