Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Fatalysm

The British Monarchy

Recommended Posts

The British monarchy (aka her majesty the queen and the remainder of the royal family) are a traditional icon in Britain and across the seas. But as we move into modern day, the use of the royal family has dwindled. Britain may still be influenced and under control by the queen, but the lady does not run it. The queen is merely a figure head, or is she?

 

Many argue that whilst the Queen and the royal family do not essentially run the country, they do provide a lot for Britain in the form of tourism. As well as this you have charity work and funding in various forms. An interesting fact that many people don't seem to know is about the crown estate. The crown estate is one form of tax relief provided by the crown. The surplus of profit for the last finacial year was £210.7 million and that's just because of an agreement King George the third made!

 

A good note to make is the Queen can at any point create a general election, dismiss a prime minister and of course, all prime ministers have to be approved by her majesty. However, britain being in a democracy has allowed the lady to sit back and relax. That and if she genuinely went against the public on a decision, it wouldn't work out that well for her either way. Should the Queen make more decisions, or continue to take a backseat approach?

 

Obviously before replying, it would be in your better interest to do some more reading about the good and the bad. I've missed out quite a bit, I'm just editing this in now, but from an uncited source (hopefully i'll find it again) it was said that the cost of the royals was at around £40 million a year. Another source I need to get hold of said that the £40m mark was actually just a technicality and the true cost was closer to £200m a year. Now if that is the case, there has got to be some serious benefit to start making the royals worth the cost. Bearing in mind, the £200m mark was without cost of security and policing. But again, take it with a pinch of salt till I source it.

 

The queen cannot last forever, at least not yet. With that Prince Charles would become king, things could change then but essentially you can presume that life would fairly similar unless government had a shake up. Then of course, Charles is getting on but members of the royal family seem to last forever, so before you know it, Prince William will become king. My question is, do you think a shake-up in the monarchy with a new king would make a difference and why?

 

One thing that shakes people up is that the queen acts as head of state. She was born into that role, but this allows a person (who the people didn't choose) to run Britain. Thankfully we have a well educated Queen, but it only takes one person to change things up. At least with a government we can elect who we think is best, the monarchy is pre-selected. Do you think the public should have more control over it's monarchy?

 

Is the monarchy outdated? Are we better without one? Does the government need that back-up and control on top of it? There are still countries with acting monarchies, how might they compare?

 

http://www.royal.gov...eCivilList.aspx

http://www.moneyobse...estate-unveiled

http://www.royal.gov...y/Overview.aspx

Edited by Fatalysm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the king/queen's son/daughter, no matter how stupid or bad for the country, automatically gets to take over once their father/mother die kind of scares me.

 

But as for making decisions or taking a backseat approach (I can't speak from experience, as I don't live in England), but I don't see anything wrong with the way it is now. England seems to generally do well overall, and I don't recall any disastrous decisions the king or queen has made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Thankfully we have a well educated Queen"

 

That's it in a nutshell. Whatever you think of monarchy, she "gets it"

And seems to have a good understanding of history and tradition.

She has been very responsible with the power (and/or non power) that she has.

(as far as anyone like me can tell)

 

I do not think anyone of her immediate descendants is up to the task.

None of them seem deserving or as serious and well prepared.

Maybe they are just not ready yet.

Or maybe it is time for change.

 

I think monarchy is oudated. But I am not British.

So I cannot say whether or not you all are better off without one.

But if you look at British history a certain way, it is what you all have been doing slowly but surely for centuries........

(magna carta and all that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before I read this article, I honestly thought that this was only going to talk about the monarchy before modern times, because for a second I thought it didn't exist anymore as monarchies are really classical/outdated to me but then I realized that it did

 

so apparently that is my opinion on the monarchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I speak from the perspective from a Dutch person, though it's not too different. Our queen has less power though, and recently even had power taken from her. While the costs are high (and they should certainly be lowered because being born into the royal family should not net you half a million euros (perhaps not half a million, but it's nevertheless a fairly high number that I don't feel like sourcing :P) a year), I think that it's important. We have 2 separate days in the year celebrating the monarchy, and are a huge part of Dutch tradition. In addition, the queen is also a part of my official events. Is she necessary? No. Is there a reason for her to still be queen? Absolutely. She is a symbol, I think, of unity and allows for a healthy bit of nationalism. Again, costs like ours and GB's are too high, but a monarchy does have its uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the king/queen's son/daughter, no matter how stupid or bad for the country, automatically gets to take over once their father/mother die kind of scares me.

It doesn't really make a difference anymore. Obviously throughout history the family inheritance of the crown has caused problems (such as King Charles I, who ended up getting his head chopped), but the monarchy these days is superficial with hypothetical powers.

 

But as for making decisions or taking a backseat approach (I can't speak from experience, as I don't live in England), but I don't see anything wrong with the way it is now. England seems to generally do well overall, and I don't recall any disastrous decisions the king or queen has made.

That's because, as far as I'm aware, the King/Queen don't actually make any "decisions". As far as I'm aware they still have the ability to reject a parliamentary policy, fire prime ministers etc. but these powers are all mere formality, due to the country being a democracy, and the royal family really being a tourist attraction who need to keep public popularity high.

 

I do not think anyone of her immediate descendants is up to the task.

None of them seem deserving or as serious and well prepared.

Maybe they are just not ready yet.

Or maybe it is time for change.

Depending on what you mean by immediate, I'd debate that. Next in line is Charles, and the man's a fool with a hag of a wife, and collectively they will not be good for the monarchy. However, he's advancing in years and we don't know how long he's going to be on the throne. However, Wills and Kate are, at present, absolutely beloved by the public and will, in my opinion, do wonders for the publicity of the monarchy, and will be great figureheads for the country.

 

Again, costs like ours and GB's are too high, but a monarchy does have its uses.

I'm looking for something to back me up here, but I'm fairly sure, in the case of the British monarchy anyway, they rake in far, far more in tourism than they spend each year, so I don't necessarily see the cost as a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the king/queen's son/daughter, no matter how stupid or bad for the country, automatically gets to take over once their father/mother die kind of scares me.

It doesn't really make a difference anymore. Obviously throughout history the family inheritance of the crown has caused problems (such as King Charles I, who ended up getting his head chopped), but the monarchy these days is superficial with hypothetical powers.

 

But as for making decisions or taking a backseat approach (I can't speak from experience, as I don't live in England), but I don't see anything wrong with the way it is now. England seems to generally do well overall, and I don't recall any disastrous decisions the king or queen has made.

That's because, as far as I'm aware, the King/Queen don't actually make any "decisions". As far as I'm aware they still have the ability to reject a parliamentary policy, fire prime ministers etc. but these powers are all mere formality, due to the country being a democracy, and the royal family really being a tourist attraction who need to keep public popularity high.

 

I do not think anyone of her immediate descendants is up to the task.

None of them seem deserving or as serious and well prepared.

Maybe they are just not ready yet.

Or maybe it is time for change.

Depending on what you mean by immediate, I'd debate that. Next in line is Charles, and the man's a fool with a hag of a wife, and collectively they will not be good for the monarchy. However, he's advancing in years and we don't know how long he's going to be on the throne. However, Wills and Kate are, at present, absolutely beloved by the public and will, in my opinion, do wonders for the publicity of the monarchy, and will be great figureheads for the country.

 

Again, costs like ours and GB's are too high, but a monarchy does have its uses.

I'm looking for something to back me up here, but I'm fairly sure, in the case of the British monarchy anyway, they rake in far, far more in tourism than they spend each year, so I don't necessarily see the cost as a bad thing.

Ah, well if it's compensated for, that's great obviously. But a high 'salary', or at least as high as they get them, is overkill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think anyone of her immediate descendants is up to the task.

None of them seem deserving or as serious and well prepared.

Ps67r.jpg

Had to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@reep. (I'm on my phone and messing with the quoting would take all day :P )

 

I guess a lot of the money spent by the monarchy is on their high-end lifestyle such as clothes and gatherings. It's obviously something I can't understand, but the monarchy is a huge success for the country, and costs each taxpayer something like 3p a year I think, so I'm willing to let the obscene amount of money they spend on hats slide :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monarchy does bring a lot of tourist money, that is enough for me to not feel it should be abolished. The house of lords, however, does interest me, because you can't vote for them, but they still have quite a deal of power.

Edited by error404

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Queen needs tax money?

Doesn't she like own a lot of the mineral rights in Canada. Among other things.

Anyway I will not pretend to know as much about the British system as some of you.

 

I do not like monarchy. But I do have a lot of respect for the Queen and the way she does things.

I do not see myself feeling the same way about anyone who may be her replacement.

But it does not matter what I think. I'm not a subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the monarchy had any greater kind of significance, I'd certainly be in favour of getting rid of them. Although I would favour being a republic I simply don't think there's any need for a change (particularly when there are reforms that are more necessary, like in the House of Lords).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opposition to royalty and aristocracy is of an ideological nature but don't really care about the British monarchy in specfic. The idea that there's a group of people with special privileges and power that is inherited rather than granted or earned is to me absurd and I think Britain would be better off if the queen had no power at all, merely for the sake of principle.

 

As for the monarchy's popular appeal, I really don't give a shizzle. Obsessing over royal weddings and gossip and the like isn't much different from obsessing over celebrities' personal lives. Oh wait! They're actually the same thing.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opposition to royalty and aristocracy is of an ideological nature but don't really care about the British monarchy in specfic. The idea that there's a group of people with special privileges and power that is inherited rather than granted or earned is to me absurd and I think Britain would be better off if the queen had no power at all, merely for the sake of principle.

 

As for the monarchy's popular appeal, I really don't give a shizzle. Obsessing over royal weddings and gossip and the like isn't much different from obsessing over celebrities' personal lives.

 

I agree with you.

 

The British monarchy, no matter how profitable it may be, is wrong in principle. To add to what theking1322 said, I believe hereditary political power of any form is just plain wrong and the British monarchy represents hundreds of years of oppression and slavery by the British Empire.

 

It is false that the British monarchy is powerless.

 

 

 

 

In practice the monarchy is an institution that is not fit for purpose. It is secretive, having recently lobbied successfully to have itself removed entirely from the reaches of our Freedom of Information laws; it lobbies government ministers for improvements to its financial benefits and for its own private agenda; it is hugely costly -- an estimated £202 million a year, enough to pay for thousands of teachers, nurses or police officers at a time of sweeping public spending cuts.

 

Those powers include considerable patronage -- the ability to appoint bishops, government ministers, heads of public bodies and so on -- as well as the power to go to war, sign treaties and change the law through the little-understood Privy Council. Thanks to the Crown there is almost no limit to the power of our politicians other than those limits they place upon themselves (such as our Human Rights Act, which they have the power to repeal).

Edited by Aliath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to what theking1322 said, I believe hereditary political power of any form is just plain wrong
Hence, since economic power is ultimately political power, inheritance shouldn't exist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to what theking1322 said, I believe hereditary political power of any form is just plain wrong
Hence, since economic power is ultimately political power, inheritance shouldn't exist...

 

I'm not sure if you're being serious, or if you're arguing against me. I am against private property. Either way, I do take issue with what you just said.

 

A head of state is not the owner of the country. The Queen is not the owner of Great Britain, it is not her private property. Which, of course, her children won't inherit. Shouldn't inherit.

Edited by Aliath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to what theking1322 said, I believe hereditary political power of any form is just plain wrong
Hence, since economic power is ultimately political power, inheritance shouldn't exist...

Let's not open that can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to what theking1322 said, I believe hereditary political power of any form is just plain wrong
Hence, since economic power is ultimately political power, inheritance shouldn't exist...

Let's not open that can of worms.

Oh, come on, it's the debate room and you're going to deprive me of an occasion to stir up an epic flame war?

 

Note to self: add reason #1442 to wage war against theking(heh)1322

 

A head of state is not the owner of the country.

It does _represent_ the country, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to what theking1322 said, I believe hereditary political power of any form is just plain wrong
Hence, since economic power is ultimately political power, inheritance shouldn't exist...

Let's not open that can of worms.

Oh, come on, it's the debate room and you're going to deprive me of an occasion to stir up an epic flame war?

 

Note to self: add reason #1442 to wage war against theking(heh)1322

 

A head of state is not the owner of the country.

It does _represent_ the country, though.

 

But there's a distinction to be made between representation and private ownership. >.>

Edited by Aliath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know the UK isn't an old school monarchy, the Queen is more of a British symbol than a ruler despite having some powers. But the past monarchs (before 1848's European revolutions) were the sole and absolute rulers so they did actually 'own' their countries. Nowadays the UK is a constitutional monarchy meaning the Queen is the head of state but has limited powers, but since she is still the Queen she technically does own the country. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am ideologically opposed to monarchies - I would like to think that anyone from anywhere could rise to a position of power, and a monarchy is the absolute opposite of that idea - but in practise the monarchy means very little other than more tourism. Also, even without the Royals, we'd still have the problem of the upper classes still being at a massive advantage to their middle and working class counterparts in terms of opportunities.

 

It makes my blood boil that really talented people have to go to bad schools and settle down into dead-end jobs while Prince Harry, for example, gets the best education on offer, does fairly poorly in comparison to many state educated pupils (B in Art and D in Geography at A level), and yet still gets to live a life of luxury. It's a travesty, really.

 

Also it irritates me that I have to avoid news outlets like the plague whenever there's a Royal event. A wedding isn't news!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it irritates me that I have to avoid news outlets like the plague whenever there's a Royal event. A wedding isn't news!

That applies to most celebrity weddings though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wedding isn't news!

B2TRu.jpg

 

Just pretend it was all about Pippa Middleton's derriére

 

datass.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it irritates me that I have to avoid news outlets like the plague whenever there's a Royal event. A wedding isn't news!

That applies to most celebrity weddings though.

Most celebrity weddings aren't, however, the main remit of every news channel in the UK :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it irritates me that I have to avoid news outlets like the plague whenever there's a Royal event. A wedding isn't news!

That applies to most celebrity weddings though.

Most celebrity weddings aren't, however, the main remit of every news channel in the UK :P

I think that is a mistake on the part of news channels though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.