The Monarchy

[Fourcolour]

[ Message temporarily off-line ]  

[Boolean Julian]

My opinion on the cultural role of the monarchy is similar to what I said in the Countdown thread. Whilst you may not even pay attention to them, it's important that they're there. It just makes you feel better.
Just imagine, imagine for a second, not having a queen. Your life would be no different, but the idea that there's someone at the head of the things to make an arse of herself is comforting.  

[Fourcolour]

Invictus_88

Fourcolour

Having said that I wouldn't get rid of them. I'd tax them more if I had the chance, but I like the idea of us exploiting foreigners with a grossly outdated image of what Britain is.

Why tax them more?

The royals pay the same level of tax as everyone else who earns what they do. Except the queen of course...she gets to pay 100% income tax.

Fourcolour

Invictus, could you explain exactly why you'd take up arms to defend the royal family?

Two reasons. One dogmatic, one practical.

i. Political duty, I am compelled as a citizen of the Channel Islands to fight to prevent overthrow of my leader HM the Queen, my duke. To return from any future capture, and to defend her if she is put at risk by a foreign invasion.

ii. Because the role of the British monarchy is a very good thing for the country, indeed in some respects essential. Also; because if there were a civil war I'd want to be on the winning team, because most people approve of the monarchy and I am a great supporter of pragmatic democracy, because the monarch does a very fine job in working her whole life for the nation and finally, because I want to. It makes sense to me.

You seem like a moral individual, so I'd wager you'd take up arms to defend any innocents from an aggressive party. I am interested in what makes the royal family more important in the minds of many.

From a tactical perspective I can wholy understand the value of defending the figurehead over ordinary people, simply because the fall in morale in a wartime situation would lead to more deaths. In any other situation though, I hold the life of an non-royal to be of equal value to that of a royal.  

[Invictus_88]

Fourcolour

Why is she the source of authority? Is the accident of birth a valid reason to follow someone, or to grant them higher status at all? As I've said before, I think the monarchy should remain. I just don't understand why we give them power. [/qoute]

It is because of the way that our constution has grown. It is uncodified and so evolves with time more fluidly that most, retaining any apparent archaic aspects that work, dorpping the rest and moving to fit with new and changing times.
As our nation is stable and uninvaded since the Norman conqest, there has been no instance of the monarchy being overthrown. This is because when they saw events on the continent (I'm thinking French Revolution here..) they understood that their role was to serve, not to be served. This they have done ever since, and thus removed all practical reasons for extricating them from their role within the political system.
They are, alas, born with the power. however they keep it because we largely approve of the work that they do. Both for charity, and for politics both internal and foreign.

Fourcolour

So they're wealthy business people? There are those in the realm of business who offer the economy more, but we don't exalt them on that basis; at least not to the degree that we exalt the royals. Why is this?

As buisnessmen go, they're not actually that wealthy. The profit when compared to the value of the property en masse is not actually so great as busnesse aim for. However the aim is for a balance between reasonable profit and safeguarding of the natural environment. Have you seen how Prince Charles runs Highrove?

Fourcolour

Your opinions on Tony Blair have nothing to do with this debate. Kindly avoid bringing them up again.

I reserve the right to expose our politicains to their due degree of flak, however for your sake, I will refrain for the moment.

wink

Fourcolour

What is your stance on the various second cousins and 'hangers-on' that get money from tax-payers simply by virtue of being 'a bit royal'? Personally I think the system could do with some level of reform to cut these individuals off. Your thoughts?

I think there's no need, they were cut out a while back. They get nothing but what they can earn for themselves, actually. Only the queen remains on the Civil List, and most of that is ploughed back into the British economy.

 

[Invictus_88]

Fourcolour

You seem like a moral individual, so I'd wager you'd take up arms to defend any innocents from an aggressive party. I am interested in what makes the royal family more important in the minds of many.

From a tactical perspective I can wholy understand the value of defending the figurehead over ordinary people, simply because the fall in morale in a wartime situation would lead to more deaths. In any other situation though, I hold the life of an non-royal to be of equal value to that of a royal.

It is probably a combination of admiration for their role and the simple fact that they are used to them and would rather not have a PM as the top guy. At least, that's what I've found in my sphere of existence.

I suppose for most it would make sense to value their lives equally, or more-so the ordinary person. The role of the monarch can always be passed to another, the next in line always having been groomed for the duty since birth.
Not-so for a policeman, teacher or doctor. Busdriver or fireman.

I'm not sure how bad a blow to morale the death of a royal would be, there was grief with diama and the Queen mother, but no realy dent in the sense of national unity or otherwise.

My saving-life-of-monarch thing is politcal, and rare.  

[Fourcolour]

Invictus_88

Fourcolour

You seem like a moral individual, so I'd wager you'd take up arms to defend any innocents from an aggressive party. I am interested in what makes the royal family more important in the minds of many.

From a tactical perspective I can wholy understand the value of defending the figurehead over ordinary people, simply because the fall in morale in a wartime situation would lead to more deaths. In any other situation though, I hold the life of an non-royal to be of equal value to that of a royal.

It is probably a combination of admiration for their role and the simple fact that they are used to them and would rather not have a PM as the top guy. At least, that's what I've found in my sphere of existence.

I suppose for most it would make sense to value their lives equally, or more-so the ordinary person. The role of the monarch can always be passed to another, the next in line always having been groomed for the duty since birth.
Not-so for a policeman, teacher or doctor. Busdriver or fireman.

I'm not sure how bad a blow to morale the death of a royal would be, there was grief with diama and the Queen mother, but no realy dent in the sense of national unity or otherwise.

My saving-life-of-monarch thing is politcal, and rare.

Diana divorced out of the royal family and as such wasn't a royal at the time of her death. A null point I know, but I'm pedantic.  

[Invictus_88]

She was still Princess of Wales though..  

[Fourcolour]

Invictus_88

She was still Princess of Wales though..

True, but I don't think she should have been.  

[Invictus_88]

Fourcolour

Invictus_88

She was still Princess of Wales though..

True, but I don't think she should have been.

She shouldn't, but she was.  

[Invictus_88]

Invictus_88

Invictus_88

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6602143&start=0

I just unleashed my Royalist hell upon another thread in ED.

My assault begins on page six.

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7349627&bt=1114186696&start=0

This time, I start on page two.

biggrin

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11176948&page=5#587194892

Aaand again.

This time, it's the last two pages.  

[Spatterdash]

The monarchy to my mind are like Boris Johnson - posh, daft, slightly suspect, but amusing and mostly harmless. I don't really see the point of a monarchy and I dislike hereditary privilege, but at the same time the monarchy don't seem to be doing us much damage.  

[Invictus_88]

Spatterdash

...but at the same time the monarchy don't seem to be doing us much damage.

Indeed, you could almost say that they are doing a fair bit of good.

rolleyes  

[Darth Buttsecks]

I.... completely agree with what Invictus has said in this thread. I'm not British nor do I know nearly as much as I should about British politics but during the time reading this entire thread(and all the threads that were linked) I have been convinced that removing the royals would be quite foolish indeed and unsurpsingly I learned more from Invictus speaking of them than all of Simon's feeble attempts to teach me about British politics.

Honestly, I'm quite impressed with the whole political system. Especially by the role that the royals play in it.  

[Invictus_88]

Timeless Visage

I.... completely agree with what Invictus has said in this thread. I'm not British nor do I know nearly as much as I should about British politics but during the time reading this entire thread(and all the threads that were linked) I have been convinced that removing the royals would be quite foolish indeed and unsurpsingly I learned more from Invictus speaking of them than all of Simon's feeble attempts to teach me about British politics.

Honestly, I'm quite impressed with the whole political system. Especially by the role that the royals play in it.

High praise indeed! Gratefully recieved, though perhaps not deserved.

I did, after-all, fail A-level Gov't & Politic to the tune of a 'U' grade.

xd