Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Royal Family: Yar or Nay?

  1. #1

    Default Royal Family: Yar or Nay?

    Personally, I don't see the point.

    As far as I can tell, they serve little purpose other than to give us an identity. They use taxpayers' money - often unwisely - and give very little of value back. A few appearances/openings here and there? Big-frickin'-wow!

    In the days when we were a powerful nation - the days when we were an Empire - having a monarch meant something, and made perfect sense. In today's world, there is surely no room or reason for them.

    To all those in the rest of the World... What do you make of the British Royal Family? And Royals in general?

    Fire away!

  2. #2

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by DanDanSuperman View Post
    As far as I can tell, they serve little purpose other than to give us an identity. They use taxpayers' money - often unwisely - and give very little of value back.
    The queen actually plays an important constitutional role, and the extent and scope of her powers would surprise a lot of people. While Elizabeth exercises her power in a fairly circumspect way, the fact remains that in legal terms it's difficult to hold the queen (and, more to the point, some of her ministers) accountable. There is a variety of problems that arise from her power, and the anomalous position of the queen, compared to her ministers and subjects, that I find off-putting. I tend to be sceptical about the monarchy as an institution, but my scepticism stems from the potentially enormous power that the queen could continue to exercise. Convention prevents various abuses or excesses, and it's difficult to imagine Elizabeth engaging in gross abuses of power. Nonetheless, the potential for enormous abuse of power exists, and there are certainly instances where a judge has found it difficult to force ministers to obey duly-constituted laws.

    I would prefer an elected head of state, but abolishing the monarchy would be a *radical* change, and far more complex than your post above implies.

    It's also worth noting that the queen and royal family do pay taxes, though they are not legally obliged to do so.

  3. #3

    Default

    Having a monarch also brings in extra tourism money, don't forget. It's not as clear-cut as "they spend taxpayers' money!".

    Personally I like the Royal family and everything that it represents, but I'm weirdly traditional for someone as liberal as I generally am... It's something that bothers me, actually, because when I get into arguments about it, I always try to be logical and find reason behind my beliefs, but struggle to do so, which frustrates me greatly as I always like to believe that everything that I think and do stems from reason (which is incredibly naive, I'm aware; humans aren't logical creatures - we're affected by emotion much more than logic). As such, I will likely ignore the rest of this thread, as I can already foresee it heading down a path that will merely anger me

    Don't let that stop you, though :>

  4. #4
    Butterfly Mage

    Default

    I don't see what makes "royal" or "noble" families special in any way. I don't think such titles are necessary. I care more about what a person accomplishes with his/her life, and not too much about the nobility of the person's last name.

  5. #5
    Loopygone

    Default

    Great for tourism, and a final check on the power that the government welds, just imaging if Blair/Brown had no one to answer too..... :X. Plus compared to some of the wastes of tax payers money they're not that bad value.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Mingus View Post
    I would prefer an elected head of state, but abolishing the monarchy would be a *radical* change, and far more complex than your post above implies.

    It's also worth noting that the queen and royal family do pay taxes, though they are not legally obliged to do so.
    With regard to the power the Queen possesses, it's surely a waste in today's age. Why not abolish the antiquated, useless and irrelevant, and spread the remainder across varying levels of elected figures - all beneath, as you say, an elected Head of State. I agree, however, that the idea is simply too radical to conceive. I didn't, to my knowledge, though, imply anything about how complex or not it would be. It stands to reason that there would be uproar, red tape and massive social and political reforms - it didn't need saying.

    As for their paying taxes... I can only say again, big whoop. It seems a pretty pathetic gesture when compared with their annual, taxpayer-funded allowances.

    All I'm saying is, they cost us money and there is no real point to their existence these days. In any other area, in any other walk of life, something like that would be cut, as a means of streamlining and cost-cutting.

  7. #7

    Default

    While I've never seen the point in giving someone power and authority (and, iirc, the Queen can still withhold Royal Assent and prorogue Parliament at her whim) because they fell out of a specific vagina, but they do give us colonists something to laugh at. And, to Badger's point about tourism, yes, I enjoyed walking through the Tower and other castles and palaces, and I find the whole history fascinating. But that doesn't require a living royal.

  8. #8

    Default

    Well, You gotta respect anyone who's ruled 16 countries for 60 odd years!

  9. #9
    Peachy

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by DanDanSuperman View Post
    With regard to the power the Queen possesses, it's surely a waste in today's age. Why not abolish the antiquated, useless and irrelevant, and spread the remainder across varying levels of elected figures - all beneath, as you say, an elected Head of State.
    Your political system is a constitutional monarchy (don't ask me where the constitution is!). It'd be hard to get rid of the queen without completely remodeling the entire political system. You cannot just replace a monarch with an elected figure simply because the monarch has too many (theoretical) powers in the system. The monarch has been educated from their birth how to exercise those powers, while an elected figure may abuse the powers given to them. So the only way of replacing the monarch is by remodeling the entire system to keep the power in the hands of a variety of people. And let's face it...British people favor their traditions way too much to ever let go of their political and government systems that have developed over centuries now. Just look at how little you guys liked the idea of a European constitution...how would you ever pass a national one that's required for a political system without a monarch. Right now, the Queen is the ultimate power in your country...if you want to replace her, you need a piece of paper with all the main ideas of how to run the country written down...and a court to enforce them. These things don't come overnight - they develop over time.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Peachy View Post
    (don't ask me where the constitution is!)
    That's because there isn't one Peachy! Well, least not in the sense that there's no document called the constitution, instead there's a vast collection of acts of parliament, court rulings and royal proclamations.

    Personally, I don't see any problem with having a monarch, even if the are werewolves! It just means instead of boring government department names like "IRS" or "Finanzdepartement" we get much cooler sounding ones like "Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.