Public funding of the royal family should be optional

Many things that I don't use I am happy to pay for because they are a societal good. I honestly don't see that the Royal Family is. So I see no reason why I should pay for it.

The admin to collect your 1p would be more costly.

More generally government spending isn't pick and mix. If you don't agree with some thing then you vote for a party that better represents your views.

I’m not saying you can’t use it, I’m saying that I recognise that you aren’t using your own arguments (or brain). Paste away, but don’t expect me not to notice it or to not say when I notice it.

I think it’s lazy and uninformed; plus I took a lot of time to give you my genuine views. But yes, we definitely disagree on both your opinions (if they are your own) and the way you have chosen to interact on this thread.

None of those stand up.
If you dont use schools, NHS, roads you benefit from the fact they are available. Society would not work without a health service, roads or education.
Cant say they same about the RF.

that said have a good day, and long me the king reign

i use a research guide that helps with research, which as with history and politics is subject do different interpretations, on the information. besides noting in the forums rules against using it, especially when its being used productively in a debate

i guess we agree to disagree

We can play this game all night… but I disagree with everything you have said.

You are giving me cut and paste non-answers to my genuine answers (which is fairly distasteful).

Welcome to AI I guess. Hope you learned something. Like not to be a machine.

Should child free people pay towards schools?
Pacifists not contribute to the armed forces?
People who don't use libraries?
People who rarely use the NHS?
Non drivers shouldn't contribute to road repairs?
Actually OP if you are short of 77pence send me your bank details and I'll cover your contribution to the Royal family 🤣

They bring in so much money to the country in tourism and business, we would all have to pay more in taxes to make up for it.

@Arlanymor

Argument 1: The Monarch's Role in State Functions

Criticism: The monarch’s role undermines democratic processes because the monarch is not elected. The King’s Speech is written by the government, which lacks accountability.

Rebuttal:

Symbolic Continuity and Stability: The monarch's role in state functions, such as the State Opening of Parliament and the delivery of the King’s Speech, is largely ceremonial and symbolic. While it is true that the speech is written by the government, this tradition underscores the continuity and stability of the state, bridging the historical legacy with modern governance.

Non-Political Figurehead: The monarch’s involvement as a non-political figurehead ensures that these ceremonial functions are carried out without partisan bias, preserving the dignity and impartiality of the state.

Accountability through Government: Accountability for the content of the King’s Speech lies with the elected government that drafts it, ensuring democratic responsibility. The monarch’s role in this context is to provide a neutral and stable symbol, rather than to influence policy directly.

Argument 2: National Unity and Non-Partisan Figurehead

Criticism: The monarchy creates divisions rather than unity, particularly in regions like Wales and Scotland, and historical grievances exacerbate these issues.

Rebuttal:

National Unity: While it is acknowledged that there are differing views on the monarchy across the UK, the role of the monarch as a non-partisan figurehead is intended to transcend these divides. The monarchy aims to represent the nation as a whole, fostering a sense of shared identity and continuity.

Complex Historical Context: Historical grievances, such as those related to the Prince of Wales, highlight the complex nature of national identity. However, the monarchy also works to address these issues through engagement and public service, promoting dialogue and reconciliation.

Public Opinion: Despite regional variations in support, surveys and public opinion polls generally show that a significant portion of the UK population values the monarchy for its role in national life, suggesting that it contributes to a sense of national pride and unity for many.

Argument 3: Role in Charitable Work and Public Life

Criticism: The impact of the Royal Family on charities is minimal, and the efforts are seen as mere profile building.

Rebuttal:

Raising Awareness: The involvement of the Royal Family in charitable work raises the profile of various causes, attracting media attention and public interest that might otherwise be lacking. This heightened visibility can lead to increased support and awareness.

Patronage and Support: Royals often serve as patrons to charities, providing invaluable support and legitimacy. While not all engagements result in immediate financial boosts, the long-term association with the Royal Family can lead to sustained interest and donations.

Inspiration and Example: The public service of the Royal Family can inspire others to engage in charitable work, contributing to social cohesion. While there are many unsung heroes, the Royals’ high-profile involvement helps highlight and honor these efforts.

Argument 4: Diplomatic Role and International Relations

Criticism: The Royal Family’s role in diplomacy has been counterproductive, and many Commonwealth nations are reconsidering their ties.

Rebuttal:

Diplomatic Engagement: The Royal Family’s participation in state visits and international events often strengthens diplomatic relationships. These visits symbolize continuity and respect between nations, even as they evolve politically.

Commonwealth Connections: While some nations are reconsidering their status within the Commonwealth, the institution itself remains a platform for cooperation and cultural exchange. The monarchy’s role in the Commonwealth provides a sense of shared history and mutual respect.

Mitigating Issues: Diplomatic missteps can occur, but the overall impact of the Royal Family on international relations includes significant positive contributions, such as fostering goodwill, cultural exchange, and international partnerships.

Argument 5: Integration of Monarchy and Democracy
Criticism: The UK's governance system is not robust due to the monarchy, perpetuating class divisions and religious biases.

Rebuttal:

Robust Democratic Institutions: The UK’s system of constitutional monarchy supports robust democratic institutions, with the monarch playing a symbolic role while real political power resides with elected representatives. This balance helps maintain stability and continuity.

Meritocracy and Equality: While the monarchy is a hereditary institution, the UK continues to strive for meritocracy and equality within its democratic framework. The existence of the monarchy does not preclude efforts to address social and economic inequalities.

Religious Neutrality: Although the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, modern Britain is a multi-faith society with legal protections for religious freedom. The monarch’s role in religion is largely ceremonial and does not dictate the religious practices of the nation.

Yes, they are a bunch of arrogant scroungers!

@OperationSquid

My views of course, don’t have to be yours and all are welcome.

“The UK's constitutional monarchy exemplifies how these two systems can coexist and support each other. The monarchy's role in state functions, such as the opening of Parliament and the granting of royal assent to legislation, reinforces the democratic processes while maintaining a sense of historical continuity.”

No - the monarch’s role undermines democratic processes because the monarch is not elected. The King’s Speech on the opening of Parliament is written by the government, it’s a weird open subterfuge. It would be much better for an elected member to stand up and say those words because they would then have accountability - we can’t hold the monarch accountable for anything. Historical continuity is a misty-eyed notion, no one gives an actual crap that the monarch opens Parliament unless they are against the concept.

“Moreover, the monarchy contributes to national unity by transcending political divides and serving as a non-partisan figurehead.”

No - come my side of the bridge, the issue of monarchy with a Prince/Princess of Wales has driven us mad for years. We are never listened to though. It actually creates divisions and not unity. Scotland have similar though not identical issues. Honestly the whole concept of a royal family (and what royal families have done over time) is intensely complex and fraught… William of Orange for example.

“The monarchy also plays a significant role in public life through charitable work and fostering international relations. The Royal Family's involvement in numerous charities and public engagements helps to highlight and support various causes, contributing to social cohesion and national pride.”

Arguable - I think there are thousands of unsung heroes keeping the UK on its feet through continued acts of selflessness and I don’t see a royal popping along for a photo shoot helping all that much - also it’s been tracked, donations don’t rise, it’s just profile building and not necessarily for the charity. I’m sure there are people who love to go to a garden party or have a hand shake. But the impact is fleeting. Also what is ‘national pride’ it’s not a thing.

“Additionally, the monarchy's diplomatic role in state visits and international relations helps to maintain and enhance the UK's global standing.”

No - many members of the royal family have done much to diminish diplomacy and mandarins have had to pick up the pieces. Popping across to Australia when they are considering their constitution…. So many places are leaving the Commonwealth or considering doing so… so no, their international relations are not working or are working against their intention.

“Thus, while monarchy and democracy may appear as antithetical, the UK’s example illustrates how they can be integrated to create a robust and stable governance system.”

No - our system is not robust in the slightest. The king gets the same information as the Prime Minister purely by virtue of birth, that’s wrong. The fact we have a monarchy entrenches further the class system that started the gap between rich and poor in the UK and continues to do so. The king is the Head of State which means HIS religion has to be the default religion of the country. What signal does that send out?

Happy to be challenged on any of this.

Cool, happy to. Give me a second to switch to a keyboard rather than my iPad.

yes

What is a yes president? Do you mean a Head of State? So like France - a President and a Prime Minister?

yes please step by step point by point as it helps educate me

I could genuinely dismantle all of what you have posted if you want?

without the monarchy, do the public want yes president ?

Doesn’t make it right either. Make your own arguments.

Oh I get it now. Tee hee ha ha.

doesn't make it wrong

Thanks for your cut and paste.

I could not disagree with you more. That is all monarchist bullshit.

The UK's constitutional monarchy exemplifies how these two systems can coexist and support each other. The monarchy's role in state functions, such as the opening of Parliament and the granting of royal assent to legislation, reinforces the democratic processes while maintaining a sense of historical continuity. Moreover, the monarchy contributes to national unity by transcending political divides and serving as a non-partisan figurehead.

The monarchy also plays a significant role in public life through charitable work and fostering international relations. The Royal Family's involvement in numerous charities and public engagements helps to highlight and support various causes, contributing to social cohesion and national pride. Additionally, the monarchy's diplomatic role in state visits and international relations helps to maintain and enhance the UK's global standing.

Thus, while monarchy and democracy may appear as antithetical, the UK’s example illustrates how they can be integrated to create a robust and stable governance system.

I would agree with you.

And they stole all the land after 1066!

The old royal places olone have more visitors than we do.