Are you in favour of the Royal Family?

[enzomari]

DM and I were discussing this last night, she's now in her Eighties and used to really like the Queen (not so much Phillip for some reason) but now really isn't bothered and thinks the RF, as is, should be abolished . I've always been a Republican but I was surprised at DM as she always seemed very pro RF but actually was pro the late Queen.

IMHO it seems so past it's sell by date but I'd be interested to know others opinions.

I can only speak for myself, but in the main it's the concept of a monarchy that offends me. I don't really want to pick on the "poor" sods who find themselves born into it. Although they do hold in their hands the power to free themselves and their descendants if they wanted. (So sympathy is a little limited).

However, as some people have twigged, ever Lizzie two (gawd bless 'er) was very skilled at ensuring her needs came first. Every. Single. Time.

You won't mind paying my share then

Yes, our Liz (gawd bless 'er) was a higly accomplished manipulator. The rest are a bunch of amateurs.

I think dear old Liz had to shape up as she wasn't born to reign. Also she had to take our minds off her uncle and his Nazi dabblings.

This current crop of royals have been cossetted from the off, and it shows.

She was born and raised in a time when deference to the monarchy was just the norm. The Govts she grew up through were men who believed in King/Queens and country and had been educated in that system. I'm sure she had her advisers who would have been advisers to her father. All would have had the same background. Making sure they stay on the throne and have an heir is the first rule of monarchy. Adding to the wealth is prob the 2nd

how do they give you pleasure?
Do you think voluntary contributions would be fairer?
So you could continue to give some money to the multi billionaire (* weird, but up to the individual) and the rest of us don't pay a penny?

@Notnecessarilynothing6532 You cannot link inequality to one family! How would you redistribute their wealth in any meaningful way? It’s impossible. Plus many people earn wealth. They create wealth. No wealth creators, far less employment. Having no RF doesn’t impact any of this. Getting rid of them is symbolic rubbish. It will change nothing except we would need a head of state. Who?

It’s a minority interest now - let it be a subscription model lol . Pay per view

There's one very very big thing that abolishing the RF would achieve.
The taxpayer would not be directly funding a billionaire family for a "service" they don't all want.

@TizerorFizz the RF is a very public and galling symbol of the anachronistic way British society works - where inherited wealth and privilege is still very much at play.

Why do we need a Head of State? What would happen if we didn't have one?

@BitOutOfPractice So symbolic. As I said. You can hate them but the position of the monarch in our functioning parliament is more important than that. Getting rid of their wealth and symbols of wealth do absolutely nothing to change anything.

Many people inherit some wealth and some people deserve wealth. Where do people get everything due to inherited wealth? Most don’t. They work. Personally I don’t care as long as they are good at their jobs and employ people. I dislike envy and blame.

I’m making sure my DC get as much as possible of what wealth we have but we started with very little - except intelligence. You cannot expect the cleaner to earn what the business owner does. Those who rise to the top in global business will earn well. Those who do jobs few can do will earn well. I really don’t care about their background. It’s not a major issue for the country. I’d prefer to see 100% of dc being competent readers!

@TizerorFizz
What nonsense

‘The position of monarch’ as you put it is made up . It’s not real. Royalty is not real.

Elizabeth was monarch for 70 long years yet left no impact at all . Nothing.
They could all be gone be gone tomorrow and nothing would change except the country would be much richer.

All they do is take . More and more each year. That they made sure basic laws such as equality and tax do not apply to them is an outrage but it shows what they really think of the rest of us .Now we know they take millions from the NHS and from the charities they claim to support! Then there are the paedophiles among them and those protected by them

You have totally contradicted yourself in your post . You say you admire people who use their intelligence to get ahead. You cannot then admire the Windsors .

Their wealth could be redistributed by giving all the art to galleries , all their palaces to the national trust, all their lands back into public ownership. All their cars and trappings sold and the money given to multiple charities like the homeless, the arts council, hospices. Early years projects, women’s aid and reading projects.

@BitOutOfPractice "So symbolic. As I said. You can hate them but the position of the monarch in our functioning parliament is more important than that"

What is it? Why is it important?

I certainly support fewer homes and far greater access to RF art by the public. They are custodians after all. What I don’t support is removal of the monarchy as a constitutional monarch. There isn’t a better solution.

@Ukisgaslit Your knowledge of a constitutional monarchy is woeful. If the government wanted to tax them it could. It would need to get tough and they all find this difficult. in general, it’s been through negotiation that change takes place. For this reason, we will retain the monarchy. No one can face the alternative. At least the monarchy has been a steady factor in society. Envy is never helpful.

Certain elements could be speeded up but I don’t believe there’s a better solution to the parliamentary role they fulfill. I really don’t want a president. They would probably be an ex politician and we think very little of them. I do think our RF should copy the Dutch and Danish queens and abdicate when 80 plus.

That was my point @TizerorFizz. I don’t want them as symbols. I’d like to disenfranchise the church, abolish the monarchy. And move forward as a grown up modern nation that values hard work and merit not hidebound snobbery and deference to the establishment, all the while covertly celebrating our imperialist past under the guise of the commonwealth (god knows why countries all around the world keep agreeing with that as a concept!)

You might not care about the background people in society. As a council house kid who’s done pretty well for herself though, I do. Because having the monarchy there - especially when it’s crowded with such lacklustre individuals as it is right now - individuals who wouldn’t have risen above average if it weren’t for their birth - is a real signal of what we value in this country. And it isn’t the meritocracy you fondly imagine. Funny isn’t it, that so many people who have done well for themselves band on about a meritocracy because they feel it justifies their luck above others who haven’t been so fortunate.

I also think it’s really really lazy rhetoric to say that anyone who disagrees with the monarchy is envious. I’m not. I don’t know them to envy them. But I do know what they represent and I fundamentally disagree with it.

If their role is so crucial one wonders how other countries manage

No @TizerorFizz on the contrary - I know a fair bit about how the Windsors operate. I know their supporters like to mention ‘constitutional monarchy ‘ a great deal without pointing out that th UK has retained medieval practices which would simply not be tolerated in the other countries which may have a monarch as a HOS
Parliaments of 100 years ago had a tighter grip on the Windsors . We can thank the Tories and Elizabeth’s greed for much of the current bloated finances that the Windsors enjoy. The Windsors are like any billionaires feeding off the people - they have able to fatten themselves grotesquely in recent decades - except of course the Windsors do not need to follow the laws that apply to us. All while bleating about ‘service’

The tories were never going to go deal with the Windsors- what are the Windsors after all but the Tories writ large.

Today a government will gain from tackling the Windsors and their stolen wealth
Take the Duchys - they should always have been part of the crown estates - and tax them properly

All this back and forth is only about the Windsors money.
Thats the cleanest thing about them . There’s a lot worse covered up

And I would add - remove all their wealth and properties and provide them with the same remuneration as a HOS of any comparable country - and I would accept Charles Windsor as HOS

Your problem is, would the Windsors continue their ‘god given ‘ role ( that’s what a coronation is ) in those circumstances ?

@BitOutOfPractice The monarchy makes no difference at all to how well others achieve. It’s there because of tradition and to be head of our parliamentary system but not to participate in law making. So they don’t prevent anything from going forward. I’m not against them being a bit lack lustre. At least William is reasonably intelligent.

I don’t believe luck is what gets people on. My DH comes from a pretty average background and certainly not people who aspired to anything. He did. He’s not the same as them. So it’s not luck, it’s being very good at what he does and being good at business. It’s about not being too timid to run a business! The monarchy plays no role in this. Most people we know haven’t had luck in what they do. They have gone to school, got jobs and worked their way up by being good at what they do! It’s not luck.

@TizerorFizz
Are you happy for Charles and William to run business but pay no corporation tax ?
Are you happy for them to take the estates of the intestate ?
Are you happy for your children to see Andrew parade around while it is known that he was a friend of Epstein and his mother paid off his accuser?

The monarchy sit at the very top of pyramid of unearned wealth and privilege, whilst at the very top of an out dated, archaic and divisive entrenched class system, where the vast majority at the bottom will never be able to even experience a slither of such privilege, no matter how much they try. How is this fair in a seemingly modern and progressive democracy? How is it fair we have this one alpha family that are billionaires in their own right, that have immensely benefited from colonialism and Empire, even still to this day, whilst so many people no longer even have a choice of whether to heat or eat. Now, there are people who skip meals every other day, and yet Charles is getting incrementally richer, every single day! There is so much disconnect in all of this. We need to change this system, and drag our country firmly into the 21st century. Why should this king remain as an unelected head of state when he can’t relate to 99% of his “subjects”? They are not better or more better important than us, and yet they sit in their immense unearned privilege, whilst people are skipping meals just to be able to at least feed their kids.

@Ukisgaslit No. their tax position should be the same as others. However we would need to identify state assets they manage as opposed to personal wealth. They should be no different from other estates but I think the country should chip in to an extent but I don’t think we pay that much either.

It’s difficult to see how other countries run their parliamentary systems any better. Not sure any have a better system and some are similar. It’s actually better to be stable and long lasting system and who needs more elections? That would end up with politics taking over and it’s the best solution to stay how we are but yes, their tax position is too generous.

Let me guess - ‘rich man in his castle poor man at his place’ ?
Know your place ?

That is what supporting the status quo means here .
Is not even the unearned wealth - it is being above the law and not having tax law apply !
And no a pitiful ‘voluntary ‘ offering is not acceptable. And William has stopped doing even that ! He’s worse than Charles