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 suspect the answers to the first 3 are pretty ropey too, to be fair. Even the other European Constitutional Monarchies swear allegiance to serve the people. The King swear allegiance to God and expects us to swear allegiance to him. The National anthem is about him, not the people.
The fact that the custom is apparently that Parliament doesn't discuss the Royal Family- well I think Charles I may be wondering why he got his head chopped off. Not to mention King John wondering why he went through all that trouble with his barons! Surely all of that was so that the Monarch was accountable to Parliament?

forgot that bit about the RF not for discussion in parliament. thats convenient.But this from a while back explains more

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/25/parliament-monarchy-keir-starmer-queen

Charles I - the OG - had his head chopped of because it was established )not by him, by the way) that the coronation oath is an oath to the country before God. He broke that oath (so the charge of treason went) by making war on his own people.

Because he had to stick to the "I am anointed by God" line of Medieval monarchs, he was unable to mount a defence (his starting point being "this court is not, and can never be legitimate").

However parliament (or rather "parliament" as there was some stacking going on) decided that it did have the power to hold the King accountable. It was going to hold the King accountable. And having been found accountable, the King was guilty. And in those days the punishment for treason was (for a noble) head choppy time.

One of the preconditions of Charles II restoration was to abide by the New World Order and keep his nose well clear of anything parliament decided. Which suited him as a very busy man with interests elsewhere.

This is why it is absolute bollocks to think that the Monarch could exercise any power over parliament. An institution from which they are physically banned from attending except on the one day they open it. It's the history behind the pantomime of Black Rod (f'narr f'narr) and silk stockings. Anyone who harbours some lingering belief in the power of the Monarch really needs to see me about a bridge that is going cheap. It's OK for children to believe that. But frankly embarrassing to encounter actual grown-ups who spout that shite.

However, most royal fans are tea towel collectors, not people with an interest in constitutional theory, much less the constitutional history of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. And thinking yellow suited the Queen isn't really the same.

Me too

Anyone who harbours some lingering belief in the power of the Monarch really needs to see me about a bridge that is going cheap. It's OK for children to believe that. But frankly embarrassing to encounter actual grown-ups who spout that shite.

So why cant their antics be publicly scrutinised in Parliament? Why is The Monarch allowed to hide their wills and papers relating to their activities (and indeed their family's when it comes to Andrew) away? And more importantly, why are they allowed to opt out of potential legislation, secretly, before it goes to Parliament and becomes Law? They shouldn't have any power, you are right. But they do. And we have a Parliament and establishment that is not holding them to account.

Sorry that was in response to @CurlewKate - my phone is playing up

Yes I mean we can say they have no power but they clearly do. They can ignore the law - I don’t think Anne’s fine for her dogs biting children counts as being held to account .

Not being debated in parliament - how is that democratic?
So much smoke and mirrors

Now you're talking ...

If they are wise Parliament will start by dealing with the abuses promptly and in a measured way
Look at the US at the moment .

I like the Royal Family very much, but I worry that the conditions in which the system was created no longer exists to keep it working.

I mean in the old days, the king had to lead the army into land wars, so if he wasn't up to the job, then pretty quickly we would have had a new king. In biology that is called "selection pressure" and it means that the person at the top is pretty likely to be able to do the job, or will be rapidly replaced.

The current royal family has no selection pressure like that really, and as they marry commoners, they are going to become more and more just like the rest of us. I think eventually they won't really be royal any more, just for purely practical reasons.

I'm not sure how much they have to be just like the rest of us before we give up pretending that they are not.

.

The biggest single success of the House of Windsor through the 20th and now 21st centuries has been the long con that they are outside of or above politics.

The bulk of their multi billion fortune has been built during that time period by ruthlessly exploiting influence over government, officials etc to protect and build up their own fortunes via tax exemptions, business regulation exemptions, secrecy around much of the financing and the lucrative exploitation of influence etc.

The Sting had nothing on it.

@GiantBears
Sorry to break it to you but there is no such thing as royalty or ‘ commoners ‘ ( I haven’t heard that term for a lifetime!)

It’s a con trick

built on a system that has kept the wealth of England in the hands of the Norman descendants (1066 and all that) for nearly a millennia.

When you know that, all of a sudden the foreign fascination with a privileged English education makes sense. All those dictators desperately trying to learn the secret of how to hang on to your wealth through wars, famines, revolutions and reformations.

Isn't it expensive having a royal family and government what's the difference financially between UK and France?

I am intrigued to hear how the RF is different from the common population, because as far as I can see they are no smarter, hotter, kinder, or more talented than me or anyone else. Just a lot richer.

You forget to add are no more dysfunctional than the rest of us. Yet you have people put them on this pedestal to look up to. They are far from role model material.

I don't know. No one in my family to the best of my knowledge has been best mates with convicted paedophiles. There aren't even that many affairs or divorces compared to the Royals!

I always used to be anti when I was younger, and in theory today I'd still lean towards having e.g. an elected president. But then I look at our political parties/the MP's and think well that's the best the country has to offer under our current system (can't say I'm impressed with any of them tbh) would electing a head of state or whatnot be any better? Unfortunately I suspect not... I never paid much attention to the RF, I got the impression that the late Queen had more integrity than any of our politicians and the older I got the more I valued the sense of continuity and lack of drama. For me King Charles is an unknown entity, I know nothing about him really because I never paid much attention to them but on the whole I think I'd rather have them than not, if only because I have no faith that any alternative would be any better in practice/reality.

Sigh. There’s absolutely no reason why an elected HoS needs to be a politician.

Fred not only lobbied Lambeth Palace on the cautioned Ball's behalf (bleated he didn't know a caution entailed admitting a crime 🙄), he bought him a house.

Savile of course 'flew under the radar' despite an army of royal advisors whose only job was to protect Fred's interests and an Honours Committee who vetoed the knighthood a decade before it happened on the grounds of highly unsavoury published interviews while (we have to assume) keeping Fred in the dark.

I'd far rather have King's Charles then President Boris Johnson, or Nigel Farage.

If anything I feel sorry for the King because everyone is so rubbish to him. I bet his life would have been much nicer without all of us to deal with.

Save your sighs.

He has and always has had the choice to walk away.

I am fairly neutral on this but don’t want an expensive figurehead put in place instead, even if elected as this would just rename the situation rather than change it.
Problem is the royals exist so what do we do with them if they are abolished???

Would you rather have fifty years of King Andrew than President David Attenborough or President Floella Benjamin?