If 'commoners' can marry into the royal family - why have a 'royal' family -

[HacketteofHacks]

I totally respect the Queen and think she's been largely a force for good...
But at work we were talking about the tour that's on now.. my boss pointed out the the definition of a royal family was that its lineage is 'predetermined by God'.
Well that is archaic in itself - my boss (who is no royalist) the. pointed out that once members of a royal family marry commoners they lose this 'untouchable special-Ness'.
I think he had a good point...
He's from Jamaica so hence we were all having the conversation .

The trouble is, people are so impressed by the queen's "dedication to the country" without really thinking it through. They never seem to see that this "dedication" to the country is amply rewarded and doesn't really demand much in return.

Her dedication is for herself, family and the monarchy, she cares little about the rest of us.

Kings have married commoners throughout time. Anne Boleyn was a commoner.

And the suggestion to use Royal estates to house refugee's is ridiculous.
Carry on.

Well, the Dutch RF are using a spare palace to do exactly that so over to the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas or whatever they're called.

And hilariously pp bring up 2 fairly, in some respects, dysfunctional republics where the president - unlike the UK's head of state - is the executive as well as head of state. slow handclap

Germany works well, as does France - other republics are available. The problem is when monarchists of little imagination think about a president their lack of imagination doesn't stretch as far as across a short stretch of water to Ireland.

When the Queen dies it's going to be weird. but i hope that's it then and the next one decides to really cut down on it all with a view to the country becoming a republic on his death.

Republicans of little imagination probably don't look at all the different styles of monarchy in the nations that have them. That's a third of all, including those amongst the best for measures of equality, and not including those with dictators.

Didn't like my repeating the 'of little imagination' ?

It's not a good way to debate, is it, to just slag off those who don't agree with you. Though i suppose as this is AIBU, name-calling is to be expected

Sadly our taxes are funding a family that is under educated, of average ability and not very charismatic.

They are worse than useless. They have every opportunity and resources to do real and lasting good work, such as housing refugees, or doing some of the heavy lifting in tackling the climate crisis. Charles is full of rhetoric about supporting nature and organic growing, encouraging young entrants to farming, but a young friend with a tenancy on the Prince of Wales’s land will tell you how the ungenerous terms mean he can hardly make the farm pay. The reality is that they see ordinary people who actually work for a living as sub human serfs. We need to ensure that they are gone once the queen is dead.

It's not a good way to debate, is it, to just slag off those who don't agree with you. Though i suppose as this is AIBU, name-calling is to be expected

if you think "little imagination" is name calling i have a bridge to sell you.

And it IS little imagination. Every time we suggest a republic the same old tripe gets trotted out "Blair/Johnson/May/Rees-Mogg". There is a country VERY close to the UK with a president and - blimey! not a sleazy ex politician.

It also demonstrates a lack of imagination to think that a UK republic would be like the USA or Russia when it quite clearly has a different structure and won't.

I wonder what "little imagination" it requires to know that a hereditary monarchy doesn't belong in the 21st century?

@WinnieTheW0rm out of interest where are there different 'styles' of monarchy that don't have a hereditary element? I know there are monarchies that are far less pompous than ours are but all of them are hereditary and so by their very nature inherently ridiculous in a modern democracy.

I wonder what "little imagination" it requires to know that a hereditary monarchy doesn't belong in the 21st century?

It’s not knowledge, it’s an opinion.

The refugee issue is a real opportunity for them if only they’d take it. Particularly given that the Belgian and Dutch royal families have taken in (a tiny number of) refugees. Such is the vitriol here though, they’d be bound to be criticised if they did.

Such is the vitriol here though, they’d be bound to be criticised if they did

They'll be damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Just shows how unpopular they are. People have had enough.

It’s not knowledge, it’s an opinion.

nobody has said it's "knowledge". This is a chat forum, everything people write under their name is opinion. I don't know why the words "little imagination" seem to have rubbed people (monarchists?) up the wrong way. It does display a huge lack of imagination to think that the only people who can be a president in a country with an executive (PM) and a head of state (non exec) are politicians.

The fact that there are people with multiple palaces in a country where a company that donates food to foodbanks has announced that they've been asked to reduce the number of root veg and potatoes (because people can't afford to cook them) is astounding. It's not a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" because largely they don't. Add any value at all.

W & K have arrived in Jamaica to yet more protests. It'll be very interesting to see how they manage royal visits in future - this has certainly not been a great success, and raises lots of questions about their role and future.

[quote IKnowYouDontTurnTheLightOn]@WinnieTheW0rm out of interest where are there different 'styles' of monarchy that don't have a hereditary element? I know there are monarchies that are far less pompous than ours are but all of them are hereditary and so by their very nature inherently ridiculous in a modern democracy.[/quote]
I didn't mean non-hereditary

I meant in terms of how the role is carried out.

I'm not sure that the Netherlands and most of Scandinavia are ridiculous, not Canada, Australia and New Zealand

And of course it's the same for non-monarchies. Not all, for example, are like Turkmenistan.

@Brefugee

It’s not knowledge, it’s an opinion.

nobody has said it's "knowledge". This is a chat forum, everything people write under their name is opinion. I don't know why the words "little imagination" seem to have rubbed people (monarchists?) up the wrong way. It does display a huge lack of imagination to think that the only people who can be a president in a country with an executive (PM) and a head of state (non exec) are politicians.

The fact that there are people with multiple palaces in a country where a company that donates food to foodbanks has announced that they've been asked to reduce the number of root veg and potatoes (because people can't afford to cook them) is astounding. It's not a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" because largely they don't. Add any value at all.

You're conflating the existence of the royals with refugees, poverty, housing crisis, etc, etc. It's debating on a virtuous platform. It's just bullshit.

The Monarch is a fundamental part of our political/judicial system-I'm not sure that can be untangled easily. I think it's impossible, and the other point is, the political system isn't going to change to allow a more equitable version to arise. The idea that the political system will suddenly be represented by the veritable grandeur of ethical morality is clearly a fallacy.
Now the other argument:
Is the existence of the Monarch with all the fiscal trappings a public good. That is the real debate. There's no doubt the Monarch has been rather tainted by other Royal's behavior. I don't envy the Royals at all, I'm free to do and go wherever I please with zero obligations.
I look at the Royals and think of a gilded cage of formalities and obligations. Fuck that.

Personally, I just feel the Monarch is under attack by those who see it as the main cause of all of the UK's ills. It's quite confusing for posters to ask about respect. As far as I'm concerned I understand how to be respectful, and speaking to another or about another respectfully, is an expectation, especially when dealing with a person in a position of power and authority.

But challenging power structures is a tenement of post-modernist anarchists. So the idea is based around dis-respect.

With will and Kate's tour going so badly I should imagine the royal PR machine will be going into overdrive soon.

@Brefugee

It’s not knowledge, it’s an opinion.

nobody has said it's "knowledge". This is a chat forum, everything people write under their name is opinion. I don't know why the words "little imagination" seem to have rubbed people (monarchists?) up the wrong way. It does display a huge lack of imagination to think that the only people who can be a president in a country with an executive (PM) and a head of state (non exec) are politicians.

The fact that there are people with multiple palaces in a country where a company that donates food to foodbanks has announced that they've been asked to reduce the number of root veg and potatoes (because people can't afford to cook them) is astounding. It's not a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" because largely they don't. Add any value at all.

You said it was knowledge. I even quoted you.

I completely agree that the level of poverty in this wealthy country is appalling but conflating it with the existence of a monarchy is exactly the kind of “look over here” that perfectly suits the incompetent government that could actually address it. Blame the right people - the incompetent and corrupt Tories who give our money to their Russian oligarch mates - who are far richer than the royal family.

@WinnieTheW0rm I didn't say the countries were ridiculous, I said the system was. Canada, NZ and Oz have our monarchy anyway - wouldn't be difficult for them to get rid of it.

@Hrpuffnstuff1 the idea that it's disrespectful to talk about abolishing the monarchy is very odd. An idea that the royals will obviously back to the hilt, but still odd. In a democracy we can talk openly and freely about how we're governed and how we'd wish to be governed. It's certainly not disrespectful to include a discussion around ending the hereditary principle of our democracy.

And of course no one is conflating the existence of poverty and refugees with a monarchy - come on, who said that? Poverty and refugees exist in republics too. Some of us are suggesting that the royals could open their homes to those who need them - as another poster said, this is being done on other countries so why not ours?

I love the idea I'm a post-modern anarchist ! Nothing anarchic about wanting a modernisation of our democracy so I'm sorry to disappoint there!

The Bill forbidding public protest in UK seems to be perfectly timed to coincide with a changing of the guard in the RF. Hmmm.

I know it isn't all about that (and shouldn't be there at all in a democracy), but I believe the public will be emboldened to protest against the monarchy once Charles takes over. He does not command respect IMV.

The Monarch is a fundamental part of our political/judicial system-I'm not sure that can be untangled easily

Even as a republican I definitely agree with this, Hrpuff, and it's exactly why it's not as simple as "End it when the Queen goes". That doesn't mean it's not worth doing though, far less that it couldn't be done if the will was there

Also agree with you that the real debate should be around whether they're a public good or not. Personally I'm with the "nots", but all the same there's a principle involved here, and up to a point all the who-said-what-to-who, who's got caught doing whatever and even the money seem to me to be side issues

@CathyorClaire how would andrew of been next in line but for an accident at birth ? What a stupid statement to make

Its very anti royalist on here in real life most people don't really care that much as it doesn't affect them

Also its been made very clear that Prince Charles intends to slim down the monarchy

@worriedatthistime

Its very anti royalist on here in real life most people don't really care that much as it doesn't affect them

Antipathy is worse than hate.

Antipathy is worse than hate.

Which idiots’ guide to politics did you find that little gem in?

Apathy sorry.

@wordler yes but lets not let the truth get in the way