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 .

Does saying slavery was abhorrent and should never have happened count as grovelling?

@Porcupineintherough

Does saying slavery was abhorrent and should never have happened count as grovelling?

grovelling: acting obsequiously in order to obtain forgiveness or favour.

Yes, pretty much. Desperately trying to win affections to legitimise the indefensible. Barbados, Jamaica, who's next?

Will Ladbrokes be taking bets do you think?

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Belize, Barbados, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, ...

@Porcupineintherough

Does saying slavery was abhorrent and should never have happened count as grovelling?

I think it depends who is doing the saying really. It's hard to take it seriously from people who have benefitted from it every single generation from then to now with fuck all action to back it up.

I'm sure Wills and Co are sincere. Because that's cheap. I'm sincere about shed loads of stuff I have fuck all intention of doing anything about.

But those nations will realise the unviability of a republic compared with the benefits of a constitutional monarchy and the foolhardiness of such a decision.

@Hrpuffnstuff1 the clearest end of ever?!

Except it isn’t. It proves nothing. We can change, we can progress, your argument is utter nonsense 🤷‍♀️.

End of. (We can all use meaningless statements to “prove” our point).

But those nations will realise the unviability of a republic

Why would a republic be unviable?

I think once Jamaica goes it will have a dominoes effect. It won’t instantly change anything here but the narrative will change and those defending the indefensible will find it infinitely harder.

[quote RogueBorg]@Hrpuffnstuff1 the clearest end of ever?!

Except it isn’t. It proves nothing. We can change, we can progress, your argument is utter nonsense 🤷‍♀️.

End of. (We can all use meaningless statements to “prove” our point).[/quote]
Progress.
To what?

You could argue that our entire society is built on slavery and we all benefit from it. I really can’t see the point of apologising for it now. The people owed an apology are long dead.

Every member of the royal family from the Queen onwards should be apologising for the treatment of miners in the Bowes-Lyons’ pits. Several of my dad’s family died in them. Whatever they said now wouldn’t turn the clock back.

Progress to democracy - surely even you would agree that a fully functioning democracy (a fairer voter system, no hereditary principle) is progress compared to what we have now? Surely no one could actually justify a system where one family rules and everyone else is excluded?

Voting not voter

These tours are well choreographed. I don't think for a minute that William would have the cop on to mention anything from his own heart. Maybe he is not allowed to I dunno.

He has been prepped and primed and prepared for anything he says, and his speeches written out in full for him. Topic depends on the country being visited and is decided more than likely by the Firm. Designed to calm the natives that they have nothing to fear from the RF, hmmmph.

I don't think most of Scandinavia or the Netherlands would like to be described as not fully functional. Nor would I think it a good description of countries whose measures of equality are so very good

@EdithWeston

I don't think most of Scandinavia or the Netherlands would like to be described as not fully functional. Nor would I think it a good description of countries whose measures of equality are so very good

Yes, the Scandinavian countries are big players on the world stage.

Not.

@Hrpuffnstuff1 who gives a shit if we’re “big players on the world stage”?! Arguably since Brexit we’re not anyway. Need to get our own house in order.

Yes, the Scandinavian countries are big players on the world stage.

I'd much rather our hungry were fed, our homeless housed, and our children out of poverty before I shot my load all over the idea of being a "big payer" on the world stage. If the argument is that it's better some children go cold in our own country so we can keep a royal family, then I'd like to know who is making it;

I think the Brits are somewhat deluded about how 'big' they are on the world stage, in fairness.

It's not 1890 any more

Scandinavian countries somehow manage to combine a far more equal society than ours with retaining their monarchies. I’d be far more persuaded by the republican argument if I thought we’d see an end to poverty and top class public services if we didn’t have a monarchy. I’m far too cynical to believe for a moment that would happen.

@Blossomtoes a republic would only be one small part of a very long journey to a more fair society. Ending poverty is a massive task and would involve an awful lot more than an end to hereditary privilege - but it would be a start.

So exactly what would getting rid of the monarchy achieve that can’t be managed with it still in place? What’s lacking in Scandinavia, Belgium and The Netherlands that we’d miraculously have here if we became a republic?

@Blossomtoes

So exactly what would getting rid of the monarchy achieve that can’t be managed with it still in place? What’s lacking in Scandinavia, Belgium and The Netherlands that we’d miraculously have here if we became a republic?

A greater degree of truth, clarity, transparency, integrity, fairness and social justice, with a redistribution of vast assets currently held by one oversized family who've got their tentacles into places and industries they have no right to have them, thanks to a series of corrupt governments enabling them.

If the current trend of neverending sovereign grant increases and unchecked royal involvement in absolutely everything that makes money is not slowed or preferably reversed immediately, the RF will keep on taking taking taking.

And a slimmed down monarchy's no good either: it's like realising all those tacky china ornaments on the shelf are completely useless and gathering dust but deciding to keep 4 of them anyway and paying 87m a year to have them cleaned and polished.

What’s staggering to me is that the Royals continue to be more popular among older demographics - surely people should have grown out fairytale bullshit by that age?

A greater degree of truth, clarity, transparency, integrity, fairness and social justice, with a redistribution of vast assets currently held by one oversized family who've got their tentacles into places and industries they have no right to have them, thanks to a series of corrupt governments enabling them

Sounds great. truth, clarity, transparency, integrity, fairness and social justice is like motherhood and apple pie but what does it actually mean in a tangible sense? And are other monarchies also lacking in those qualities?

Where does the royal family have its tentacles? Some examples would bd very helpful for me to understand.

Then there’s the vast assets. The Crown Estate already essentially belongs to the tax payer as we keep 85% of its revenues. So are we going to confiscate their personal assets? If we do that it sets a very dangerous precedent - if we take away their privately owned properties where does it stop? It probably means that if the state takes a fancy to my house it could take it away.

As I said, if anyone can present a convincing argument that the UK would be better off as a republic I’d give it consideration. We’re not even close yet.

The Crown Estate already essentially belongs to the tax payer as we keep 85% of its revenues. So are we going to confiscate their personal assets?

The crown estates don't belong to them personally, this isn't an issue. They would of course keep their personally owned estates, Sandringham and Balmoral

Precisely the point I was making @TheKeatingFive. I want to know what “vast assets” we’d remove from the royal family if we abolished the monarchy. Because I honestly can’t think of any.