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 .

I doubt very much that tourism would increase if there was no monarchy. I imagine the effect would be pretty neutral. I always wonder when I see these increasingly venomous attacks on the royal family if they take place in other European monarchies. I can’t somehow see the Danes or the Dutch getting so incensed.

@Blossomtoes their monarchies behave very differently to ours and there is not the same class deference as there is to ours. I agree the tourist hit would be neutral - although if tourists thought they could actually book to stay in a royal residence as a hotel I think we’d see a strong uptake. That could help house a fair few refugees I bet.

I have the greatest admiration for this wonderful lady who has served her country for nearly all her adult life

Yeah, still waiting to hear about her outstanding Stakhanovite work ethic...

I worked on several royal visits back in my Army days. It was weeks, months of work. Practice dinners, practice parades, shaking leaves off trees and sweeping them up lest a leaf on the road in autumn shock the delicate sensibilities of a princess (or whoever), painting stuff. Oh god so much fucking painting. (having said that: our accommodation was painted nicely for one visit and leaky taps etc fixed which was lovely for us because it was all well overdue. And one lucky lance corporal had his entire flat repainted and repaired because a prince went to have tea with him and his wife, so good for them).
So many briefings, about how ma'am rhymes with ham and not smarm. And how to curtsey/bob/respectfully incline your head (thank fuck to have been able to salute instead as i have no truck with that stuff).
Our sergeants' mess had a WHOLE NEW TOILET put in, just in case the royal arse needed to park itself during the visit.
And then it's over and everything goes back to normal.

And sure a president would cost us money but we'd be able to vote her out and/or they could be restricted to a couple of terms, and even if they had a nonce and someone who wanted to be a tampon for a son we wouldn't have to have them as the next head of state. Glorious.

Come the revolution, and all that.

[quote Aposterhasnoname]Well the Queen herself was technically a commoner when she married, but Prince Philip, having been created a duke the day before the wedding, was a peer, therefore not a commoner, so it’s a bit more complicated than people think.

europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner/[/quote]
The queen and Prince Philip both come from queen Victoria . She’s their great great grandmother.

@Brefugee I've heard about all this nonsense before - someone once said the royals must think the whole world smells of fresh paint . And yes I've also heard of the endless briefings on 'royal protocol' from people I know who've received honours. It's embarrassing. And reflects badly on all of them that none of them have said, "do you know what, it doesn't matter. As long as people are polite who cares what they address me as". The red tops were getting themselves into a right tizz the other day because some commoner had dared to address Kate and Will as, er, Kate & Will .

The royals are the new opium of the masses - a good distraction to remind ourselves of our place, and how we should stay there and not question the status quo, for fear of being labelled a 'moaning bastard' .

Not that the BBC would tell you, but Wills & Kate have run into a(nother) protest in their "Lord it up" tour.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/21/jamaican-campaigners-call-for-colonialism-apology-from-royal-family

@DGRossetti yes I saw that - really interesting. The tour appears to be going very badly. I wonder if the tide is turning internationally as well as nationally. Given the planet is on fire (literally an metaphorically) this show of paternalistic patronage from the royals is not a good look.

And sure a president would cost us money but we'd be able to vote her out and/or they could be restricted to a couple of terms

Exactly, Irelands presidency is two and a half times cheaper than the monarchy and runs very well.....

I bet the majority of people living in Ireland don't even know the name of the presidents partner no mind all his kids, grandkids and cousins etc. Unlike the pantomime that is the royal family.

I hate the fact that we're paying for security for 21 members of the royal family. How can that be right.

I think Brexit has proved that people don't care about paying for their ideology. Or even better to get other people to pay for it.

So fuck it. Dump the ludicrous pantomime that is "the Saxe-Coburgs Windsors" and pay a bit more for a grown up constitution. One without a dressing up box.

We wouldn't have to pay more - it would be less. Fewer hangers on, fewer buildings, less security. It would be far, far less. It would be modern, forward thinking, democratic and something of which we could be proud. It would be voting for a person who has earned their right to be in that position - not just being there because they were born to someone who was born to someone who may or may not have descended from someone who may or not have been royal.

Such an embarrassment.

We wouldn't have to pay more - it would be less

I really don't care. But if cost-saving is the reason we have a royal family (although it would pretty much chime with the optics of a nation that does things on the cheap) then I am quite happy to pay a bit more to dump the whole rotten lot.

As a country we should be well used to the idea that you have to pay for your ideology. Look at the bedroom tax. Paying money to teach people not to be poor. It's a moral choice.

@IKnowYouDontTurnTheLightOn

Above people like me?! Wtf are you talking about?!

I’m not “complaining” I’m discussing the ludicrous notion that we look up to people like this. You are clearly not possessed of great debating skills. It’s fine. You go and enjoy waving your flag to the royals - they thrive from the sycophancy.

You just don't like anyone disagreeing with your soapbox. Hierarchies exist without royalty, and some people really are more valuable than others, and some do think they're better than others.

I personally don't have an issue with it, Vip's exist outside of royalty.

Back to the monarch.
www.politics.co.uk/reference/monarchy/

A constitutional monarch is also able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations and charities that would not be possible in the same way for a political figure.

This unifying non-political role of the royal family spreads through the Queen’s annual Christmas Broadcast, attendance at ceremonial events like Trooping the Colour, and the dispatch of congratulatory telegrams to centenarians and couples marking their Diamond Wedding anniversary.

The Royal Family‘s Annual Report in relation to the Sovereign Grant in 2019/20 detailed how 139,000 guests were welcomed by the Queen and other members of the Royal Family at Royal Residences for events such as garden parties and investitures,

The Queen was said to have undertaken 296 official engagements in the year 2019/20, as part of 3,200 official engagements undertaken by members of the royal family.

A constitutional monarch represents a constant and lasting connection to the country‘s past, with links that date back through history. The British monarch is also the Head of State of 15 other independent countries, as well as being the head of the commonwealth of 53 Nations.

This is the important part:
The international recognition of the British monarchy, with its associated foreign tours and state visits, is said to help support the influence of Britain around the world. This is said to bring notable benefits in terms of security, influence, and trade.

This is the important part:
The international recognition of the British monarchy, with its associated foreign tours and state visits, is said to help support the influence of Britain around the world. This is said to bring notable benefits in terms of security, influence, and trade.

Even if true (and who knows really). Don't care. Being a citizen and not subject is a matter of ideology.

@DGRossetti I think cost saving is only a small part of it - it's more the narrative that some people deserve to be treated with such deference purely as an accident of birth. They don't. We've done away with this nonsense in so many other areas and yet we ignore it here. It's so outdated. Back in the old days, before widespread media scrutiny, the royals could get away with keeping up this daft pretence that they were different and special - they can't anymore.

I'm pretty sure our country would still do trade deals without the royals - our trade is much more affected by leaving the EU than it would be without having a queen. Our HoS could still do all that wining and dining and encouraging people to invest in a country that could be proud of moving forward with a new constitution - and I don't just mean the monarchy, the whole lot needs changing! No new democracy would start with the way we do things here.

A constitutional monarch is also able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations and charities that would not be possible in the same way for a political figure

This is true, at least in theory, and has more or less worked with the Queen

But she's unlikely to be around for too much longer, and unfortunately her heir's very far from political neutrality, as seen in Dominic Grieve's remarks when they tried to suppress the "black spider" letters:

"it is highly important that he is not considered by the public to favour one political party or another"
"This risk will arise if, through these letters, the Prince of Wales was viewed by others as disagreeing with government policy"
"Any such perception would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch, because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king"

Why does our Head of State have to be a political figure? If, for example, it was David Attenborough, he just stands for election as himself. We don't need a politically appointed HoS.

That's just a smoke screen.

And she's not politically neutral anyway - she's a conservative through and through. A conservative with a small c maybe, but still a conservative. She's never going to be progressive or challenging. That's not a politically neutral stance.

I'm sure the Queen is lovely. I'm also sure that she is surrounded by advisors who think they're above the rest of us, and therefore don't have any qualms about applying for things like that heating grant they did a few years ago.

Or giving her notions about lobbying about being released from green taxes (i can't remember what it was recently) and so on and so forth.

This latest nonsense about her not wanting to be seen (or these advisors not wanting her to be seen?) in a wheelchair as it makes her look weak. She's, what? 95? OF COURSE SHE LOOKS WEAK

Hard working? Really? REALLY? she is not hewing at the rock with a pick-axe, is she? she's not working 16 hours in a shop to up her measly pension and worrying about the price of gas. She's not worrying about her kids getting jobs, mortgages, healthcare. Nothing.

Now, the same can be said for any amount of rich people living in the UK - but not all of them got their wealth and position from choosing the right vagina to emanate from.

And to be honest, if the Queen was that bothered about the monarchy, and continuity and reliability, she would have taken a leaf out of Beatrix's book and retired at 65 (maybe a bit later), given Charles and his sons the chance to get to adulthood and then pushed off and given the throne over to a younger person. and equally, then Charles would wait until William's kids are late teens and then also push off (or before, on account of him waiting so long to marry a much younger woman - they are a flipping creepy family in that respect)

And so on

One of the things monarchists say to me when i say we should get rid is that they are the last line of defence against a malevolent governement. Which as we have seen recently is not so much piffle as a downright lie since what the RF really always want is what is fine and dandy for them and everyone else can scramble for the crumbs.

It is enraging.

@Brefugee, wow I've never heard that argument before about them being a defence against a malevolent government - definitely not the case! Don't think it ever has been. I doubt the queen much cares about is happening to her subjects on a daily basis but, even if she did, what could she do that wouldn't be seen as political interference? And then we go around and around in circles - if she's not going to interfere what's the point of her and so on.

They definitely would do anything to uphold the status quo - I think the reason she won't abdicate is because she can't bear to be witness to the shitshow that follows. I don't think she wants to see it. Better to be blissfully ignorant of how bad King Charles will be.

@DGRossetti

This is the important part: The international recognition of the British monarchy, with its associated foreign tours and state visits, is said to help support the influence of Britain around the world. This is said to bring notable benefits in terms of security, influence, and trade.

Even if true (and who knows really). Don't care. Being a citizen and not subject is a matter of ideology.

The monarch represents a political system, a form of government a sovereign ruler, the constitution limits its absolute powers.

I would argue the sovereign monarch is a concept from which strong ideologies follow. Sovereignty is a fundamental concept of human existence. Britain's influence and power emanate from this form of government.
Consequently, it would be nearly improbable if not impossible and even foolhardy to replace it with a republic. I would argue that the monarch is a complete necessity for political conditions to form a rational nation-state.
Dreams of republican administration will remain just that if the dreamers can offer no alternative to the fundamental concept of monarchial political power.

Might be mis-interpreting terminology but I wonder how Barbados and the preceding nations who did the same will cope without this monarch after becoming a Republic? Perhaps it's possible without violent revolution or existential crisis or losing the essence of a 'rational nation state?'

Regarding influence, I suspect it is similar to the notion of tourism. Easy to assert its importance though the figures seem to show there are similar Western European nations that have greater tourism visitors and revenue without a monarch and while each example can be justified by 'It's France', 'It's sunny' and so on, but I think on some rankings, the UK is 6th behind Germany, Turkey, Italy, Spain and France. And all the buildings would remain.

The queen believes that guff which is why she won't abdicate. Divine right of kings - they are chosen by god to be born from the right golden womb

The Queen doesn't believe in the divine right of Kings. She won't abdicate because she made a vow to serve as Queen until her death.

I understand why the Queen won't abdicate/step back, but I think this will be seen as a poor judgement call ultimately.

I can see Charles' reign being pretty rocky. He doesn't have anything like the Queens personal skills and experience and that will be very obvious very quickly. A longer lead in would have helped.

wow I've never heard that argument before about them being a defence against a malevolent government

I have, and it's utter bollocks.

Consequently, it would be nearly improbable if not impossible and even foolhardy to replace it with a republic

Oh, it's entirely possible. Ask the Americans. Or French. Or Russians.

It's all complete and utter nonsense and needs shelved asap.

The idea that somebody tugs their forelock to another human being, purely by dint of the families they were accidentally born into, is utterly ludicrous.