How do you justify the royals ?

[slippe]

So their ancestors were essentially the biggest bullies and managed to get what they could and have now passed it on.

They're people, just like us, but get to 'rule' over us.

How do you justify this ? It's just so wrong and outdated. Please tell me your reasons why you Support this, I am genuinely interested in whether I can change my mind about it all.

What i dont get it the superiority people feel if they like rhe rotals, like it makes them better than those that dont. As seen clearly on this thread.

Same could be said of most religions - bullying, took what they could and pass it on and rule over us

If you think monarchy should be abolished based on the above better include religious organisations in that too

I could justify them a bit more if they didn't cost the tax payer extortionate amounts of money.

And while I'm sure they bring in billions to London as people on MN love to claim, none of that money seems to be filtering down to where I live.

I'm not a royalist but it is a big part of the UKs culture, tradition, heritage and identity

I personally think the UK doesn't have a huge amount of culture compared to others.

It’s possible to like something and support it and not have any objective or logical justification for doing so. The appeal of some things is intangible.

President Thatcher

🙄 King Andrew. For forty years.

No one can be compared to the Kardashians.

The latest photos of Kim with her arse hanging out 😂 .

Yes, goady.

Exactly.

the people who don't appreciate/understand what they do & how we'd need to replace them with twigs in suits, if we did 'abolish the monarchy'. Really need to educate themselves instead of starting goady threads, that just highlight their ignorance. Tiresome.

so you're saying the balance of power concept doesn't exist in any county with a president ? I don't think that's true. But correct me if I am wrong, I am certainly not an expert on the subject.

I'm a complete non-monarchist in principle but I think it's one of the least worst options for a head of state. I don't trust an elected one to not become a politically toxic debate. Strip it down and modernise it. Redistribute more evenly around the UK the money from tourism brings in. But plenty of progressive European countries have monarchies so I'm grudgingly accepting that we could do without further division for a while and not get rid of it yet.

All the cries of 'goady' are pathetic

I have in fact changed my mind on this very topic this week. An article by a Russian writer changed my way of thinking. I will paraphrase very badly, but it basically said that when you take away power, you leave a power void, and something or somebody will always be there to fill that void. Republicanism can work of course, and it can also fail - a new Republic is at greater risk of failure than an established one. Therefore we should consider who would fill that void. Currently we have a situation which is enormously unfair, where the head of state is decided by an accident of birth. However, we also have the tradition of the servant-ruler. Both the Queen and the new King understand that to rule they have to serve, and have pledged themselves to doing that. That's not a bad place to be in really, as a country. People who are trained from birth to do the job of being royal (i wouldn't want that job) - while the institution itself makes it harder for government to seize absolute power. So while I agree it is an awful system, I think given that it's the one we've got, it's better than any of the alternatives right now. I don't really want Liz Truss as President. I don't think she deserves to be head of state more than Charles, even though she got there on merit and he didn't.

I work for a small charity and we very much appreciate having royal input. We appreciate the work they do behind the scenes and raising our profile.
Personally, I prefer the royals who aren’t self-serving than electing a president every 4 years from a selection of politicians.

the people who don't appreciate/understand what they do & how we'd need to replace them with twigs in suits

Because all countries without a minarch are complete basketcases. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Portugal etc all absolute shitholes.

The queen wasn't trained from birth, no-one knew she was going to be queen at that point, so yeah basically anyone could do it.

it is our tradition

Agree with @Whokno . The hard question is what we would have instead. President Truss is very hard to get excited about, to say the least, and I think there's a real benefit in having the head of state entirely separate from government.

My view on how royalty affects the Royals themselves is probably different from the majority- I genuinely see it as a sacrifice on their part to have the course of their whole life directed by duty and I don't think the money etc makes up for that particularly- I certainly wouldn't want to swap.

are you going to ahve your mind changed op? do you think

Firewall there's an interesting report out there about royal charity patronage. Turns out when you actually look at the numbers royal patronage is pretty meaningless.

They should all go, all these scroungers can just piss off. Long live the peasants without kings and queens and their sproggs sponging off of us,

This!!!

By thinking about the alternatives...

If you were designing a new system and had a blank piece of paper, constitutional monarchy is probably not the first model of government you would look to. But it's working reasonably well (unlike many systems ostensibly better and fairer on paper) and it reflects this country's culture and history, hence why there is limited desire for change.

As for unearned privilege, which is at the root of many people's objections to monarchy, I don't disagree but unearned privilege is rife (if less obvious) in many other sectors of society and no one comments on it.

They don't have to be populists.

This means they can see something important in terms of the public interest and try and find out about it

There was an example used today during the tv. Simon Woolley was saying how Charles had recognised the discontent of how BLM was being felt particularly by young people. So he sought to try and learn about it and how old and young could bring the barriers and find a way forward in future.

He will be less political in future but others will carry out this role.

This means in terms of weekly chats with the PM he can say things like 'how does this work for this group'. Its not pushing an opinion but its sharing the concerns of a group that might be being marginalised or overlooked politically. It's something that if it is overlooked might have social consequences. It's a reminder to go and do your homework and consider things that are outside your political eyeline and reduce political blind spots.

There is a fine line to tread here but ultimately its about a role of almost playing devil's advocate to encourage critical thinking without prejudice.

If for nothing else having someone to council the pm who is outside the sphere of gaining power is an interesting concept. It's not without flaw but if you look at a presidential system, i remain unconvinced that's better either.

I think there is something to be said for having almost a back channel for the public if politics is failing to fulfil this role.

In this sense the Princes Trust which pushes for the interests of children (people who can't vote) is another really good example. Charles will pass control of this on (probably to William).

Well I've certainly learned something new.. that people worry about a president instead. I think plenty of countries have presidents and haven't ended up as dictatorships...

This