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 It's just so wrong and outdated.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.

Yes they do cost. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost-a-breakdown-of-the-key-figures

I would be happy for the nation to fund repairs to Buckingham Palace if it was owned by the nation rather than held by the monarch/sovereign or whatever title you want to use.

I’d have no problem with a head of state that lived a relatively normal life (as in the Netherlands, for example) whether it was hereditary or political. The function of the head of state is to shut up and smile.

Why do people always say "But President Thatcher? Blair? Johnson?" You do realise that there are many heads of state who fulfil our monarch's role in their countries who are not also political leaders. As AuxArmesCitoyens says, the German or Irish models seem good to me.

Im just Googling.. wow... and people were up in arms about Sunak's wife's no Dom status and generally anyone who uses tax loopholes. Yet we are saying god save the king today, unbelievable. They have so much and don't even pay tax.

They serve us, the people

In what way? What a load of cap dothing rubbish.

I suspect the King's Job 1, on Tuesday 20th September will be ensuring little bro Andrew is despatched to a cold and distant royal version of Coventry.

Job 2, ensuring the Coronation eclipses Prince Harry's silly book.

Looking at Charles, Camilla and William this morning I can't say any of them look as though they're much looking forward to the weight of what comes next.

I find it hard to "justify" the Monarchy, but like I find it hard to justify many status quo. I just don't feel a burning need to change something just because it can be done.

And you will still get posters trying to justify this, or choosing to ignore the fact. The firm serves no one, but themselves.

OP are you Trevor Sinclair looking to stand your ground?

You are aware that people are allowed to have all sorts of discussions on public forums?

I find it hilarious when people defend the royal family so aggressively, you know they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, right? 😂😂

To reward people for service to the community etc. all countries will have similar things, just called something else. My father got an OBE and 99% of other recipients at his ceremony were just 'normal people'. Plus Vera Duckworth!

This.

I think people underestimate (or don't know) the importance of our monarchy on a global stage, for fostering long term international understanding and positive diplomatic relationships, something that simply couldn't be replicated by an elected head of state. It is a really positive thing, for which the royals are specifically groomed. The continuity of monarchy, offsetting the political turbulence of government is something we are lucky to have.

I actually think that above post is how most people feel - we have a head of state for PR and continuity, job done.

I think there are very few people alive who feel positive about paying for an extended royal family with all the additional benefits they get. Especially when they complain the gold coach is uncomfortable or Buckingham palace is drafty. It’s a system that needs a massive overhaul.

interesting take from Jordan Peterson

TLDR - yes, the Royal Family as an institution is a bit odd but overall it's better to have it than not (and the Queen in particular did a brilliant job)

Queen Elizabeth II passed away hours before Dr Jordan B Peterson would give a public lecture. At this event, he was asked, “how could the death of the Queen affect the boundaries between English communities around the world?” His answer was honest and thought-provoking. He explores the weight and grandeur of the monarchical system, the legacy of its longest-reigning Queen, and the great loss so many have to bear.

I don't understand why this is a goady thread. The coronation of a new King seems the ideal time to wonder if you would like a new King, whether it would have been better if William could have done it, if Andrew had been King and so on. Nothing goady, these topics have been discussed a lot in past years and now they are relevant, particularly at the moment.

I can't believe Charles won't pay inheritance tax.

I am all for abolishing the monarchy and think that if we had a president figure head, like the Irish model, then it would be a good thing to do.
The,likes of Johnson et al want power and that would still be with the prime minister position.

However, I don't trust the people in this country not to vote for a complete clown - let's face it they already did with Johnson just three years ago. So currently thinking that it's better the devil we know - and let's face it we know way too much about Charles - until this country grows up a bit and is capable of making mature decisions about who should govern us, let alone who the figurehead is. Hell, we even have more people engaged in and voting for the X factor winner than we do a general election.

Quite. It’s the classic example of the whole being worth more than the sum of its parts. As a work of art it’s stunning.

Let’s sell it whole then. I’ll google how much it’s worth.

Hmm, mixed results but somewhere between 2 and 5 million.

He's, because the Queen was successful in stopping Johnson from illegally proroguing parliament.

I’d have more sympathy for this view if non payment of IHT was confined to the monarchy. Everyone with eye watering amounts of money has a labrynth of trusts to avoid paying it. The Duke of Westminster’s wealth makes the monarchy’s look like small change, his estate has never paid IHT.

People also need to understand that we are a parliamentary democracy. We elect our Government, and therefore our Prime Minister. But the PM is not Head of State. If we didn't have a monarch, we would have to elect a Head of State, probably a President (which may become a politicised role), with all of the attendant costs for their role, residence etc. We would have a President as well as a Prime Minister.
The continuity of the monarchy, and the roles that family members play that support the Sovereign, are what we would lose.
Of course they serve us - everything they do in their "job" is to support the proper functioning of Government and to benefit the population. They don't work with charities, open public buildings and campaign on key issues for fun. And they do this at considerable personal cost, in terms of loss of privacy etc
Have some of the posters here actually read any of the obituaries of The Queen?

It is a really positive thing, for which the royals are specifically groomed

So what happens if we have a next in line who is constitutionally unsuited to that role, on medical grounds for example? There is no plan B in a hereditary monarchy.

In other words, not enough to make selling it worthwhile.

I don’t know, I’m pretty sure my local library service could use a £5million boost. Or as I said, foodbanks.

According to Queen Victoria, George VI and HMQ it's a really hideous ride.

So it's not a lump of gold, it doesn't have a cat and it's a shit ride, you need 8 fuck off horses to pull it and it has no re-sale value.

Worst Auto Trader advert ever.