Jump to content

The Royal family - murdering scum filth or an asset the the country?


keekybreeks

Recommended Posts

So Prince harry is wondering what to do with his life and is considering leaving the army. Seesm like killing brown skinned people isnt as much fun as it used to be. poor lamb


His brother however is heavily involved with banging out successors to the line and travelling the world shakinhg hands with other rich royal scum with a long history of murder and enslavement.Just like his own lot really.


discuss


Extra points for bringing up


*tourists

*tourist money

*tradition

*Royals now paying tax

*the Queeen Mums role in WW2

*The sad death of mountbatten

*isnt his mrs pretty

*His mum would have been proud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The establishment would still exist without a monarchy. Every country that is a republic still has a class system, with public schools they can send their kids too (to shape the next leaders to keep the status quo) while everyone else scrambles in the state provision. Monetarism is the only ism that defines class and every system in the world operates under it.


The Queen is clearly an ambassador, especially to former colonies and the commonwealth. I don't know if that has any benefit in trade or public relations (I'm guessing it does), but politically no. And when a royal, like Charles, does get involved in controversial or political debate, it's frowned upon by even his own family. They may be heads of state but the Queen has never exercised the constitutional power she supposedly has. Puppets of the government come to mind. Definitely outdated but a nice tourist attraction all the same. They do own a heck of a lot of land though, and the armed forces swear an allegiance to them! So not so easy to get rid of either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm absolutely not a monarchist - the Royal family strike me as being a bit like a very ill and old pet - extremely expensive to keep creakily going so that you wonder what the point is and euthanasia might seem a kindness. But it could be worse - we could have Putin...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from the democracy angle, there's the financial argument. I forget how many millions HRH and her family cost us each year (I seem to remember an official figure of ?80M), but whatever it is Republic dispute this and claim a much higher figure. To me, the return on investment is dubious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the royal family is neccesary scapegoat for the government.


If there ever was massive dissent towards the government from the public, and people started clamoring for change - it would be the royal family they throw under the bus to settle us down.


They haven't had to yet, so maybe let's start lighting some fires?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The sovereign grant is around ?30million per year.


Try replacing that with the full Presidential office and associated civil servants. I doubt you'd get much change and may even cost you more.


At the moment a meeting with the Queen equals and perhaps surpasses a meeting with the POTUS. Utterly invaluable for the UK. The UK President would be a comparative nobody on the world stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are many countries that have a Presidental government..


Like :-


Argentina

* Armenia

* Belarus

* Bolivia

* Brazil

* Chile

* Colombia

* Costa Rica

* Cyprus




* Dominican Republic

* Ecuador

* El Salvador

* Guatemala

* Haiti

* Honduras

* Indonesia

* Iran

* Kenya

* Liberia

* Mexico

* Nicaragua

* Nigeria

* Panama

* Peru

* Philippines




* Seychelles

* South Korea

* Sri Lanka

* Suriname

* Tanzania

* Uganda

* United States

* Uruguay

* Sierra Leone

* Zambia


The presidents are all listed.. But I'll let someone else do that..


DulwichFox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of monarchy and I've never hidden my dislike for our take on democracy in this country, but I can appreciate that the majority (in most polls) still seem to like the status quo and I respect that.


Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that if we removed them, very little would actually change. The monarchy does publish all their accounts online and I guess whether or not we think they are worth it/ good value depends on the price we place on the Queen's role as a ambassador. I think she is still very much respected among world leaders.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just think that if we removed them, very little

> would actually change. The monarchy does publish

> all their accounts online and I guess whether or

> not we think they are worth it/ good value depends

> on the price we place on the Queen's role as a

> ambassador. I think she is still very much

> respected among world leaders.


The question always is - who would we get instead

A politician, President Blair possibly, the speaker (Bercow), Boris.

or would it be a celebrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a big royalist, but compared to a lot of people who have inherited large amounts of wealth, the Queen and some of her family at least seem to do some work for the country in return for it.


Not sure we'd do better with an elected president given the behaviour of most of our politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the divine right of Kings etc. isn't it? They 'rule' (well, you know what I mean) because of a lottery of birth - I'd be all in favour of a switch to a more Babylonian Lottery approach a la Jorge Luis Borges (complete with punishment tickets to keep viewing figures high).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alternatives would have been:

>

> President Thatcher

>

> President Blair

>

> I'll stick with the Windsors



Well we still had Thatcher and Blair and the Windsors were powerless do do anything about it..


So why do we need both.. ?


DulwichFox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I am at The Gardens. I saw GP on a Wednesday and he recommended physio, he checked availability and offered Tessa Jowell Centre for Saturday at 1 pm or Forest Hill Road Practice on a Monday at 11 am. I chose FH- very efficient/ Physio at FH very helpful, sent me some neck exercises and referred me for spinal assessment at Kings.
    • Of course, people's experiences may vary, but I'm afraid I can't recommend the DMC on Crystal Palace Rd.
    • Option 1.  Let them go bust.  Government takes over, until an appropriate solution found.  This happens with failing train operating companies  Option 2.  Anyone who made money on the privatisation, or their immediate descendants, bail them out  Obviously the latter isn't going to happen but makes me feel better/superior. What do you reckon?  Big picture.  Small picture as I posted elsewhere is that they were good when we had a leaking main.  And of course mass redundancies need to be avoided.
    • Hi my mum has a lovely frenchi , he needs to be walked , as mum (80) is a bit fragile . he is a lovely dog , a bit nervous when around other dogs . Mum lives in East Dulwich . how much do you charge ?   Thanks 🙏🏼 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...