Why do Brits still have a royal family?

[AngryAmish]

I am constantly surprised by the number of so-called progressive people who think there is nothing wrong with having royal families (of whatever country) or beleive that dictators are a perfectly appropriate form of government.

This Prince Harry thing is the latest. On the other thread you have folks defending him, but hardly anyone said the very concept of a royal family is awful. Did "The Almighty" really decide that Prince Harry should be 3d in line to be the titular head of the British Empire and the Church of England? Why should they be supported with taxpayer's money?






ooh, there is some lovely filth here..

[tjwmason]

1. Can I just say

President Blair?

Yikes, that's scary enough to keep the monarchy in my opinion; and going back a little while does President Thatcher appeal to anyone around here?

More seriously, it's down the to Queen. She is a magnificent person, and even the most committed republicans acknowledge that the monarchy is going to be safe as long as she's on the throne. What will happen when the Prince of Wales gets on, that's another question.

One other point, I do like the idea of a non-partisan figurehead. It's not rational, it's definitely not progressive, but I think that the whole country can look at the monarch in a way which would not be possible if the head of state were a politically elected figure.

[eric144]

2. class

It's because the whole British class system derives from those at the top being in some way naturally superior. Blair for example is absolutely full of that kind of arrogance. His and most British people's social class can be derived from their accent, their vocabulary and their grammar.

It's an evil and nasty anachronism, but the truth is that the aristocracy have stolen so much money, they have real power and are able to maintain the system through standard channels. Witness tthe fox hunting fiasco.

I would throw them out on the street with nothing except the clothes they stand in (and the billions in their offshore accounts)

[AP]

8. Blair has a crazy accent. Say what you will about Iraq, but I think

Blair is, symbolically, exactly what you'd want in Britian today in order to break down people's indoctrination on class issues (which do flow down from having a monarchy).

[ET Awful]

3. Tradition.

Pure and simple.

Besides, without a royal family and its scandals, what would all those London tabloids do with themselves?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. While it's not an ideal situation

there are worse things about Britain - the Parliamentary constituency system has more effect on denying the will of the people than the monarchy.

There were actually quite a few people saying the royals should be got rid of (I think one or two even said 'shot').

We British do like our tradition, though. And a royal family provides both that, and a lure for gullible tourists (hint: as a tourist, your chance of actually seeing a member of the family are practically nil. All you see are the palaces and castles, which could of course be maintained without the people. But the thought of the royals may be drawing the punters in too).

[eric144]

6. denying the will of the people

the Parliamentary constituency system has more effect on denying the will of the people than the monarchy.

Can you explain what you mean ?

thanks

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. the first past the post system

which gives a party a Parliamentary majority with nothing approaching a majority of the vote. It's quite possible that Labour could get less votes than the Conservatives next time, and yet still get an absolute majority of MPs.

[eric144]

13. I see what you mean

Proportional representation has been used to great effect in Scotland and NI to make sure that it is very unlikely there will be a true majority for nationalist parties.

The first past the post system creates strong governments like Blair and Thatcher allowing those behind the scenes to steer in whatever direction pleases them.

[AP]

11. Tourism isn't going to be hurt one iota if the Brits drop the monarchy.

In fact, if you made all their palaces public parks and museums open all day long, with every room and every treasure accessible, I bet you'd help tourism more.

And then if the economy improved from the two-fold (1) erradication of the class mentality which holds some people back and (2) from the release of royal property to better economic use, you could take all the social wealth created to change all the hot and cold water taps into a single tap out of which both the hot and cold water runs, and tourists would really like that much more than the chance of seeing a living monarch.

The past belongs in a museum. One of the things that makes it interesting is that it's no longer like today. Having a living museum might be interesting to a lot of American fascists. But if you want a better class of toursists, make the UK more appealing to people appalled by monarchy and who want to see it in a museum.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. You may well be right

It always seems that Britain gets royalty pushed as a tourist attraction, and the stereotype of an American tourist is a middle-aged woman saying "Oh, I just luuurve your royal family". But, having just checked the VisitBritain website, which is government-run, it's admirably free of royalty, and instead has themes like "Gay London" and "The Year of the Garden". So maybe they have decided they're better off ignoring the roayls where possible.

[AP]

19. Admirably, it's probably a plot by Labour to get people to think less

about royalty.

I think that Blair calling Dianna "the people's princess" was also a very clever way to bring royalty down to the level of the people rather than putting them up on a pedestal. (It's a powerful mantra, I think...)

I think it's just impossible to get people to vote progressive and embrace progressive policies if they live in a world that tells them that inherited privilege is the strength of the nation (and that it means "social wealth" -- which is the subliminal message when people say "we have royalty for the tourism dollars").

If the Tories win, I bet you'll see that tourism web site go right back to celebration inherited privilege because Tories must know that their electoral chances are better in a world that celebrates that sort of thing.

[Feathered Fish]

5. I have no idea

but I'm guessing that because it's steeped in tradition, many Brits don't want to see it go. Up here in Canada there are some people (including me) who are looking for a way out of the Commonwealth - it's archaic and really has no relevance on any Canadian's life. The Monarchists up here are a hateful group. I had a former colleague of mine refuse to talk to me anymore because "You don't value the traditions that built this country". Yeah, that's right I don't and I certainly will not support a family that has money for nothing and a belief that they are chosen by God to (ceremoniously) lead the commonwealth.

[eric144]

7. Germans

and they are Germans as well, let's not forget that in our sentimentality for British tradition. They are also deeply disfunctional.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. 'Germans'? Depends which one you're talking about

and how someone's 'nationality' is fixed. eg Harry is more than half British, by any definition (born here; mother and just about all her known ancestors born here; great grandmother (Queen Mother) and just about all her known ancestors born here). How far back do you go to decide someone's nationality?

[Aristus]

27. Well, the truth is, England's Kings and Queens have rarely been

English.

Normans and Angevins: French
Lancasters and Tudors: Welsh
Stuarts: Scottish
Hannoverians and Windsors: German

During World War I, the royal family changed its name to Windsor from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

I'm just saying.

[CountAllVotes]

33. *reminder* Hitler was an AUSTRIAN

big difference in case you did not happen to know!

:kick:

[mr blur]

10. The concept of the royal family IS awful.

However, despite what you may think, they have no real power. They are ignorant, fairly stupid, arrogant, racists, nazi-sympathisers and, if they had to go out and get "proper" jobs, most of them wouldn't last a day.

It embarrasses me that my country still tolerates these bloodsuckers. You hear people over here say, "But what would you replace them with?" Well, nothing, they don't DO anything. I think tthy're part of the establishment process to keep the British forever looking to the past, even while we help Bush to kill innocent people.

"Did "The Almighty" really decide that Prince Harry should be 3d in line to be the titular head of the British Empire and the Church of England? Why should they be supported with taxpayer's money?"
No, no more than he decided that Bush should be run the US and be free to bomb anyone he wants.

[AngryAmish]

15. I understand that they may have no real power

But they do have some power. Imagine if there was some really tough times and the Queen said "I don't think the PM is up to the job." The government would fall overnight.

Prince Charles has unfurled his ideas on farming and architecture and people listen to him. Princess Diana got to travel the world and people still blindly worship that ditz. (ooh, she was so compassionate-She actually touched a person with AIDS.)

These people have done nothing to acheive their position yet they are given a place to stay, etc. by the taxpayer.

[LiberalEsto]

14. They should have a "Queen for a Day" system

in which people entered a lottery to be royalty for a day. That way, lots of people would have a chance to preside as figureheads, and the UK would still have its "royalty."

[Stockholm]

16. I can´t speak for the UK but many in Sweden

value our royals for a wide variety of reasons. Here are three:

1. During good times they are a walking talking goodwill machine for Sweden (and rather cheap, compared to a lobbying firm).

2. In bad times the King is still head of State (albeit with very limited executive powers) with a platform to rally the nation around a common cause or calm the debate down.

3. In the worst of times like after the Tsunami (when the democratic process weren´t functioning properly) the King is in a unique position to speak the releasing words needed.

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=828&date=20050110&PHPSESSID=7baca81e2a7a2b4e3301b22f4ce3bd20


And remember not only Royals inherit their positions...

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Oh, I certainly envy you your monarchy

cheaper, more useful (most of the relations have real jobs, don't they?), and more in tune with the people, as far as I can tell. Bit by agonising bit, Britain is moving in that direction (the Queen started paying tax on her private income, the list of royal payments was reduced, etc.) This process of gradual change is so much more British than a sudden abolition of the monarchy. I'd be happy with getting rid of them (I'd prefer a minimal presidency in their place, along the lines of Germany or Ireland), but I think that really would divide the country, much more than anything like Europe.

[AP]

23. Why can't you find people to do those things who don't inherit the

privilege to have their platforms?

For example, I think it's much more moving when Michael Schumacher -- whose father was working class, and who, himself, got every euro he has from working for it -- step forward and say that he will give 10 million of his hard earned euros to help the suffering.

I'd rather hold that up as a noble humanitarian act. In many respects, he's just a regular working guy stepping forward and taking responsible for the condition of his fellow human being, whom he is no better than.

And that's if you even need a personality to rally around.

[Stockholm]

24. People inherit platforms/positions/privileges every day everywhere

even in the US.

What I like about "our royal people" is the focus the parents have put on their children's learning of universal humanist ideals, equality etc. Really what any decent parent should focus on.

On top they have had a life-long lecture of "noblesse oblige", e.g. that their privileged position, wealth etc. does not come without a prize.

[AP]

29. Inherited privilege is a bad symbol in a society that is trying to

tell people that if you work hard you will be rewarded for your labor.

Work is the thing that moves societies forward. I think societies would be better off if they organized their mythologies and their values around symbols that affirm notions of democracy and equality and notions of work (rather than privilege) being rewarded.

I just find way too much cognitive dissonance in monarchical societies that are trying to tell everyone that they live in a democracy.

You can turn things arround in your head and say "but we're doing it for the tourism dollar" or "but our monarchs are liberals," but you can't avoid the reality that there is just way too much incompatibility between democracy and ANY kind of monarchy.

[leveymg]

18. Swastikas Seems to Be In the Tudor Family Gene Pool

Harry is simply following his great Uncle Edward's lead in embracing Nazi regalia. I don't know whether this was expression of latent fascist sympathies, but it sure was stupid. Either way, something stinks in Windsor Castle, and it isn't just the skeletons in the basement.

Does anyone see a common thread here with Mark Thatcher's coup plotting shenanigans? Does the British Right have despotism running in their blood?

[leveymg]

30. Make that Swastikas In the Windsor Family Gene Pool

Sorry - confusing my Prussian and British Dynasties.

[carnie_sf]

20. We will never be free

until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

[AngryAmish]

22. I thought I was hardcore

[Enraged_Ape]

25. Why do the Yanks still have Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt?

Because the "powers that be" desperately need someone for us and the media to talk about while they rape us and rob us blind. That's about the only reason I can think of why the Brits would still adhere to this hoary tradition.

Think of the UK royal family as official, corporate-sanctioned state celebrities.

[Canuckistanian]

26. Britain's royal families have always been nutcases

You're just hearing more and more about their little "problems" becuase of tabloid-style invasive journalism.

They serve a purpose of nationalism to the Brits. Almost nobody wants to give up on the monarchy because it reminds them of the glory days of Empire.

[Jacobin]

28. The Bush Crime Family is our Royalty

It's passed down from generation to generation. The media squeals with delight and will do anything to stay in their good graces...they NEVER do anything wrong and lies are made up to make them look good.

We are still royalists. The only difference between England and the US is that in England they have no power.

[leveymg]

31. Will the Twins' Inaugural Gowns Also Feature Swastika Motifs?

Wouldn't be the first time that the Brits spearheaded American fashion.

[Hobarticus]

32. I never understood that...

The very concept of royalty is indeed awful, and verily anti-progressive. Hell, we've fought wars on the principle that no man is granted divinity or privelege by fortunate birth....although it still happens.

If they want to be royal, that's fine....just don't be royal on the taxpayer's dime.