Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Should the Royal Family be gotten rid of?


  • Please log in to reply
153 replies to this topic

Poll: Should the Royal Family be gotten rid of? (52 member(s) have cast votes)

Should we get rid of them?

  1. Yes- they're parasites! (33 votes [63.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.46%

  2. Voted No! They are an integral part of the UK (19 votes [36.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.54%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

In my opinion, I think they are glorified benefit cheats. I think that its highly unfair that whilst most Britons are struggling to make ends meet, the Royals get a free pass.

 

http://www.guardian....on-palace-refit

 

In this day and age, the monarchy is an outdated concept. People argue that it brings in tourism, but I suspect that its less than people think. France gets more tourists, and is a Republic.

 

But more than that it's principles. Why should they get all those benefits, for free, paid for by us?

 

Whilst Osborne announces cuts, the Cambridges spend £1m on outfitting a 21 room apartment?? Thats more than most people make in a lifetime!

 

What do you guys think?


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#2
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon

You seem to be under an illusion that these costs would disappear if we were to be a parliamentary republic? Why do you not think of the royals as state representatives, in which case these trips should be paid for by the state. Their accommodation should also be paid for by the state, or do you think David Cameron should pay out of pocket when Number 10 is refurbished? 

 

The difference of course between David Cameron & Prince William is that one was elected to a fixed term while the other was not. That is your real problem isn't it? The fact they were born into the position. But isn't that what makes them so perfect for the role of state ambassadors? They're independent, they don't have to fear losing their position, they're groomed from birth to do one job, and one job that they do extremely well. Tell me, do you know any head of state as well respected as Queen Elizabeth? 

 

So no, I don't believe we could do any better, and I don't believe the costs are unwarranted. I think we get a bargain if anything. 


Edited by Ewan, 29 June 2013 - 07:51 PM.


#3
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

I don't particularly care about the costs, you are right getting rid of them wouldn't particularly save money. 

 

"Groomed from birth to do the job"-I don't agree with this at all. I'm sure we could get trained professionals to do the job that we vote in, you know, like every other country in the world.

 

The very fact that they can't lose their position, and the fact that they are not accountable to the public, is the very reason why they should go.


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#4
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon

What actions of the royal family have given you this opinion? I say they don't have to fear losing their position in the sense that they are independent of politics. This is quite rare for a head of state, as with any elected position it comes with campaigning, deals and it's own set of politics. The Queen however doesn't hold any political affiliation, in fact very very little is known of the Queens political beliefs. This independence is what makes her so respected, because she doesn't have an agenda other than to serve the UK. 

 

They are however very much accountable to the public. I am sure a succession of royal scandals would disrupt public opinion & perhaps lead to the removal of the monarchy.

 

I don't really understand how you think we can find anyone better? Again, what actions of the royals make you think this way? Why would a politician be better suited to the role of head of state? Why do you not classify the Queen as a trained professional? She has done the job of head of state longer than almost anyone in the world. 


Edited by Ewan, 29 June 2013 - 08:11 PM.


#5
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

I have nothing against the Queen, I dislike the idea of a Royal Family

 

Keep the Queen, and the heir, just get rid of everyone else. I agree the Queen is good, but why the hell should the public pay for her family and extended family? Why should they live a life of opulence, at our expense?

 

As long as she doesn't have any political power I'm fine. But for example, Kate and William, I cannot stand! Did you read the article in the first post? Read it and look at the comments. They pretty well surmise my position on this.


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#6
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon

Why can you not stand Kate & William? I read the article, it just seemed to be complaining about the taxpayers having to pay for state business trips. We do not pay for them to go on holiday, we pay for them to go abroad & meet foreign diplomats. The royals are doing a job at the end of the day, if the government didn't think the trips were required they wouldn't be sanctioned or paid for. Note that Prince William is a counsellor of the state, and under that title he has to undertake state visits on behalf of the Queen. His brother also holds this title, as well as Prince Philip, Charles, and Andrew. 

 

I try not to read comments on articles such as those, since they mostly contain ill thought out arguments by the lowest common denominator. 


Edited by Ewan, 29 June 2013 - 09:13 PM.


#7
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

what business trip? The article is supposed to be about their £1m refit on their 21 room kensington apartment. The comments are a good indicator of public opinion, and this is the Guardian we are talking about. 

 

Whatever the benefits of the Royal Family, its like a punch in the jaw for all the people barely making a living to see those two posh ***** spend £1m of our money refitting their apartment. 

 

It outrages me to see that there are 500,000 people and growing, relying on foodbanks because they don't have enough to eat, whilst we have people like that spending more money than 99% of the country will ever make refitting their apartment!

 

You can't blame people for being angry my friend. I certainly am.


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#8
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon

Everything below "Royal travel costs"? I already commented on the refit in my previous post. The apartment is his official residence and isn't even owned by the royal family. To expect them to foot the bill themselves is pretty much the same as expecting David Cameron to pay for any refurbishments at No10. Just like Buckingham palace it serves an official function & any refurbishments are paid for by the state. 

 

They hold a high position in the british government, would you rather our ambassadors stay in a council flat? Lets ship the prime minister off to a council estate while we're at it. These old buildings have to be maintained, and most of them are open to the public for viewing. Would you rather they degrade and can no longer be viewed anymore? 

 

That's life dude, some people are born into better circumstances than others. Do you think it's an accident that almost all our prime ministers have studied at Oxbridge? Do you think common folk in the past would have had much opportunity to go to such establishments? Life isn't fair, some people are born rich, some people are born poor. 


Edited by Ewan, 29 June 2013 - 10:44 PM.


#9
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

I'm not British, but I think that all monarchies should be abolished. I don't see why someone should be the head of state/head of government (or whatever it is called) of a particular country simply because of who his/her parents and family are.


Edited by Futurist, 29 June 2013 - 11:23 PM.


#10
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts
500 years ago, the royal family ran the country. Now, they sit on their gold thrones all day having everything done for them and doing fuck all for the country. Why should someone be treated like a hero just because they were lucky enough to be born into the richest family in the country? It's fucking ridiculous! We don't need them, so we should abolish the monarchy, they are good for nothing!

#11
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon

You guys replies are hilarious. This is exactly what I was talking about before O'Neil haha! 



#12
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

well I don't think they do nothing, but I do want to get rid of them, and I want all their stolen land to be returned to the public, to whom it rightfully belongs.


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#13
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon
well I don't think they do nothing, but I do want to get rid of them, and I want all their stolen land to be returned to the public, to whom it rightfully belongs.

 

The crown estate isn't owned by the monarch in the sense that ordinary land is (it is not her private property). The Queen cannot sell any of the assets and she does not receive the revenue generated. Instead all revenue goes to the government, and the royal family receive a payment in exchange (ie the civil list). Although that's soon to change and they will receive a proportion of the revenue instead. 

 

So what exactly is the civil list money used for? I'll quote the royal website on this:

 

"About 70 per cent of the Civil List expenditure goes on staff salaries. It also goes towards meeting the costs of official functions such as garden parties, receptions and official entertainment during State Visits. The Queen entertains almost 50,000 people each year."

 

Only the Queen & Duke of Edinburgh receive this money, and it is used solely to fund her responsibilities as the head of state. 

 

You see I'm still not quite understanding your rationale here, as I said earlier, do you think the Queen does a bad job as head of state? 

 

If you want to know more about the royal finances, or the schedule of the royals the information is all freely available.



#14
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • LocationSlocan Park, BC
I neither support nor condemn them. But if they left for Britain to be a Republic, it would be interesting.

#15
stuffed_leader

stuffed_leader

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Locationprescott, AZ

To my English friends: Do they have any power? Is your family still in existence simply due to traditions? 

 

If the answer is no, yes then they should stay. Every country should have culture. 


Omega point or extinction.

#16
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth
To my English friends: Do they have any power? Is your family still in existence simply due to traditions?

I'm not British, but I do know that they have some power (or did until very recently).



#17
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Ehhh, it's tradition. But i'm not british so i can't really say. Maybe they just shouldn't get paid for doing nothing. Or atleast not as much as they do get paid?


What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#18
MAX

MAX

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

I'm not British, but I can say that it's pretty annoying to have the queens extended family cared for, excluding her direct descendants.  I don't like the idea of someone being born into a position either. 


Boss... you were right. It's not about changing the world. It's about doing our best to leave the world... the way it is. It's about respecting the will of others, and believing in your own. -Big Boss MGS4

#19
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon
I'm not British, but I can say that it's pretty annoying to have the queens extended family cared for, excluding her direct descendants.  I don't like the idea of someone being born into a position either. 

 

Only those that have official titles & government responsibility receive any funding. They receive a salary and business expenses the same as any other diplomat. You guys really need to think of the royal family as the office of the head of state, because that's essentially what it is. Any money received is given to pay for those duties. 


Edited by Ewan, 09 July 2013 - 12:39 AM.


#20
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts
I honestly want to vomit looking at how many people have voted "no". Fucking royalists... what's the point of worshipping a family just because they're stupidly rich and do fuck all for anyone?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users