153 replies to this topic

[Colonel O'Neil]

http://www.guardian....s-private-court

 

Yet another reason to get rid of them

 

The people in favor of the royal family should read this article. Sickening. And to think that man will be the future king.

[Ewan]

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?

 

Yes, you keep avoiding all my posts. Perhaps you could actually respond instead of just flaming. 

[Ewan]

http://www.guardian....s-private-court

 

Yet another reason to get rid of them

 

The people in favor of the royal family should read this article. Sickening. And to think that man will be the future king.

 

I've always found Prince Charles making his views known troublesome (I prefer the Queens more private approach). That being said, it is not a dealbreaker for me. Provided the King or Queen conducts their duties as head of state efficiently I have no problem with the royal family remaining in that position. We are quite unusual in requiring our head of state to be totally impartial, most others are part of a political organisation. 

[Colonel O'Neil]

Yes ewan, but that's it. The royal family needs to be impartial. Like it or not, they have not been democratically elected. Their job is to represent the country, not dictate policy, or in fact have any say.

 

This is because they have not been elected, they were just born in a supremely privileged position.

 

For those who didn't have time to read the article, it simply says that a decision to publish letters that Prince Charles sent to MP's was vetoed, because as the article quotes:

 

"disclosure of the 27 "particularly frank" letters between the prince and ministers over a seven-month period would have seriously damaged his future role as king."

 

Well hang on a minute...Don't we have a right to know just what these letters contain that would "seriously damage his role as king?"

 

Instead of having someone better suited to be king, their solution is to keep the information from the public-who they're meant to serve!

 

Surely I can't be alone in being horrified at this!

[Ewan]

The house of lords is not democratic either & they have far more legislative power. Neither is our court system, judges are simply appointed not elected. Just because a system is not democratic does not mean it cannot work. Not all positions should be elected, I've explained previously the problems that poses. I would also trust the Royal family to be more impartial than our elected officials, the latter are influenced so heavily by rich investors and company executives it's crazy. 

Edited by Ewan, 09 July 2013 - 08:32 PM.

[Yuli Ban]

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?

You thinkin' some French Reign Of Terror/Soviet & Chinese Red Terror style will be enough?

[Colonel O'Neil]

The house of lords is not democratic either & they have far more legislative power. Neither is our court system, judges are simply appointed not elected. Just because a system is not democratic does not mean it cannot work. Not all positions should be elected, I've explained previously the problems that poses. I would also trust the Royal family to be more impartial than our elected officials, the latter are influenced so heavily by rich investors and company executives it's crazy. 

 

Thats the point though, the whole system is completely screwed up. The lack of transparency is astonishing.

[Ewan]

The house of lords is not democratic either & they have far more legislative power. Neither is our court system, judges are simply appointed not elected. Just because a system is not democratic does not mean it cannot work. Not all positions should be elected, I've explained previously the problems that poses. I would also trust the Royal family to be more impartial than our elected officials, the latter are influenced so heavily by rich investors and company executives it's crazy. 

 

Thats the point though, the whole system is completely screwed up. The lack of transparency is astonishing.

 

Well they're private letters. Would you suggest any letter to be fair game between any powerful individuals? Where do you draw a line? 

[Colonel O'Neil]

The difference is, other rich people have no obligation to be impartial. Obviously if the letters were private messages to MP's that didn't affect the public at all, then it would be morally wrong to release them.

 

The letters Prince Charles sent to MP's, were not private though. They are clear evidence that he was trying to influence politics. If it got out it would seriously damage the reputation of the monarchy as a whole.

 

Ewan, look carefully at the article again. Look at the reason Grieves gives, as to why he vetoed the letters being released, after a tribunal of judges said it should be.

[FutureOfToday]

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?

Yes, you keep avoiding all my posts. Perhaps you could actually respond instead of just flaming.

I've read all of your posts and you haven't given a good reason as to why the royal family should be kept in a single one of them. They do nothing for the country, therefore they need to get out.

[tw88]

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. 

 

I am American, but I do believe that the monarch still technically had the authority to declare war on another country until parliament voted to remove such authority in 2010 or  2011 (although the monarch had not exercised that authority in decades). From what I know of British politics and the monarch, that was pretty much the last remaining vestige of significant power the monarch could still wield. I'm not sure if the monarch has any significant authority in Canada or Australia (where she, but not the British government, is the head of state). I suppose the Monarch may be an insurance policy against anarchy in the event that the government collapse, or some freak event occurs killing the prime minister and everyone in parliament, although i'm not familiar enough with British law to know where in the que the monarch stands to assume control in the event of the sequential death of government authorities.

 

 

Edit: I was wrong, the monarch still has the ultimate authority to declare war, a section of the Constitutional Reform and Governance act of 2010 would have removed that authority, but that section of the bill was taken out before the "Royal Assent" (whatever that means). http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

Edited by tw88, 10 July 2013 - 07:54 PM.

[tw88]

 

Edited by tw88, 10 July 2013 - 06:50 PM.

[Ewan]

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?

Yes, you keep avoiding all my posts. Perhaps you could actually respond instead of just flaming.

I've read all of your posts and you haven't given a good reason as to why the royal family should be kept in a single one of them. They do nothing for the country, therefore they need to get out.

 

You do not think we need a head of state?

[Ewan]

The difference is, other rich people have no obligation to be impartial. Obviously if the letters were private messages to MP's that didn't affect the public at all, then it would be morally wrong to release them.

 

The letters Prince Charles sent to MP's, were not private though. They are clear evidence that he was trying to influence politics. If it got out it would seriously damage the reputation of the monarchy as a whole.

 

Ewan, look carefully at the article again. Look at the reason Grieves gives, as to why he vetoed the letters being released, after a tribunal of judges said it should be.

 

But why do they need to be impartial? Don't get me wrong I know it's a requirement at the moment, but as I said before it's not a crucial point for me. I don't believe there is necessarily anything wrong with the monarch using some of their influence if they feel it is required. There is no harm to give the government advice, they do not make the decisions. The primary reasons for my support of the monarchy are twofold: firstly they do not rely on outside interests to hold their position (unlike all democratically elected representatives); secondly I believe they have more experience and are better at the job than other heads of state, who only hold the position for a limited time and use it as a stepping stone for higher office. 

Edited by Ewan, 10 July 2013 - 07:45 PM.

[rtardx]

The royals probably couldn't give 2 hoots about Britain's people anyway. They should be given one more chance, Have the next descendants trained all their lives to run the country. If they choose so that is.

[FutureOfToday]

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?

Yes, you keep avoiding all my posts. Perhaps you could actually respond instead of just flaming.

I've read all of your posts and you haven't given a good reason as to why the royal family should be kept in a single one of them. They do nothing for the country, therefore they need to get out.

You do not think we need a head of state?

The head of state is not the queen, it's David Cameron, the PRIME MINISTER. We don't need a PM and a monarchy, we only need one or the other. And since this is the 21st century, and not the 14th century, the obvious choice would be to ditch the monarchy and just have a PM.

[Ewan]

 

 

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?

Yes, you keep avoiding all my posts. Perhaps you could actually respond instead of just flaming.

I've read all of your posts and you haven't given a good reason as to why the royal family should be kept in a single one of them. They do nothing for the country, therefore they need to get out.

You do not think we need a head of state?

The head of state is not the queen, it's David Cameron, the PRIME MINISTER. We don't need a PM and a monarchy, we only need one or the other. And since this is the 21st century, and not the 14th century, the obvious choice would be to ditch the monarchy and just have a PM.

 

No. The Prime Minister is the head of the government, in the UK the duties of head of state are devolved to someone else, just like they are in most of Europe. The Queen holds this position, in France it is held by the President, in Spain by the monarch, in Italy the President, in Germany the President. In all of these countries they also have someone else who controls the government. You are thinking of the US political system whereby the President is both the Head of State and the head of the government. Personally I believe it works far better having the departments separated since they both have completely different objectives. The position of Head of State is mostly ceremonial, ie greeting guests that visit the UK and going overseas to do the same, plus making sure the government is maintained. The PM on the other hand deals with much more serious issues, which in my opinion should take his entire attention. Unfortunately in the US a lot of the Presidents time is wasted on ceremonial duties, and not enough in total is spent on them by the US government. 

Edited by Ewan, 11 July 2013 - 04:52 PM.

[Time_Traveller]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Ewan" data-cid="55961" data-time="1373561224"><p> <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="FutureOfToday" data-cid="55946" data-time="1373559163"><p><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Ewan" data-cid="55887" data-time="1373485030"><p><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="FutureOfToday" data-cid="55863" data-time="1373472121"><p><br /> <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Ewan" data-cid="55716" data-time="1373395956"><p><br /> <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="FutureOfToday" data-cid="55685" data-time="1373381333"><p><br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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?</p></blockquote>Yes, you keep avoiding all my posts. Perhaps you could actually respond instead of just flaming.</p></blockquote>I've read all of your posts and you haven't given a good reason as to why the royal family should be kept in a single one of them. They do nothing for the country, therefore they need to get out.</p></blockquote>You do not think we need a head of state?</p></blockquote>The head of state is not the queen, it's David Cameron, the PRIME MINISTER. We don't need a PM and a monarchy, we only need one or the other. And since this is the 21st century, and not the 14th century, the obvious choice would be to ditch the monarchy and just have a PM.</p></blockquote> <br /> No. The Prime Minister is the head of the government, in the UK the duties of head of state are devolved to someone else, just like they are in <em class='bbc'>most of Europe</em>. The Queen holds this position, in France it is held by the President, in Spain by the monarch, in Italy the President, in Germany the President. You are thinking of the US political system whereby the President is both the Head of State and the head of the government. Personally I believe it works far better having the departments separated since they both have completely different objectives. The position of Head of State is mostly ceremonial, ie greeting guests that visit the UK and going overseas to do the same, plus making sure the government is maintained. The PM on the other hand deals with much more serious issues, which in my opinion should take his entire attention.</p></blockquote> I agree don't get rid of any of them.

[FutureOfToday]

It's just a relief to see that most people here (57% so far) have common sense. -.-

[rtardx]

Still though, All that money spent on them could be spent on sick and hungry children.