Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yellow Fever

The Royal Family - Does Anybody Care ?

Recommended Posts

Whereas I wish Duke of Edinburgh personally well, I really can't be bothered with any of them in their official roles and certainly not the endless dribble in the redtops. Harry and Megan better of out of it.

Anybody have similar thoughts ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see much point to them anymore. Though neither a republican nor a royalist I saw there was some good to their roles as heads of state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there would be a point to a monarch if, as head of state, the monarch acted as a head of state and didn’t just ignore the anti-democratic antics of this present prime minister. She does have the authority to sack him, or at least dress him down - in public preferably. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't bother me and I'm fond of the establishment in general and happy to have it as opposed to a politican. The media abuse them with endless intrusion that I'd not wish on anyone and in general the high profile and privilege they have puts them at odds with modern society(as opposed to celebrities who people perceive as actually doing something for their money).  It's also hurt by the endless celebrity of the situation and only complete abolishment will end it while a lower profile would fit much better. I think the Monarchy in general does alright. It's main problem will be Harry will not be the last.

Harry is now basically a celebrity and hopefully his message is not diluted as it's been well nutured through the legacy of his mother and the forethought of his father and a life given purpose by being a high profile royal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bill said:

What do you reckon on any organised disrupted to this period i.e. Extinct Rebillion type things or just people protesting as not wanting to relive any form of lockdown/disruption.

Edited by KiwiScot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a republican with a lower case r. I have no objection to them as a family but to me it is still a symbol that we haven't moved on. 

The aspect that you have to bow and salute a family because they apparently have authority over you is so medieval.

I remember my son had not been in the Coldstream Guards long and he was on guard duty at the Palace. Prince Andrew came out and the Guardsmen have to hold their rifles out at arms length in salute. The Prince was out there talking for nearly an hour and my son said his arms were shaking by the time he went back in. Totally barbaric and unnecessary.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abolish the lot of them. Archaic institution with zero value to anything. Totally out of place in modern society. Never understand the royalists who seem so pleased with having them for no obvious reason.... bizarre.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, when we hold up people to be role models, and they once were sold to the public as such, we do well to judge them by the company they keep.

When one looks at how many Commonwealth subject have died in awful circumstances and kept as slaves, to build up a shiny facade in the sand, Dubai, and when we look at its ruler, his many ex wifes and concubines, the treatment of his own offspring, not to speak of the horrid relationship we support in Saudi Arabia, our bombs, our planes, our engineers servicing the fighter jets, all to bomb the heck out of Yemen killing women and children, then one is entitled to question this sad shadow of itself.

Another piece of real journalism that you will not see replicated anywhere in the mainstream and or the BBC.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/02/on-not-being-a-princess/

A BBC very much challenged today as the mouth piece for rabid Islamophobic Zionism, agitating, spreading defamation among those who dare to question their treatment of the Palestinians, who dare to speak about the history of Islamophobia in Israel. Isn't that right Prof. David Miller?

 

https://www.change.org/p/academics-and-supporters-of-civil-liberties-defend-professor-david-miller-defend-freedom-of-speech-and-academic-freedom

Edited by nevermind, neoliberalism has had it
missing link
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the Monarchy as it exists today in this nation is about right in the role it does. The Queen in particular, doing the same role in 2021 that she did when becoming Queen back in Feb 1952 is a very special person indeed, not in the sense of being high and almighty but in the longevity of her long service in that role, its truly remarkable. Istill believe, in the main, that her neutrality in the political system of Parliament that we have is still a rock that allows our Parliament and political system to be what is, on the whole, still one of the best in the world.

Wha amazes me is that nations like Australia, Canada and NZ still to this day seem to have a need for her to be their head of state. Also i do believe that the Royal Family in general does need to have its numbers  cut back, so many cousins and aunts and uncles and what have you with titles and privelages that in this day and age seem absurd in the extreme. Although not a part of the Royal Family, i believe the same for the House of Lords, it does have a role  but its numbers are way to bloated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kick it off said:

Abolish the lot of them. Archaic institution with zero value to anything. Totally out of place in modern society. Never understand the royalists who seem so pleased with having them for no obvious reason.... bizarre.

Sounds a bit harsh when you put it that way, especially as the Queen (and Prince Philip) have a very long record of public service which in some ways has been quite admirable.

But I don't think there is any getting away from the fact that having a Head of State who is both unelected and who chooses not to exercise their powers\undertake their responsibilities as Head of State is a really major problem.

I wouldn't say they have zero value but their value is in the ceremonial/symbolic/soft power side of the UK and it is not trivial but unfortunately it is still far outweighed by the negative political and constitutional connotations of having a vacuum where we should have a Head of State. This may not be our biggest problem but it is certainly a significant factor in our dysfunctional and undemocratic system of governance. It is also very dangerous in the 21st century when we have a government, as we have now, which believes and acts as if it were above the law, and sadly it turns out that they are above the law because the only backstop we have to prevent this kind of abuse of our 'democracy' chooses to take no action.

So I'd say that the Queen's long service has rightly or wrongly meant she has a level of respect that is substantial but is entirely personal, is already dissipating and will completely disappear when her reign ends  - after that we desperately need an elected Head of State but it seems that most Brits, and certainly both the Tory and Labour parties are very much backward rather than forward looking so in reality it just isn't going to happen - after all the UK establishment and political system has been frozen in aspic for several centuries, so surely a few more decades of the same old, same old can only be a good thing........... 🙄

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On paper it shouldn't work. In reality it does. Even liberal countries like the Netherlands and the Nordic countries hang on to their monarchs. Of course, much depends on the character of the monarch. In Thailand the late king is revered as a semi-god figure, his son the current king is reviled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Surfer said:

I think there would be a point to a monarch if, as head of state, the monarch acted as a head of state and didn’t just ignore the anti-democratic antics of this present prime minister. She does have the authority to sack him, or at least dress him down - in public preferably. 

The whole brexit fiasco brought it home how little she can/will do. Even when politicians blatantly lie to the head of state nothing got done so she is either impotent, complicit, doesn't give a toss or a mixture of all three. Just a very expensive bauble, get rid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mainly care because I imagine we'll get a couple of Bank Holidays when the Queen croaks.

Harsh but to be honest a bit of extra time off is my main interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Sounds a bit harsh when you put it that way, especially as the Queen (and Prince Philip) have a very long record of public service which in some ways has been quite admirable.

Public service?! I'll tell you what, pay me £37million per year and bestow ridiculous amounts of land and properties upon me for literally no reason, and I will give you far better value than both of them combined.

Their "public service" is to live a life of luxury, whilst doing pretty much **** all for it. Few photo ops, open a hospital occassionally, take a nice taxpayer funded holiday a couple of times per year. That is literally it.

That's not "public service", it's luxury benefits.

Neither of them have done a day's work in their lives.

**** the lot of them. Pointless parasites that give nothing to society apart from antiquated "tradition".

Edited by kick it off
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kick it off said:

Public service?! I'll tell you what, pay me £37million per year and bestow ridiculous amounts of land and properties upon me for literally no reason, and I will give you far better value than both of them combined.

Their "public service" is to live a life of luxury, whilst doing pretty much **** all for it. Few photo ops, open a hospital occassionally, take a nice taxpayer funded holiday a couple of times per year. That is literally it.

That's not "public service", it's luxury benefits.

Neither of them have done a day's work in their lives.

**** the lot of them. Pointless parasites that give nothing to society apart from antiquated "tradition".

And that upsets you more than having a Head of State that doesn't discharge her responsibilities in protecting our democracy, such as it is..........????

I guess we just have different priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think yourselves lucky, if I were King I'd have most of you miserable b******s in the Tower.

King Ricardo 1st.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Think yourselves lucky, if I were King I'd have most of you miserable b******s in the Tower.

King Ricardo 1st.

 

A bike, a bike, my season ticket for a bike

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

And that upsets you more than having a Head of State that doesn't discharge her responsibilities in protecting our democracy, such as it is..........????

I guess we just have different priorities.

A political monarch would cleave the country in two would it not? It could get pretty messy, pretty quickly. Didn't the Governor-General, the Queen's representative, in Australia sack Gough Whitlam, then Prime Minister? Probably about the closest we have ever come to a political decision taken by the monarchy, albeit at one step removed. That decision caused street protests and demonstrations, so the same outcome would probably happen here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best riposte to a monarchy is -

If we were today to design a constitution and political democratic system afresh - we wouldn't invent or have need for a monarchy.

Hence the monarchy (whatever service the current Queen has given) is just an anachronistic self promoting obsequious left over from medieval days.  Worse it imbeds a sense of class, snobbery and aristocracy - however good and deserving you may be you can never ever be Head-of State in the UK  - hence know your place!  Not all men (or women) are created equal it seems in the UK.

A Head of State need not be a political appointee - many countries do so quite successfully. However a lightly empowered defender of a written constitution seems quite a good idea.  

Frankly it's now outlived it's dubious usefulness, becoming just food for tittle-tattle and minor celebrities'. Worse, as has always been the case the 'spare' be that Margaret, Andrew or indeed Harry have always found their pampered lives stifled by the institution and have not unsurprisingly become more or less party animals in a gilded cage.

No - It cant survive in the days of the internet and social media. The Queen or at a pinch Charles really should be the last.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ricardo said:

Think yourselves lucky, if I were King I'd have most of you miserable b******s in the Tower.

King Ricardo 1st.

 

And last 🙂

I always like our airbrushed history we tell ourselves - King Louis of England (yes 13th century) or the coup in 1688 deposing a King when the Dutch took over (just like William the Conqueror did except we liked this one). Unconquered for 1000 years - erh no.

Arh that airbrush....

All bow to Yellow Fever the First, most calamitous of calamities  Now where's my moderator button....... 

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

And that upsets you more than having a Head of State that doesn't discharge her responsibilities in protecting our democracy, such as it is..........????

I guess we just have different priorities.

It upsets me that the fact it exists as an institution provides a significant barrier to any kind of meaningful electoral reform which is desperately needed.

It doesn't upset me that she doesn't discharge her responsibilities, no, because then we would live in an absolute monarchy which is the direct opposite of democracy. Having an unelected head of state is an existential threat to democracy when they hold the power to dissolve government. Much as Boris is a useless, incompetent, out of touch ****, at least he was elected "democratically" (even though our version of democracy is a nonsensical fallacy). Give me elections over heirs any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I think the Queen comes across (far as we know..) as a decent woman and all, but not fond of the rest of the family.

 

Do think once she pops her clogs questions will need to be asked about the royal family, think most would agree she's the glue holding it all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

I mean, I think the Queen comes across (far as we know..) as a decent woman and all, but not fond of the rest of the family.

 

Do think once she pops her clogs questions will need to be asked about the royal family, think most would agree she's the glue holding it all together.

It can not survive the modern intrusive media, nobody could. We all have our family skeletons, mistakes and scandals but now the Royals can no longer cover them up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't wish any ill upon them, but I have no time for them, generally. I think The Queen has performed her role well, though 

I prefer a more egalitarian society. We have a day in Iceland where the Icelandic language is celebrated. The year before last, there was a reception at a local hall with some bands playing. I went along, wandered in (no checks, no security) picked up a glass of wine (no questions asked, no charge) and went and stood at a table. I looked over to the table next to me, there was a group of people talking, including the President and Prime Minister 

This wouldn't happen in the UK. To be fair, it couldn't happen.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I don't wish any ill upon them, but I have no time for them, generally. I think The Queen has performed her role well, though 

I prefer a more egalitarian society. We have a day in Iceland where the Icelandic language is celebrated. The year before last, there was a reception at a local hall with some bands playing. I went along, wandered in (no checks, no security) picked up a glass of wine (no questions asked, no charge) and went and stood at a table. I looked over to the table next to me, there was a group of people talking, including the President and Prime Minister 

This wouldn't happen in the UK. To be fair, it couldn't happen.

 

 

If we lived in a country with a population of Greater Norwich we probably could.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people on this thread actually annoyed that an unelected monarch didn't overturn the decisions of an elected government? Bloody hell...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/02/2021 at 18:39, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

well, when we hold up people to be role models, and they once were sold to the public as such, we do well to judge them by the company they keep.

When one looks at how many Commonwealth subject have died in awful circumstances and kept as slaves, to build up a shiny facade in the sand, Dubai, and when we look at its ruler, his many ex wifes and concubines, the treatment of his own offspring, not to speak of the horrid relationship we support in Saudi Arabia, our bombs, our planes, our engineers servicing the fighter jets, all to bomb the heck out of Yemen killing women and children, then one is entitled to question this sad shadow of itself.

Another piece of real journalism that you will not see replicated anywhere in the mainstream and or the BBC.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/02/on-not-being-a-princess/

A BBC very much challenged today as the mouth piece for rabid Islamophobic Zionism, agitating, spreading defamation among those who dare to question their treatment of the Palestinians, who dare to speak about the history of Islamophobia in Israel. Isn't that right Prof. David Miller?

 

https://www.change.org/p/academics-and-supporters-of-civil-liberties-defend-professor-david-miller-defend-freedom-of-speech-and-academic-freedom

Not the point but David Miller is a crank and a racist.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...