• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The British Monarchy.....

Jack of Devon

Jack of Devon

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
55
Reaction score
46
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
....A wonderful institution; the envy of the world, providing continuity, safeguarding the constitution and bringing in millions in tourism money?

Or

An indefensible relic of imperialism and privilege , undermining democracy, perpetuating the class system and a drain on tax payers ?
 
Both? ;)
 
I think it could be good if someone better than Queen Elizabeth takes over. Queen Elizabeth is too stuck in her old ways to be any force of progressivism.
 
Jack of Devon said:
....A wonderful institution; the envy of the world, providing continuity, safeguarding the constitution and bringing in millions in tourism money?
Click to expand...

It is money in the bank.. the best British export there is. It brings in billions each year.

An indefensible relic of imperialism and privilege , undermining democracy, perpetuating the class system and a drain on tax payers ?
Click to expand...

Since she has no real power anymore.. then /shrug. I would be more worried about the state of British democracy as a whole.. that you have a minority government ruling with a majority of seats in parliament is a problem. That is hardly democratic, but also it is hardly the fault of the Queen :)
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I think it could be good if someone better than Queen Elizabeth takes over. Queen Elizabeth is too stuck in her old ways to be any force of progressivism.
Click to expand...

The Queen is not mean to be a "force" for anything and that's the point.

I would also point out that Crown Estates provide much revenue and that Royal Figures do some good for Britain, they're often used to foster better relations and trade deals with other nations, you could say they're used in pawns in this way... However if the outcome is positive for the country I don't see the harm in continuing the practice.

I admit I am a bit of a royalist.

I think Queen Elizabeth II has been a model public figure and her passing will be a sad day for the nation.

I may see things differently with her successor if its Charles however.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The Queen is not mean to be a "force" for anything and that's the point.



I think Queen Elizabeth II has been a model public figure and her passing will be a sad day for the nation.

I may see things differently with her successor if its Charles however.
Click to expand...
I hold a very much minority view in my country, in that I am a republican and find the concept of an unelected head of state, both ideologically and symbolically wrong. However, I accept the Queen has held it together rather well and done what she was designed to do. I believe the British monarchy has survived because of her, not in spite her. However, the whole deal is that it is a heredity system so you have no choice in what you get.
 
I may see things differently with her successor if its Charles however.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. Charles and Philip are known Bilderbergers and enemy of the British people.
 
Jack of Devon said:
I hold a very much minority view in my country, in that I am a republican and find the concept of an unelected head of state, both ideologically and symbolically wrong. However, I accept the Queen has held it together rather well and done what she was designed to do. I believe the British monarchy has survived because of her, not in spite her. However, the whole deal is that it is a heredity system so you have no choice in what you get.
Click to expand...

It's a given yes that the "Head of State" is unelected, but without power it's symbolism doesn't bother me all that much.

We do elect, albeit in a very flawed manner, the true heads of state.
 
It is undemocratic and underpins the most divisive social toxin in England, the class system.
 
Jack of Devon said:
....A wonderful institution; the envy of the world, providing continuity, safeguarding the constitution and bringing in millions in tourism money?

Or

An indefensible relic of imperialism and privilege , undermining democracy, perpetuating the class system and a drain on tax payers ?
Click to expand...

I'll go for 1. That should not protect the privilege of others nor necessarily of the family itseĺf ti the extent it does..
 
It's just reality tv at this point.
 
A nice bit of cultural continuity, also, the tourism and media benefits are great.

They should keep it.
 
Jack of Devon said:
....A wonderful institution; the envy of the world, providing continuity, safeguarding the constitution and bringing in millions in tourism money?

Or

An indefensible relic of imperialism and privilege , undermining democracy, perpetuating the class system and a drain on tax payers ?
Click to expand...

It is a mix of the 2. It is a good institution to rake in the tourism dosh, a good institute to further the UK's economy (when visiting other countries on the apron strings of a Queen, can be very helpful for companies traveling with the queen/government to try and make good deals for the UK).

Personally I do not see how it can undermine democracy. But it does perpetuate an archaic system of the upper classes draining to some degree the English tax payers.

The English royalty is also hardly a wonderful institution that is the envy of the world. It may provide continuity because the King or Queen remains on the throne until she drops dead and that is not a healthy way IMHO to run a royal family/household. Even royal families need to evolve to remain current and relevant and I do not believe the English royal family is very current/evolved.

Now some of the problems the English royal family has are the same our own royal family has but they at least put royalty in power in the prime of their life and do not keep people on the throne until death.
 
Jack of Devon said:
I hold a very much minority view in my country, in that I am a republican and find the concept of an unelected head of state, both ideologically and symbolically wrong. However, I accept the Queen has held it together rather well and done what she was designed to do. I believe the British monarchy has survived because of her, not in spite her. However, the whole deal is that it is a heredity system so you have no choice in what you get.
Click to expand...

I am a social democrat but ideologically and symbolically I have no problem with the monarchy. In all reality I am a royalist because there are some traditions that are worthy to be kept, our monarchy is one of them. Now in three centuries that may be very different but that is for the people then to decide.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
That's what I'm saying. Charles and Philip are known Bilderbergers and enemy of the British people.
Click to expand...

But being at Bilderberg conferences does not make one a enemy of the British people. Now I do not know on what you base that assertion but so far I cannot see as to why they are enemies of the British people.
 
Heinrich said:
It is undemocratic and underpins the most divisive social toxin in England, the class system.
Click to expand...

But one can have a royal family without the trappings of the class system with all the lords of this and that.
 
Peter King said:
But one can have a royal family without the trappings of the class system with all the lords of this and that.
Click to expand...
The topic is about the British Monarchy and that does underpin the whole class system with which the English are obsessed.
 
Peter King said:
But being at Bilderberg conferences does not make one a enemy of the British people. Now I do not know on what you base that assertion but so far I cannot see as to why they are enemies of the British people.
Click to expand...

The first Bilderberg conference got its namesake from the Hotel in the Dutch town of Oosterbeek where the world elite convened on May 29, 1954.
Roughly ten years earlier, in 1944, the Battle of Arnhem near Oosterbeek resulted in a crushing defeat of the Allies by Nazi Germany. Christiaan Lindemans was an associate of Prince Bernhard, and it was either incompetence or his reputation as a double-agent that led to the intelligence failure which in turn led to the massacre in the Hexenkessel in 1944.

But, yeah, it's totally nothing more than coincidence that Prince Bernhard himself chaired the first Bilderberg meeting not far from that exact spot.

:roll:
 
Last edited:
Jack of Devon said:
I hold a very much minority view in my country, in that I am a republican and find the concept of an unelected head of state, both ideologically and symbolically wrong. However, I accept the Queen has held it together rather well and done what she was designed to do. I believe the British monarchy has survived because of her, not in spite her. However, the whole deal is that it is a heredity system so you have no choice in what you get.
Click to expand...

I generally agree. But in her coronation oath Elizabeth swore to uphold British sovereignty. An oath she broke by successively signing Acts of Parliament which, bit by bit, handed sovereignty to the EU. If she had had any backbone she would have refused to sign and provoked a constitutional crisis. An elected President might have taken an oath more seriously.
 
I think its a positive but wouldn't go as far as described in the OP. I think it probably helps the tourist economy and keeps kids as well as adults interested in history. The royals are known for their high profile charitable work and bring important attention to humanitarian concerns. I bet it would be fun for average people who take up genealogy as a hobby to learn they too have royal blood. Obviously, the people support the institution, evidenced by royal weddings, birthdays and baby announcements.
 
Peter King said:
It is a mix of the 2. It is a good institution to rake in the tourism dosh, a good institute to further the UK's economy (when visiting other countries on the apron strings of a Queen, can be very helpful for companies traveling with the queen/government to try and make good deals for the UK).

Personally I do not see how it can undermine democracy. But it does perpetuate an archaic system of the upper classes draining to some degree the English tax payers.

The English royalty is also hardly a wonderful institution that is the envy of the world. It may provide continuity because the King or Queen remains on the throne until she drops dead and that is not a healthy way IMHO to run a royal family/household. Even royal families need to evolve to remain current and relevant and I do not believe the English royal family is very current/evolved.

Now some of the problems the English royal family has are the same our own royal family has but they at least put royalty in power in the prime of their life and do not keep people on the throne until death.
Click to expand...

I, a British republican, hope Elizabeth lives and reigns another 20 years. King Charles the Foolish would be even worse.
 
Peter King said:
But one can have a royal family without the trappings of the class system with all the lords of this and that.
Click to expand...

We have moved a long way in that direction here in Sweden and Crown Princess Victoria is personally admirable. I would vote for her as president but I should have that vote.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
The first Bilderberg conference got its namesake from the Hotel in the Dutch town of Oosterbeek where the world elite convened on May 29, 1954.
Roughly ten years earlier, in 1944, the Battle of Arnhem near Oosterbeek resulted in a crushing defeat of the Allies by Nazi Germany. Christiaan Lindemans was an associate of Prince Bernhard, and it was either incompetence or his reputation as a double-agent that led to the intelligence failure which in turn led to the massacre in the Hexenkessel in 1944.

But, yeah, it's totally nothing more than coincidence that Prince Bernhard himself chaired the first Bilderberg meeting not far from that exact spot.

:roll:
Click to expand...

For once I can agree with you Abbazöorkzog. It was, as you say, nothing more than coincidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom