bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
I'm up for that. Trouble is all the other folk.
The Queen / The Monarchy
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I'm up for that. Trouble is all the other folk.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
That is a worrying thought
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
See six months isn't long enough to do any real damage and it's only a ceremonial position anyway. But I like to believe that we have more decent folk than awful bastards in the country, it's just that the awful bastards get more prominence. My method brings an amount of true democracy to the system.
albion
Guru
Harry took what money he had abroad. Cool.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
What on Earth is "true" democracy? You cannot have 'an amount' of true democracy...it's 100% or it's just political expediency.
A referendum such as Brexit was as close as we get to true democracy and look what happened there.
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
I've been clear that I don't consider the Brexit referendum to have been democratic. I stand by that opinion. But of course there are amounts of democracy. We have elections - democratic. We have a monarchy - not democratic. We have healthcare and education - democratic. We have restrictions on the size of the family - not democratic. We have freedom of expression - democratic. We have restrictions on protest - not democratic.
All of modern society operates as a balance between democracy and restrictions on that democracy. A 'true' democracy, a pure democracy as it were, would be anarchy.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
While there is private education and healthcare, postcode lotteries, waiting lists...you pay more, you get better treatment... they are only only vaguely democratic, although I disagree with the term to describe them. The other things you mention are not restricted,or free, they just come with a cost...which some can afford and others cannot. None of these are democratic or otherwise unless you start confusing it with egalitarianism.
Even our elections are only partially democratic because of the restrictions on who can vote, and what they can vote on...decisions made by our governing classes.
Monarchy is not democratic and has never pretended to be, but there is no requirement for every aspect of life within a democracy to be democratic.
Last edited:
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Interesting view. Personally, I tend to see that as joining the ranks of the various other tax dodgers and "offshore merchants" , but, I suppose, maybe his "royal blood" (subject to a DNA test) makes him different in some peoples eyes.
fozy tornip
fozympotent
I didn't expect to hear myself say this, certainly not so soon, but come back 'tool, all is forgiven.
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
Whatever it is I wrote, I retract it.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
I just showed the Royal family brings in more then it cost, i'm not lecturing how you should feel about them or that the fact they bring more in then they cost that it would be OK or not. Personally i'm currently neutral although i do thing for example Prince Andrew shouldn't be allowed to be protected in the way he still is.
the snail
Active Member
That assumes that nobody will visit those historic landmarks after the royal family is
ebikeerwidnes
Well-Known Member
Has anyone mentioned yet that as part of his Coronation the King transfers the income of teh Duchy of Lancaster over to the country in return for the annual grant they give him back
and the grant is much lower than the income of the duchy (including any taxes that might otherwise have been paid)
or so I have been told
if the monarchy was abolished the income would revert to the royal family
and the grant is much lower than the income of the duchy (including any taxes that might otherwise have been paid)
or so I have been told
if the monarchy was abolished the income would revert to the royal family
All uphill
Well-Known Member
It seems the pro- royal argument here is a financial one; is that really the best reason for having the huge institution?
I get the argument for having a non party political head of state, and the argument for the stability and continuity a hereditary monarchy is seen to give.
Putting this together still seems, to me, to amount to a pretty weak argument in favour. Is the appeal really just an emotional one? Most of us liking the display, national status and Royal soap opera?
I don't get it.
I get the argument for having a non party political head of state, and the argument for the stability and continuity a hereditary monarchy is seen to give.
Putting this together still seems, to me, to amount to a pretty weak argument in favour. Is the appeal really just an emotional one? Most of us liking the display, national status and Royal soap opera?
I don't get it.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Sue Townsend wrote a brilliant book about them.
