Why we (The United Kingdom), should continue to have a Royal Family.
428 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ThePuska;29496263]For people without any political power at all the royals are pretty damn well guarded[/QUOTE]
Because they're royalty?
[QUOTE=amute;29496233]This is simply not true, the Monarch has zero political power.[/QUOTE]
In that post I was only talking about monarchy as a form of governance, didn't make that clear, sorry.
Why should we support the institution if they're redundant? Why does tourism depend on this family being disgustingly well off?
[QUOTE=amute;29496280]Because they're royalty?[/QUOTE]
Why would they be targets to anyone if they have no political power?
Perceived or real
First thing I always think of when hearing about royalty is the Simpsons episode where Homer ran into the Queen's carriage in his car.
automerge broken
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;29496101]I used to watch the news in the morning. There isn't much point at the moment because I know about the (apparently) only thing that is happening in the world.
Tomorrow my local (South-West) radio station is going to be hi-jacked for the day.
Most shops I've been in for the last week or so has some tatty memorabilia in a prominent place.
I hope it goes well and everything, but shut the fuck up about it[/QUOTE]
I watch BBC daily, there's a lot of coverage over it, but It's not excessive.
Why have a royal family?
Prints money
[QUOTE=ThePuska;29496323]Why would they be targets to anyone if they have no political power?
Perceived or real[/QUOTE]
Someone shot Andy Warhol, what's your point?
[QUOTE=amute;29496233] So does the Renaissance.
What's your point?[/QUOTE]
Isn't it obvious? Institutions shouldn't exist purely because they're a part of history, so the tradition/history card is useless. Slavery was a part of history, at a time it was normalized. That doesn't mean it should take place today.
I don't care about the benifits of a Royal family, the fact that a bunch of inbreds are born with power and wealth is wrong imo.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29496304]In that post I was only talking about monarchy as a form of governance, didn't make that clear, sorry.
Why should we support the institution if they're redundant? Why does tourism depend on this family being disgustingly well off?[/QUOTE]
Monarchies are really complex, they're extremely flexible. They can be horrible dictatorships to extremely well off.
The royal family doesn't receive money for tourism, only through taxes. the UK earns money off the Royal family.
[QUOTE=amute;29496358]Someone shot Andy Warhol, what's your point?[/QUOTE]
What? Are you saying he had no political power?
[QUOTE=sami-elite;29494484]They hardly have power.[/QUOTE]
Why do they have [I]any[/I]?
Anyone who has any kind of societal influence has political power. Figureheads are no exemption.
And the tourism argument is a load of shit. Tourists come to see history, not a bunch of old farts in a castle. Also tourism income from royals only goes to London, so why should the whole country have to pay for them.
[QUOTE=amute;29496409]Monarchies are really complex, they're extremely flexible. They can be horrible dictatorships to extremely well off.
The royal family doesn't receive money for tourism, only through taxes. the UK earns money off the Royal family.[/QUOTE]
Oh sorry, my point was that the profit made from tourism wouldn't stop just because there isn't a monarchy existing at that particular time.
honestly, if the monarchy got it's money from tourism I wouldn't mind so much. the fact they get their money from taxes while social institutions are being shut down all over the place... doesn't that strike you as wrong?
[QUOTE=ThePuska;29496411]What? Are you saying he had no political power?[/QUOTE]
Yes. He had zero political power.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29496361]Isn't it obvious? Institutions shouldn't exist purely because they're a part of history, so the tradition/history card is useless. Slavery was a part of history, at a time it was normalized. That doesn't mean it should take place today.[/QUOTE]
Not all institutions of history are bad. Slavery is, Renaissance isn't. Etc etc.
[QUOTE=amute;29496522]Yes. He had zero political power.
Not all institutions of history are bad. Slavery is, Renaissance isn't. Etc etc.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't Johnny's point. His point was, this argument isn't sound:
If X serves history, X is a desirable institution.
X is monarchy
Monarchy is a desirable institution (in virtue of the fact it serves history).
That aside, I'd say monarchy was an institution that [i]was[/i] bad.
[QUOTE=Kingy_why;29496450]And the tourism argument is a load of shit. Tourists come to see history, not a bunch of old farts in a castle. Also tourism income from royals only goes to London, so why should the whole country have to pay for them.[/QUOTE]
Actually no, tourism around the royal family is so much more higher then the rest of England. Even then, the monarch provides more money to the government then they take.
Why would tourists see the monarch? Because people like that shit, just because YOU don't doesn't mean no one else does.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29496472]Oh sorry, my point was that the profit made from tourism wouldn't stop just because there isn't a monarchy existing at that particular time.
honestly, if the monarchy got it's money from tourism I wouldn't mind so much. the fact they get their money from taxes while social institutions are being shut down all over the place... doesn't that strike you as wrong?[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't stop, but it would absolutely drop dramatically.
Not really, it's cheap in the grand scheme of things, and the tax payer doesn't suffer in the slightest. Hell, the country gets richer off them. They pay many many times more in taxes for useless shit then the Monarch.
[QUOTE=amute;29496522]Yes. He had zero political power.
Not all institutions of history are bad. Slavery is, Renaissance isn't. Etc etc.[/QUOTE]
Is renaissance an institution?
I think in a perfect world there would be no need for a Monarchy, but the world isn't.
I think the current system is very stable and therefore good. Removing the current system would be very difficult and would tear the country in two.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29496568]That wasn't Johnny's point. His point was, this argument isn't sound:
If X serves history, X is a desirable institution.
X is monarchy
Monarchy is a desirable institution (in virtue of the fact it serves history).
That aside, I'd say monarchy was an institution that [i]was[/i] bad.[/QUOTE]
You're basically generalising things.
[QUOTE=amute;29496522]Yes. He had zero political power.
Not all institutions of history are bad. Slavery is, Renaissance isn't. Etc etc.[/QUOTE]
Would you argue that the media has no political power? Their rights may be guaranteed by laws, or prohibited by them, but that doesn't give them any power. All their power comes from their influence. Their power is the reason why censorship is practiced.
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;29496617]Is renaissance an institution?
I think in a perfect world there would be no need for a Monarchy, but the world isn't.
I think the current system is very stable and therefore good. Removing the current system would be very difficult and would tear the country in two.[/QUOTE]
Here's the problem, in a perfect world, the monarch isn't needed anymore then they are now. You can have a perfect world with or without a monarch.
Ugh, there are news stories about them[b] getting their hair done[/b] here in America.
I don't care about the English monarchy I just want them out of Canada.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;29496627]Would you argue that the media has no political power? Their rights may be guaranteed by laws, or prohibited by them, but that doesn't give them any power. All their power comes from their influence. Their power is the reason why censorship is practiced.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I would.
Influence doesn't entail power.
[QUOTE=Giacomand;29495983]A lot of people are saying that the Royal Wedding is being stuffed down their throats but I've never gotten any of it. I occasionally hear it on the radio every couple of days and that's the most I ever hear.
I think people are just overreacting and everyone else are just following the bandwagon.[/QUOTE]
Where do you live? Here in the US, anything relating to the royal wedding is breaking news.
I'm tired of hearing this crap either way. If the world cares so much about the royal wedding, then how come nobody gives a shit whenever another country gets a new leader?
[QUOTE=amute;29496592]Actually no, tourism around the royal family is so much more higher then the rest of England. Even then, the monarch provides more money to the government then they take.
Why would tourists see the monarch? Because people like that shit, just because YOU don't doesn't mean no one else does.
It wouldn't stop, but it would absolutely drop dramatically.
Not really, it's cheap in the grand scheme of things, and the tax payer doesn't suffer in the slightest. Hell, the country gets richer off them. They pay many many times more in taxes for useless shit then the Monarch.[/QUOTE]
But who gets richer? Are there any tourist hotspots outside of London that would lose out if there where no royals? How do the royals help me in west Wales, apart from using police resorces to search for bombs and shit.
[QUOTE=amute;29496618]You're basically generalising things.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. My reason for not supporting monarchy is because they give huge amounts of political power to a single will which isn't representative of what the people want. Maybe there's [i]worse[/i] ways of governing, but that doesn't mean they're legitimate.
[QUOTE=amute;29495723]So are celebrities and politicians.[/QUOTE]
This is completely redundant. I don't know how it didn't hit you in the face as you hit reply. A celebrities lifestyle isn't sustained through taxes. A Royals' is.
How are politicians born into a life of wealth and prosperity? They're elected. The difference is [I]we[/I] put them in that position with our votes. They have to work hard to get into that position. Because without us, they will not get there. A royal will always live lavishly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.