just how important is the Royal Family?

[dave_mc]

I've met some people who consider the family a matter of great national pride, and others who think of them as fat cats stuffing themselves with the peoples money.

Sooo..................?

it's a democracy so different people are going to have different ideas. I'm not a major fan on principle, but as long as they have no power (like now) I can put up with it.

In saying that the monarchy has no political role in the English constitution except a symbolic one - that is why the 'keep the monarchy because 'Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron' as President would be worse' is just naive.  With a first past the post system of elections, the Prime Minister is the president for all intents and purposes as all except hung or minority parliaments give the prime minister a huge mandate through the political whip system.  England has an elected temporary dictatorship and the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha aka Windsor do nothing (and can do nothing) to keep any check on the supremacy of a majority government. 

yup. queen didn't do much to stop the war in iraq, for example (plus allowing her to stop it would be even worse, on principle). I agree that voting for a president would probably mean that you just get to vote for another annoying politician, but at least you'd have the option to vote, kind of thing.

[Will]

Personally I think the best thing that happened in the history of the English monarchy was when they cut off Charles I's head and declared a republic.  The worst thing was when monarchy came back.  

In saying that the monarchy has no political role in the English constitution except a symbolic one - that is why the 'keep the monarchy because 'Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron' as President would be worse' is just naive.  With a first past the post system of elections, the Prime Minister is the president for all intents and purposes as all except hung or minority parliaments give the prime minister a huge mandate through the political whip system.  England has an elected temporary dictatorship and the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha aka Windsor do nothing (and can do nothing) to keep any check on the supremacy of a majority government.  

Personally, I would abolish the expensive fiction of monarchy that we have, and flog or open up all her houses to make even more money from tourists and get on with things as normal.

Although Blair made it quite like a Presidency, traditionally the role of the Cabinet (Cabinet MINISTERS Vs Presidential advisors) has kept that a bit more democratic (in principle). I have not really followed how Brown is using the system, so can't comment on that. I really dislike the idea of the UK having a President rather than a PM

[dave_mc]

you could always have both. that's what most countries do, as far as i'm aware. certainly france and ireland do, off the top of my head.

[nfe]

I don't think they do any real harm.

Me neither. And they bring in a shed load of money through tourism.

Enough to offset the hundreds of million they are paid, in addition to being kept by the state?

On my skim reading, Elliot appears to be the only person who's posted in this thread with any understanding of the monarchy's position in modern Britain.

[Philly Q]

On my skim reading, Elliot appears to be the only person who's posted in this thread with any understanding of the monarchy's position in modern Britain.

Yeah, the rest of us are all too thick.  :roll:

[CaptainDesslock]

On my skim reading, Elliot appears to be the only person who's posted in this thread with any understanding of the monarchy's position in modern Britain.

Yeah, the rest of us are all too thick.  :roll:

well we all know nfe always cuts to the chase :)

[Plexi Ken]

Personally I think the best thing that happened in the history of the English monarchy was when they cut off Charles I's head and declared a republic.  The worst thing was when monarchy came back. 

You're more than entitled to your opinion and I respect your point-of view but the beheading of Charles I directly lead to parliament being suspended, democracy being abandoned and Cromwell becoming dictator for life. Which few folk would agree are 'good' things. Democracy isn't perfect but I'll take it over fascism everyday.

As for the restoration being the worst thing, it happened to unite the country (after the army lost confidence in Cromwell's son) and stop another civil war. The English Civil War was a devastating event, proportionately more English life was lost in the civil war than in WWI. Another civil war could have spelt the end of the country. Restoration was the only possible solution.


IIRC the monarchy receive just under £38 million from the tax payer.

[38thBeatle]

Yeah I am too naive to contribute further to this so I shall leave to you all to educate me.

[nfe]

IIRC the monarchy receive just under £38 million from the tax payer.

Has there been a massive drop?

The Queen was being paid in excess of £80 million in '99/2000 whenever I was studying it. Over and above the other Royals plus the costs of their staff, security and homes.

[tomjackson]

The monarchy look pretty cheap when compared to the 2 billion that Gordon Brown lost us with his gold dealings.  If the Royals had any real power at all they would use it to stop idoits like Brown being able to do things like that.

In fact we should get rid of the monarchy just because they have not even attempted to ged rid of the current government for lying about going to war and losing enough of the countries money to mean I will  have to work until I'm 70!

I mean what's the point of them if the government can get away with things like that?

Other than that don't mind them :?

[nfe]

The monarchy look pretty cheap when compared to the 2 billion that Gordon Brown lost us with his gold dealings.  If the Royals had any real power at all they would use it to stop idoits like Brown being able to do things like that.

In fact we should get rid of the monarchy just because they have not even attempted to ged rid of the current government for lying about going to war and losing enough of the countries money to mean I will  have to work until I'm 70!

I mean what's the point of them if the government can get away with things like that?

Other than that don't mind them :?

They can't do anything about it. They have zero real power.

Which is great, because if they did we'd have people even less out of touch with the populace they are presiding over.

[ToneMonkey]

I'm not a Royalist, but I don't really have any strong feelings about it any more........ Just think that they should get the same amount of dole money as everyone else.

They're only really a figure head and don't have any real power or say, so I kind of think that the country has evolved into not needing a Royal Family any more.  Good for the tourists though, but I'd rather my tax money went to the NHS.

[Plexi Ken]

IIRC the monarchy receive just under £38 million from the tax payer.

Has there been a massive drop?

The Queen was being paid in excess of £80,000 in '99/2000 whenever I was studying it. Over and above the other Royals plus the costs of their staff, security and homes.

Looks like my figure was a little out-of-date, according to The Metro it was £41.5 million for 2008/9

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Taxpayers_spend_%A31.5m_more_to_keep_monarchy&in_article_id=693697&in_page_id=34

[indysmith]

I don't really know enough about it to make comment. FAR too many factors to weigh up, and to be honest I can't really be bothered. It'd likely make no difference anyway.

[MDV]

IIRC the monarchy receive just under £38 million from the tax payer.

Has there been a massive drop?

The Queen was being paid in excess of £80,000 in '99/2000 whenever I was studying it. Over and above the other Royals plus the costs of their staff, security and homes.

Thats really surprisingly low. I know people, work with them, whos wages are paid by taxes and earn more than that. I earn a little less than half that and my wages are mostly from taxes. 80,000 as one wage is one senior manager in any branch of civil service.