[glasgow67]

Ornaments and benefit cheats, no place for them in Scotland. I seen the Coween today at my lunchbreak in Edinburgh and stuck two fingers up at her from a distance, she never seen it but I was happy as it was the first and hopefully last time ill ever see her.

[nottinghamc]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Do you think this fawning, cheering and celebration over a couple (whose claim to fame in bloodline) by people who don't know them is a good thing? We criticise such displays when they take place in country's like North Korea, and we are quick to criticise the adulation some heap upon celebrities. As to this stability - kindly give an example. Stability comes from society, and Britain has been stable in the past because its people have shown a marked reluctance to vote in extremist governments, support the likes of Oswald Mosley and go around lynching one another. I'd also question just how 'stable' you think the Windsors are keeping the country when part of the UK is going to be holding a referendum to break it up in a couple of years. Perhaps they haven't been doing such a sterling job of late?

There is no proof that the royals loads of money or investment in our economy. Quite the opposite. For example, in a republic, I doubt that the son of the Head of State would be subsidised by lands drawn from the Crown Estates (ie. the Duchy of Cornwall, which is set aside to generate income for whoever holds the position of Prince of Wales).

Indeed, celebrating history and culture is not inherently unpatriotic. The believe that our country needs the Windsors for stability and identity and that not one single other person in Britain could do the job as well (if not better) than, say, Charles Windsor, is unpatriotic.

I think, when it comes to North Korea, its more to do with the fact they have an autocratic dynasty that rules by fear, runs a police state and imprisons anyone who doesn't agree with the dear leader, that leads to their criticism. The fact they have an hereditry leader is really, besides the point, unless you can see any more significant similarities between the royal family and the leadership of North Korea? There is also the fact that the 'fawning and cheering' of the crowds to the royals is done by people who have the free choice to do so or to not take part (like you didn't) whereas in North Korea there is a slightly more authortitative system.

[nottinghamc]

[/quote]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

'Distilled it down'? I think you'll find that you asked for one specific example. You got it. As for the Queen's Jubilee being to celebrate her 60 years on the throne - it's well-documented that there was some fudging of what constitutes 60 years and why early June 2012 was chosen - it was neither the date of her accession nor of her coronation. From what I can gather, this was done to coincide with the existing bank holiday; to contribute to a national 'party' atmosphere - chosen by David Cameron (just as the decision for the extra royal wedding bank holiday was made by Cameron). Again, I have fully admitted that any major event can and is used to bury bad news. Where have I said that this means that they should be 'banned', which was your assertion? I have merely pointed out that they can and are useful to politicians. You seem to have given up your initial position of denying that this is the case and fighting the straw man that I'm saying national events should be banned. One thing that is, perhaps, more of an issue is that the Jubilee is a political celebration - the Olympics are an international event.

Re: the Independence/Jubilee issue. You don't seem to have understood what I've written - if you had, you would see that the point I was labouring to make was not that the media were simply talking about the Jubilee 'instead' of the referendum - they were using the Jubilee as a launch pad to spread misinformation about the actualities of an independent Scotland's relationship with the monarchy.

I asked for a specific example of policy that had been overshadowed by the royal family, you failed to give it and just gave a nebulus reason as being 'its overshadowed, for a few days, a referendum that will not take place for several years' thats hardly one you claimed to begin with, and does not cover anything to do with 'unpopular government policy' as it's not a government policy to hold a referendum. As for the rest about claiming you wanted all civil occasions banned, I'm merely pointing out that you seem to dislike them, or is it only when it involves the royal family that they're bad, because you don't like them? If another civil occasion 'overshadowed' something else it would be fine?



Your second part is completely made up, or can you show where anyone connected with the royal family has mentioned about then change between the monarchy and an independant Scotland? Or are the royal family responsible for every piece of reporting done about them in the media too, which is oddly enough what you've been tyring to say in this thread.

edit: Actually having re-read the thread you said

Actually, I tend to believe that the current parties don't touch it with a bargepole because the current set up benefits the government very well. They are handed power by a weakened sovereign (who can effectively act as decorative puppet) and they provide a convenient distraction from unpopular policy.

And I asked

Erm, how do they provide a distraction? Name one unpopular policy implemented by this, or any other government, that the monarchy has distracted people from. Having an elected head of state would benefit the political classes greatly, as it would mean another top job with advisors, ministers etc. Yet they still don't want to get rid.

You then named the referendum in Scotland, which is not, by any definition, an 'unpopular policy' of this government, so you have actually failed so far to provide any unpopular policies made by this or any other government that has been 'distracted from' by the royal family.

[KarlSomething]

Originally Posted by frankie_baby

200 million quid is nothing compared to the amount of free advertising they get for britain

You're confusing free with not free.

[woot_whoo]

I asked for a specific example of policy that had been overshadowed by the royal family, you failed to give it and just gave a nebulus reason as being 'its overshadowed, for a few days, a referendum that will not take place for several years' thats hardly one you claimed to begin with, and does not cover anything to do with 'unpopular government policy' as it's not a government policy to hold a referendum. As for the rest about claiming you wanted all civil occasions banned, I'm merely pointing out that you seem to dislike them, or is it only when it involves the royal family that they're bad, because you don't like them? If another civil occasion 'overshadowed' something else it would be fine?



Your second part is completely made up, or can you show where anyone connected with the royal family has mentioned about then change between the monarchy and an independant Scotland? Or are the royal family responsible for every piece of reporting done about them in the media too, which is oddly enough what you've been tyring to say in this thread.

edit: Actually having re-read the thread you said



And I asked



You then named the referendum in Scotland, which is not, by any definition, an 'unpopular policy' of this government, so you have actually failed so far to provide any unpopular policies made by this or any other government that has been 'distracted from' by the royal family.

Strangely enough, you seem to have wavered on what question you've actually asked. Let's ignore the specific example of 'policy that has been overshadowed by the royal family', which was your secondary question and stick to the 'unpopular government policy' issue. How is it not a government policy to hold a referendum (even if, nationally, the issue of independence is currently slightly unpopular)? It was a specific issue in the current Scottish government's manifesto. Where did I say any non-royal civil occasion used to spread misinformation or distract from something would be fine? On the contrary, I would encourage people to always keep an eye on the facts of what's going on in the country whenever we're encouraged by the government to wave flags.

I have never said that the monarchy are responsible for inaccurate or irresponsible reportage (although the Palace does employ a strong PR team). My criticism in this issue is of the government and media, whom the monarchy seems to benefit to our detriment.

Since you seem to enjoy questions, may I ask you one? Would you allow your child to be raised in the knowledge that it is their God-given duty to begin the same job you do when you die, and do it until they die? If not, why do you think this appropriate for others?

[Mrstimmy]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Do you think this fawning, cheering and celebration over a couple (whose claim to fame in bloodline) by people who don't know them is a good thing? We criticise such displays when they take place in country's like North Korea, and we are quick to criticise the adulation some heap upon celebrities. As to this stability - kindly give an example. Stability comes from society, and Britain has been stable in the past because its people have shown a marked reluctance to vote in extremist governments, support the likes of Oswald Mosley and go around lynching one another. I'd also question just how 'stable' you think the Windsors are keeping the country when part of the UK is going to be holding a referendum to break it up in a couple of years. Perhaps they haven't been doing such a sterling job of late?

There is no proof that the royals loads of money or investment in our economy. Quite the opposite. For example, in a republic, I doubt that the son of the Head of State would be subsidised by lands drawn from the Crown Estates (ie. the Duchy of Cornwall, which is set aside to generate income for whoever holds the position of Prince of Wales).

Indeed, celebrating history and culture is not inherently unpatriotic. The believe that our country needs the Windsors for stability and identity and that not one single other person in Britain could do the job as well (if not better) than, say, Charles Windsor, is unpatriotic.

Yes. They are our Royal Family, they represent us around the world, the Queen has dedicated her life to serving this country. We may not know them personally, but we know them.

Someone else has answered in regards to your Korea point so I'll copy from them as they've answered better than I could have.

We can't answer for definite about the cost, there's conflicting statistics all over the internet and we could both find things to support our opinion. It is my opinion, and I believe, that the Queen brings a lot of investment to this country. There was a link to an article a few months ago on here about deals being done aboard Britannia that generated billions to this country. She provides stability because we have a Royal bloodline that traces back years, is known by everyone, and brings everyone (nearly everyone) in this country together when times need it. Hitler himself said his biggest threat during WW2 was the Queen Mother, due to the way she conducts herself and inspiration she instils. People don't go out to cheer them because they have to, we do it because we want to. When you witness crowds and crowds of people lining the streets through choice, to show their love of the Monarchy, you can see how strong and together we are as a country and people.

Totally disagree with you about it being unpatriotic to love and support this country's Royals. I think the Royal family are a huge part of our country, and our history and culture. I feel very proud to belong to this country and culture, and love the patriotic feeling of waving a union jack and singing along to God Save the Queen with thousands of other like minded people.

Originally Posted by batgirl

It's embarrassing because it's a very stupid system. If it didn't exist today and someone suggested it people would piss themselves laughing. Also, because it causes us (society) to elevate people who are without merit or talent. Most of the royals would struggle to get to a middle management position in a small company, if left to their own devices to make their way through life. And also because we ought to have the balls to get off our knees (literally and/or metaphorically) and insist on a meritocracy given that it's 2012, instead of falling for the media spin which is selling us state celebs to keep our minds off more important issues. In short, every minute Betty Windsor and her clan rule over us we should be ashamed of ourselves. That some people aren't simply confirms how idiotic it all is.

I think it's quite presumptous to claim they wouldn't get to middle management positions, and quite a childish statement. What about those of us who don't fall for media spin, generally don't care what the media say, but still love having a Monarchy?

Originally Posted by nottinghamc

I think, when it comes to North Korea, its more to do with the fact they have an autocratic dynasty that rules by fear, runs a police state and imprisons anyone who doesn't agree with the dear leader, that leads to their criticism. The fact they have an hereditry leader is really, besides the point, unless you can see any more significant similarities between the royal family and the leadership of North Korea? There is also the fact that the 'fawning and cheering' of the crowds to the royals is done by people who have the free choice to do so or to not take part (like you didn't) whereas in North Korea there is a slightly more authortitative system.

I was going to say it is through choice we celebrate too.

[batgirl]

Originally Posted by Mrstimmy

I think it's quite presumptous to claim they wouldn't get to middle management positions, and quite a childish statement.

Not at all. There's enough known about them to make that judgement.

What about those of us who don't fall for media spin, generally don't care what the media say, but still love having a Monarchy?

Everything you know about them comes from the media which on the whole is very into promoting them because royal stories are easy, lazy journalism.

But if you're a true monarchist who loves the monarchy regardless of how crappy the actual people are then you're more than proving my point.

[Palafrugel]

Biggest media made myth in the UK is that we need the Royals more than they need us.

Don't want to pay for them, want to tax them like we all get taxed. The tourism apology argument in their favour is a crock of shit. Anyone who is not a sentimental monarchist will admit it.

[Strathpeffer]

Originally Posted by Apple_Crumble

Cheers for the link. This country wastes such a staggering amount of money.

To quote the Financial Times from last year, "When the Crown Estate does well, royals win; when it does not, taxpayers lose."

Once the queen finally shuffles off this mortal coil I think this whole anachronism that is the royal family should be laid to rest

[rtavy73]

get rid of the lot, we are born equal,believe me if you want to pay 52p a year for them, you go ahead, and that is costed has 62 million by 52p, WE do not have 62 million tax payers here

why do monarchist go on about president blaire and the Like?

lets go down the Irish route and have ceremonial head of state, it could be you or me or even Tony Blaire if you voted for him.

get rid of the spongers, it bothers me that I have to pay very rich people to lord over us

[nottinghamc]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Strangely enough, you seem to have wavered on what question you've actually asked. Let's ignore the specific example of 'policy that has been overshadowed by the royal family', which was your secondary question and stick to the 'unpopular government policy' issue. How is it not a government policy to hold a referendum (even if, nationally, the issue of independence is currently slightly unpopular)? It was a specific issue in the current Scottish government's manifesto. Where did I say any non-royal civil occasion used to spread misinformation or distract from something would be fine? On the contrary, I would encourage people to always keep an eye on the facts of what's going on in the country whenever we're encouraged by the government to wave flags.

I have never said that the monarchy are responsible for inaccurate or irresponsible reportage (although the Palace does employ a strong PR team). My criticism in this issue is of the government and media, whom the monarchy seems to benefit to our detriment.

Since you seem to enjoy questions, may I ask you one? Would you allow your child to be raised in the knowledge that it is their God-given duty to begin the same job you do when you die, and do it until they die? If not, why do you think this appropriate for others?

I have not wavered on the question I asked, you said the royal family provided a welcome distraction from unpopular government policy, not me. I asked for an example, which you did not give, instead claiming the jubilee overshadowed something which is not current government policy, and is not going to take place for two years. You have now changed that to it being Scottish government policy, which again, isn't unpopular and according to you is to their detriment. So again, I ask (as you're the one who claimed it) name a specific unpopular policy brought in by the government that the royal family have managed to distract from?

I never said you claimed a civil event was fine to distract from current events if its not royal, however as any civil event would do so I'm assuming that you dislike them? Or is it only when its the royal family its wrong and should not be held? The olympics will provide a much longer term 'distraction' this summer, should it be cancelled?

I don't know whether or not I would like or dislike raising a child to do the job I do until they die, it would all depend on the job and many other factors.

[nottinghamc]

Originally Posted by Strathpeffer

Once the queen finally shuffles off this mortal coil I think this whole anachronism that is the royal family should be laid to rest

Ah, so we should have a referendum?

[Vast_Girth]

I'll ask the question i ask in every thread about the monarchy which has still never been answered. Its something that would seem fundamental to the republican argument, so i don't know why its so tricky for them? The question simply is..

'Who would you like to replace the queen as head of state and why would they do a better job?'

[batgirl]

Originally Posted by Vast_Girth

I'll ask the question i ask in every thread about the monarchy which has still never been answered. Its something that would seem fundamental to the republican argument, so i don't know why its so tricky for them? The question simply is..

'Who would you like to replace the queen as head of state and why would they do a better job?'

I'm sure I've answered this question before.

But I don't mind answering it again. Today I'm going to choose Joanna Lumley. She'd be better because if she got elected it would immediately put her head and shoulders over Betty Windsor. Also, she's a charismatic, intelligent woman. Men largely adore her and women seem to like her too. She'd charm the pants off most people and would be wonderful in a ceremonial/diplomatic role representing the country. And if we didn't like her we could vote in someone else.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Vast_Girth

I'll ask the question i ask in every thread about the monarchy which has still never been answered. Its something that would seem fundamental to the republican argument, so i don't know why its so tricky for them? The question simply is..

'Who would you like to replace the queen as head of state and why would they do a better job?'

I've answered it before too and seen it answered often.

Whoever wanted to do the job and was elected. Unlike forcing people to do it and having to accept blood sports enthusiasts from one family as head of state, whether or not you admire their particular talents.


I don't think it's such a good question as you appear to think, since you don't know until the process starts. You might as well have ask who will be president in 15 years time, without knowing any of the candidates.

And, as to why would they do a better job, why wouldn't they? There are loads of people in this world who could be better diplomats than Prince Charles. Or more personable state celebrities. But if he wanted to stand and was elected, fair enough.

[frightlever]

Most countries have a head of state. The US head of state is the president. He's elected. A quarter of a billion wouldn't cover his pet's security bill.

If having some reality TV-alike family thrust into the spotlight far beyond their worth merits, precludes allowing filthy politics to decide the head of state, then I'd say we get off cheap at the price.

I'm no Royalist, but I'm not a Republican either. If the Windsors turned around and said, you know what we're done and you can give the monarchy to someone else, I wouldn't blame them and they would probably live far better and more fulfilling lives. This Truman Show quality we foist upon them is more degrading to them than it is to us.

[tiggertiny]

Originally Posted by glasgow67

Ornaments and benefit cheats, no place for them in Scotland. I seen the Coween today at my lunchbreak in Edinburgh and stuck two fingers up at her from a distance, she never seen it but I was happy as it was the first and hopefully last time ill ever see her.

Are you an SNP and independence supporter then?

[Vast_Girth]

Originally Posted by batgirl

I'm sure I've answered this question before.

But I don't mind answering it again. Today I'm going to choose Joanna Lumley. She'd be better because if she got elected it would immediately put her head and shoulders over Betty Windsor. Also, she's a charismatic, intelligent woman. Men largely adore her and women seem to like her too. She'd charm the pants off most people and would be wonderful in a ceremonial/diplomatic role representing the country. And if we didn't like her we could vote in someone else.

Thanks for actually answering but do you really believe that's a realistic prospect? Also do you not think having Patsy from Ab Fab as our head of state is just a tad embarrassing? And you really think she would be better at state events than someone who has been trained from birth and doing it for 50 years?

Realistically a head of state would have to be a politician. I don't think there's any other countries which have an actor has the position. In fact is there any country where the elected head of state isn't a politician? ( genuine question, and excluding those of course where its a religious leader, who i don't think are ever elected anyway)

[Vast_Girth]

Originally Posted by kimindex

But if he wanted to stand and was elected, fair enough.

Interesting thought that. What if there was an election, but people voted to keep the royal family? Would you as a republican then be satisfied and stop banging on about it. (presumably with another costly vote occurring every 5 years or so)

[Vast_Girth]

Originally Posted by kimindex

I've answered it before too and seen it answered often.

Whoever wanted to do the job and was elected. Unlike forcing people to do it and having to accept blood sports enthusiasts from one family as head of state, whether or not you admire their particular talents.

I don't think it's such a good question as you appear to think, since you don't know until the process starts. You might as well have ask who will be president in 15 years time, without knowing any of the candidates.
.

That's not actually an answer though is it. I think it is a good question. If we decided to get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and had to nominate candidates to stand for head of state, which UK citizen would you choose?

[SULLA]

Most of the Queen's money goes on providing people with jobs.

Would people rather they be unemployed and claiming benefits?

[batgirl]

Originally Posted by Vast_Girth

Thanks for actually answering but do you really believe that's a realistic prospect? Also do you not think having Patsy from Ab Fab as our head of state is just a tad embarrassing? And you really think she would be better at state events than someone who has been trained from birth and doing it for 50 years?

But we wouldn't be voting for Patsy from Ab Fab. Joana Lumley is nothing like that character. It's not like she'd turn up on state occasions with a messy beehive and a bit pissed.

As far as the training from birth, it's a non argument. The crown goes to whoever's next in line, whether they've had any training or not. And look at Betty's husband, Phil - he's had years to practice what is essentially small talk, yet time and again he comes out with idiotic, offensive stuff. This is something that actually happens, not some imagined scenario, and it is extremely embarrassing, although supporters of the monarchy try to laugh it off.

Realistically a head of state would have to be a politician. I don't think there's any other countries which have an actor has the position. In fact is there any country where the elected head of state isn't a politician? ( genuine question, and excluding those of course where its a religious leader, who i don't think are ever elected anyway)

Another non argument. I'm not suggesting that Joanna Lumley would fit head of state duties in between her acting work. If it became possible and she wanted the position she would, I imagine, concentrate on that. She's already shown a *political* side through her gurkha campaign.

Also, Ronal Reagan did okay for himself on the back of an acting career. And Schwarzenegger. So it's not like there's some bar to ex actors going into politics.

And I've only chosen Lumley as an example of a charismatic, intelligent person currently in the public eye who would almost certainly do a splendid job. I know people in my personal life who'd also be brilliant but it's no good saying Bob Smith would be great because you don't know him! The point is that we can, without question, do as well or much, much better than Betty and her clan. I honestly don't get the argument that only they will do. It's right up there with the concept of blue blood.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Vast_Girth

That's not actually an answer though is it. I think it is a good question. If we decided to get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and had to nominate candidates to stand for head of state, which UK citizen would you choose?

It is an answer to a not very sensible question. As I said in my previous post, you might as well have ask who will be president in 15 years time, without knowing any of the candidates and no one would see that as a good question.

Your implication that it can only be done by a Windsor is a sad reflection of your views of your fellow countrypeople. We are constantly told that people are proud to be British because of the monarchy, yet you have that attitude to your fellow Britons.

As I said, we don't know the candidates yet (I don't know everyone in Britain and I have no idea who might be interested) and your question is obviously a sort of 'gotcha' question where you can shoot down and mock any answer given as an to attempt to convince people that only Prince Charles could possibly do the job after the Queen, as with:

Also do you not think having Patsy from Ab Fab as our head of state is just a tad embarrassing?

Because no one was suggesting Patsy from Ab Fab.

However, before William and Harry were born, we were only a tragedy away from having King Andrew and Queen Sarah. Now that would have been embarrassing. Personally, I find Charles embarrassing.

As for training from birth, the Queen famously wasn't expecting to be Queen yet most royalists seem to think she has done it better than her uncle could have (who, despite being brought up from birth to be King, would have been a disaster). (Not that I agree with the premise).

There's also the idea that it's not fair to enforce this role on people but I have been made to understand that most royalists don't care about that side of it.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Vast_Girth

Interesting thought that. What if there was an election, but people voted to keep the royal family? Would you as a republican then be satisfied and stop banging on about it. (presumably with another costly vote occurring every 5 years or so)

I said if Charles stood for election for head of state, not that the entire RF would be voted in. I still don't believe important positions of state should be inherited.

And he could also go into politics. He could then properly campaign for those things he believes in, rather that being forced to do it in the underhand way he does now. I'm sure those campaigns must be more important to him that a position he hasn't achieved.

[tiggertiny]

Originally Posted by SULLA

Most of the Queen's money goes on providing people with jobs.

Would people rather they be unemployed and claiming benefits?

You're right!

I doubt there's much call for footmen and people trained in doing up Charles's shoe laces, or indeed any other personal function that he can't manage for himself which we won't go into here, in the wider economy.