Should we put an end to Royalty and no longer acknowledge it

[Lobstarrr]

Here in the Netherlands it seems all our new king does is snap ribbons at fancy ceremonies, while his wife casually flies to Milan (on government money) to buy a new dress and be back in time for dinner.

Yay royalty!

[Deleted]

Is it time to take Kings Queens Princes Princesses and strip their titles and no longer have royalty?

No. As long as there continue to be people who idolize the head of state, that position should remain apolitical.

Better if a monarch is idolized than a politician.

[Ettan]

I dont care much for the royalty of any European Nation.
Not speck of real royal blood in them.
My nation's royal family for instance are just descendants of one of napoleons generals (a rather incompetent general, who gained his status by betraying Napoleon).

Charlemagne's bloodline I would kneel for any day however.
http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/I...nave-fcp-b.jpg
See that circular red rock; all emperors of the west have been crowned on that very rock.

[Deleted]

I don't know about you but my country never did better than when we were a monarchy. Ever since we changed to presidents and allowed the people to vote, everything went downhill. And it's still going on. And royalty is a way of life. You can't just make that disappear. It's part of history. I would be proud to live in a monarchy simply for this reason. Because it's royal.

[obdigore]

If you include in the list countries with a "cerimonial" head of state figure like the "president of the republic" which is pretty much exactly like a monarch in his duty only much less productive when compared to for example British monarchy you'd see a big change in there I'm guessing.

Oh but mind you. Monarchy is outdated and... Well yes traditional and that's it. There are far less productive members of our society at a governative level I'd get rid of before getting to the monarcs... It's also true monarchy changes depending from the country. The queen is something a bit special. Other monarchies may be different.

It already is listed for places like Australia and Canada, which recognize the Queen of the UK as a ceremonial head of state but doesn't actually do anything for them. I'm just curious what the purple ones are... are they some sort of Polyneasian Monarchy?

[Temp name]

How would you plan on getting rid of them? Particularily the British Royal family. They still own the land you know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

Kinda hard to throw someone off their land when they're also in control of the military.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

It already is listed for places like Australia and Canada, which recognize the Queen of the UK as a ceremonial head of state but doesn't actually do anything for them. I'm just curious what the purple ones are... are they some sort of Polyneasian Monarchy?

Overseas crown dependencies. More or less autonomous islands which still recognise the Queen as their Head of State and are members of the British Commonwealth.

[Deleted]

I think its social injustice and it should be ended. The rest of the world doesnt agree with royalty either.

i love your sweeping statement of speaking on behalf of the other 7 billion people on this planet. gj

[obdigore]

Overseas crown dependencies. More or less autonomous islands which still recognise the Queen as their Head of State and are members of the British Commonwealth.

So why is there a blob of purple on NZ, who is already Green, who is already autonomous that recognize the Queen as their ceremonial head of state but she has no real power.

[Austilias]

I think people vastly overestimate the pleasure to be had in a society without history, culture and traditions. Regardless, it depends which Royalty we're talking about; our own in the UK is not merely some ornament or relic from the past. There are numerous social schemes that are coordinated or at least, were established by our royal family; that of course, and on a yearly basis are much more profitable than they are costly. 2 pence a year in tax (which is what it works out as to maintain our royal family; not even taking into account the fact that they have drastically reduced their outgoings in the past few decades) is a small price to pay in my eyes, considering the rewards.

[Backlashe]

What nonsense are you even rambling about. Riches of a country? Hahaha, don't be absurd. Your entire complaint is asinine aqnd betrays an ignorance that beggars belief.



To paraphrase yourself,



People from other countries need to shut up about whether Britain should retain the monarchy or not. It's none of your damn business, hypocrite.

- - - Updated - - -



I think we should fix our own social injusatice of tens of millions being oppressed by greed, before whining about one family in another country.

All this

/thread

[raddry]

OP this is for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
Please do watch it, it explains how much money the royal family costs but also how much money it "gives" to the country, and I'm not speaking about tourism money, as you don't even need to consider it to see profit.

[Deleted]

what I believe in was a social experiment.

If you're referring to the US, combining the roles of head of government and head of state in a single office/person was a big mistake. As evidenced by the fact that almost every government system created since has split the two.

Which makes perfect sense:
- The head of state is a figurehead.
- The head of government is an administrator.
The two have very different, almost contradictory skill requirements. Having to find one person to handle both guarantees mediocrity or worse.

[Deleted]

It might come as a surprise to you, but the royal family is an amasingly profitable asset in British society. They bring in a lot of money and interest. Before getting rid of them I'd get rid of a whole bunch of useless politicians.

I totally agree with you, the royal family bring in more revenue than what we give them in tax payers money so why should we get rid of them. Look how many people cam over for the wedding and the diamond jubile all coming and spending their money in our country therefore making use stronger it would be our loss losing the royal family

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

I totally agree with you, the royal family bring in more revenue than what we give them in tax payers money so why should we get rid of them. Look how many people cam over for the wedding and the diamond jubile all coming and spending their money in our country therefore making use stronger it would be our loss losing the royal family

Not to mention that the land they own is part of their family assets, and the current system of almost all of the proceeds going to the treasury would disappear along with the royal family. There would be a significant tax increase if the monarchy were to be dissolved.

[Deleted]

So why is there a blob of purple on NZ, who is already Green, who is already autonomous that recognize the Queen as their ceremonial head of state but she has no real power.

Maybe some kind of Maori secret kingdom ready to rise against the invasor? (Rawr)

[obdigore]

Maybe some kind of Maori secret kingdom ready to rise against the invasor? (Rawr)

Well they are of Polynesian descent, as are the peoples in a lot of the places the Purple is, which is why I was wondering if there is some sort of figurehead Polynesian ruler I'm unaware of?

[lawow74]

I don't see any problem with keeping the tradition alive as long as they don't take ancestry to mean they're qualified to be leaders of nations. Not much different than any other form of celebrity, IMO.

[Deleted]

Not to mention that the land they own is part of their family assets, and the current system of almost all of the proceeds going to the treasury would disappear along with the royal family. There would be a significant tax increase if the monarchy were to be dissolved.

They arn't getting it all for nothing either they all work very hard for it although we all have to work they arn't spending the day dossing around living the good life

[Deleted]

The royal family in the UK also do a lot of work with charities. They can bring a lot of awareness to issues by supporting charities but a number of royals have also campaigned and worked pretty hard for certain causes. A lot of people label them useless, without considering any of the financial benefits - tourism + charity, not to mention the fact that it's about history, culture and tradition. I'm not a supporter of a monarchy having political power; I strongly believe in elective positions, not inherited, but I do believe that the monarchy can still be a cultural tradition that brings a lot of benefits to a country.

Her Majesty, The Queen supports hundreds of British charities to raise £1.4bn a year for good causes, according to new research to mark the Diamond Jubilee.

Research by the Charities Aid Foundation, which works with donors and charities to promote giving, shows that the Queen is one of the world’s greatest supporters of charities, helping hundreds of large and small charities of which she is patron raise a total of £1,427,000,000, according to their latest figures.

Queen Elizabeth II is patron to a staggering 510 charities in Britain, including Cancer Research UK, the British Red Cross and Barnado’s.

The Royal Family sets an amazing example supporting 2,415 charities in Britain and nearly 3,000 worldwide. The Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, is the patron of the Charities Aid Foundation.

The Duchess of Cambridge has been following in the Queen’s footsteps with her work for Action on Addiction, East Anglia’s Children’s Hospices and the Scout Association, among others.

The Queen’s grandchildren support 16 charitable organisations between them.

Prominent in the Queen’s charity work are charities that deal with community and civic causes, which make up 14% of the organisations she supports, followed by education and training charitable organisations which account for a further 14%.