General Question

OpryLeigh's avatar

How do you feel about the Royal family?

Asked by OpryLeigh (25251points) July 5th, 2009

Do you think that Britain should get rid of the royals or do you believe they still serve a purpose? If you are aginst the Royals (and please be honest here) do you know enough about what they do, what they bring to the country etc to honestly feel that way or do you think that you are guilty of jumping on the anti-royalty bandwagon?

NB: I don’t believe that everyone who is against Royalty is jumping on the bandwagon but I have noticed that a lot of people claim to be against them and believe that the country would be better off without them and yet they know nothing about them or what their duties are.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

34 Answers

Lightlyseared's avatar

Given that the last time we got rid of the royal family we replaced them with a man who thought it would be a good idea to ban Christmas, the theatre, dancing, music and drinking of alcohol (all things I enjoy) I propose we stick with the devil we know.

Jeruba's avatar

They’re not ours, but I don’t think I would mind so much if they were, even though I do see the reasons for the Revolution. As an American, I think they’re both fascinating and pathetic, and I feel more than a little affection toward them. They’re our government-in-law. You folks should take good care of them and not beat up on them. They’re just people, after all, but they do keep a small but significant measure of magnificence in the world.

Ivan's avatar

If they didn’t cost so much money, maybe there would be a reason to keep them around.

marinelife's avatar

Indifferent as long as they are not in my country.

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

I’m indifferent. It’s an intriguing link to their history.

Thammuz's avatar

i dunno, i’d say aroused, but i don’t remember if there’s any young female in it that doesn’t look like a horse so i’ll say indifferent

tadpole's avatar

the queen is great, and has given her life to service and done so magnificently….the rest of them have their moments but are nowhere near….it’s not terribly democratic is it?...you guys have a President….i don’t see why we would lose out if we had one as well…just cause it didn’t work under Cromwell doesn’t mean it wouldn’t now, patently it probably would…it doesn’t rest easily with me, personally, that we pride ourselves over here with our values etc such as freedom of speech, justice, tolerance, and yet we have a so called Royal Family who live a life of privilege based on no democratic right or reason….its the 21st century and these sort of anomalies should be looked at…just as we are now removing the hereditary peers from the Lords, albeit very slowly…..it doesn’t feel right, we don’t have an empire anymore…etc etc..you get the idea…

mzdesigns's avatar

I dont like the idea of Royalty no matter what country,we all part of this thing called ‘Earth’ as far as i am concerned they put on their pants the same way i do. I think we need some kind of line succession just not this ‘holier’ then tho BS.

Darwin's avatar

It is useful, though, to know you always have someone who can come cut the ribbon for a project, or celebrate the opening of a new shopping center, or even to add a bit of glitz to parades, don’t you think?

Perhaps instead of hereditary royalty, Britain should consider some sort of elective post, somewhat like Miss World or Mr. America, someone who looks nice, dresses and speaks well in public, is quite intelligent, and serves a ceremonial purpose. This would serve instead of taking what you get in the genetic lottery and would also allow a set term of service, followed by some sort of pension, so you never have to worry about someone becoming senile but still powerful.

That way, Britain could preserve the appearance of the past and combine it with the attractiveness of a pop star and the intelligence of a college professor.

MissAusten's avatar

Not being British and not really knowing much about the Royals, I can’t say whether or not they should be gotten rid of.

But I do know that Prince William is totally hot, and I’m glad the Royal Family exists just so I can see his face on People magazine when I’m in the checkout lane of the grocery store.

mzdesigns's avatar

I guess that type of response explains why it exists b/c we now have even branded that into a $ maker.

sawcawmahtaw's avatar

They don’t affect me in any significant way, so I really couldn’t care less.

Bri_L's avatar

I don’t understand their purpose. I am woefully undereducated as to what, exactly, they do or why they have the right to do it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I get them drunk first, wait till they fall asleep, then feel about them all I want.

OpryLeigh's avatar

@Ivan Yes, they cost the tax payer money (although, not that much in fairness) but they also bring a lot of money into the country. According to this study that I found whilst doing a school project (and I really wish I knew where to find it now) the tax payer would pay more money in taxes to have a president like the Americans do than to keep the Royal family. I remember finding out that the Royal family bring in far more money to the country in tourism alone than we will ever have to pay for them in taxes. I wonder how much tourism in this country would suffer if we got rid of the Royal family?!

tadpole's avatar

they actually don’t cost a lot…it’s something like 69p or 1$ for every british citizen (60 million?)...it sounds ridiculous but apparently that’s the right figure…i don’t know how the calculations were done…i saw it on tv last week….but the principle is more important than how much they cost?...ps i don’t know if that figure is per day/week/year…

OpryLeigh's avatar

@tadpole I believe it’s per year but don’t hold me to that.

Pcrecords's avatar

They cost me (and every other uk taxpayer) 69p last year, I think their worth it.

I like the queen and she makes a decent figurehead for the country.

I think she offers a certain stability that a president say doesn’t offer, she can be distanced from political decisions so no matter what the government is up to she can be invited to international functions without much fuss.

tadpole's avatar

true but a president doesn’t need to be involved…you are thinking of the us president….the uk president could just as easily be like the monarch, non involved…and elected as in the us…a combination of the 2….what point is there is an unelected royal family and all the hangers-on..

but you’re right about the queen and i certainly wouldn’t get rid of her…she’s great…maybe think of changes after her…

mammal's avatar

no they are to be dispensed with, we got rid of the bastards once and they snuck back in. no, they are pretty high up on the hit list.

Nially_Bob's avatar

Sociologically the royal family inspire a sense of pride amongst the general British population due to them (the general population) feeling associated with these famous figures.
Politically they wield a certain amount of sway because of their popularity but very little legal power (though it is still necessary that all new legal acts and bills be signed by the current monarch to become considered ‘official’ – If a monarch were to refuse to sign a bill/act however I doubt it would require much effort on the part of parliament to overrule this decision) offering a sense of safety should parliament become unstable; afterall, the monarch will have been trained their entire life to be a leader and representative of ‘the people’.
Economically they increase the British national income considerably (while costing relatively little) by encouraging tourism.
Anthropologically they are a link to the cultural heritages of many, standing as ambassadors for the culture to which the UK now abides by and that from which it came. Disregarding them would not be dissimilar to banning 4th of July celebrations in the US.
Now by no means am I particularly fond of the royal family, nor do I dislike them, but it occurs to me that sacrificing all that I have mentioned above (alongside that which has been stated in their defence by previous posters) to uphold certain moral principles that are not relevant to all (if even many) is irrational. That is why I am in favour of the royal family continuing to maintain their status as the figureheads of the UK.

mammal's avatar

@Leanne1986 they institutionalise inequality, i don’t like that…

zach61's avatar

I never liked the idea of a royal family. Of coarse if the brits like them then that’s their affair. What I can’t understand is why so many Americans like them and why are some of you comparing them to the US president. The president gets elected, the queen does not. Do you know that the wealthy british pay ninety per cent of their income in taxes, while the monarch and the lords do not? That’s bullshit; that’s why people like Paul McCartney and other America-bashing british musicians lived here in America so they don’t have to pay those high taxes. America basically got them rich because our government doesn’t tax people as high as great briton. Taxes are stupid unless everyone pays their share. No one’s above no one and I don’t care about appearances, or how fancy they look. Looks mean nothing to me; it’s what you are inside. But what about the queen? I don’t know much about her but she knighted two people who I have low opinions: Mick Jagger and Elton John. The rolling stones are great but Mick Jagger has no bussiness criticizing our president. If he doesn’t like us, then he should quit selling records here and go back to england. Quit bashing America.

OpryLeigh's avatar

@zach61 The Royal family (including the Queen) do pay taxes.

Nially_Bob's avatar

@zach61 Could you please offer a source to reinforce your statement that “wealthy British pay nintety percent of their income in taxes” because, though the wealthy do pay substantially more in taxes than the lower economic classes when living within the UK, to claim that this amount is ninety percent of their income is irrevocably absurd. I offer you a link to the HM revenues and customs website (the British equivalent of the IRS) wherein it is stated that the highest income tax band is 40% (link).
Regarding your perspectives on the immigration of British musicians, is it not possible that famous musicians have moved to the US because it is currently the media capital of the world and therefore a more likely place for such people to further their careers. Is this not more probable than the hypothesis you have put forth?
The monarch is compared to the President in the sense that they are both cultural icons and representatives of the society in question.
To assert that anyone who criticises a society should leave it is irrational and, if implemented as law, would likely result in said society becoming dire and lamentable due to a lack of adaptation or initiative.

Darwin's avatar

There is also more sun and nicer beaches in California and Florida than there are in the British Isles.

Nially_Bob's avatar

@Darwin I adore the Floridian weather, it’s so wonderfully humid.

OpryLeigh's avatar

@Darwin The one thing I love about living in Britain is the weather. It’s so unpredictable (unlike Californian weather I hear) and, unlike the majority of Brits, I don’t feel the need to complain about the rain or the cold because I actually quite like that kind of weather :)

Darwin's avatar

@Leanne1986 – Not being British but being from the California Bay area, which has altogether different weather from Southern California, I, too know how to appreciate rain. However, many of my father’s friends (British folks who worked for Shell) could not stand the British weather and moved to Majorca or Miami as quickly as they could.

Nially_Bob's avatar

My Grandfather regularly states that the British weather is conclusive proof of Murphy’s law in that it could be any weather in the world, from scorching sun to raging storms, but will still never be the weather you want that day.

ejth3's avatar

I think the so called watever Royal bullcrap if you wanna call it is not more important than you, me or anyone else because they are just people who carry the bloody history of massacre that the England empire cause during all the wars they engaged in so I believe intead of them calling themselves Royal Family they should call themselves Royal Bloody criminals good for nothing, but materialisty little world in which they live!!!

jasper1890's avatar

ejth3, i hope your not an American critisising England for being ‘bloody’?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther