The Royal Family (GB and Commonwealth)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
VVD's logic is flawed.

Most of the old woprld has old buildings. The reason the UK gets a disproportionate tourist attendance is because its history is a living institutiion rather than a dead relic.

be sure- if Britain was a Reoubliuc, tourist revenune would fall significantly.

The history wouldn't disappear without the 'living institution'. It's a history; that is the point I am making. When I say revenue I refer to the revenue based on visits to Buckingham Palace by those who are here.

People don't want to come here because the royals are gone? I can live with that. I don't agree definitively that the tourist stream would even decrease that much. It has yet to happen, and I'm not entirely sure that those would be the consequences. I doubt anyone would be cancelling their holidays.

However, my argument for their removal isn't based around the tourist revenue. Smoking makes lots of money, but I don't think that's a logical argument for its being acceptable.

I simply don't agree with the idea of a 'royal family'. It's a pathetic anachronism.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Meanwhile- as people always forget when considering the money issue... first of all, the cost is a relative pittance. Secondly, they are due far more money from their land that they surrender the revenue from to the Government. That's not land they own unfairly- it is simply land that belongs to their family, and there is a whole lot of land in the UK that is owned by various families, and most of them keep all that money, yet no-one complains about them, do we?

I don't wish to pay a 'pittance' towards their upkeep. I don't see the logic in haggling over the price. I would rather not contribute anything to them.

I am not in favour of anyone that historically plundered their land, no. Royal or otherwise.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

We make the Royals give up all that money, and we give them enough back to maintain their estates and live as in some respect befits the concept of Royalty. They are the losers on this one, but they don't mind because it's the concept that is important.

The concept of royalty is inherently flawed, and anachronistic. Where's the genuine objective argument for their existence, besides tourist bucks? 'Prestige' I don't agree with, and I don't believe anything would be lost by their removal.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

But people still complain on monetary grounds? Insanity.

Many people do complain on monetary grounds, but that's not my personal problem. I don't agree with the concept in any way. Therefore I do not wish to contribute any money at all, but this concern is simply epiphenomenal.

As far as I can see, monetary grounds aren't the main complaint; they're the main defence.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

The Royal Family is a fantastic institution- it is a living monument, a source of continuity for the nation, an area of distinctiveness, and it does also try to do some good.

We would be very much diminished without it.

I don't really agree with this. This is the crux of the point, and I imagine where the disagreement arises, and will remain. I am sure others are of the same opinion.

Perhaps those people should cover the costs of the ones that have no desire to contribute.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Well I would find it boring. It just wouldn't feel the same. All my life since childhood I've heard about the queen and the royal family. That somehow it has grown intereste within me.

I can understand a quaint curiosity, I guess. I'm not sure why their removal would magically remove excitement though.

Here's a plan. Let them work in tourist shops.

You get to go in their buildings without having to stand outside gates and wonder from afar, 'I wonder what the Queen's doing in there right now?'

Also- you get to buy a mini London bus off Liz.

Twice as good.

Well said.

monetary grounds aren't the main complaint; they're the main defence.

Well, my main concern isn't money. I don't doubt that they generate revenue, but that's here nor there.

For me, the idea of having to put up with a monolithic outdated dinosaur, and the image of us as all London buses, taxis, and either incredibly posh or salt of the Earth, cap-doffing awlright Guv'nor inhabitants is irritating to say the least.

Especially if the motivation behind that is a spurious sense of 'prestige', and in order to bring in some inane tourists to patronise us as some kind of modern-day curiosity.

You don't want to pay a pittance towards their upkeep, but support taking their own money from them just because you disagree about how they have used their own land? You seem to have an irrational drive behind your dislike, which makes me wonder.

I have given reasons for its existence. Though it is worth noting that it also lends a certain measure of constituional stability, and in the form of the Commonwealth a better voice in world affairs.

"The concept of royalty is inherently flawed, and anachronistic."

Inherently flawed how? Certainly no more flawed than our system of Government, seeing as they have no constituional power with which they can abuse their privilege with.

And anachonistic? Well, that somewhat comes with the history, hmm? The palace is anachronisitc. A huge part of London is, actually, Anachronism can have value. For the Royals, it is essential.

"Perhaps those people should cover the costs of the ones that have no desire to contribute."

Sheer selfishness. The Royal Family is at the heart of our country and provides money to it. There are a whole lot of things that people might not want their tax money to go to- mech makes such a point above- but one of the points of civilisation is that we all pay for the lot.

I really find very little intelligence behind such complaints. They are normally based on some odd feeling of inferiority from the whole deal, or the weird idea that everything in life has to be modern and oredred to have value, which simply is not true.

There is absolutely no way at all in which anything- ANYTHING- would be improved by their removal, But we would lose money, and a lot of us here would lose a huge symbol that we value very dearly, and the UK would lose a point of distinctiveness that actually enhances its world status. And no- the prestige is not spurious at all, that's just a comment you threw out that has no basis whatsoever.

And if you want to bat toruists for their pre-conceptions of other countries... then you'd better ban anyone from going anywhere, because it sure as hell is not going to stop, ever, and it moulds to the characteristcs a country has, and so it would continue, royal family or none, just in different form. That;s just people- nothing to do with us having a royal family.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why are we paying for them to live? Especially those who don't care for them.

I didn't say the cost wasn't "pittance", I said it was A cost, which is too much for those who quite frankly don't give a shit isn't it? We give them money to live and they give nothing back. If you having them as your "representatives" is enough then let them take your money gladly. They don't represent me and a lot of other people and we're still treated as if we want them there.

There are "dead" relics with much more significance than the royals. Especially in connection to London's history. For one they're actually English.

-AC

And full marks here for not reading a post properly.

As I pointed out, they give back WAY more than we give them. If the situation was actially fair, the country would be losing money as revenue from the family's own lands would go to them, not the country. The Civil List is much smaller than the revenue from that land.

I have no idea where this weird idea of 'I will not pay taxes for something I do not approve of' has come from. It's an exceptionally odd view.

The Royal Family is as English as any of those relics.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It is a silly reason, because tourists don't come to see the Queen. If anyone comes here with the intention of seeing the Queen or with the SOLE purpose of seeing her, they're idiots.

People think Palace = Queen. It's stupid. Stop connecting the two, seeing one doesn't mean seeing the other. All you're gonna get is Buckingham Palace.

-AC

Regardless of what you think, the amount of people that come is greatly increased because this is a current, rather then dead, Royal Family. They would not come in such numbers if that were not so. It matters not one tiny tiny bit that they don't get to seem them in person- it's still a fact. Look at the global popularity of Diana, for Christ's sake. Even though it was totally irrational, it was still a FACT. This is how it is. The Royal Family creates interest in the UK. I am sorry if that annoys you, but it does.

For all your words... HUGE amounts of people come to see Buckingham Palace, even though there is nothing to see there, as you describe. Why? Because of the Royal Family. That's it. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.

I suspect that completely naive beliefs like "Britain would be more open to accurate and relevant representation if there was no monarchy" are at the root of this. That's so untrue it puts me in hysterics.

I think its maybe a bit weird for us to understand the fascination with royals because we live here...

Yup. But it exists, for sure.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And full marks here for not reading a post properly.

As I pointed out, they give back WAY more than we give them. If the situation was actially fair, the country would be losing money as revenue from the family's own lands would go to them, not the country. The Civil List is much smaller than the revenue from that land

I have no idea where this weird idea of 'I will not pay taxes for something I do not approve of' has come from. It's an exceptionally odd view.

The Royal Family is as English as any of those relics.

Where do you get the idea that it's an odd view to not want to pay for something that does nothing? Oh wait...unless you want to count the amount of money that the royal family brings as a result of tourism. Which, as said before, wouldn't decrease so dramatically if they were not here. A lot of people come to England for England, not for the Queen. So her not being here isn't going to have much negative effect on tourism in the grand scheme of things. People who show up to see the Queen specifically never end up seeing her at all anyway do they? So they're not losing anything unless they're too stupid to realise that. Some people actually think they'll see the Queen on a two week vacation here when a lot of people haven't seen her in their many decades of life here. It's pathetic.

Despite being German, yes they are as English.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless of what you think, the amount of people that come is greatly increased because this is a current, rather then dead, Royal Family. They would not come in such numbers if that were not so. It matters not one tiny tiny bit that they don't get to seem them in person- it's still a fact. Look at the global popularity of Diana, for Christ's sake. Even though it was totally irrational, it was still a FACT. This is how it is. The Royal Family creates interest in the UK. I am sorry if that annoys you, but it does.

For all your words... HUGE amounts of people come to see Buckingham Palace, even though there is nothing to see there, as you describe. Why? Because of the Royal Family. That's it. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.

I suspect that completely naive beliefs like "Britain would be more open to accurate and relevant representation if there was no monarchy" are at the root of this. That's so untrue it puts me in hysterics.

Yes, but as I said above, how many of them actually get what they came for if coming to SEE royals is their goal? Near zero, is the answer. Why else are they coming? The feel of having royals? If you get that by looking at a royal building then as VVD said, keep the building and open it to the public. The Queen needn't be there. Nobody, to my knowledge, denied that they generate interest. The debate was that there is no reason for such interest and that such interest is extremely illogical when compared with reasons as to why this fascination exists. Nobody denied the existence of it.

Yes, but nobody is saying remove Buckingham Palace. If they come to see a building because of who they THINK might be in it, then that removes even more credibility from their claim. "This is mad" "Why?" "Queen might be in there." That's flawed on so many levels.

You seem to be arguing that the fascination exists, nobody is denying such. Just that it's an illogical one. If they're current, as also stated previously, they can't be history. If you want them to be history, make them history. Because currently they're not doing anything.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak

I suspect that completely naive beliefs like "Britain would be more open to accurate and relevant representation if there was no monarchy" are at the root of this. That's so untrue it puts me in hysterics.

What part does the monarchy really play in Britain at this point? Other than being more of a symbollic presence of what once constituted Old Britain? Seriously..I'd really like to know. Correct me if I'm wrong..but I always believed that the modern Royal Family had no real authority in Britain.

They're a "fantastic institution." to some. That's about it. Unless you count the money they take from people to "put back".

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think its maybe a bit weird for us to understand the fascination with royals because we live here...

People have explicitly explained their reason for fascination and absolutely none of it makes any sense, nor is any of it arguable.

If you think they're great, fine. Subjective. I don't, nor do many others. They're a pointless relic.

-AC

Well, to be fair, it'd be hard for you to understand the whole fascination that people from other countries, the US in particular, has with the royal family. I never had much of a fascination with it, though I can understand why so many people do. We don't have anything even remotely like that here in the US, therefore it's something that most Americans will be interested in. It might seem silly, but since when does someone have to have a logical reason to be interested in something?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You don't want to pay a pittance towards their upkeep, but support taking their own money from them just because you disagree about how they have used their own land? You seem to have an irrational drive behind your dislike, which makes me wonder.

I don't like the fact that it's being classed as 'their land' or money, in the first place. Nothing irrational about it. I do not wish to contribute towards the lifestyles of those people. Pittance or not.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

I have given reasons for its existence. Though it is worth noting that it also lends a certain measure of constituional stability, and in the form of the Commonwealth a better voice in world affairs.

Constitutional stability? In what sense?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Inherently flawed how? Certainly no more flawed than our system of Government, seeing as they have no constituional power with which they can abuse their privilege with.

One is elected, one we are given no choice over. To me, the whole concept is an antiquated idea of privilege, and serfdom. I don't like the idea at all. I don't regard them as having any superiority- there's no reason to do so. For that reason I don't like being made to treat them as such.

Why do they even have privilege? That's my essential problem, and no manner of wrangling is going to change that. I do not start from the perspective that they should be there, and there's no point removing them now.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

And anachonistic? Well, that somewhat comes with the history, hmm? The palace is anachronisitc. A huge part of London is, actually, Anachronism can have value. For the Royals, it is essential.

Anachronistic buildings is one thing; anachronistic practises are another. Having old buildings of architectural interest is a bit different to continuing to subsidise the royals.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Sheer selfishness. The Royal Family is at the heart of our country and provides money to it. There are a whole lot of things that people might not want their tax money to go to- mech makes such a point above- but one of the points of civilisation is that we all pay for the lot.

We also have a say in what we pay for. I am exercising that right in this case. What do you mean 'the heart of our country'? It's just a quixotic fallacy. What exactly would be lost by their removal?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

I really find very little intelligence behind such complaints. They are normally based on some odd feeling of inferiority

I'm not sure I follow the strand of logic here. I don't see a lack of intelligence in not wanting to subsidise a royal family. You seem to have some kind of inbuilt respect for them- I personally don't. I feel no inferiority- hence why I don't wish them to be treated as some kind of social centerpiece.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

There is absolutely no way at all in which anything- ANYTHING- would be improved by their removal, But we would lose money, and a lot of us here would lose a huge symbol that we value very dearly, and the UK would lose a point of distinctiveness that actually enhances its world status. And no- the prestige is not spurious at all, that's just a comment you threw out that has no basis whatsoever.

I think it would be improved- we would no longer have a society viewed as a quaint little class-based backwater.

I don't like them as a symbol. I don't value the symbol at all- you may do, but that's up to you. For me it's a symbol we could do without.

In your eyes they're prestigious- for many they are a ridiculous antiquity, only having value as a curiosity. That's hardly concrete prestige- it's a symbol which can be taken either way.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

And if you want to bat toruists for their pre-conceptions of other countries... then you'd better ban anyone from going anywhere, because it sure as hell is not going to stop, ever, and it moulds to the characteristcs a country has, and so it would continue, royal family or none, just in different form.

I would prefer the different form.

I understand that you value them as a symbol- I do not. I don't really wish to back and forth over the reasons I do not agree with them, and you do. It's been covered above.

We are all aware of their misdemeanours and idiocy, though, and the way that their charity work is always wheeled out in order to ameliorate any antipathy towards them.

Originally posted by Lana
Well, to be fair, it'd be hard for you to understand the whole fascination that people from other countries, the US in particular, has with the royal family. I never had much of a fascination with it, though I can understand why so many people do. We don't have anything even remotely like that here in the US, therefore it's something that most Americans will be interested in. It might seem silly, but since when does someone have to have a logical reason to be interested in something?

Nobody is saying interests have to be logical or that the royal family yield no interest universally - just that it IS illogical. If you find the royals interesting, you're not wrong. Just like someone like Avril Lavigne isn't wrong, but it's rather shit and it's illogical. I sat here and laid it all out in my discussion with Samura.

It's not being said that there's no interest, just that it's a stupid interest. It's not hard for me to understand, I perfectly understand why. It's all been laid out in many forms, all of them as illogical as the other.

-AC

My post was more in response to Milla's, where she said "I think its maybe a bit weird for us to understand the fascination with royals because we live here..."

It's something that we don't have in many other countries. And people will always be fascinated in something they don't have. I'm sure if there was royalty in the US, there wouldn't be such a fascination, but that's not the case.

Originally posted by Lana
My post was more in response to Milla's, where she said "I think its maybe a bit weird for us to understand the fascination with royals because we live here..."

It's something that we don't have in many other countries. And people will always be fascinated in something they don't have.

Mine was still relevant, same issue.

Yes, nobody is disputing that. Just that it's stupid and illogical. "Let's go to England!" "Why?" "They have a Queen!" "You won't see her or any Royals though." "So! We don't need to see her, just know she's around!"

As I said, illogical. The fact that you admit there'd be not as much interest if you had a monarchy of your own only boosts my point.

-AC

I just edited my post about three times, adding to what I said 😛

Originally posted by Lana
Well, to be fair, it'd be hard for you to understand the whole fascination that people from other countries, the US in particular, has with the royal family. I never had much of a fascination with it, though I can understand why so many people do. We don't have anything even remotely like that here in the US, therefore it's something that most Americans will be interested in. It might seem silly, but since when does someone have to have a logical reason to be interested in something?

I don't deny that people are interested in them, of course they are. Regardless of any 'benefits' that arise from their being kept on life-support, I do not agree with the idea of 'royalty' per se. Money and chimeric ideas of eclat don't persuade me personally that they should continue to be subsidised.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Mine was still relevant, same issue.

Yes, nobody is disputing that. Just that it's stupid and illogical. "Let's go to England!" "Why?" "They have a Queen!" "You won't see her or any Royals though." "So! We don't need to see her, just know she's around!"

As I said, illogical. The fact that you admit there'd be not as much interest if you had a monarchy of your own only boosts my point.

-AC

Hey, I said myself that I have never had much fascination in the royal family or cared much, I don't know why, but I've personally never seen why they're such a big deal. But as someone from a country where we don't have any sort of royalty, and really, we have a very short history, I can see why so many people would have such a fascination.

Personally I care more about actual history 😛