Why do people hate the royal family?

[Craigieboy]

Genuine question?

 

These are people who by coincidence have been born into a privileged background. They didn't ask for it and some might even resent it.

 

So shy do people dislike them, as if its their fault that they are in the position that they are.

[Placid Casual]

Genuine question?

 

These are people who by coincidence have been born into a privileged background. They didn't ask for it and some might even resent it.

 

So shy do people dislike them, as if its their fault that they are in the position that they are.

 

We didn't ask for them!

[JRoss]

I think you kind of answered your own question.

 

It's not so much them that we (or at least I) do not like but the system that puts them there it's non democratic for a start.

[2NaFish]

The queen seems a decent sort. Charlie seems alright too. The rest generally come across as ******s.

 

But it's not the people but the institution and the concept of a monarchy i don't like.

[Do The Dance]

Genuine question?

 

These are people who by coincidence have been born into a privileged background. They didn't ask for it and some might even resent it.

 

So shy do people dislike them, as if its their fault that they are in the position that they are.

 

Why does that privileged background exist?

[FWJ]

The other thing to consider with an elected head of state is do you want an executive president (France, USA etc) or a non-executive one (Germany, Ireland etc).

 

As far as costs go - will keeping a president and their family safe and in an appropriate manner cost much less than a monarchy?

 

There also seems to be a kind of notion in Scotland that we are, by tradition, a republic and the monarchy was foisted on us. Scotland has always been a monarchy (or rather has always had a monarch as head of state). I'm happy enough with the status quo, but I feel the Queen should be allowed to retire/abdicate like her Dutch counterpart did. She's an old wifie now. I'm sure she'd like to spend her days with a gin and Channel 4 At The Races.

 

And as mentioned in a previous thread the Netherlands and all of Scandinavia are monarchies. It doesn't seem to have damaged their famous traditions of liberal democracy.

[Bert Le Clos]

Never really got the seethe TBH. It's not like Betty's calling all the shots.

 

Let it be.

[Gershwin]

I'm indifferent to them. We seem to pay a lot of money for them but they do raise a fair amount for the UK economy. Whether these figures match up at all, I have no idea. People in London generally seem to love them though.

[The People's Chimp]

I'm indifferent to them. We seem to pay a lot of money for them but they do raise a fair amount for the UK economy. Whether these figures match up at all, I have no idea. People in London generally seem to love them though.

 

You weren't saying that when you were draped in a Union Flag singing 'do you know where hell is' at 5pm on saturday, were you?

[Johanes de Silentio]

Because the have no legitimate claim/right to the enormous wealth and privilege that they were born into.

 

No one person/group should be automatically exalted above any other.

[Fort Vallance]

I don't

[Craigieboy]

Because the have no legitimate claim/right to the enormous wealth and privilege that they were born into.

 

No one person/group should be automatically exalted above any other.

 

Rudi.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Rudi.

 

Rudi hasn't been automatically exalted through being born in the 'right' bed - Rudi has earned his exaltation by being awesome.

[FWJ]

They are very wealthy, no doubt. But 'enormously' - there are plenty richer, and how do we know some enormously rich individual wouldn't buy his election to the presidency (especially if he/she was Rupe's favourite).

You can hardly accuse them of extravagance or ostentation either.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not all that fussed, but it seems to work ok.

 

Of the top ten countries in the UN's Human Development Index, seven are monarchies.

[Johanes de Silentio]

You can hardly accuse them of extravagance or ostentation either.

 

[2NaFish]

You can hardly accuse them of extravagance or ostentation either.

 

[Boris]

You can hardly accuse them of extravagance or ostentation either.

 

 

Oi Liz, mind and get us 10 B&H and a packet of Rizla when you're at the shop!

[FWJ]

She doesn't live like a Russian billionaire, does she?

[FWJ]

 

Oi Liz, mind and get us 10 B&H and a packet of Rizla when you're at the shop!

That's not hers - and she only goes in because she has to and it's expected of her.

 

Better a motorcade of two dozen bomb-proof limousines?

[Johanes de Silentio]

She doesn't live like a Russian billionaire, does she?

 

I'd say she does, yes.

[Johanes de Silentio]

That's not hers

 

Whose is it?

 

Who else gets to use it?

 

Can I have a shot?

[FWJ]

What I mean is, yeah, she's got - I don't know - ?100million of palaces and paintings etc. It's not like she can flog them and spend the cash, is it?

[Boris]

As has been mentioned, it isn't perhaps the individuals that are hated per se, rather the institution of monarchy.

 

It's undemocratic for a start.

 

It is at the top of the fuedal system which, through time, has evolved into our current society, yet we still have fuedal trappings. The House of Lords, for example.

 

Accepting monarchy means that you accept that you are subordonate and inferior to someone else, just through dint of their lineage which, when you boil it all the way down, is simply that their great-grandad (to the power of n) was harder than your great-grandad (to the power of n). Medieval mafiosi if you like.

[FWJ]

Whose is it?

 

Who else gets to use it?

 

Can I have a shot?

 

 

It belongs to the state and no you can't have a shot. I'd like to have a 60 second trolley dash round the National Gallery and the National Museum of Scotland - but I can't.

[Johanes de Silentio]

What I mean is, yeah, she's got - I don't know - ?100million of palaces and paintings etc. It's not like she can flog them and spend the cash, is it?

 

You're right - I feel sorry for her now.

 

I feel silly.

[Boris]

They are very wealthy, no doubt. But 'enormously' - there are plenty richer, and how do we know some enormously rich individual wouldn't buy his election to the presidency (especially if he/she was Rupe's favourite).

You can hardly accuse them of extravagance or ostentation either.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not all that fussed, but it seems to work ok.

 

Of the top ten countries in the UN's Human Development Index, seven are monarchies.

 

 

At least with a Presidency you would have

 

A written constitution

 

Checks and balances and a seperation of powers between the Executive, the Legaslative and the Judiciary.

 

Currently we have none of the above.

[Johanes de Silentio]

It belongs to the state and no you can't have a shot.

 

That's not really fair, is it?

[Boris]

It belongs to the state and no you can't have a shot. I'd like to have a 60 second trolley dash round the National Gallery and the National Museum of Scotland - but I can't.

 

But the monarch is the Head of State so, L'Etat ce moi, so to speak....

[FWJ]

As has been mentioned, it isn't perhaps the individuals that are hated per se, rather the institution of monarchy.

 

It's undemocratic for a start.

 

It is at the top of the fuedal system which, through time, has evolved into our current society, yet we still have fuedal trappings. The House of Lords, for example.

 

Accepting monarchy means that you accept that you are subordonate and inferior to someone else, just through dint of their lineage which, when you boil it all the way down, is simply that their great-grandad (to the power of n) was harder than your great-grandad (to the power of n). Medieval mafiosi if you like.

 

I'm sounding like Monarchist-in-chief and really I'm not but this talk of subordination and inferiority, lineage and opportunity. Look at equality of income for example - do you prefer the US and Brazilian examples or the Danish and Swedish?

[FWJ]

That's not really fair, is it?

 

No it's not. And it's not fair that I don't have "The Reverend Robert Walker Skating On Duddingston Loch" hanging in my sitting-room - but there you are.

[Boris]

I'm sounding like Monarchist-in-chief and really I'm not but this talk of subordination and inferiority, lineage and opportunity. Look at equality of income for example - do you prefer the US and Brazilian examples or the Danish and Swedish?

 

These have nothing to do with the countries being Monarchies or not. It's not like the Monarch in the two Scandinavian countries is being benign and saying "spread the wealth, subjects".

 

More to do with the constitutional arrangements of these States. Added to the political consciousness of the electorate.

[Johanes de Silentio]

No it's not. And it's not fair that I don't have "The Reverend Robert Walker Skating On Duddingston Loch" hanging in my sitting-room - but there you are.

 

Where does the Queen live? Can you post a picture?

 

Then post a picture of your own gaff? (with all your servants lined up outside)

 

[Don Draper]

No it's not. And it's not fair that I don't have "The Reverend Robert Walker Skating On Duddingston Loch" hanging in my sitting-room - but there you are.

 

I think you should maybe quit while you're behind.

[FWJ]

At least with a Presidency you would have

 

A written constitution

 

Checks and balances and a seperation of powers between the Executive, the Legaslative and the Judiciary.

 

Currently we have none of the above.

 

Plenty of people said it was Juan Carlos that maintained the democracy in Spain after el Tejerazo in 1981.

[FWJ]

I think you should maybe quit while you're behind.

 

Yup. I'm so deep now the ground is starting to get hot.

 

Bring on President Cowell.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

At least with a Presidency you would have

 

A written constitution

 

Checks and balances and a seperation of powers between the Executive, the Legaslative and the Judiciary.

 

Currently we have none of the above.

 

 

Er, I live in a country where Her Majesty is head of state yet there is a written constitution. There are also distinctions between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

As for the monarchy itself, whoever is monarch is moot. The strength of the system is the representation of the personage being able to represent the country without any kind of political allegiance. If I was to live in a republic I would want a similar kind of model for the president, which is more difficult to achieve given that they tend to have party political support.

[FWJ]

Where does the Queen live? Can you post a picture?

 

Then post a picture of your own gaff? (with all your servants lined up outside)

 

I'll need a wide-angle lens

[BoJack Horseman]

Completely indifferent. They have zero bearing on my life so I could not care less. They seem a bit pointless but I'm happy for them to continue as is.

[Vlad-Stupid]

I love the Royals.

[Boris]

Er, I live in a country where Her Majesty is head of state yet there is a written constitution. There are also distinctions between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

As for the monarchy itself, whoever is monarch is moot. The strength of the system is the representation of the personage being able to represent the country without any kind of political allegiance. If I was to live in a republic I would want a similar kind of model for the president, which is more difficult to achieve given that they tend to have party political support.

 

Bully for you Geoff.

 

Unfortunately the Mother country is lagging behind! BUt ultimately how Australia is governed was decided by the Australian people and they kept the Monarch - fine. Just like Sweden. In the UK though, we are far more archaic and as such mopnarchy represents the entire political system and, arguably, holds it back, as so many seem to want to tug forelocks, doff caps instead of standing up and saying there is no difference between you or I as we are all the same constitutionally.

 

And it would be possible to have a Head of State President that is apolitical, as such (and elected). See the German model.

[Boris]

I love the Royals.

 

 

Reading are a nap for relegation next season.

[FWJ]

Bully for you Geoff.

 

Unfortunately the Mother country is lagging behind! BUt ultimately how Australia is governed was decided by the Australian people and they kept the Monarch - fine. Just like Sweden. In the UK though, we are far more archaic and as such mopnarchy represents the entire political system and, arguably, holds it back, as so many seem to want to tug forelocks, doff caps instead of standing up and saying there is no difference between you or I as we are all the same constitutionally.

 

And it would be possible to have a Head of State President that is apolitical, as such (and elected). See the German model.

 

And would having an elected head of state change that? Are the US, France and Germany more equal and fairer than Norway and The Netherlands?

[I.J]

Genuine question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boris]

And would having an elected head of state change that? Are the US, France and Germany more equal and fairer than Norway and The Netherlands?

 

You're missing the point.

 

It has nothing to do with being a monarchy or a republic, but the will and political culture of the electorate.

 

So to say that Norway & the Netherlands are more egalitarian or fair is due to them being monarchies is nonsense.

[FWJ]

You're missing the point.

 

It has nothing to do with being a monarchy or a republic, but the will and political culture of the electorate.

 

So to say that Norway & the Netherlands are more egalitarian or fair is due to them being monarchies is nonsense.

But I'm *not* saying they are more egalitarian or fair because they are monarchies - but being monarchies does not stop them from being egalitarian and fair. (And in Norway's case the most egalitarian and fair society in the world).

[Boris]

But I'm *not* saying they are more egalitarian or fair because they are monarchies - but being monarchies does not stop them from being egalitarian and fair. (And in Norway's case the most egalitarian and fair society in the world).

 

In those instances that's right.

 

In the UK's instance, us being a monarchy allows anachronistic levers of power to continue to exist.

 

So in conclusion, we would agree that it's the mindset of the people that leads to a fairer society?

 

But equally your comment about 7 out of the top 10 countries on that UN list being monarchies is therefore irrelevant?

[Matthew Le Tissier]

long live the queen

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Personally I'm looking forward to the Windsor family episode of Total Wipeout.

[JT1959]

Personally I'm looking forward to the Windsor family episode of Total Wipeout.

 

Never happen after they bombed on "It's a Knockout". I'm thinking more along the lines of the "Kardashians" type of show.

[FWJ]

In those instances that's right.

 

In the UK's instance, us being a monarchy allows anachronistic levers of power to continue to exist.

 

So in conclusion, we would agree that it's the mindset of the people that leads to a fairer society?

 

But equally your comment about 7 out of the top 10 countries on that UN list being monarchies is therefore irrelevant?

Yes it's up to the people, absolutely.

And the seven out of ten thing I'm trying to show that being a monarchy needn't disturb the mindset of the people to preclude egalitarianism and liberal social democracy - so I don't know if it's relevant or not.