In case anyone actually cares about how useless and outdated our monarchy is, check this website out [link=http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/Win%20the%20argument/index.php], it's essentially just an outline of all the problems, the arguments normally brought up by those who like 1 tiny, millionaire family draining our resources, and counter-points to them, etc.
I think the weather thing was done because scotland are looking for independence, and this is some sort of weird attempt to make them love england?
Well, to be fair, you don't hear a lot of problems coming out of Sweden Switzerland .
What the Royal family does? Who really cares. The British Isles are still a democratic society, they just elect parties who have a leader as opposed to one guy thrown up from a party as the best candidate, which, in some ways are still similar.
Prime Minister, President, they both lead. The Queen is just a figurehead. Admittedly, a figurehead who TECHNICALLY has the power to dissolve the government and call a new election at any time, and maintains a rather sizable Commonwealth of nations, but still, the 'important' ones are all elected. Besides, part of us all want to be a part of the royals. Even the hardest nose Democratic Supporter would at least consider the chance to be royal .
Proof that anything put online will lead to some kind of for and against - but in this case a well reasoned debate rather than a flame war, so fair play to you guys and a welcome introduction to the forums for me! :D
I personally think the Royal Family is a very good thing to have purely for our national identity. And I would rather have the Windsors as the ambassadors for the GB brand than a politician any day.
Seriously? Some random millionaire family who have done nothing to deserve it, over a democratically elected leader? We don't need them to have our national identity, I think we can manage just fine without them. I know that diplomatically, they tend not to do anything wrong, but I can't name one good thing they've actually done (please read my earlier link before you start quoting tourism income or anything), and we don't get a choice about them doing it? It just seems outdated, and I have enough faith in us as a nation to be able to maintain our national identity without these people.
I purposefully didn't mention tourism income because I don't believe many people come to the UK to specifically see Buckingham Palace. The monarchy and the tourism that surrounds it is probably more of a "Since were there we might as well take a look" but for what it's worth it's better have that than nothing else to look at.
They aren't exactly random. The monarchy has been established for hundreds of years and as long as nothing goes wrong we already know who the next 50+ years worth will be. Fairly constant and stable if you ask me, except for the occasional wobble like with the abdication but then that just adds some interest.
Our democratically elected leaders are always despised no matter who it is or from what side. The Royals don't really need to do good things. Just not do bad things. And despite the fact that they don't need to do good things they do a lot of good things. I'm not sure what it is you want them to do but the amount of money they raise for charities along with the number that they head, sponsor, advocate and generate advertising for is surely a fairly decent place to start... Recently, how much money have you given to a charity, or how much awareness to a cause? If it was a lot that's great, but they do it continuously throughout the year and generate far more than you ever will.
Out of interest what would you replace the monarchy with? And what would you replace our democracy with if you dissolved it?
Shit for one thing I couldn't be arsed with all of the committees which would be formed just to try figure out who or what to put on all the stamps and money.
even though Gav is a complete muppet, he was right about the Royal Family having no last name. Gav 1, Burnie 0. (in the particular bit, otherwise Burnie is up like a million)
We do spend more money on them than they give to charity you know. Plus, they can still do charity work without being technically in charge of the country, I never claimed to do more charity work than the windsors, not sure where that came from.
I never said they weren't stable, I just mean that we have no choice in the matter. It will always be THIS family, no matter what kind of maniacs they might turn out to be, and I don't like that. I never said I'd replace the democracy, I want a republic. We can keep the royals on stamps and money, that's fine, but as a part of our national history.
Proof that anything put online will lead to some kind of for and against...
Lads, in all seriousness, there is no seriousness. It's a member of a Royal family delivering the weather, surely it's possible to just laugh at it without going all structuralist on its ass and picking apart the entire purpose of monarchy?
(Speaking as someone who can't wait for his last University exam on Friday and hit the real world where nobody cares about Lacanian psychoanalysis or gender transgression in 17th Century texts....)
Before I looked at your link I really wasn't fussed about an argument for or against a Monarchy, then I had a scan through and I got ever so slightly angry at Republic Campaign Ltd.
I thought the last name was Tate. Queen Elizabeth Tate II. And all Royalty really does nowadays is visit the commonwealth and have big flashy weddings.
.
