The Royal Family

[HighPeakFox]

We are brought up in this country to revere the royal family, and although I have nothing personal against any of them (although this Andrew fellow seems a bit of a rotter), it is simply a means of making us obey the class decisions that those that control us like to use, manipulate and divide us.

 

I don't blame the royals for that in isolation, I just detest our deference for those with power & money - their being rich doesn't mean I or you are a lesser being with lesser rights, but by bowing to power & money, we relegate our own importance and take away from our own self-worth.

 

NB - this is opinion, not fact.

[murphy]

35 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Not having that for one second. If he was a normal citizen that wasn't a royal, he'd be almost certainly facing charges if not being investigated. Not sure how anyone can say his royal privelidge has nothing to do with it. Bit weird. 

OK, you have made your mind up.  You're entitled to your opinion but I don't see any evidence to support it.

 

Lots of people use the law to evade justice overseas without any royal privilege from Assange to Abu Hamza.  It caught up with them in the end after years of deferring and wrangling and it might with Andrew if he has a case to answer.

[bovril]

4 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

We are brought up in this country to revere the royal family, and although I have nothing personal against any of them (although this Andrew fellow seems a bit of a rotter), it is simply a means of making us obey the class decisions that those that control us like to use, manipulate and divide us.

 

I don't blame the royals for that in isolation, I just detest our deference for those with power & money - their being rich doesn't mean I or you are a lesser being with lesser rights, but by bowing to power & money, we relegate our own importance and take away from our own self-worth.

 

NB - this is opinion, not fact.

We're not. We don't really revere anyone in the UK, compared to other countries I've lived in where there'll be days off, school and airport names and murals everywhere related to important figures from the country's history. The only thing that comes close here is WW2 veterans and the NHS. 

[Salisbury Fox]

30 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Not having that for one second. If he was a normal citizen that wasn't a royal, he'd be almost certainly facing charges if not being investigated. Not sure how anyone can say his royal privelidge has nothing to do with it. Bit weird. 

Interested to know what proof you have that he is using his royal privilege, other than using some considerable funds I suppose.
 

I believe Prince Andrew to be a thoroughly unpleasant and arrogant man, but I am pretty sure that if there was enough evidence to incriminate him then he would be facing a criminal case rather than a civil suit.  Perhaps that would come later if proof were to be found but I like to think that people are innocent until proven guilty and so reserve judgement. Either way his privilege has certainly not saved his reputation.

 

On the civil case itself, Guiffre seems to be considered an unreliable witness, which although that clearly doesn’t absolve PA of any wrongdoing on its own, it does explain why a civil suit is preferable due to the burden of proof being significantly less. I found this an interesting read on Guiffre:

 

Guiffre background reading

[Sly]

Once the queen passes, I could see the support in the Royal family wavering. 
 

Charles doesn’t have the popularity. I can’t say I’ll be tuning in to him to watch a Kings Speech (not that I do with the Queens either). 
 

Similar for William really. 

[Sly]

The entire Andrew thing is most likely the tip of the ice berg as well.

 

So much stuff gets swept under the carpet. 

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, Sly said:

Once the queen passes, I could see the support in the Royal family wavering. 
 

Charles doesn’t have the popularity. I can’t say I’ll be tuning in to him to watch a Kings Speech (not that I do with the Queens either). 
 

Similar for William really. 

You may be right about Charles but the queen has so much credit in the bank that he will get trough on the back of that 

 

William is liked by many because he’s Diana’s son - weird innit! 
 

im sure the RF will shrink compared to now (its already happening) but we aren’t on the way to becoming a republic! 

[FoxyPV]

18 hours ago, murphy said:

I've heard the argument regarding the cost of the monarchy, even though it can be demonstrated that it brings in much more than it costs.

 

I've heard the argument that it is undemocratic, although I have yet to hear a single example of the queen ever using any technical powers to undermine government legislation.

 

I've heard the argument of obscene and unearned privilege, but what about the sacrifices?  would any of you swap places?  I wouldn't.  What use is wealth without freedom?

 

I've heard the argument that our historical buildings would somehow still attract the same tourists without a sitting monarch.  Somehow that proposition forgets to mention all of the attendant pageantry that goes with having a living king or queen.  It is not the same.

 

What I never hear, is all of the intangible benefits of have a royal family.  The prestige we gain throughout the world.  The tradition.  The unique advantage we have that some would see thrown away, all for some leftist class prejudice.

 

What about the deep affection that the queen holds in many people's hearts?  Some might scoff at that but the queen can reach people that no politician can.  For example, her address to the nation during the covid lockdown.  It actually meant something to a lot of people. Can you imagine the nasal drone of President Starmer (perish the thought) carrying the same weight or garnering the same affection?  Or President Boris' buffoonery?

 

The royal family can unite people, precisely because they are not political and there is none of the tribalism that comes with that.

 

Mate

 

 

Maaaaatttteeeeeeee

 

If pageantry is your rebuttal, you can do that without a monarchy 

 

The royal household is a notoriously bad employer (under minimum wage, etc etc)

 

To say the royals are apolitical is a joke especially when Charlie boy was directly telling the govt about what legislation to omit recently - leaseholds in Cornwall if I remember.

 

An elected head of state with the same powers. Ireland have done it successfully since 1947 and there's none of this bootlicking bs that goes on.

 

The queen recently spoke about poverty and people being all in it together with a fkn gold piano in the background......

 

Leftist class prejudice hahaahhahahahha

 

The whole concept is that their blood is LITERALLY better than yours.

 

The crown has all sorts of stolen diamonds in it, they're a hark back to colonial days and no they don't give UK the prestige internationally that you think they do.

 

[BKLFox]

13 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

Mate

 

 

Maaaaatttteeeeeeee

 

If pageantry is your rebuttal, you can do that without a monarchy 

 

The royal household is a notoriously bad employer (under minimum wage, etc etc)

 

To say the royals are apolitical is a joke especially when Charlie boy was directly telling the govt about what legislation to omit recently - leaseholds in Cornwall if I remember.

 

An elected head of state with the same powers. Ireland have done it successfully since 1947 and there's none of this bootlicking bs that goes on.

 

The queen recently spoke about poverty and people being all in it together with a fkn gold piano in the background......

 

Leftist class prejudice hahaahhahahahha

 

The whole concept is that their blood is LITERALLY better than yours.

 

The crown has all sorts of stolen diamonds in it, they're a hark back to colonial days and no they don't give UK the prestige internationally that you think they do.

 

I trust you'll stick 2 fingers up to the Royals & work the 3rd June this year Foxy

[murphy]

42 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

Mate

 

 

Maaaaatttteeeeeeee

 

If pageantry is your rebuttal, you can do that without a monarchy 

 

The royal household is a notoriously bad employer (under minimum wage, etc etc)

 

To say the royals are apolitical is a joke especially when Charlie boy was directly telling the govt about what legislation to omit recently - leaseholds in Cornwall if I remember.

 

An elected head of state with the same powers. Ireland have done it successfully since 1947 and there's none of this bootlicking bs that goes on.

 

The queen recently spoke about poverty and people being all in it together with a fkn gold piano in the background......

 

Leftist class prejudice hahaahhahahahha

 

The whole concept is that their blood is LITERALLY better than yours.

 

The crown has all sorts of stolen diamonds in it, they're a hark back to colonial days and no they don't give UK the prestige internationally that you think they do.

 

You make a powerful argument.  An Irish style president?

 

You want to tear down the monarchy and replace 1000 years of history with this? 

 

 

 

I bet they come from all over the world to see old Mr Higgins!

 

I wish you had just said that in the first place and saved me a lot of trouble.  Consider me converted.  Vive la Republique!

 

 

[FoxyPV]

6 minutes ago, murphy said:

You make a powerful argument.  An Irish style president?

 

You want to tear down the monarchy and replace 1000 years of history with this? 

 

 

 

I bet they come from all over the world to see old Mr Higgins!

 

I wish you had just said that in the first place and saved me a lot of trouble.  Consider me converted.  Vive la Republique!

 

 

All praise Miggly!!!

[FoxyPV]

39 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

I trust you'll stick 2 fingers up to the Royals & work the 3rd June this year Foxy

Public holidays are the least I deserve for putting up with their presence.

 

I take the Twelfth holidays happily despite loathing Orangeism

[Carl the Llama]

20 hours ago, murphy said:

I've heard the argument regarding the cost of the monarchy, even though it can be demonstrated that it brings in much more than it costs.

...go on then.

20 hours ago, murphy said:

I've heard the argument of obscene and unearned privilege, but what about the sacrifices?  would any of you swap places?  I wouldn't.  What use is wealth without freedom?

Probably not but what's the argument here, 'somebody's got to do it'?  I disagree.

20 hours ago, murphy said:

I've heard the argument that our historical buildings would somehow still attract the same tourists without a sitting monarch.  Somehow that proposition forgets to mention all of the attendant pageantry that goes with having a living king or queen.  It is not the same

Isn't Versailles something like the most visited palace in Europe?  Is it because our country's a bit shit that we need the royals to get people wet for our castles?

[LiberalFox]

I feel like the Royals appeal to some people who would otherwise want something else to fulfill that need. With all the political turmoil going on maybe having them isn't the worst thing. 

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

Mate

 

 

Maaaaatttteeeeeeee

 

If pageantry is your rebuttal, you can do that without a monarchy 

 

The royal household is a notoriously bad employer (under minimum wage, etc etc)

 

To say the royals are apolitical is a joke especially when Charlie boy was directly telling the govt about what legislation to omit recently - leaseholds in Cornwall if I remember.

 

An elected head of state with the same powers. Ireland have done it successfully since 1947 and there's none of this bootlicking bs that goes on.

 

The queen recently spoke about poverty and people being all in it together with a fkn gold piano in the background......

 

Leftist class prejudice hahaahhahahahha

 

The whole concept is that their blood is LITERALLY better than yours.

 

The crown has all sorts of stolen diamonds in it, they're a hark back to colonial days and no they don't give UK the prestige internationally that you think they do.

 

I suspect if there was a vote keeping royals would win. As a democrat would you accept the result? 

[FoxyPV]

27 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I suspect if there was a vote keeping royals would win. As a democrat would you accept the result? 

A vote to maintain hereditary privilege.............

 

Take about turkeys voting for Christmas but I suppose Brexit happened so nothing would surprise me.

[Foxdiamond]

3 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

A vote to maintain hereditary privilege.............

 

Take about turkeys voting for Christmas but I suppose Brexit happened so nothing would surprise me.

If they went I bet nothing would change concerning the haves and have not. We seem not to want to embrace policy that would improve the lot of many. The royals are window dressing. Keeping the tories in more often than not is really turkeys voting for xmas

[Carl the Llama]

18 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

A vote to maintain hereditary privilege.............

 

Take about turkeys voting for Christmas but I suppose Brexit happened so nothing would surprise me.

Don't forget the PR vote.  If we were turkeys, Slade would be our national anthem. 

[Dahnsouff]

https://brandfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/1/brand_finance_monarchy_press_release.pdf
 

If this is close to being true, then there really is no discussion to be had.

[Guest worth_the_wait]

3 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

An elected head of state with the same powers. Ireland have done it successfully since 1947 and there's none of this bootlicking bs that goes on.
 

Éamon de Valera was the elected Head of State (President) from 1959 to 1973.

I assume he was the same chappie who was Taoiseach from 1937–1948.   You know, the one that in 1945 formally offered his condolences to Germany on the death of Adolf Hitler.

 

Ah, good old elected Heads of State! 

 

[FoxesDeb]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

...go on then.

Probably not but what's the argument here, 'somebody's got to do it'?  I disagree.

Isn't Versailles something like the most visited palace in Europe?  Is it because our country's a bit shit that we need the royals to get people wet for our castles?

Here you go:

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/

 

Realised after my first post you said palace and not place. Versailles may well be the most visited palace, but isn't France the most visited country? So yes, it possibly is because the UK is a bit shit. Think how much lower it would fall down the list without the Royals. 

Edited 10 January 2022 by FoxesDeb

[Carl the Llama]

4 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

Here you go:

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/

 

Realised after my first post you said palace and not place. Versailles may well be the most visited palace, but isn't France the most visited country? So yes, it possibly is because the UK is a bit shit. Think how much lower it would fall down the list without the Royals. 

That doesn't give any evidence for them being the cause of any extra income though, just tells us how much we get from visits to tourism sites and media deals, all things that I still see no reason why they couldn't and wouldn't still exist in the absence of an active monarchy. 

[Parafox]

40 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

That doesn't give any evidence for them being the cause of any extra income though, just tells us how much we get from visits to tourism sites and media deals, all things that I still see no reason why they couldn't and wouldn't still exist in the absence of an active monarchy. 

I tend to agree. However the places such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor, even London itself to a degree, are seen as places where the Queen has been, or maybe is, present in, generates a thing that tourists want to see or be around. Most (Japanese/American) tourists are simple souls who like to think they've had a near royal experience. Only my opinion. I thought I was an expert after visiting Athens and Olympia. I too was a simple tourist thinking I knew all about Greece and the Olympics.

Still, Greece got my dosh.

[FoxyPV]

15 hours ago, worth_the_wait said:

Éamon de Valera was the elected Head of State (President) from 1959 to 1973.

I assume he was the same chappie who was Taoiseach from 1937–1948.   You know, the one that in 1945 formally offered his condolences to Germany on the death of Adolf Hitler.

 

Ah, good old elected Heads of State! 

 

There's no defence of DeV here. That man was a **** and whilst Ireland was neutral during the war it still allowed UK and US forces to be based there.

 

The Royal family were all supporting the Nazis before the war started, like really..... Jesus Christ at least do a bit of research. (You could say that some of them still lean that way - Princess Michael of Kent)

[FoxesDeb]

15 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

That doesn't give any evidence for them being the cause of any extra income though, just tells us how much we get from visits to tourism sites and media deals, all things that I still see no reason why they couldn't and wouldn't still exist in the absence of an active monarchy. 

You didn't read the parts about the trade deals then, or the Crown estate?