• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Royal Family

Scopedog said:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same as:

"I ......... (full name), do swear (or for a solemn affirmation, "solemnly affirm") that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."


Both countries require that you swear alleigance to the head of State. Took that particular oath 26 years ago. Still holding to it.

Should in my lifetime the people of the Great White North decide to move away from a constitutional monarchy, then the oath will transfer to the new head of state as being one of the successors according to law. But given the rather extensive legislative amendments that would need to happen, I'm thinking that inertia if nothing else will keep us in that form of government.
 
Darat said:
Those costings are a tad suspicious since they don't cover stuff like security and the redecorating and so on but I'm not sure why costing each of us taxpayers so much is used in argument for them?

As for the tourism bit - I really don't understand that argument it seems entirely nonsensical to me. The likes of France seem to do quite well in the ex-royal palaces tourism trade and they negotiated a severance settlement with their royals a couple of centuries back.
Click to expand...

It's not that their cost is an argument for them it is just that I think their cost is massively offset by how much they contribute to the UK economy. Of course, it is a bit difficult to know just how much they do contribute and how many people go to the UK to see the Queen etc...

But I think the main value of the Royal Family - aside from the not inconsiderable fact that the constitutional monarchy seems to work fine and is not worth tinkering with - is its appearance of embodying the nation.

Is that appearance a sham? Yes, probably. Is the Queen magic? No, of course not. But, as has been pointed out, the services will give their allegiance to her and when she travels abroad she is treated by those unlucky enough to be born a Jonny foreigner with the deference she deserves and she has the good grace not to rub it in too much. can act as an apolitical good-will ambassador.
 
angrysoba said:
It's not that their cost is an argument for them it is just that I think their cost is massively offset by how much they contribute to the UK economy. Of course, it is a bit difficult to know just how much they do contribute and how many people go to the UK to see the Queen etc...
Click to expand...

Never seen her in any UK tourist campaigns so I agree it is very hard to see what she does to add to UK tourism. But France (and several other countries) shows that you do not need to have a living monarch to have a very successful tourism industry. Indeed if we didn't have her we could open the likes of Bucks house a lot more and also get the money that raises.
angrysoba said:
But I think the main value of the Royal Family - aside from the not inconsiderable fact that the constitutional monarchy seems to work fine and is not worth tinkering with -
Click to expand...

Exactly what "works well" - serious question.

angrysoba said:
is its appearance of embodying the nation.

Is that appearance a sham? Yes, probably. Is the Queen magic? No, of course not. But, as has been pointed out, the services will give their allegiance to her and when she travels abroad she is treated by those unlucky enough to be born a Jonny foreigner with the deference she deserves and she has the good grace not to rub it in too much. can act as an apolitical good-will ambassador.
Click to expand...

Very expensive goodwill ambassador if you ask me - plus of course she's getting on and these days has (understandably) cut back her "official business", not that she did much when she was considerably younger.
 
Scopedog said:
Its fine that they are a tourist attraction but it seems as though they certainly haven't earned any respect or deference or any of their personal wealth and life of luxury and opulence in hundreds of years. Let's say the queen is worth 1 billion dollars. Where did she get that money? Some is return on wise investments probably, but where did the principal come from? She certainly didn't work for it. One of her ancestors probably misappropriated it in some fashion and passed it on. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I don't know what that has to do with anything. I don't think anyone cares if she "is worth 1 billion dollars". :confused:

If ever there was a tradition to be outgrown I think this would be one of them. I'm sure most of the posters here disdain people like the Kardashians and Hiltons that are famous for being famous and otherwise do nothing of value with their existence. If the royal family really is a great tourist attraction then put them in a cage (along with the Kardashians and Hiltons) so you can throw food at them and make them dance or something. They aren't better than anybody else.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing two different issues. The tourist issue is not being made as a basis for the UK Constitution - if it were then obviously we would follow the US and make Mickey Mouse the head of state ;) - only to say that the Royal Family are not "too expensive".

Also, I look forward to the Kardashians and Hiltons running for president. Leaving the Socialite Class and joining the Political Class will no doubt raise the average IQ of both classes.

And, to be a little bit un-PC here, the Queen actually is better than a lot of people. Almost certainly better than most, in fact. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein just to name a few.

Below is the American oath of enlistment (which I held up my right hand and proudly recited once). We fight for a document most of us has never read.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but tell me, if you don't mind, how do you know that God is going to be on the same side as the United States in any conflict? I don't mean that in a rude sense, but I just find it interesting that you prefaced your questions about the monarchy by asking how it was that skeptics, atheists, and rational people (I am typing from memory) could support something like a monarchy. It may be that you are making a presumption that those that do support it think the monarchy has a magical quality and you may be ignoring the fact that some people see no reason to abolish it on more pragmatic grounds.
 
Darat said:
As for the tourism bit - I really don't understand that argument it seems entirely nonsensical to me. The likes of France seem to do quite well in the ex-royal palaces tourism trade and they negotiated a severance settlement with their royals a couple of centuries back.
Click to expand...

By the way, that "negotiated settlement", popularly known as the French Revolution, is exactly the kind of thing that Britain would be well-advised to avoid.
 
angrysoba said:
By the way, that "negotiated settlement", popularly known as the French Revolution, is exactly the kind of thing that Britain would be well-advised to avoid.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know - imagine how much we could get for the television rights!
 
Darat said:
Exactly what "works well" - serious question.
Click to expand...


No nation that has adopted the Westminster system has had a revolution - I think the constitutional monarchy as it exists in the UK has value in creating another safety valve.

If a government after election begins to run out of control - ala Hitler. The Queen has the ability to bring that government down, but not the ability to ignore the electorate.

To be a successful monarch in these situations, you have to be able to put your personal opinions aside and think what is best for the nation. We know the Queen loathed Tony Blair, but continued to work with him because that was the best course for the nation.

And Darat, dont sell your nation short - 400 years without any formal constitution says a lot about the people and institutions you have to protect the interest of the people
 
Darat said:
Oh I don't know - imagine how much we could get for the television rights!
Click to expand...


Probably not as much as you think, and then you really can't expect a really long and successful run. Maybe a season or so, and the merchandizing is likely a little less lucrative than the current line.
 
Darat said:
Why do we need any "figurehead" head-of-state? I find that almost as a silly hangover as our royal family. Our PM for a good 100 years has been our head-of-state in everything bar the name, lets just recognise reality!
Click to expand...

There must be someone who speaks for all the British. You can't leave that to Cameron, the poor guy already has two hats: first he is the political leader of the Tories, and second he is the leader of a coalition government, so he speaks for the Tory/LibDem coalition (*). You can't ask of him also to appeal to the Labour voters, let alone the SNP, Plaid Cymru or others who feel subjugated by the English. ;)

(*) not that I have the impression the LibDems make it very difficult for him to make the distinction.
 
My feelings on the monarchy are really just "meh". I'm not particularly interested in them and their doings but I don't care enough to be a republican; I think it's good for the country in some ways to have a non-party figurehead and I'd hate for that part of our history to just disappear.

However, I hate the national anthem. I used to stand up for it (before I was wheelchair bound) but I don't sing the words as I can see no reason to call on a deity in which I don't believe, to protect an institution about which I don't care.
 
ddt said:
There must be someone who speaks for all the British. You can't leave that to Cameron, the poor guy already has two hats: first he is the political leader of the Tories, and second he is the leader of a coalition government, so he speaks for the Tory/LibDem coalition (*). You can't ask of him also to appeal to the Labour voters, let alone the SNP, Plaid Cymru or others who feel subjugated by the English. ;)

(*) not that I have the impression the LibDems make it very difficult for him to make the distinction.
Click to expand...

I understand those types of arguments but when we look at what actually happens that is exactly what our PMs do (at least since the time of the last holder of the diamond jubilee award).
 
Agatha said:
My feelings on the monarchy are really just "meh". I'm not particularly interested in them and their doings but I don't care enough to be a republican; I think it's good for the country in some ways to have a non-party figurehead and I'd hate for that part of our history to just disappear.

...snip...
Click to expand...

I suspect that you epitomise most folk in the country.

I do think the PR team the royals have had since the death of the Daily Express mascot have done an incredible job of rehabilitating the royals.
 
Border Reiver said:
Not to be too pendantic, but the immediate Royals - Queen, Prince Consort, Prince of Wales, Princes Andrew, Bill and Harry - either worked actual jobs before getting into the family business if they got in at all - Princess Windsor was a mechanic in the Woman's Land Army, Prince Phillip was a respected naval officer during WWII, both Chuck and Andy served in the RN, and Chuck doesn't draw salary from the Crown, just from his investments and his businesses, and Bill and Harry are both serving officers (and Harry's actually done a couple of combat tours).
Click to expand...

Most of those are actually the ones I don't mind subsidising so much. I reckon it should just be those in direct line to the throne and their spouses. So Liz, Charlie, Will and their partners, six people, full stop. It's good that they have a job for a while to experience real life as best they can, but I'm not saying they should work permanently.

The ones I object to paying for are peripherals like the Duke & Duchess of Kent, I think they are the ones who who were living rent free with Liz at our expense, or was that another set of freeloaders? The Queen gives Eddie money but claims if back against tax, so we are still paying him. He should work for a living. Not sure if we pay Andy, but he should get a job, from the last scandal it seems he has a lot of friends in business who could employ him.
 
Agatha said:
<snip>However, I hate the national anthem. I used to stand up for it (before I was wheelchair bound) but I don't sing the words as I can see no reason to call on a deity in which I don't believe, to protect an institution about which I don't care.
Click to expand...


.... and there's a verse in it that is rude about crushing the Scots. Even though it's been 'removed' it's still pretty bad for a 'united' kingdom. I'd guess our anthem would be changed if we get independence :D
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Well, I'm not British, but Australia is still a part of the Commonwealth. The Royal Family does not enter into my day-to-day life in any meaningful way. We could become a republic and leave the Commonwealth tomorrow and it would still have no effect on my life or views. The Royals are, more or less, irrelevant to me and I spend very little time thinking about them.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about our leaders.


(I realize the Queen isn't really a political leader.)
 
joolz said:
.... and there's a verse in it that is rude about crushing the Scots. Even though it's been 'removed' it's still pretty bad for a 'united' kingdom. I'd guess our anthem would be changed if we get independence :D
Click to expand...

Not true. Have a read of the Wikipedia article on the national anthem that covers the various additions to the not-then-the-national anthem, additions such as:

God bless the prince, I pray,
God bless the prince, I pray,
Charlie I mean;
That Scotland we may see
Freed from vile Presbyt'ry,
Both George and his Feckie,
Ever so, Amen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom