On 6 Jun 2012 at 12:31pm jrsussex wrote:
Have read the posts on this thread. Amazes me that people still make futile attempts to decry our monarchy with the money argument. The civil list is far, far outweighed by the money brought in to the Exchequer by the tourism industry, add to that the level of world wide business the royals bring into the UK by their trips abroad.
Padster's comments on the Queen being dragged back to London was, in my view, the British press at its worse. In any family the tragedy of a young mother suddenly killed in a car accident would lead the family gathering round to protect the mother's children, which I believe is what they did. That did not please the British press, so they hounded them into bringing those children out into the open and were not satisfied until they had succeeded. How many of us would have liked that to happen within our families following such a tragedy? Do not forget a leading British newspaper printed a derogatory article about her on the day that Diana died, she was killed shortly after the paper was printed, too late to stop the distributiom.
On 6 Jun 2012 at 12:46pm Mr Forks wrote:
Do you read the Express or Mail?
On 6 Jun 2012 at 2:42pm jrsussex wrote:
I read most papers most days through the internet, helps me form a balanced view.
On 6 Jun 2012 at 3:29pm Not from around here wrote:
Jrsussex, as usual I find myself agreeing with you - good comments. You may have balanced views but unfortunately that will put you at odds with many on this forum who certainly don't even attempt to be balanced.
On 6 Jun 2012 at 3:40pm Southover Queen wrote:
It all depends on your definition of "balance". On this forum it also depends on where the pivot of each poster is and whether they're aware of their own bias. Very often they have no idea that there might be countervailing ideas to their own which aren't necessarily wrong, just different.
My bias is certainly left-leaning. I do wonder whether many of those whose inclination is to the right have any such insight.
On 6 Jun 2012 at 4:43pm not from around here wrote:
I'm fairly centre-ist in my views with a bias towards the right - but not always, depends on the issue. But yes it is fairly obvious that most posters on here are extremely left-leaning. Why should those on the right of political thinking have less 'insight' than those on the left or anywhere else? - I think you just kind-of proved my point really.
On 6 Jun 2012 at 5:02pm Southover Queen wrote:
"Extremely" left leaning? I wouldn't consider myself "extremely" left leaning. That's what I mean by where your pivot is.
"Why should those on the right of political thinking have less 'insight' than those on the left or anywhere else?" I said many, not all, and actually I'll stand by it. Many here do trot out undigested press propaganda without any apparent investment of thought into it. I don't for a second include the wider political community in that; just many of the posters on this forum.
That said, there are several who are more than willing to engage in a little critical thinking - I'd cite JRSussex, with whom I often disagree but whose views I respect - but many more who don't.
On 6 Jun 2012 at 7:07pm John wrote:
Though a left leaning republican myself, I know at least several royalists who are also socialists. Yes, it is possible. This is because support of royalty is no longer only a political issue. Many, with whom I discuss this issue, support royalty because of the economic value it is alleged that royalty provides, many support the queen because of her personality.
I am always sceptical when someone suggests that reading news online gives them the opportunity for a balanced view.
If one subscribes to online media the view will bias to those publications, if one is sourcing only the free media it is not possible to get an unbiased opinion as just about all free media is biased. This issue is backed up by research which shows that, when sourcing online opinion, one tends to filter out opinions which support our case, ditching those that don't.
On 7 Jun 2012 at 4:25am expat two wrote:
"The civil list is far, far outweighed by the money brought in to the Exchequer by the tourism industry" That may be true, but entirely irrelevant. Lets apply some critical thinking; the only royal property in the top ten grossing tourist attractions is Legoland. If the Windsors were executed tomorrow, people would still come and look at their obscenely opulent homes - maybe more. The Americans manage to get tourists to visit The Whitehouse, same with the Russians and The Kremlin and more pertinently the French have no trouble attracting tourists to Fontainbleu, and they haven't had a royal family for more than 160 years.
We do not need a monarchy to support tourism. That's just rubbish.
On 7 Jun 2012 at 9:06am Mercian wrote:
""The civil list is far, far outweighed by the money brought in to the Exchequer by the tourism industry"
So you think the tourists wouldn't flock here if we stopped subsidising the lifestyles of people such as Princess Michael of Kent?
The civil list doesn't include the massive amoutns of money the ROyal Family make from land they appropriated centuries ago - the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Cornwall - huge estates that are rightfully ours.
I'm not a republican per se but I don't see why we can't have a stripped down, core 'royal famiy' in the Dutch/Scandinavian style (perhaps with more costumes, though). I don't see how that would bother the tourists.
On 7 Jun 2012 at 9:31am Southover Queen wrote:
Hear, hear Mercian. I'm not a Republican for the simple reason that every democracy needs a head of state and actually the Queen seems to serve that function pretty well. (How I'll feel when Charles accedes is another matter: I think he's a bit of a plonker prone to interfering.) But for the moment, the status quo is fine.
I do think that no-one would notice if the "minor Royals" were given the boot and cut off from any public subsidy. Princess Michael is an easy target just by dint of being quite so splendidly unpleasant, but honestly, would we miss them? I don't think so.
The tourists just want to see soldiers marching round in bearskins in front of big buildings really, don't they? None of it really needs the vast numbers of scroungers and hangers on the Royal Family seems to have accumulated, so let's ditch 'em.
On 7 Jun 2012 at 9:34am Mercian wrote:
Someone (I can't remember who) on radio 4 was pointing out that the majority of people support the hereditary monarchy, but the majority also don't want Charles to be king (wanting the crown to pass straight to William). Clearly most people don't understand the concept of a "hereditary" monarchy.
On 7 Jun 2012 at 9:40am someone else wrote:
JRS - If you are going to make statements as stupid as:
"The civil list is far, far outweighed by the money brought in to the Exchequer by the tourism industry, add to that the level of world wide business the royals bring into the UK by their trips abroad."
You will have to justify them.
Paris and Washington seem to get a fair few visitors, despite them being in republics. Versailles seems to get a fair few visitors despite there being no monarch. How do you propose to show evidence that the UK gets more visitors than it would if there were no royal family?
How do you propose to demonstrate that Royal trips abroad are of genuine economic benefit? It's not as if other republican countries seem to find foreign trade more challenging than us.
And if you come back with, "Well it's common sense, innit?" I suspect my point is made.
On 7 Jun 2012 at 9:52am Kettle wrote:
JRS - I can understand how you can have respect for certain people such as the Queen (although I don't share this) but I cannot understand how you can think that inherited privilege is a good idea.
On 7 Jun 2012 at 3:32pm brixtonbelle wrote:
Thank you Mercian, SQ, Kettle, expat two and someone else. You have made all my points for me ! There is no evidence that the existence of the Royals brings more tourism to this country, it's just one of those falacious arguments that are trotted out to justify keeping them in place.
Britain has a grand and glorious history, amazing variety of landscapes, great cities, beautiful architecture etc. Tourists come for all those reasons, not just to 'see the queen' and the trooping of the colour.
Maybe those who love the monarchy so much would go a step further and extend the civil list to all those impoverished aristocrats on their country estates who have also contributed so much to our national history ? And then maybe to all the trades and manufacturers who helped build our great cities, and then maybe some more for the people who keep the countryside beautiful, and then some more for the people who run state services....oh hang on, this is starting to sound like some sort of benefits system....Taken to its logical conclusion the argument for the civil list becomes ridiculous and nonsensical.
On 7 Jun 2012 at 5:09pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
A monarchy is the most extreme manifestation of a lack of equality of opportunity imo.
In a democracy, for any individual to have power bestowed on them by an accident of birth, rather than by the will of the people, is a nonsense. It is also a nonsense for anyone to have power that cannot be taken away by the will of the people if the people become dissatisfied with the way that power is used.
I long to be a citizen, not a subject.
Some columnist the other day said that a monarchy "infantilises the people and frequently deranges the monarch", which made me chuckle.