• 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

Muse
Scopedog
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
928
How do British skeptical/atheist/critical thinking-types feel about the the royal family? Do you get upset and defend them when foreigners trash them? Do you say "God save the king/queen"? Will you support the next monarch when Elizabeth passes away? Do they serve a purpose?

I'm American so I can't really contribute.
 
Scopedog said:
How do British skeptical/atheist/critical thinking-types feel about the the royal family? Do you get upset and defend them when foreigners trash them? Do you say "God save the king/queen"? Will you support the next monarch when Elizabeth passes away? Do they serve a purpose?

I'm American so I can't really contribute.
Click to expand...

Of course you can contribute, if for no other reason than because your own country was founded on splitting from the genial king the founders libelled as a tyrant.

I would also think that atheists/skeptics/critical thinkers should be able to voice their opinions on the political systems of other countries easily enough.

For my own part, I am not a royalist or a monarchist and think there is no legitimacy for the Royal Family having the power that they do; nor should the UK's citizens have to show deference towards the current Queen or future King.

But having said that, if the public seem to favour retaining her as Head-of-State then it would be democratic (of a kind) to continue doing so until the time in which she or her offspring are no longer favoured.

The other thing that nags at me is the idea of a President Cameron is enough to keep me awake at night terror-stricken.

I think it is a more rational option to hold on to the monarchy rather than put my faith in the know-nothing intellectual vaccuums which make up our political class to assemble a better constitution.
 
angrysoba said:
I think it is a more rational option to hold on to the monarchy rather than put my faith in the know-nothing intellectual vaccuums which make up our political class to assemble a better constitution.
Click to expand...

The Westminster system has proved a very adaptable serviceable and enduring form of government. Many nations continue to use it to this day - When it comes to politics, don't fix what ain't broke
 
Why ask only the Brits? The rest of European monarchies not good enough for you?
 
MG1962 said:
The Westminster system has proved a very adaptable serviceable and enduring form of government. Many nations continue to use it to this day - When it comes to politics, don't fix what ain't broke
Click to expand...

Precisely. I take a very Burkean view of our venerable constitution and have an enormous distrust of newfangled modish modernizers, damn their eyes!

;)

Ryokan said:
Why ask only the Brits? The rest of European monarchies not good enough for you?
Click to expand...

Go on, risk being a bit off-topic and tell us what you think of your monarchy.
 
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.
 
Scopedog said:
How do British skeptical/atheist/critical thinking-types feel about the the royal family? Do you get upset and defend them when foreigners trash them? Do you say "God save the king/queen"? Will you support the next monarch when Elizabeth passes away? Do they serve a purpose?

I'm American so I can't really contribute.
Click to expand...

The Royal Family are a waste of space. The sooner we are done with them the better. Just a shame that an independent Scotland is going to keep them as Heads of State.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
The Royal Family are a waste of space. The sooner we are done with them the better. Just a shame that an independent Scotland is going to keep them as Heads of State.
Click to expand...

As long as you keep them and pay for them you'll get my vote for independence! :) You should give them a job running your tourism industry - after all her family were great pioneers in what is marketed as Scottish tourism these days....




*Obligatory note that the above is meant to be taken light heartedly and is not an example from someone in the part of our country designated as "England" of "English" imperialism and possessiveness of the part of our country designated as "Scotland". Who indeed might be moving to Scotland in the next 12 months so will presumably be voting on whether to breakup the UK or not!
 
angrysoba said:
The other thing that nags at me is the idea of a President Cameron is enough to keep me awake at night terror-stricken.
.
Click to expand...

At least you have a choice though.

A King Charles III is enough to keep me awake but there isn't anything you can do about that.

Having said that, I think there is considerable value in a benign, apolitical head of state, but it shouldn't be heriditary.
 
angrysoba said:
...snip...

The other thing that nags at me is the idea of a President Cameron is enough to keep me awake at night terror-stricken.

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

Cameron already has more power than most "heads of states", for all extent and purposes in the real world Cameron (or rather our PM) is the head of state of the UK. The royal family are a frippery that I would say considering that everything has to be cut "because of the deficit" should be cut now. Confiscate all the stuff she currently pseudo-owns as "head of state", bung her 10 million in severance pay and present her with a gold clock with a few diamonds on it. I can't think of a more fitting way to celebrate her diamond jubilee.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
At least you have a choice though.

A King Charles III is enough to keep me awake but there isn't anything you can do about that.

Having said that, I think there is considerable value in a benign, apolitical head of state, but it shouldn't be heriditary.
Click to expand...

Trouble is that if it isn't heriditary then you have zero chance of making the appointment apolitical.
 
You've also got to consider that not only the UK, but also the political systems of many other nations use Liz and family as heads of state (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) and any removal causes a rather large and cumbersome ripple effect across a large swath of countries political, and legal systems.

It's a little more complicated than just changing the drapes.

Not to mention that I've grown fond of my Captain-General over the years.
 
Ryokan said:
Why ask only the Brits? The rest of European monarchies not good enough for you?
Click to expand...

The British royals are the most famous and overexposed. From my ignorant American perspective it also seems likes Britain is the European country most analogous to the US and seems like they should have been among the first to outgrow that tradition by now.

Back to the topic:

If you (Brits) met the royals in public would you willingly follow all the rules that go along with meeting them? There's a lot of rules that go along with meeting the American president but at least we ostensibly chose him.
 
Last edited:
Scopedog said:
If you (Brits) met the royals in public would you willingly follow all the rules that go along with meeting them? There's a lot of rules that go along with meeting the American president but at least we chose him.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid I was playing at a music event attended by Prince Edward. Eddie was "chatting" to some of the people there, and approached my younger brother, asking him if he was enjoying the music. My brother replied "Aye, it's aalreet I suppose" and wandered away from him.
 
Well I've sworn the oath of attestation three times now (TA as a sproglet, regular army, and TA as old fart):

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

You get the option to substitute variations instead of the Almighty God bit. You could say that politicians count as 'officers' but to hell with that. My loyalty is to HMQ, not necessarily HMG. She's served the country far better than any of the two-faced morons who occupy the benches in Westminster.

Can I get off the fence now...?
 
Border Reiver said:
You've also got to consider that not only the UK, but also the political systems of many other nations use Liz and family as heads of state (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) and any removal causes a rather large and cumbersome ripple effect across a large swath of countries political, and legal systems.

It's a little more complicated than just changing the drapes.

Not to mention that I've grown fond of my Captain-General over the years.
Click to expand...


Nope nowt we (the UK) do with regards to our royalty has an effect on other countries and their relationship with those individuals. (ETA: Well I suppose if we executed the entire family that would have an effect and even I'm not hoping for that!)
 
Mikemcc said:
...snip...

You get the option to substitute variations instead of the Almighty God bit. You could say that politicians count as 'officers' but to hell with that. My loyalty is to HMQ, not necessarily HMG. She's served the country far better than any of the two-faced morons who occupy the benches in Westminster.
Can I get off the fence now...?
Click to expand...


Seriously - how?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom