Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dan Bidewell

Your thoughts on the royal family of England?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If you agree that funding them with public money is right then yes. There is also the issue of people in the UK being subjects of a monarch and not free citizens, and also the existence of the Royal Family prevents any real attempt at laying down a codified constitution- it would be quite nice to know what our rights are afterall. :worry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They certainly have enough money of their own (although it only costs each of us 64p a year to keep them), s I suppose they should be self-funding. But on the other hand, they are basically working for us so shouldn't they be paid?

And then secondly the other problem I have is that surely the Royal Family is not a very fair way of choosing a head of state, even if it is a head of state with symbolic powers only. Although I would rather keep Elizabeth I or have a Charles III than end up with el Presidente Blair.

And then surely for them (the Royal Family) is it really fair to expect them to sacrifice their lives just for our entertainment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I absolutely LOVE the Royal Family (English one). Does that make me a really, really, really useless Objectivist?
Well, tax-support issues aside, why? How do they stack up, in your estimation, compared to Graham Norton or Charles Clarke? I like the woman who solves those math problems on that afternoon math puzzle show (forgot what it's called or what her name is): she's attractive and frighteningly capable. What do the royals have going in their favor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They certainly have enough money of their own (although it only costs each of us 64p a year to keep them), s I suppose they should be self-funding. But on the other hand, they are basically working for us so shouldn't they be paid?

That's 64p of my (parents) hard earned money they're taking to fund Charles' eco-ranting!

And then surely for them (the Royal Family) is it really fair to expect them to sacrifice their lives just for our entertainment?

If they dislike their job they could always choose to abdicate. Myself, I'd prefer to vote for my head of state rather than hoping the latest monarch spawns a reasonably capable successor - but hey, at least they've stopped the policy of inbreeding!

I like the woman who solves those math problems on that afternoon math puzzle show (forgot what it's called or what her name is): she's attractive and frighteningly capable.

It's called Countdown and she's called Carol Vorderman. Incidentally, she lives in the same apartment building as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the woman who solves those math problems on that afternoon math puzzle show (forgot what it's called or what her name is): she's attractive and frighteningly capable. What do the royals have going in their favor?

Vorders is rather great! I think the Privy Council might have her on standby in the event of the entire House of Windsor being wiped out in an horrific pony accident.

Even if they abdicatd they would remain of huge public interest.

And that is the thing - the Queen never would - she sees monarchy as her duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do the royals have going in their favor?

Prince Edward is hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip...versial_remarks

To a British student in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"

To the President of Nigeria, who was dressed in traditional Muslim robes, "You look like you're ready for bed!"

When a twelve-year-old boy told the Prince that he aspired to be an astronaut, His Highness responded, "You're too fat."

And so on.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prince Philip is brill. His mother had was mad, was locked up in an asylum, Freud recommended her ovaries be exposed to radiation to hasten the menopause - oh, and he was born on the kitchen table.

But his remark about the fat boy was true - the kid was a bit of a biffer. And everyone was shocked by what Philip said. But he was only saying the truth. It wasn't enough that the little glutton wanted to be an astronaut, he also had to do something to work towards it. First off, losing weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called Countdown and she's called Carol Vorderman.
Yes, of course, it all comes back. Though I don't think I ever knew how to spell it -- Voldemann, Vaughdeman, whatever. Mebbe if I had heard Graham pronounce it. I see Richard Whiteley died recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myself, I'd prefer to vote for my head of state rather than hoping the latest monarch spawns a reasonably capable successor - but hey, at least they've stopped the policy of inbreeding!

Agreed. Republican rule should produce the best choices, right? I mean the only other alternatives are fascism, oligarchy, monarchy or absolute democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The royals probably provide about as much entertainment value as some of the more peculiar parts of the U.S. government. (Read Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway and you'll see what I mean.) I don't see how liking them makes you a useless Objectivist. Unless you like them for the fact that they damage your interests.

You're just quirky like the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. Republican rule should produce the best choices, right? I mean the only other alternatives are fascism, oligarchy, monarchy or absolute democracy.

Sarcasm? Drawing attention to a constitutionally delimited government by omitting it?

Edited by xavier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And then secondly the other problem I have is that surely the Royal Family is not a very fair way of choosing a head of state, even if it is a head of state with symbolic powers only. Although I would rather keep Elizabeth I or have a Charles III than end up with el Presidente Blair.

Her Majesty is Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth I.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp

If you-all want to keep a hereditary monarchy and yet introduce an element of popular choice, I suggest that before a new monarch is installed you-all hold a referendum on whether he/she should be crowned. If the people vote against him/her, then you-all should move on to the next member of the royal family in the line of succession (as if the one who was rejected had died or abdicated); and try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

When I think of the “United” Kingdom, I thank my progenitors that as one of Celtic descent that I was born in America, or I would have ended up as a member of the IRA, and most likely would have ended up dead or in worse in jail.

As for the royals, I use them as an example of the worst case on inbreeding and welfare that the world has yet seen. Of course it is not just the British “royalty” I comment on, but all the supposedly “noble” family lines that are left in Europe. They are few and far between thank the gods.

As has been pointed out on this thread in earlier comments, I am glad to be a citizen of the United States, rather than being the subject of some inbred fool, that rules simply because of his bloodline. Not that our elected leaders are any less foolish.

Don’t get me wrong, I respect English history, I see it as the old testament of American history, but as one that is a citizen, not a subject I understand the difference.

Not that we don’t have “royal” blood lines in America. Look at the Kennedy’s or the Bush’s, if you want to talk “noble” blood lines in America. In fact I can almost guarantee that George Prescott Bush will one day be president of the US.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. It was my understanding that British royalty didn't do any actual "ruling" these days--that they're pretty much just there to wave and smile--that, for all practical purposes, they're spokesmodels. Is this incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howdy All,

When I think of the “United” Kingdom, I thank my progenitors that as one of Celtic descent that I was born in America, or I would have ended up as a member of the IRA,

I hope you are joking.

I have a question. It was my understanding that British royalty didn't do any actual "ruling" these days--that they're pretty much just there to wave and smile--that, for all practical purposes, they're spokesmodels. Is this incorrect?

You arr right. The Queen is purely symbolic, however she does still read all state papers and have a weekly audience with the prime-minister, and so wields some weight unofficially. She is also head of the Commonwealth, and so can be effective (to an extent) in Britain's foreign policy to the Commonwealth countires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question. It was my understanding that British royalty didn't do any actual "ruling" these days--that they're pretty much just there to wave and smile--that, for all practical purposes, they're spokesmodels. Is this incorrect?

Yeah its a formality. Basically the Queen is presented with the new bills of parliament and she has to sign every one of them to make it an 'official' bill. However she cannot refuse to sign them (if she does she will be removed from office I believe). SO they have no political power in that sense.

regards

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah its a formality. Basically the Queen is presented with the new bills of parliament and she has to sign every one of them to make it an 'official' bill. However she cannot refuse to sign them (if she does she will be removed from office I believe). SO they have no political power in that sense.

regards

Nick

Well, she can "lose" them and drag her feet over signing them, a she did over certain post-office legislation, until the government ran of time and the changes were dropped (which were minor enough anyway, something about taking her head off the stamps)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You arr right. The Queen is purely symbolic, however she does still read all state papers and have a weekly audience with the prime-minister, and so wields some weight unofficially. She is also head of the Commonwealth, and so can be effective (to an extent) in Britain's foreign policy to the Commonwealth countires.

Well, in that case, I'll just throw anything people said against the queen on those grounds right out the window. If she has no real power, then Britain is in no sense a real monarchy.

The royal family is a huge batch of glorified welfare recipients, though, and that's something to disvalue about them. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't value other things about them. Finding value in the royal family is perfectly ok, as long as you recognize the reasons why they benefit your life, along with the ways in which they don't, and make your judgment taking all of those facts into consideration. The fact that something is objectively an overall value, doesn't mean it's necessarily valuable in all respects. I might think it's silly, and so might others, but who cares? You clearly don't. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I am guessing that the UK's royalty is not like Denmark's, where the royalty there have to pay full taxes?

No, the Windsors all pay tax, but only for the last ten years or so. They also generate more for the British economy than the Queen Margarethe does for the Danes'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...