What do you think of the Royal family ??

Dear Mista h,

I think that you need to be careful what you wish for. That is what I think. I am not much interested in the personalities, but the institution has served us much better in its stabilising role than the systems in place among our closest allies in the world, and I am not sure what model you would have for a replacement for our constitutional monarchy, but it would be easy to select a more expensive and less stable presidential system and that is for sure. 

Who fancies a Britain with President Thatcher, or Blair, or Brown, or even Cameron in time?

Not me in any case, even if I am not surprised that the Royals do show themselves as being as human as the rest of us from time to time!

ATB from George

Yeah agree with George.

The armed forces serve and are loyal to The Queen. Not President Cameron or Blair or Thatcher.

Makes me sleep easier at night.

The financial side? Couldn't care less - it's a flea bite in the economy of this country.

I am not sure it iis logical to do so but I rather split the issue.

Firstly I find many of the specific individuals pretty unimpressive at best, and Charles is probably the worst. I find his meddling and vague new age spiritual droolings pretty pathetic.

However the concept of having a Royal Family somehow seems a good idea, not least because I am not wild about the alternatives. Not exactly a ringing endorsement but I do not feel so engaged to be chucking them out.

So a smidge warmer then ambivalence from me.

Bruce

That is what he's supposed to do. He's a spare prince. Spare princes have always been upmarket chavs, and it's a role Harry plays brilliantly. He doesn't look anything like his "official" dad, he dresses as a Nazi at parties, has an endless stream of posh blonde totty on his arm and spends most of the time when he's not doing something in the Army drinking Bolly in China White.

What's not to like?

Big Phil's innumerable gaffes have added immeasurably to the gaiety of the nation over the years.

Again, what's not to like?

Dear Tony,

Wealth and influence will continue under any system of selecting the head of state. Do you think the USA is a perfect meritocracy? I'd say that they are even more socially entrenched than we in the UK.

An example of a country that is far more meritocratic then we or the USA are is Norway, and yes they have a constitutional monarchy though only instrituted in its current form just over a century ago. I think a nation will, over time, reflect itself in its elected government, and as such the UK is evolving without revolution towards a better more fair society. Ehem, except that then came Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair, and things went into a reverse, where the haves have it rather good, and termites have to put up with it! That is absolutely nothing to do with having a monarchy or not, but rather that most were suckered into thinking that they would be better off in this new dispensation of capitalistic deregulation! Why do people believe politicians, who only ever do what best suits themselves and their rich cronies. I reckon that the monarchy is ultimately a bastion against deceitful politicians whom we are foolish enough to give a mandate to via the ballot box. "We are all in this together!" Yeah, right!

In the Norwegian case there was a pair of plebiscites. One to devide wehther the Norwegians wanted independance from Sweden, and the second as a vote in favour or otherwise of the King. They could have rejected the King, and thus would have entered the world of newly independant nations as a republic. The vote for independence was 99% in favour, and over 70% for the King, a few months later. Only Poland has held plebiscites of apporval for monarchs. I am apt to think that is is not a foolish idea in the rare event of a major constitutional change. 

ATB from George

I'm a bit of an agnostic about the Royals as well Phil.

I think the Queen is universally and globally admired and respected (except by republicans of course), and is a huge asset to the country. Wills and Kate seem to be extraordinarily well-liked and are also an asset to the country. Anne works hard, and has inherited her Dad's grumpiness, which makes her OK in my book. Harry is a laugh. I like Camilla (who by all accounts likes a crafty fag, a dirty joke and swears like a docker) also (and she's much more interesting than Diana).

Chaz is well-meaning but currently prone to politicised meddling, which makes him unsuitable as King. Andy is an utter waste of space (and money) as is Edward as are all the rest. The Royal Family is way too big and should be slimmed down once the present Queen dies. I also detest the simpering obsequieousness of the Royal correspondents and I dislike the whole industry that has grown round HRH.

However, I remain unconvinced that a republic would be any cheaper than the current set-up - or, more importantly, any better. As George says, the prospect of a President Thatch, Blair, Johnson or Branson is stomach-turning. And all the pomp and pageantry is actually great fun, isn't it?

When the current Queen dies, it will be a huge shock to the country - not in a treacly, touchy-feelie Diana way, but in a very sombre way. It really will - in that much overused phrase - be the end of an era when the old girl goes. I hope she carries on living at least as long as her Mum did.

I wish her the hundred years as well!

ATB from George

I'm with George on this one. Although not an out and out Royalist the alternatives don't bear thinking about.

As was shown there was generally great public support during the Jubilee celebrations, even in Australia, and for all they cost the country they attract more revenue in tourism etc. I think you'll find the Republican and far left views expressed on the other thread would, thankfully, be in a very small minority if a poll of the general public was made regarding the Monarchy.

On a personal note I do agree that a number of Royals don't do themselves any favours, eg Andrew and his kids. But William and Harry appear to be bucking the trend, allowing for a few wild parties.

Steve

The upper classes have long leeched off this country and its people Tony. However there is now a far more insidious influence at work in our society. I call it "The Manageriat" - the political and corporate upper class which exists only to enrich itself. These people destroy companies and shareholder value (often thanks to the spinelessness of shareholders and boards), treat staff and customers like turds and generally act as if they owe society and their underlings nothing.All the time while lining their own pockets.

Members of this despicable class include Rupert and James Murdoch and their various hench(wo)men, Adam Applegarth, Fred Goodwin, Blair, Osborne, Jack Welch, Dick Fuld, Ken Lay, Conrad Black, Mandelson, Mike Zafirovski, Carly Fiorina, Sly Bailey, Dick Cheney, Jonathan Schwartz, Carla Hendra, Don Rumsfeld, Henry Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, Bernard Ebbers, John Birt, etc on and on it goes, this depressing litany of money grabbers, plunderers, tax-avoiders and looters.

At least the Queen (and, it would seem, her grandson) has, and is driven by, a strong sense of duty. Which is more than you can say for vile parasites like Goldman Sachs and various other corporate fat cats.

A highly subjective area. I suspect one's position is unlikely to change no matter what the counter argument, so in the spirit of wasting bandwidth I will state my position and withdraw. To wit - a cohort of inbred retards residing over a larger but relatively tiny retarded cohort who by mostly devious means "own" most of the wealth of the country. It's not all bad though, we've got kings, queens, princesses, fares, goblins, dragons, castles, magic swords...... is it any wonder we are taken so seriously?

One of these days this country will grow up and move on from the infantilism that needs the security blanket of a 'royal' family to provide a head of state. This royal head of state, whose only qualification is to be the offspring of their parents, could be a complete nincompoop, as the next in line has already shown himself to be.

The hereditary principle is an affront to any concept of democracy, encourages a class system, and seems to provide endless opportunities for displays of the most nauseating sycophancy.

The armed forces and the civil service serve the country, as represented by the head of state. Can't we behave as a mature democracy, modernise our institutions, and choose our head of state  ?? 

I think it is not so difficult to find what is wrong with our position today. Easy to throw stones at a stationary target, but what is crucial is that we arrive at something better if we go in for change. 

How does one make sure that politicising the position of head of state will not actually entrench the position of the ultra-rich movers and shakers as mentioned by Kevin?

I have yet to see how we would not be subject to exactly the same money racket that surrounds the election of the US President, and with a few notable exceptions most of those in the last century would make our Royals look like models in the role of head of state. 

I am quite sure that when the time comes for the next monarch to come to rule, there will be significant changes to the extent and role of the Royal firm. If one looks at the institution over the last four century, it has constantly updated itself quite fast enough to keep this country a long way from revolution, which is a phenomenon that tends to replace one set of racketeers with another lot, no better than the first! 

Anyway that is all I have to say. Unless the criticism is supplied with a sure plan for improvement, then it is a question of being careful what you are wishing for. 

ATB from George

How can anybody knock the Queen after what she did this year?

I had an extra day off and went to three jubilee parties coursey of Her Maj for starters. 

Then to cap it all this 86 year old woman made her entrance to London 2012 by jumping with James Bond from a chopper over the Olympic Stadium

More courage than me, I can tell you 

Even John Lydon sang God Save The Queen
- shame Ryan Giggs couldn't (should have played Beckham instead)

> Can't we behave as a mature democracy, modernise our institutions, and choose our head of state? 

Why? 

Personally, I prefer the old way of choosing a leader for the government, if he or she can pull the sword out of the rock then that is good enough for me ....

Being afraid to change for fear of something worse is a rather sad inditement of our lack of confidence as a nation. (Afraid of leaving Nurse in case of someone worse ??)

With some thought and discussion I am sure we could come up with a democratic system that would provide for a non-executive head of state. The elected head of state would act as a national figurehead who would serve for a fixed period of time. The candidates would not necessarily be political but could be drawn more widely from prominent or worthy people in public life who could command the respect of the electorate.

They would have legitimacy through being democratically elected.The Irish Presidency is possible example but I am sure there are others. Executive responsibility would remain within our Parliamentary system and we would rid ourselves of the dead hand of hereditary power and all the ghastly influences that come with it.

Spot on George, great post.

>Being afraid to change for fear of something worse is a rather sad inditement of our lack of confidence as a nation.

I have no lack of confidence ... 5 Gold medals and rising ... superb performance. 

Any country that stages the greatest open ceremony ever seen should not lack confidence. 

if you want happiness .. listen to me

Look only at the things you want to see

Ted Nugent - 1967 from Journey to the Centre of the Mind. 

Why on earth would we want to come up with some democratic whatever ... we're OK as we are, especially as we change the government regularly so they can't do too much harm ... I certainly don't want any more elections ... life's too short to wait for something else 

Nice Python flashback Guido. Thanks

There is some lovely mud down here Denis.

I watch Horrible History on CBBC with my 7 year old.

Its worth the licence fee for the history lesson and the great laughs.

Its worth a look even if you are a grown up it will make you laugh and you might even learn a few things.

Stu.

Mista

Have you read 'The Queen And I' by Sue Townsend (of Adrian Mole fame)?

This tells the tale of a new Government giving you your wish and removing the Royal Family.  They're moved on to a council housing estate somewhere.

Absolutely hilarious.

(And I notice used paperback copies are available for just 1p on Amazon)

Gavin

Hello Gavin

Looks like my sort of book. On your advice i have just ordered a copy from Amazon.

Thanks

Mista h