GRcade

Errkal wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Errkal wrote:How ever you spell the word for happy feeling that's what I meant.

Your incorrect use of the word moral really raises morale on the forum.

Well it would just be immorale to lower the moral.

Errkal needs to learn to use the Queen’s English properly. Especially in this thread dedicated to the beautiful engagement of Harry.

Death's Head wrote:Precedent already set, Camilla is half horse.

Moggy wrote:I know I should care, but I just can’t ever bring myself to anger over still having a monarchy. They don’t cost much, they don’t really get in the way of anything and lots of people seem to love them. And they are good for a few extra bank holidays when the heir to the throne marries, the monarch dies and when a new one is crowned.

I am far more concerned with Bishops still being in the House of Lords and actually voting on laws than I am about some inbreds living in a palace and making a speech each year after the Top of the Pops Christmas special.

Absolutely this. There are so many more important things that require necessary change than the Royals which are totally harmless and in the case of Harry and William, seem like totally down to Earth, conscientious and relatively normal (i.e. likeable) people.

Drumstick wrote:in the case of Harry and William, seem like totally down to Earth, conscientious and relatively normal (i.e. likeable) people.

I wouldn’t go that far. They are still shape shifting alien lizards that should be exterminated.

It’s just I can’t be arsed to go through the hassle of calling in the exterminators.

I wonder though how many Royalists voted for Brexit and to “take back control”. If it would piss off the majority of Leavers to change from a Kingdom to a Republic, then I am happy to go along with turning the UK into the UR.

Maybe we can have a non-binding referendum about it.

Errkal wrote:Maybe we can have a non-binding referendum about it.

About shape shifting lizards? We could, but those lizard strawberry floats would cheat, remember to take a pen with you as they might rub out pencil!

Lagamorph wrote:

Preezy wrote:Do people genuinely think that "our taxes pay for the royals" is a serious argument against the Monarchy? Isn't the actual payout per citizen something like a pound a year?

It's not just that though. Beyond the 'allowance' that the Royal family receive each year from the public purse their security is paid for entirely by the Metropolitan Police and whenever they visit somewhere in the UK it's the local councils who have to fund travel/accommodation/security/everything else.

This is relevant

twitter.com/TheLateHarambe/status/935138077084971008

The royal family is an archaic concept. Couldn't give a strawberry float about them.

Whilst that is a totally fair point, that tweet is a bit disingenuous. The council chose not to spend that money even though they could comfortably afford it.

What a laughably naive tweet. The UK spends BILLIONS on the military, why single out the Royal Family's expenses over the money we waste fighting unwinnable wars in the desert?

The royal family are definitely unnecessary but there are so many worse things about our society, culture, political system, government, and budget priorities that I would want to fix first that I can't really get enthusiastic about republicanism.

Also whilst this is being pedantic, the total casualties of the Grenfell Tower disaster was 71. They weren't all infants and old women.

But I get he was trying to be dramatic.

Preezy wrote:What a laughably naive tweet. The UK spends BILLIONS on the military, why single out the Royal Family's expenses over the money we waste fighting unwinnable wars in the desert?

Because Grenfell and the Royal family epitomise the chasm in social inequality in modern Britain?

I don't think that tweet holds much water. I get what he is trying to do with it, and his heart is in the right place. But yeah, it is kinda naive.

While I may not be 100% behind the royal family, they do a lot of good for us, economically and otherwise.

Cuttooth wrote:

Preezy wrote:What a laughably naive tweet. The UK spends BILLIONS on the military, why single out the Royal Family's expenses over the money we waste fighting unwinnable wars in the desert?

Because Grenfell and the Royal family epitomise the chasm in social inequality in modern Britain?

That's a pretty good point, but it doesn't change the fact that the tweet is misguided. As Drumstick said, the council chose not to spend their money on that tower, trying to use Grenfell to bash the royal family doesn't work for me.

Preezy wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

Preezy wrote:What a laughably naive tweet. The UK spends BILLIONS on the military, why single out the Royal Family's expenses over the money we waste fighting unwinnable wars in the desert?

Because Grenfell and the Royal family epitomise the chasm in social inequality in modern Britain?

That's a pretty good point, but it doesn't change the fact that the tweet is misguided. As Drumstick said, the council chose not to spend their money on that tower, trying to use Grenfell to bash the royal family doesn't work for me.

People always try and link two pretty much unrelated things together like that.

“Why are we giving foreign aid when we have homeless people here!”
“Why are old people cold in the winter when Ian Huntley gets to live in a warm prison!”
“Why are footballers paid so much when nurses get hardly anything!”
“Why do we pay £350m a week to the EU, let’s fund our NHS instead!”

That Grenfell tweet is actually pretty disgusting though. Getting rid of the royals would have done nothing to help those people, the council were to blame for the immediate cause and the government for the secondary causes. It is not helpful to try and shift the blame onto the royal family.

It does serve to enforce that your circumstances of birth can determine your status in life, and that you are more important depending on who your family is.
It might not bother people, but it is a symbol of the inequality in the country. If you got rid of the beacon of inequality then maybe you could begin to address the rest of it

Hyperion wrote:It does serve to enforce that your circumstances of birth can determine your status in life, and that you are more important depending on who your family is.
It might not bother people, but it is a symbol of the inequality in the country. If you got rid of the beacon of inequality then maybe you could begin to address the rest of it

Except getting rid of the beacon of inequality would not lead to equality. That didn’t happen in France, America or any other place where they got rid of a monarchy.

Once you got rid of the monarchy, all that would happen is that things would be pretty much identical to now. Except with a President on top.

And the cost of a royal wedding is not in any way linked to the cladding on a tower block. The blame for the tower block lies with the local council/the government.

Yeah getting rid of them will do nothing other than to remove a "qwirk" of britishness that the rest of the world loves.
If you think them existing actually impacts how your life is and works you are wrong. There was once a time when teh Royal had an impact and getting rid may have been a good thing, now it makes very little difference and if anything is good for the country in terms of how we are seen around the world and as I have said before many get great joy from the processions and celebrations that go with them which again is a good thing.
There is no point getting rid as they dont do any actual harm, there are so many much bigger things to worry about that them, even on the point about showing that it is where you are born etc. you can say that about rich countries to poor and all the mega rich people in the country that out rich the royals by miles.
Getting rid will do nothing but remove a fun qwirk of britishness and remove something that many hold dear and brings them joy.

Moggy wrote:

Hyperion wrote:It does serve to enforce that your circumstances of birth can determine your status in life, and that you are more important depending on who your family is.
It might not bother people, but it is a symbol of the inequality in the country. If you got rid of the beacon of inequality then maybe you could begin to address the rest of it

Except getting rid of the beacon of inequality would not lead to equality. That didn’t happen in France, America or any other place where they got rid of a monarchy.

Once you got rid of the monarchy, all that would happen is that things would be pretty much identical to now. Except with a President on top.

But theoretically anyone could become that President. You're not telling society that no you can't do this because you weren't born in the right family

strawberry floating Royals and their damn qwirks.

Great reason for keeping them. The rest of the world finds it quirky