There's no end to what these Royals can do!

[frogmiller]

Erm, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, Buckingham Palace? I don't think red boxes are what people are coming to see.

Apparently last year Bangkok #1, London #2, Paris #3.

Tourism shouldn't be a reason for compromising on democracy though. There isn't good reason to think the lack of a state recognised monarch would affect tourism though. I'd favour an elected monarch with the largely ceremonial role perhaps every 20 years, and right now the Royal family would easily win, nothing would change except the anti democratic aspect of it.

I just think any child should be able to aspire to be head of state in the country they live, and we're of the countries where that isn't possible, but there are ways it can be achieved.

Firstly John I didn't say that they came to see them. They are iconic things that people throughout the world recognise. I accept the places you have mentioned are a good representation of what people see as British.

What is democratic about the way our government works with the oyal family?

We have a number of MPs voted for by the people. Then there is a second chamber. The Lords who scrutinise every bill that passes through the parlement.

This houses of lords with its Hereditary peers could be the base of anyones argument of un-democratic system in the UK. Some of its out dated appointments should be debated upon.
Having quangoes in there and appoited members who don't turn up often should be got rid of. Having ex polititions is a good thing as they know how the system works. Having heads of industry is another good thing as long as they turn up.

Should they be voted in every four or five years? I think that you have a good argument for that .

But to have two elected houses with two leaders isn't the way forward. The Prime Minister would be in a pointless apointment if there was a President as well.

Dmocracy isn't compremised on tourism John. The democratic system in the UK works fine without any Royal interfering and anyone can become Prime Minister.

[rolymiller]

Just to add to my previous comment on privilege. This is what it creates in society:[/url]


The poor feckers at the bottom don't have the same opportunities as those at the top because privilege generates privilege. It is self reinforcing. Admittedly it just doesn't apply to the Royals but while ever we ever have this in society it will never be fair. If you want an unfair world or think that unfairness is acceptable then fair enough. Personally, I don't.

[frogmiller]

Well any child can be Prime Minister, theoretically.

That's the important position.

Well it will be if we get out from the clutches of the EU.

The bottom line is so correct GT. Macrons abition isn't to run France it's to run the EU!

[frogmiller]

Just to add to my previous comment on privilege. This is what it creates in society:[-45835377[/url]


The poor feckers at the bottom don't have the same opportunities as those at the top. Admittedly it just doesn't apply to the Royals but while ever we ever have this in society it will never be fair. If you want an unfair world or think that unfairness is acceptable then fair enough. Personally, I don't.

You make a void and someone will fill it! Take out the Royals and someone with money to raise backing for the position will fill it. Again Trump or even worse a military coup

[millmoormagic]

Well any child can be Prime Minister, theoretically.

That's the important position.

Well it will be if we get out from the clutches of the EU.

Particularly if they were born into privelidge and went to Eton....

[rolymiller]

Are they that important the Royals? How many seriously care about them but a few right wing Tories fawning over them in reality? We get to be reminded of them through the media constantly and more so when one pops out a sprog, one has a wedding or snuffs it but the rest of the time we get on with our own lives which are vastly different to theirs. (Which is another point really, we have nowt in common with them). We are told that they are somehow super heros ie they open doors, show off scars. They are just ordinary human beings just like you and I in reality except they have privileges we don't get. They are the capitalist dream which tells us through the media that unbridled wealth is a good thing and summat to be looked up and aspired to and to be revered. In short it excuses greed and you only to have to look at the thread on environmental degradation to know how good that is for the planet.

[Brin]

The Royal weddings and state openings are shown arround the world. The BBC doesn't give the rights away!

Frog mi owd bean, for me the likes of Eugenie are far to down the royal list to warrant such pomp and splendour. If anyone should have picked up the whole bill, it should have been her lavishly rich Grandfather but, on no, they dip into the public purse once again.

Tourism? How many on here seriously think that literally thousands of people from around the world, flocked to see THIS wedding?

As for the BBC retaining rights etc to sell on, why do they charge such an extortionate licence fee if they make so much money from TV rights around the world?

[John2]

Firstly John I didn't say that they came to see them. They are iconic things that people throughout the world recognise. I accept the places you have mentioned are a good representation of what people see as British.

What is democratic about the way our government works with the oyal family?

We have a number of MPs voted for by the people. Then there is a second chamber. The Lords who scrutinise every bill that passes through the parlement.

This houses of lords with its Hereditary peers could be the base of anyones argument of un-democratic system in the UK. Some of its out dated appointments should be debated upon.
Having quangoes in there and appoited members who don't turn up often should be got rid of. Having ex polititions is a good thing as they know how the system works. Having heads of industry is another good thing as long as they turn up.

Should they be voted in every four or five years? I think that you have a good argument for that .

But to have two elected houses with two leaders isn't the way forward. The Prime Minister would be in a pointless apointment if there was a President as well.

Dmocracy isn't compremised on tourism John. The democratic system in the UK works fine without any Royal interfering and anyone can become Prime Minister.

I'm not saying our system doesn't work, it does, it's one of the most successful democracies in the world.

I'm just saying we should always strive to make it better and more democratic, we agree it's not perfect.

You're right about the Lords. The changes in 1999 did much to improve the situation, I can stomach appointments made by elected governments much in the way I can accept appointments in the judiciary system. The lack of restrictions and bloat of the lords certainly needs addressing and I would not be opposed to an elected lords, but it would need to be much different to how we elect MPs I think, we want to attract a different type of person.

People say the monarchy doesn't interfere with our government, but we know for a fact that the monarchy enjoys special influence. Prince Charles abuses his influence to lobby the government, peddling his utter ignorant position about things like homeopathy, just look at the black spider letters.

We also have to trust the monarchy to remain benevolent. They technically have huge powers, we're just relying on their common sense not to use them... why not just remove that risk from the system completely, history is full of examples of people who have abused their power. That said, I'd kind of like them to abuse it as it would be a very swift way to end the institution, I just think we can remove those powers in a way that retains the integrity of the institution from a traditional and even tourist perspective. The family and the palaces aren't going anywhere even if they cease to be head of state.

[millmoormagic]

Are they that important the Royals? How many seriously care about them but a few right wing Tories fawning over them in reality? We get to be reminded of them through the media constantly and more so when one pops out a sprog, one has a wedding or snuffs it but the rest of the time we get on with our own lives which are vastly different to theirs. (Which is another point really, we have nowt in common with them). We are told that they are somehow super heros ie they open doors, show off scars. They are just ordinary human beings just like you and I in reality except they have privileges we don't get. They are the capitalist dream which tells us through the media that unbridled wealth is a good thing and summat to be looked up and aspired to and to be revered. In short it excuses greed and you only to have to look at the thread on environmental degradation to know how good that is for the planet.

Indeed, i also find it quite staggering that Prince Charles, along with his sons, are now banging the drum about saving wild animals all over the world, hypocrisy at it's finest, they've no doubt shot many of the protected species themselves personally, their forefathers certainly did...

[John2]

Indeed, i also find it quite staggering that Prince Charles, along with his sons, are now banging the drum about saving wild animals all over the world, hypocrisy at it's finest, they've no doubt shot many of the protected species themselves personally, their forefathers certainly did...

I think that's a bit harsh, people are not responsible for the actions of their forefathers, and certainly should be encouraged for a change of heart if anything, not criticised for it! Would you rather they were entrenched in a hunting mindset?