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

[frogmiller]

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.

I think that after Charles the connection between the Royals and political system will lessen. I don't think Will ad Harry have the stomach for it.
The Queen has sat through years of deminishing responsibilities and Charles will be the last to benefit from connection.

Good debate.

[monty_rhodes]

Why replace em wi owt? It's not just about tourism though is it? Its what they represent ie privilege.

I'm getting worried as once again I agree with roly. The existence of the royal family gives an imprimatur to privilege and supports the whole rotten edifice of privilege. Oh and many of them supported the Nazis too. The tourism thing is a red herring and is basically bullsh*t. The argument that an elected president might be worse is a non-starter as its logical conclusion is to do away with democracy altogether.

[millmoormagic]

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?

They still are entrenched in it, that's my point, the heir to the throne took his kid to a shoot earlier this year, pathetic, you could say ah, but it's just a grouse, or a pheasant, or a partridge, or a woodcock, they're still living beings which feel pain just as we do, another aspect is the collateral damage they do in their hunting activities, the predators persecuted on most grouse moors by gamekeepers etc etc.

[frogmiller]

Do you think that privilege will go away if the Royal family were gone?

The studies on why foreign students come to the universities in Britain isn't for the superior education. It's a great form of networking for them.

Look at it this way. Putin has privilege, Hitler had privilage and any dictator and his cronies have privilege in the same way that anyone with a bank load of money has privilege.

Greed would take its place and we'd all be fighting for the same thing but on different levels. Only those at the top surrounded by people to protect them would win and for their support they would give them privileges.

[rolymiller]

No, of course not Frog, its just that the Royal family epitomises privilege. My argument is to revere privilege is not a good thing for society. Why can't we revere people who don't have privilege ie admire them for getting on on nowt? Those who don't have a leg up? Those who are happy to live simple lives? Surely these are the human beings we should aspire to be the ones who aren't straining the planets resources. Why is wealth good?

[monty_rhodes]

Do you think that privilege will go away if the Royal family were gone?

The studies on why foreign students come to the universities in Britain isn't for the superior education. It's a great form of networking for them.

Look at it this way. Putin has privilege, Hitler had privilage and any dictator and his cronies have privilege in the same way that anyone with a bank load of money has privilege.

Greed would take its place and we'd all be fighting for the same thing but on different levels. Only those at the top surrounded by people to protect them would win and for their support they would give them privileges.

I don't disagree with some of what you say, frog, although you do conflate a few separate issues.
Firstly, no, I don't think privilege would go away if we ended the monarchy but I do think it's an essential prerequisite to any meaningful attempt at reducing privilege in Britain.
Secondly, the universities/students thing seems to me to be a different issue and the debasement and commercialisation of our universities is definitely a topic worth exploring but it's a big topic and one that probably involves examining some sacred cows.
Thirdly, I am not sure Putin and Hitler are really the most representative examples of democratic leaders. That said, at least neither was born to a position of power and both "made it" by convincing large sections of their populations that they were right. Hitler ended up dead in a bunker while dear old royal Wilhelm II - architect at least in part of WW1 - ended up in luxurious exile in Holland.
Fourthly, your greed point is probably right except I can't see how it "would take its place"? Are you implying here that monarchy, aristocracy and inherited privilege are somehow holding a nastier greed at bay? Not sure at all I could agree with that.

[Pocket rocket]

Can I ask what privileged is?
Is it anyone with money ?
I’m intrigued

[rolymiller]

privilege
ˈprɪvɪlɪdʒ/Submit
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
"education is a right, not a privilege"
synonyms: advantage, right, benefit, prerogative, entitlement, birthright, due; concession, freedom, liberty

verbFORMAL
1.
grant a privilege or privileges to.


There you are PocketR from an on line dictionary.

[Pocket rocket]

Bloody hell Roly a simple yes or no would have done 😁
Well in that case I agree with you 😉

[great_fire]

Look at it this way. Putin has privilege, Hitler had privilage and any dictator and his cronies have privilege in the same way that anyone with a bank load of money has privilege.

Don't know much about Putin but Hitler wasn't from a privileged background at all.

Of course to the SJW cultural Marxists (who are in fact racist) just being white and male means you're privileged, so a homeless white man is privileged whereas Oprah and Jay-Z aren't.