Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Reasons why the monarchy is good for the country

02:42 / 05.06.02

on a recent documentary about the queen Tony blair was interviewed and said something along the lines of 'i think most of my generation agree, when they think about it rationally, that the royal family is a good thing'

he never explained though, causing me to shout at the t.v 'why Tony?' anyway reasons for please

07:53 / 05.06.02

Ah but you're obviously not thinking rationally about it otherwise you'd know why. But as you're irrational Tony can't explain it to you.

Goodthoughts children and all that.

I love the way Labour defines its enemies as irrational or in the case of Tony Benn and others Mad.

But on the other hand Tony Benn, an Uzi and question time would be something to see.

09:12 / 05.06.02

Tourism. Apparently. I don't think it is enough to warrant their continued rule though, personally.

09:52 / 05.06.02

the establishment presumably finds comfort in the continuation of tradition - all the pomp is incredibly ritualistic. there is talk, well, suggestion, of allowing the oldest child to inherit the throne. i.e. girls! i have heard pro-monarchists recently declare that we're safer with a monarchy than having a republic 'because you might end up with someone like le pen'. a bit tricky to understand, as we suffered years of a very right wing prime minister in margaret thatcher and i wonder how much further she could've gone before the queen actually didn't rubber stamp legislation?

gozer the destructor

10:01 / 05.06.02

Whenever I have asked this in the past to people the replies are generally tourism, to which I have always responded the same as Cholister, that they are great ambassadors for the country (!? er...prince phil?) tradition, possibly the weakest of all the excuses...this week has been trully sickening with all this monarchist/nationalistic bullshit going on,

12:59 / 05.06.02

The tourism argument is fatally flawed. Tourists don't actually get to see the monarch, the get to see the buildings associated with the monarchy. That's the draw.

14:17 / 05.06.02

Well, yes, they get to see the buildings - but the buildings have a much stronger draw due to the 'real' queen that they know, or think, lives in them.

I think they probably do contribute to tourism. After all, this weekend was pretty phenomenal, and there were a LOT of tourists in that crowd.

Having said that, I'd still chop off all their heads. Or perhaps just retire them to a wee house by the coast. I don't think what they contribute is worth it, either in the money they cost or the hierarchy they represent.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

16:18 / 05.06.02

The 'better a monarchy than a republic' argument is toss too because not only is the queen supreme ruler in name only but it is an acknowledged fact that the Queen is not allowed to defy the will of the people (I think this was established around the time we got our new king after Cromwell had got rid of the last one), and the will of the people in this case does not mean the will of the people, but the will of Parliament. The Queen is not supposed to get political.

02:35 / 06.06.02

as to tourism, isn't the scandinavian system much more reasonable: fine. keep the damn queen for the tourists, and support her children on the dole, but that's it. no more hangers on, 35th in line to the throne and that nonsense. and for god sakes yes make it the oldest child.

or, bring back it's real power so we can watch rich people offing each other again, like in the good old days . . .

02:36 / 06.06.02

(damn! no apostrophe in "it's" above. nurse!)

Tryphena Absent

16:05 / 06.06.02

They do put on the best firework shows though and I kind of like the idea of street parties although it's obvious that RTS throw better ones.

08:48 / 07.06.02

Setting aside nationalistic arguments that are always raised in defence of the Queen, I think you have to decide on the Queen's role here. Does she play a constitutional role? If so, she is entitled to become political. The question then has to be how an unelected sovereign can justifiably exist in a democracy? Can she claim to be able to hold an apolitical stanpoint? What about being able to point towards the other unelected branches of Government that seem to work (you can't elect everything - eg the executive: civil service, armed forces, police, Expert committees; and the Judiciary: judges implementing common law/custom, interpretation of laws, lawyers drafting legislation & policy)? Surely Lords reform should take precedence over mornachy abolition, in both terms of money and time allocated?

If the Queen does not have a constitutional role, then can she be justified as an 'employee of the country'. I believe the civil list runs to around £35 million of public money to keep the Royal family (not including rreal estate, which would surely be maintained by the state anyway). Do tourists bring more than this to see the Queen and the associated trappings? Who knows,but they certainly have done in the last few weeks! It's arguable that its not a position that can be applied for by anyone, but hell, that applies to half the 'old boy' jobs in Britain!

The final problem is democracy itself! I think that support for the Royal family has shot up recently......

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

02:30 / 08.06.02

There was a good Mark Steel column a while back where he said something to the effect that "you don't get people going to Paris, going up the Eiffel Tower and saying 'well, yes, it's a lovely view, but the lack of a monarchy kind of spoils it'.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that the double bank holiday for the Jubilee could cost the UK economy £4 billion...