The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As a subject I have some strong views on, I thought I’d try to stir up some debate. If you could, what would you do with the Royal Family in the UK?
a) Have them go the way of Charles I. Behead the lot of them!
b) Sell off all their property and make them get real jobs.
c) Let them keep most of what they have, but stop funding them through taxes and take away what ceremonial power they have.
d) Leave things as they are.
e) Give them more money to continue their good work and uphold the good name of Britons around the World!
Personally, I think Royalty, as a concept, is a totally unjust way of ruling over a people. It’s essentially a dictatorship; only the next dictator is born into the job. In practice, the Royal family in this country has very little actual power nowadays anyway, so what’s my problem?
Well, therein lies part of my problem. People insist the Royals have a hard job, but what do they actually do? The Queen, in theory, has the power to make someone a minister or dismiss them (even the Prime Minister I believe), to pass or refuse to pass a bill into law, and to declare war and make peace. Does she do any of these? No. Many insist the Monarch is all that stands between us and having President Blair. But what would be the difference between President and Prime Minister Blair? Not much. The occasional trip to the Palace to ask for something that will inevitably be granted anyway. An unnecessary formality.
Yet more people tell me they represent us abroad. Jetting off to foreign countries to meet smiling diplomats and exchanging pleasantries with them. Sounds like an easy job to me really. Does this list of responsibilities really warrant the vast sums spent on them? And do you really feel proud with Prince Charles ‘representing’ you and your country? Lets face it, his bumbling antics are far more Mr. Bean than James Bond
And it’s not only the money we still spend on them. It’s what they’ve got in our name. A fair old while back, probably a couple of years now, a program was on investigating just how much the Royals were worth. As well as the income they gain through public money, they have a whole stash of goodies locked up that, in theory at least, belong to ‘the Nation’ and are simply held by the Monarchy in trust. Are they doing the Nation any good? No. They’re locked away in Palaces, never to be seen by members of the public, let alone benefiting them. Amongst some of the most expensive items was a rare kind of gem. Not only was it rare, it was the largest of it’s kind in the world. Not just a bit bigger than average, but so much bigger that experts couldn’t even guess what it would fetch at auction as it was so ‘off the scale’ of what they normally came across.
That’s not the end of the story. Millions of pounds are pumped into the Royals (not literally) every year. Transport costs, keeping their numerous palaces in full working order, even the Ministry of Defence, charged with defending the Queens Realm, forking out to use land on Duchy’s owned by the Royals.
So, what have we covered? Their pointless jobs, their vast wages… Oh, the army boy as well. Prince Harry doing all this rigorous training at Sandhurst. What’s the point? Is he really ever going to be fighting in the front line? Doubtful, seeing as he has a panic button to call heavily armed guards to his aid even while training to ‘Be the Best’ as it were. If there are intruders he should be gunning them down Rambo-style now that he’s in the army, not cowering behind large men in sharp suits.
Sorry, I’ll stop my anti-Royal tirade there.
But what do I think should be done with them? Well, since I’m vaguely realistic, I think we should keep them as ‘Royals’. But we shouldn’t be giving them any money whatsoever. Frankly, they can afford to sustain themselves, and if not they can always make up some sex scandal to sell to the News of the World. They can keep a palace or two to live in, but the rest should be opened as tourist attractions. The Americans love the whole Royal thing apparently. We should be selling some of the huge collection of art, jewels and other items they’re storing, or at least putting them in public galleries to be enjoyed by all. Finally, the supposed powers the Queen has should really be revoked. At least with someone who’s been elected we can boot them out again. Even after a beheading, the Royal family still came back like a very expensive rash.
Well, enough of my ranting. What do you think?
a) Have them go the way of Charles I. Behead the lot of them!
b) Sell off all their property and make them get real jobs.
c) Let them keep most of what they have, but stop funding them through taxes and take away what ceremonial power they have.
d) Leave things as they are.
e) Give them more money to continue their good work and uphold the good name of Britons around the World!
Personally, I think Royalty, as a concept, is a totally unjust way of ruling over a people. It’s essentially a dictatorship; only the next dictator is born into the job. In practice, the Royal family in this country has very little actual power nowadays anyway, so what’s my problem?
Well, therein lies part of my problem. People insist the Royals have a hard job, but what do they actually do? The Queen, in theory, has the power to make someone a minister or dismiss them (even the Prime Minister I believe), to pass or refuse to pass a bill into law, and to declare war and make peace. Does she do any of these? No. Many insist the Monarch is all that stands between us and having President Blair. But what would be the difference between President and Prime Minister Blair? Not much. The occasional trip to the Palace to ask for something that will inevitably be granted anyway. An unnecessary formality.
Yet more people tell me they represent us abroad. Jetting off to foreign countries to meet smiling diplomats and exchanging pleasantries with them. Sounds like an easy job to me really. Does this list of responsibilities really warrant the vast sums spent on them? And do you really feel proud with Prince Charles ‘representing’ you and your country? Lets face it, his bumbling antics are far more Mr. Bean than James Bond
And it’s not only the money we still spend on them. It’s what they’ve got in our name. A fair old while back, probably a couple of years now, a program was on investigating just how much the Royals were worth. As well as the income they gain through public money, they have a whole stash of goodies locked up that, in theory at least, belong to ‘the Nation’ and are simply held by the Monarchy in trust. Are they doing the Nation any good? No. They’re locked away in Palaces, never to be seen by members of the public, let alone benefiting them. Amongst some of the most expensive items was a rare kind of gem. Not only was it rare, it was the largest of it’s kind in the world. Not just a bit bigger than average, but so much bigger that experts couldn’t even guess what it would fetch at auction as it was so ‘off the scale’ of what they normally came across.
That’s not the end of the story. Millions of pounds are pumped into the Royals (not literally) every year. Transport costs, keeping their numerous palaces in full working order, even the Ministry of Defence, charged with defending the Queens Realm, forking out to use land on Duchy’s owned by the Royals.
So, what have we covered? Their pointless jobs, their vast wages… Oh, the army boy as well. Prince Harry doing all this rigorous training at Sandhurst. What’s the point? Is he really ever going to be fighting in the front line? Doubtful, seeing as he has a panic button to call heavily armed guards to his aid even while training to ‘Be the Best’ as it were. If there are intruders he should be gunning them down Rambo-style now that he’s in the army, not cowering behind large men in sharp suits.
Sorry, I’ll stop my anti-Royal tirade there.
But what do I think should be done with them? Well, since I’m vaguely realistic, I think we should keep them as ‘Royals’. But we shouldn’t be giving them any money whatsoever. Frankly, they can afford to sustain themselves, and if not they can always make up some sex scandal to sell to the News of the World. They can keep a palace or two to live in, but the rest should be opened as tourist attractions. The Americans love the whole Royal thing apparently. We should be selling some of the huge collection of art, jewels and other items they’re storing, or at least putting them in public galleries to be enjoyed by all. Finally, the supposed powers the Queen has should really be revoked. At least with someone who’s been elected we can boot them out again. Even after a beheading, the Royal family still came back like a very expensive rash.
Well, enough of my ranting. What do you think?
Page:
Sibs wrote:
> See, I'm not entirely convinced people come here because of the
> Royals themselves... More due to the palaces and suchlike. If
> we're taking the tourist angle, I'm sure a hell of a lot more
> money could be generated by actually opening more palaces (or
> sections of them) to the public for guided tours or whatnot.
>
> Oh, and giftshops with horrendously expensive souveniers,
> obviously...
Although the palaces and suchlike are lovely, my vote is to keep the Royals because they're the living history that gives the entire UK its aura of class. (looking from outside the box here) What do people from other countries think of when anything British comes about?? Tea! :) And then, the Royals, the lovely People's Princess Di (and her oh so tragic demise.. It was a conspiracy, I just know it!), how handsome Prince William is and who the boy will marry??? Harry, Harry..mmm, like fine wine much sweeter as he matures. Oh yes, and the farce of Charles and whatshername who's just so forgettable..
Again, the sites are fab, but the Royals and their novelty generate more (if not as much) revenue seducing tourists with their intriguing poshness, as say Stonehenge. There's just something in that. Enough to keep the Royal lot around for just kicks and giggles, I say
> See, I'm not entirely convinced people come here because of the
> Royals themselves... More due to the palaces and suchlike. If
> we're taking the tourist angle, I'm sure a hell of a lot more
> money could be generated by actually opening more palaces (or
> sections of them) to the public for guided tours or whatnot.
>
> Oh, and giftshops with horrendously expensive souveniers,
> obviously...
Although the palaces and suchlike are lovely, my vote is to keep the Royals because they're the living history that gives the entire UK its aura of class. (looking from outside the box here) What do people from other countries think of when anything British comes about?? Tea! :) And then, the Royals, the lovely People's Princess Di (and her oh so tragic demise.. It was a conspiracy, I just know it!), how handsome Prince William is and who the boy will marry??? Harry, Harry..mmm, like fine wine much sweeter as he matures. Oh yes, and the farce of Charles and whatshername who's just so forgettable..
Again, the sites are fab, but the Royals and their novelty generate more (if not as much) revenue seducing tourists with their intriguing poshness, as say Stonehenge. There's just something in that. Enough to keep the Royal lot around for just kicks and giggles, I say
OrkEater, I kinda agree with your decision, but I think your reasoning is a bit iffy... Maybe I'm mistaken, but you seem to be hinting that the Royals are redundant as they no longer have any real power. I think the very idea of Royalty is a flawed one. Even if they did have power it would be illegitimate power as they are simply born into it, with no validation from the people they supposedly represent.
I don't think the fact that we, as a country, used to wage war, take over countries to add them to our empire is anything to really be proud of. Nowadays we talk of how evil and wrong dictatorships are, yet Royal rule is just as unfair in that the people of the country have no say in who is ruling over them. It seems especially unfair to have a ruler who is not even from your country and does not understand your culture (perhaps has not even been to your country), as happened when Britain took over other countries to add to its Empire.
The very concept of Royalty seems completely unjust to me, and even though I realise they have very little power these days, what they represent is quite distasteful to me. But, being realistic, I realise it'd be very hard to convince the nationalistic Britons to abolish the Monarchy althogether, so generally I will say I don't mind the Royals 'existing' as a Royal Family as long as they have those powers they still have revoked (even though they don't use them), and they stop getting funded (partially) through taxes. Oh, and they start legally having to pay taxes too. I know recently they've voluntarily paid some tax, but I doubt it even approaches what they should be paying.
I don't think the fact that we, as a country, used to wage war, take over countries to add them to our empire is anything to really be proud of. Nowadays we talk of how evil and wrong dictatorships are, yet Royal rule is just as unfair in that the people of the country have no say in who is ruling over them. It seems especially unfair to have a ruler who is not even from your country and does not understand your culture (perhaps has not even been to your country), as happened when Britain took over other countries to add to its Empire.
The very concept of Royalty seems completely unjust to me, and even though I realise they have very little power these days, what they represent is quite distasteful to me. But, being realistic, I realise it'd be very hard to convince the nationalistic Britons to abolish the Monarchy althogether, so generally I will say I don't mind the Royals 'existing' as a Royal Family as long as they have those powers they still have revoked (even though they don't use them), and they stop getting funded (partially) through taxes. Oh, and they start legally having to pay taxes too. I know recently they've voluntarily paid some tax, but I doubt it even approaches what they should be paying.
Ladybird wrote:
And then, the Royals,
> the lovely People's Princess Di (and her oh so tragic demise..
> It was a conspiracy, I just know it!), how handsome Prince
> William is and who the boy will marry??? Harry, Harry..mmm,
> like fine wine much sweeter as he matures. Oh yes, and the
> farce of Charles and whatshername who's just so forgettable..
See, this, to me, is another problem. I don't think the concept of Royalty is fair to the people they are meant to represent and rule over, but nowadays it's also not fair to the Royals themselves. I wonder how many times the Princes, William and Harry, have wished they weren't actually Royals, their every move being recorded by the media, every relationship scrutinised, every drunken night on the front page of tabloids. Sure other celebrities have this problem, but they aren't really born into the job... Become an actor, popstar, whatever else and you're pretty much signing up for media attention. You use it to your advantage to make money from films/music/TV/etc. so if you have a bad experience with it every now and then, well it comes with the territory. The Royals, however, are born into it, and it shows no signs of getting less intrusive or sensationalist. Probably the opposite in fact.
And then, the Royals,
> the lovely People's Princess Di (and her oh so tragic demise..
> It was a conspiracy, I just know it!), how handsome Prince
> William is and who the boy will marry??? Harry, Harry..mmm,
> like fine wine much sweeter as he matures. Oh yes, and the
> farce of Charles and whatshername who's just so forgettable..
See, this, to me, is another problem. I don't think the concept of Royalty is fair to the people they are meant to represent and rule over, but nowadays it's also not fair to the Royals themselves. I wonder how many times the Princes, William and Harry, have wished they weren't actually Royals, their every move being recorded by the media, every relationship scrutinised, every drunken night on the front page of tabloids. Sure other celebrities have this problem, but they aren't really born into the job... Become an actor, popstar, whatever else and you're pretty much signing up for media attention. You use it to your advantage to make money from films/music/TV/etc. so if you have a bad experience with it every now and then, well it comes with the territory. The Royals, however, are born into it, and it shows no signs of getting less intrusive or sensationalist. Probably the opposite in fact.
Page: