What do the English Dopers think of the royal family?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Royal Family: I regard them as useless, ignorant parasites. Sooner we get rid of them, the better. Their popularity has a lot to do with the sycophantic treatment they get in most sections of the media, run by broadcasters and editors who want to suck up to the establishment in return for privileges.

The pro-monarchy arguments are all rather trite and tired.

“They generate tourist revenue”. How many of these tourists ever actually see a member of the royal parasites? None. They see Buck Palace, not the Queen. You can keep and maintain the trimmings of our royal ancestry - buildings, castles, etc. - without shelling out for an entire family of over-paid, ignorant, idle ‘royal’ leeches. Hampton Court is quite rightly a major tourist attraction, but has bugger all to do with the current set of ignorant, lazy-arsed royal parasites.

Also, even if the royals do serve a role as tourism magnets, that does not mean we have to pay them x millions of pounds every year. If the queen was the only person on the civil list, and only got 50 grand a year - we’d still have a royal family.

“They work hard”. Compared to most schmucks with ordinary day jobs, not really.

“They provide continuity above elected political leaders”. Fine. Keep one king\queen, paid a small salary. The rest of the leeches can get off their arses and work for a living.

“They do a great job”. By what criteria? Mostly they just make speeches. They can’t even do that well. Who can cite a single pithy, memorable or imporant thing the queen has ever said? And why does she always look as if there’s a bad smell at her feet?

22

I’d be interested to know the provenance of the survey to which The Great Philosopher referred. Could we have a link to it, or, if not possible, a mention of where it came from, please?

23

This link http://www.mori.com/ gives details of an opinion poll done in December 2000 by the MORI organisation for the News of the World tabloid. The figure in favour of remaining a monarchy is 63%. Elsewhere in the same link are results of a survey done in June 2000 for the Sunday Telegraph broadsheet where the figure for those wishing to remain a monarchy is 70%.

This link http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2000/guardian-monarchy-poll-may-2000.htm gives details of a survey done in May 2000 by ICM for the Guardian newspaper:

Without a monarchy, would Britain be

better off 27%
worse off 44%
don’t know 29%

The Guardian is considered liberal/vaguely left of centre, while the first two newspapers mentioned are considered very conservative. If the figures publicised by the News of the World and the Sunday Telegraph fail to reach the 90% quoted by The Great Philosopher, then I really do wonder where that 90% figure can come from.

And I should make a resolution to learn to to make tidy links. :slight_smile:

24

I feel entitled to respond living in Canada, because Queen Elizabeth is our queen as well. One of the thrills of my 50 years of life, was spending several months near Kings Lynn on The Wash back in 1975. Its a long story, but as a student on a major construction project, building an island several miles out on the tidal flats, I had the opportunity to meet and be of service to Princess Margaret. She had arrived as a guest of the East Anglian Water Authority for a brief look at the project, but because of a medical emergency requiring the immediate services of the hovercraft, she was somewhat stranded for an hour. As the junior surveyor on the site, I was asked to prepare a cup of coffee for the Princess, This I accomplished with a bunsen burner.Also, the Princess’s footwear was not adequate for touring the site and it just so happened that my boots were close to the same size as her feet. As a man, I have relatively small feet. I did not object when my “Wellies” were offered to her service. Imagine, royal dead skin cells and bacteria had comingled with my very own.

Of course, this is all about celebrity worship which we all succumb to in varying degrees, Now Americans think nothing of donating huge sums of money to their celebrities with overall much less return for their dollar than than the subjects of the Queen receive for their dollar.Family members work tirelessly for organisations and projects, lending their presence and support for all sorts of civic objectives. I know that when ever the Queen comes to visit a community in Canada, she will draw a crowd bigger than anyone else can.

As for me, the Royal Family keeps alive pomp and ceremony, which although outdated maintains a connection to a glorious past which can’t be preserved in a museum.

To discontinue the monarchy would be akin to discontinuing traditional weddings. No civil ceremony can provide the solemnity that traditional weddings offer. Americans can have their Presidential Oath of Office (I think that’s what the call it) but even if he is the most powerful man on earth, I won’t stay home to watch it on TV. But you can bet that I’ll be watching the next coronation of my king.

25

I’ve always had the suspicion that Canadians really only like the royal family because it’s something that distinguishes them from Americans.

26

I feel the (almost) continuity of the monarchy is a good thing and enjoy that link with a thousand years of history. On the other hand I feel no loyalty to the crown whatsoever and find that the royals, as people, and the extreme priviledge which they enjoy quite nauseating. I fail to understand the affection for the Queen Mum when it is quite clear that she is a bigot who looks down on us commoners as inferiors.

27

I can’t believe you siad that. Didn’t she stay in London during the Luftwaffe blitskreig to be one of the people rather than enjoy special privilege and move out. As I understood it was for this stand she made that endeared her to the British public.

28

Well, but the book talks about how a lot of the royals – especially Philip and the Queen Mother – are quite racist and homophobic, and the Palace has to make sure this stuff stays out of the media.

Let me ask another question. How do you feel about the royal family changing its name to Windsor to be more English, and the fact that the Windsors are actually German (although Philip is Greek and Danish, and Diana’s family had a lot of French in it as well as English)? Does that make a difference to you as Britons?

29

Philip is only Greek by his nationality. The Greek royal family didn’t have a DROP of Greek blood. His grandfather was a Danish prince, who was GERMAN by blood-(doubt very much there’s any Danish blood), and his grandmother was a Russian Grand Duchess-also that family was almost 100 percent GERMAN by blood.

The Queen Mum, Diana, Fergie, all of them, are probably the only ones who introduced the English blood back in.

30

Actually, in England there aren’t all that many Britons around. That is the title given to the Celts in Britain by Caesar. They by and large were driven out to Wales, Cornwall, and Scotland by successive**“Germanic”** invasions of the Angles,Saxons, Frisians,Danes and finally the Normans who are the basis of the English aristocracy.

31

Thanks Celyn for the links to the opinion polls.

I must say, these polls clash with my everyday experience. Most people I know regard the RF as spoilt, time-wasting parasites. Besides, official polls can be wholly inaccurate, but normally we have no way to check. All ‘official polls’ during 1992’s general election forecast a landslide Labour win, but they lost to the Tories.

I also wish these polls didn’t polarise the issue. ‘Monarchy or not?’ is only one issue. A more pertinent question would be: “Would you prefer the RF to cost less than £37 million pounds per year?” (Approx. 55.2 million US dollars.)

This seems an obscene amount of money to pay people who don’t do any real work to speak of, have no real talents or skills, and have done nothing to earn the right to it.

Of the above £37m, £7.9 is the Civil List - the salary paid to the Queen, Queen Mum and Chuck. Royalists argue that 70% of this goes on staff and expenses. So what? I have outgoings too, but my salary is still ‘what I’m paid’, not ‘what I’m paid minus expenses’. And even if we buy that argument, how much would you have to work to earn £2.37 million plus the right to squat in three or four big, luxurious homes and enjoy many weeks paid holiday per year?

This is the story circulated by pro-monarchy sources. Obviously, we have no way of knowing whether it is true or not - and the drunk old bat herself isn’t saying anything. She hasn’t given a single interview since before the war (a fair indication of her desire to communicate with the people who pay for her). What we do know is that Edward VIII was pro-Nazi and very sympathetic to Hitler, so the ‘loyalty’ of the monarchy is at best a moot point.

Where do you get your premise that she has endeared herself to ‘the British public’? I’m part of the Brit public, and she hasn’t endeared herself to me or any people I know.

How do you know? Why not confine your opinions to things you know about?

(1) Only the three on the civil list have any official duties. The rest receive taxpayers’ money indirectly but are not obliged to do anything in return. Some members of the royal family perform no royal duties whatsoever, yet we taxpayers still support them.

(2) Far from working tirelessly, the parasites seem to enjoy at least 10 weeks holiday per year, and damned expensive holidays at that - skiiing at Klosters, etc.

(3) ‘Working tirelessly’ sounds nice, but turning up to things and cutting ribbons hardly constitutes serious work. I know lots of people who work a damn sight harder and get paid much, much less. I’d rather see the money go to nurses, doctors and consultants. Or street sweepers. They all do something useful.

Do you pay UK taxes? It’s easy to enjoy the show when other people pay for it. You might feel differently if your tax was being wasted like this:
*
"
The costs [of the Royal Family] include:

£2,565 (US$4104) for a family member flying to a golf tournament
£2,938 (US$4,700) for Charlie Windsor to fly to London for a movie
£1,200 for Phil Windsor to relax at a cricket game.
£1,500 for a visit by Charlie to Wembley Stadium and
£14,000 for an overnight train journey to Nottingham

In June 2000 a report by the National Audit Office revealed that during the 1998 - 1999 financial year the maintenance of the family palaces and apartments cost the tax payers almost £16M, a reduction of £0.8M on the previous year. This included

£19,000 for new wardrobes!
£650,000 for repairs to a palace exterior
£218,000 for redecoration of castle living room
£135,000 to replace a palace lift.
£500,000 for palace furniture and equipment. "*

These are official figures, if you think that makes any difference. See for yourself at http://home.clara.net/citizen/monarchy/mon5.html or
http://www.throneout.freeserve.co.uk/index.html
and many similar sites.

32

Well, you know what I mean, grienspace. :wink:

All the royal families are pretty much German by this time.
The only ones who were truly of the nationality of their country during the first half of the 20th century was the Serbian Royal family, the Karageorgdevjics.

33

You are absolutely right - I was gritting my teeth and making an effort to be terribly terribly fair. It’s just because a previous poster had mentioned “a survey” (undefined) that I though I’d see whether even the newpaper/MORI/ICM type of surveys came anywhere near 90%, and of course they don’t. The polls I mentioned are only telephone polls of a thousand-ish people. Telephone polls are pretty untrustworthy anyway. Your figures make a lot more sense though.

It looks as though the U.S./Canadian dopers are rather more enamoured of the Battenburg follies than the Brits are. Maybe we should send the family across the Atlantic as a travelling circus; come to think of it, that might help the economy somewhat. Or maybe a little Mayday dopefest outside (big)Buck House. :slight_smile:

34

You’ve got to be joking ! By my reckoning, with your 37 million pound figure, I reckon the monarchy personally costs you 61p per year. You will probably have spent more money in one concert to watch the Spice Girls than in your life time supporting a tradition, pomp and ceremony going back a thousand years. A living musuem if you will. Here in Canada we have a National Art Museum that has a budget coming somewhere in that range. Only problem is it will never come to me, and there is no point in televising the exhibits. Man, if not for you, what about your children! If it bothers you that much, strap on a gun and move to America.:slight_smile:

35

When I become PM I will introduce legislation to turn Buck House into a hotel, with Her Maj’ness as hostess-with-the-mostest. Just think how much you could charge some rich deluded tycoon for a back rub by Princess Ann(e?) (well ok, not very much)

36

ianzin and Celyn - It may well be that ‘Most people [you]know regard the RF as spoilt, time-wasting parasites’, but, on the basis of the survey evidence (however unreliable) which you cite, it would appear that your acquaintances are not a typical cross-section of the population of Britain. (There is no reason why they should be.)

The original 90 per cent figure was obviously grossly inaccurate, invented, cited out of context or out of date. For all their faults (of the opinion polls, that is), surveys in recent years have consistently shown that the British public is still in favour of the Royal Family. The margin is certainly not overwhelming and may be slowly declining, but republicanism remains a minority view. What the Guardian asked was slightly different, as it is possible to believe that the Royal Family do a good job and/or that there is no real point changing things, but that a republic might be marginally better. Note that the number of respondants who felt that Britain would be better off without a monarchy was less than the number of those who didn’t know. Hardly a ringing endorsement for a republic. If you want anecdotal evidence, I have to say that all these surveys seem to be moreorless in line with the views of most people I know - some remain devoted to the monarchy, some are hostile and most would, in a lukewarm sort of way, prefer it to be retained.

For the record, I have no problem at all with Britain remaining a monarchy. The cost is minimal, there is no great political issue involved, and abolition would make no meaningful difference to the country’s social structure.

37

How can you say that there’s no way of knowing whether or not she stayed in London? She and King George were often seen and photographed touring the city. Do you think this was all a big hoax, while the real King was hiding in Canada or something? She was in London throughout the bombing, and there’s plenty of evidence to prove it. As for Edward VIII, his views were rather irrelevant, as he was not the King at the time, and hadn’t been for a while.

From the Royal Family’s official webpage (not exactly an unbiased source), just to use the Queen Mother as an example:

It goes on to mention that at the age of 97 she carried out 58 engagements during the year, which I don’t consider too bad for someone thirty years past the retirements age.

You can probably make a case for the abolition of the monarchy without having to attack the current royal family, who were merely thrust into the job without any choice in the matter, and generally seem to be trying to be somewhat useful. I mean, geez, give me that sort of money, and I have no idea what I’d do with my time. Probably sit around posting here all day.

38

More than anything I think there is a great political issue here - a fundamental principle. Whilst we retain the principle of royal assent to government and to legislation, even if it tends to be no more than a formality, we cannot truly call ourselves a democracy. I agree that abolition of the royal family as a governmental institution, and only of the royal family, would make no immediate difference. It isn’t anything like enough to bring us to the political structure appropriate to a mature nation, but it’s an excellent start.

To answer the OP, I personally find the current incumbents at best irrelevant and at worst downright distasteful. My overwhelming impression of some of them, particularly Charles and Philip, is that they hanker for the good old days. In the golden age of the monarchy the peasants knew their place, a king could have a mistress for fun, and a wife for breeding, and nobody dared to question it. Any concessions and acknowledgements of equality this family make towards their subjects seem to me to be forced on them - witness, for example, the outcry after the death of Diana. The queen was clearly coerced into making her “sympathy” broadcast, and into allowing flags to fly at half mast and so on.

The world has moved on, and most of you aren’t anybody’s subjects anymore. I’d quite like to join you.

And sorry to go OT, but grienspace, my civil wedding contained quite as much solemnity as a religious ceremony thank you, and was very traditional, even though no gods were welcome. I don’t believe there is any comparison to the royal family.

39

The Royal family is at the apex of a pyramid of influence and favour.

There are titles, an entire layer of hierarchical priveledge, a whole stucture exists which, without the Royals, would be hard to justify.

Many Royal aides (equeries), do not pay tax, live in listed buildings maintained by the public purse.

You could break down the cost of almost any state expenditure per citizen and make the comment that it is reasonable when taken in such small amounts but it does not make the continued unjustified elevated status of a tiny number of very ordinary people accepatable to many Britons.

When we are asked ‘the question’ Brits will rarely come right out and say get ‘rid of them’ in an open forum, there is still a reluctance bordering on a superstition to say such things.There is some insecurity too, ‘the question’ is often accompanied with ‘but what will we replace them with’.

The Tories used this ‘what will we replace them with’ as a justification for trying to delay the dissolution of the House of Lords.The intention was to try and stop it altogether since their Lordships have a very definate Tory viewpoint and they have effectivly delayed some legislation so much that it has been killed stone dead. This against the wishes of an elected legislature.

The Royals are the remnants of that society, you may feel they are jolly to look at with their spectacular ceremonials and fabulously tasteless furnishings of Buckingham Palace but everything that they were, are or will be is only at the expense of a populace on whom they and their class look down upon.

40

The Queen is also one of the richest women in the world.

To take any money out of public funds and give it to her is distasteful IMO.