Royal family. Should they be banned?

[randy1]

So Randy, you've asked your question, you got your answer, NO....now bugger off.

None of the reasons provided so far justifying the existence are compelling to me so far. But I am at least prepared to have a discussion about it. Can I suggest that if you don't wish to have a serious discussion that you do what you suggested I do?

Now, if you were to argue that the royal family deserve their current powers due to all the killings, beheadings, wars, etc that they have over the centuries engaged in, that would be an interesting discussion, but even then I don't think you could persuade me that this current situation is one that should be supported.

[gilleshk]

What a joker! A serious discussion? Now that's a really good one! As if persuasion ever worked in these endless and pointless discussions. The main goal of most in these kinds of thread is to try to be clever and to enjoy reading what they write, maybe get a rise out of others.

But hey, congrats on getting 5 pages... Long live King Randi!

[dumbdonkey]

Randy for 'King of Park island'

[Dreadnought]

None of the reasons provided so far justifying the existence are compelling to me so far...

Thankfully, this matters not one bit.

[Fatelvis]

Come on chaps, give the troll a break. The thread was only started to wind up Brits and to hope to engage in a bit of Brit bashing. Stiff upper lip and all that.

[carang]

While i am a british citizen, i identify myself as canadian.

[drumbrake]

I don't care about the Royal family. They can continue calling themselves king and queen if they want to, although why tax payers money should be used to subsidise one of the wealthiest people in the world is another question. The thing I would like to see abolished is all the baggage that goes with them. What place do Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons have in modern society? The whole system is corrupt and is more associated with going to the right school, which then gives a passport to the right university, and then the right job, than any notion of meritocracy.

[fraxbo]

Though I am certainly not british and am about as liberty-minded as they come, it would seem that the argument for "funding" the royal family through income from taxpayers and recognizing the claims of the peerage in a liberal society comes from their claim to property rights. While you might not agree with how those claims were acquired, they are both ancient and traceable through documentation, so, unless you believe in radical property redistribution and therefore are no longer favoring a liberal society, but some other form of arbitrary governance, it would seem you are required to recognize their claims and pay them for it.

[Watercooler]

And what about the 100's of millions in tourist dollars/pounds/euros, that the British Monarchy brings, which like it or not Randell, is very much part of Britain's history and one of the few core foundational traditions that the English people have have left. An identity...

Take that away and what do you have ? Nothing much in my opinion. Had China retained it's Imperial Monarchy, had PuYi been allowed to steer China into the future via his curiosity/fascination of western technology and society, todays China might have been a vastly superior nation to the one we see now. Possibly far more advanced than the Japanese.

Food for thought....

Except the Qing dynasty as a whole never was that interested in modern technology and practices. Attempts at reforming the dynasty by the few more farsighted mandarins all failed because the imperial system as a whole was too hidebound and rigid for the radical reforms necessary for the Qing to transition to a modern state. Never mind the fact that the Qing was seen as an alien dynasty. The shaved heads and pigtail worn by the Chinese was forced upon them against their will.

So the Qing was never in a position to really reform itself successfully.

The better question is had the KMT (The Chinese nationalist) been less corrupt and more efficient, they might still be ruling China and maybe then it might have surpass Japan. But all that is academic, since the KMT did a lousy job governing China and was forced to retreat to Taiwan hence allowing the CCP to rule.

[Skyhook]

The better question is had the KMT (The Chinese nationalist) were less corrupt and more efficient, they might have still ruled China and maybe then it might have surpass Japan.

The Fact remains that neither Imperial Monarchy or the KMT managed to have the opportunity to lead China, like a drag race, their are no prizes for 2nd place.

So, we can piss in the wind all we like, if you treat your poor with contempt they will side with the guy that puts rice in their bowl, which usually ends badly for the rich.