Duty of the British monarchy

[ReD_ReBeL]

i'm from the UK and i don't even know wht the british royal family does for us if anything. Do they have an important purpose? what is there main duty? Do they contribute anything apart from shitting, eating, pissing and fucking on gold?

I believe the monarchy should be abolished. it's an outdated concept of an old society.Which lives a life of luxury with contributing nothing to the common man.

[WUOrevolt]

Burn down the British Monarchy!!!!!!!

[ricardsju]

I don&#39;t see what the big deal is, as the british monarch&#39;s power has droped from elite Aristocrat to a elite Bourgeoisie (at a level of donald trump maybe). Plus if Prince Charles dosen&#39;t abdicate (him >talking< (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1958477,00.html) about being called King George
VII means it looks like he won&#39;t) then the Commonwealth will more likey fall to bits.

I think there could be alot of trouble for new Zealand in the transition to a republic in respect to "race" as the Governor-General is viewed a safetynet (nearly was used to replace a caretaker government in the 1980s).

[James]

i&#39;m from the UK and i don&#39;t even know wht the british royal family does for us if anything. Do they have an important purpose? what is there main duty? Do they contribute anything apart from shitting, eating, pissing and fucking on gold?

Yes.
If you want to read an excellent summary of such functions/roles, i strongly suggest Peter Hennessy, "The Hidden Wiring, unearthing the British Constitution" (1996). More specifically, chapter two, "Monarchy: The gilded sponge"




I believe the monarchy should be abolished.

Whilst monarchies are not terribly attractive, i think i do prefer Elizabeth as the head of state, as opposed to a Bush or Chirac.



it&#39;s an outdated concept of an old society.Which lives a life of luxury with contributing nothing to the common man

Not a correct assumption: just a cliche. see that book.

[James]

by the way this is not a shameless plug.

I used the book at A-Level when i wrote a research essay on the british monarchy (which i started off thinking would have a terribly republican conclusion: i shared a similar view of the monarchy as seen in the first post).

[The Grey Blur]

Whilst monarchies are not terribly attractive, i think i do prefer Elizabeth as the head of state, as opposed to a Bush or Chirac.
So you equate the Queen with Bush and Chirac? Surely Tony Blair is their English equvalent.

So. You disagree with RedRebel that the Monarchy are basically a sponge? I think his assumption is correct; why do you think he&#39;s wrong? It&#39;s your money they&#39;re spending on helicopters after all.

[James]

So you equate the Queen with Bush and Chirac? Surely Tony Blair is their English equvalent


No, blair is head of government etc.
Queen is head of state.
as are chirac and bush.

contary to popular opinion, their power is restricted by monarchy. See the gilded sponge for more on this.


So. You disagree with RedRebel that the Monarchy are basically a sponge?

Yes.

I think his assumption is correct; why do you think he&#39;s wrong?

I said why. I&#39;m sorry, but i have no intention on copying and pasting a long chapter of a book which makes the argument in a far better way than i can ever hope to do.

It is a "take it or leave it" thing i suppose.



It&#39;s your money they&#39;re spending on helicopters after all.

please don&#39;t mistake my post as a "pro monarchy" per se argument. Of course i find it in theory a silly idea, indeed i think they spend far too much money.

[Amusing Scrotum]

What a weird thread. That someone feels the need to ask Revolutionary Leftists (who are on principal anti-Monarchy) what they think of the British Monarchy and whether they should be abolished. Quite frankly, tickles me.

Anyway....


Originally posted by ReD_ReBeL+--> (ReD_ReBeL)Do they have an important purpose?[/b]

Well they have a lot of money, therefore they have an "important purpose".

To modify a well known phrase.... you are what you own&#33;


Originally posted by [email protected]
Whilst monarchies are not terribly attractive, i think i do prefer Elizabeth as the head of state, as opposed to a Bush or Chirac.

Well that is a rather subjective question, subject to personal preference, which basically means....

Do you prefer bastard A or bastard B?

Personally, I&#39;d rather Bush&#39;s mug on money. :lol:


Rage Against The Machine
You disagree with RedRebel that the Monarchy are basically a sponge?

"ReD_ReBeL", from an economic standpoint, is probably technically correct. As far as I&#39;m aware the Royal Family produces no Surplus Value and their "Use Value" is subjective.

Meaning they&#39;re "sponges".

[James]

I prefer lizzy to bush. You prefer bush??
Surely you should be banned for that &#33;&#33;

[ReD_ReBeL]

What a weird thread. That someone feels the need to ask Revolutionary Leftists (who are on principal anti-Monarchy) what they think of the British Monarchy and whether they should be abolished

wrong&#33; although u tried your sweet little hardest to belittle my thread you have misunderstood it greatly. If you look at my first post i mentioned them things u quote BUT i did not ask your opinion on weather or not they should be abolished, or even your own opinion on the Monarchy BUT i did ask you what there duty etc was.