Spent most of my life being very anti, but I now think they are the better alternative to electing a president every few years, as long as they and we know that they are purely for decoration and have no influence over politics. Overall, I think they're not bad value for money.
People talk about their wealth and privilege, but would you want to have your whole life basically dictated to you from the day you were born? Personally I wouldn't want to be a 'major' royal.
The case for them being an asset to tourism is not made though - apparently, in a survey (sorry I cannot verify this, so don't ask) foreigners said they would visit to see the sights regardless of whether or not we still had a monarchy.
The monarchy in some form or other will be a part of the British political/social system well into the future .. the whole legal/governmental/social/parliamentary democratic system is geared to this fiction of 'Royalty and Monarchy'. It would take a major, nay catastrophic upheaval of French or Russian revolution proportions to change the whole set up.
It's a pity but there it is. Personally, the day will never dawn when I or any of my children (I sincerely hope) will address another human being as 'your royal highness' or 'your majesty'. The Queen is a rather nice old bird burdened by a mostly dickhead family on the make and on the take. Is 'royal' better than any of us ? .. not on your nelly ..
Last point .. The duchess of Cambridge was a commoner until her marriage .. is she now 'of royal blood' and her children ? .. to quote the wonderful J K Rowling, are her children mere 'half blood princes' ?? .. how can 'royal' be stretched to include the very lovely duchess, the daughter of an ex air hostess. She's a nice lower middle class lass, and should remain so.
The monarchy in some form or other will be a part of the British political/social system well into the future .. the whole legal/governmental/social/parliamentary democratic system is geared to this fiction of 'Royalty and Monarchy'. It would take a major, nay catastrophic upheaval of French or Russian revolution proportions to change the whole set up.
It's a pity but there it is. Personally, the day will never dawn when I or any of my children (I sincerely hope) will address another human being as 'your royal highness' or 'your majesty'. The Queen is a rather nice old bird burdened by a mostly dickhead family on the make and on the take. Is 'royal' better than any of us ? .. not on your nelly ..
Last point .. The duchess of Cambridge was a commoner until her marriage .. is she now 'of royal blood' and her children ? .. to quote the wonderful J K Rowling, are her children mere 'half blood princes' ?? .. how can 'royal' be stretched to include the very lovely duchess, the daughter of an ex air hostess. She's a nice lower middle class lass, and should remain so.
Spent most of my life being very anti, but I now think they are the better alternative to electing a president every few years, as long as they and we know that they are purely for decoration and have no influence over politics. Overall, I think they're not bad value for money.
People talk about their wealth and privilege, but would you want to have your whole life basically dictated to you from the day you were born? Personally I wouldn't want to be a 'major' royal.
The case for them being an asset to tourism is not made though - apparently, in a survey (sorry I cannot verify this, so don't ask) foreigners said they would visit to see the sights regardless of whether or not we still had a monarchy.
Surprised, thought there'd be more pro on here. I'm anti in the sense that I don't think there's a place for pretending that people who claim descent from William the Bastard (or Conqueror as he's taught in the history books) are somehow better than the rest of us and should be set up as such. But, as has happened in Australia, we'll never get agreement on what to have instead. I think it will change when the queen dies; Charles is a much more divisive figure and a lot of the commonwealth countries will ditch the monarchy then as well.
Spent most of my life being very anti, but I now think they are the better alternative to electing a president every few years, as long as they and we know that they are purely for decoration and have no influence over politics. Overall, I think they're not bad value for money.
People talk about their wealth and privilege, but would you want to have your whole life basically dictated to you from the day you were born? Personally I wouldn't want to be a 'major' royal.
The case for them being an asset to tourism is not made though - apparently, in a survey (sorry I cannot verify this, so don't ask) foreigners said they would visit to see the sights regardless of whether or not we still had a monarchy.
Have you ever queued up to get into the palace of Versailles? Trust me, not having a monarchy does not blunt tourists desire to see royal palaces - in fact not having the current royals shoved down your throat probably increases the mystiq driving more tourists.
Couldn't give a shit about them, don't like them, don't think they're special and certainly don't feel grateful to them, but other people seem to, so whatever. If I was starting a new country I wouldn't create a monarchy, but we've got one now and it makes people like my mum happy, so I'm not an abolitionist.
For those against, did you not see the whole country come together in 2011 for the wedding of the Duke of Cambridge to Catherine Middleton? Then again in 2012 for The Queen's Diamond Jubilee, queuing us up for an excellent London Olympics?
I didn't see the whole country coming together because I enjoyed my day off to walk round Bassenthwaite Lake and had the place to myself. As long as we keep getting days off when they marry or die, then they're performing some sort of service.
I've always been for the monarchy as its part of British tradition and in a world where British tradition is being slowly chipped away it would be nice to keep part of our identity... Not to mention the thought of having someone like President Blair is scary
I'm a supporter for the United Republic of Great Britain. In this day and age the concept of a Royal Family is archaic and pointless. Deconstruction of the family should begin as soon as possible.
Tourism won't suffer, think that to suggest otherwise is irrelevant. VisitBritain for years now have been doing an amicable job. People don't come here because of the Royal Family. 99.9% I'm pretty sure don't even see her. Hell, born here and I've never met her or any member.
I've always been for the monarchy as its part of British tradition and in a world where British tradition is being slowly chipped away it would be nice to keep part of our identity... Not to mention the thought of having someone like President Blair is scary
Given the number of people who cite how awful it would be to have President Blair (i.e. everyone), I think it's safe to say we wouldn't end up with President Blair.
I'm a supporter for the United Republic of Great Britain. In this day and age the concept of a Royal Family is archaic and pointless. Deconstruction of the family should begin as soon as possible.
Tourism won't suffer, think that to suggest otherwise is irrelevant. VisitBritain for years now have been doing an amicable job. People don't come here because of the Royal Family. 99.9% I'm pretty sure don't even see her. Hell, born here and I've never met her or any member.
Buckingham Palace / Tower of London are two of the most visited tourist attractions in Britain - Tourists flock to see the changing of the Guard @ Horse Guards... Take those away and what does London really have for people to visit and see?
I'm a supporter for the United Republic of Great Britain. In this day and age the concept of a Royal Family is archaic and pointless. Deconstruction of the family should begin as soon as possible.
Tourism won't suffer, think that to suggest otherwise is irrelevant. VisitBritain for years now have been doing an amicable job. People don't come here because of the Royal Family. 99.9% I'm pretty sure don't even see her. Hell, born here and I've never met her or any member.
Buckingham Palace / Tower of London are two of the most visited tourist attractions in Britain - Tourists flock to see the changing of the Guard @ Horse Guards... Take those away and what does London really have for people to visit and see?
I'm a supporter for the United Republic of Great Britain. In this day and age the concept of a Royal Family is archaic and pointless. Deconstruction of the family should begin as soon as possible.
Tourism won't suffer, think that to suggest otherwise is irrelevant. VisitBritain for years now have been doing an amicable job. People don't come here because of the Royal Family. 99.9% I'm pretty sure don't even see her. Hell, born here and I've never met her or any member.
Buckingham Palace / Tower of London are two of the most visited tourist attractions in Britain - Tourists flock to see the changing of the Guard @ Horse Guards... Take those away and what does London really have for people to visit and see?
I'm not proposing abolition, but I just want to check that you realise that it is possible to abolish an institution without knocking down all the buildings associated with it.
I'm not proposing abolition, but I just want to check that you realise that it is possible to abolish an institution without knocking down all the buildings associated with it.
Yeah I do realise but those places have remained open to the public, for people to go and visit and look around and see how the Queen lives etc. something that my parents (obviously not from London either) have done.
Take the monarchy away and people might not give a fig about going to those places, in which case they'll lose funding and could fall into disrepair
I'm not proposing abolition, but I just want to check that you realise that it is possible to abolish an institution without knocking down all the buildings associated with it.
Yeah I do realise but those places have remained open to the public, for people to go and visit and look around and see how the Queen lives etc. something that my parents (obviously not from London either) have done.
Take the monarchy away and people might not give a fig about going to those places, in which case they'll lose funding and could fall into disrepair
I'm not proposing abolition, but I just want to check that you realise that it is possible to abolish an institution without knocking down all the buildings associated with it.
Yeah I do realise but those places have remained open to the public, for people to go and visit and look around and see how the Queen lives etc. something that my parents (obviously not from London either) have done.
Take the monarchy away and people might not give a fig about going to those places, in which case they'll lose funding and could fall into disrepair
I'm just thinking of potential cause and effect.
As mentioned earlier, if you look at all those countries that no longer have monarchies, tourists still visit the palaces in their thousands. I really don't think it would be an issue.
I'm not proposing abolition, but I just want to check that you realise that it is possible to abolish an institution without knocking down all the buildings associated with it.
Yeah I do realise but those places have remained open to the public, for people to go and visit and look around and see how the Queen lives etc. something that my parents (obviously not from London either) have done.
Take the monarchy away and people might not give a fig about going to those places, in which case they'll lose funding and could fall into disrepair
I'm just thinking of potential cause and effect.
Again, seriously, the Palace of Versailles.
You name one location out of how many countries...
The Palace of Versailles also helps because its where the treaty to end the First World War was signed!!
I'm not proposing abolition, but I just want to check that you realise that it is possible to abolish an institution without knocking down all the buildings associated with it.
Yeah I do realise but those places have remained open to the public, for people to go and visit and look around and see how the Queen lives etc. something that my parents (obviously not from London either) have done.
Take the monarchy away and people might not give a fig about going to those places, in which case they'll lose funding and could fall into disrepair
I'm just thinking of potential cause and effect.
A recent news item stated that some of the 'royal' residences are in such bad condition that repairs costing some £37 MILLION are necessary .. it's unclear whether Liz and Co or the tax payer will pick up this tab .. my bet is that it'll be the tax payer
I'm not proposing abolition, but I just want to check that you realise that it is possible to abolish an institution without knocking down all the buildings associated with it.
Yeah I do realise but those places have remained open to the public, for people to go and visit and look around and see how the Queen lives etc. something that my parents (obviously not from London either) have done.
Take the monarchy away and people might not give a fig about going to those places, in which case they'll lose funding and could fall into disrepair
I'm just thinking of potential cause and effect.
Again, seriously, the Palace of Versailles.
You name one location out of how many countries...
The Palace of Versailles also helps because its where the treaty to end the First World War was signed!!
I think you overestimate how big a part it plays in the thinking of tourists. You must have a low opinion of the UK if you think the royal family is the main thing that makes it worth visiting.
Comments
People talk about their wealth and privilege, but would you want to have your whole life basically dictated to you from the day you were born? Personally I wouldn't want to be a 'major' royal.
The case for them being an asset to tourism is not made though - apparently, in a survey (sorry I cannot verify this, so don't ask) foreigners said they would visit to see the sights regardless of whether or not we still had a monarchy.
It's a pity but there it is. Personally, the day will never dawn when I or any of my children (I sincerely hope) will address another human being as 'your royal highness' or 'your majesty'. The Queen is a rather nice old bird burdened by a mostly dickhead family on the make and on the take. Is 'royal' better than any of us ? .. not on your nelly ..
Last point .. The duchess of Cambridge was a commoner until her marriage .. is she now 'of royal blood' and her children ? .. to quote the wonderful J K Rowling, are her children mere 'half blood princes' ?? .. how can 'royal' be stretched to include the very lovely duchess, the daughter of an ex air hostess. She's a nice lower middle class lass, and should remain so.
I think it will change when the queen dies; Charles is a much more divisive figure and a lot of the commonwealth countries will ditch the monarchy then as well.
Who actually comes here to see the royals? It's not as if they get to meet them.
In fact, if we abolish the monarchy surely tourism will go up as they will have to turn all their land onto amusement parks to fund themselves
Tourism won't suffer, think that to suggest otherwise is irrelevant. VisitBritain for years now have been doing an amicable job. People don't come here because of the Royal Family. 99.9% I'm pretty sure don't even see her. Hell, born here and I've never met her or any member.
So what would people say were bigger tourist attractions IN London for someone who has obviously never been before?
Take the monarchy away and people might not give a fig about going to those places, in which case they'll lose funding and could fall into disrepair
I'm just thinking of potential cause and effect.
The Palace of Versailles also helps because its where the treaty to end the First World War was signed!!