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.
As someone who has been to our National Parks; Lake / Peak District ... Cornwall ... Devon etc. and as someone who constantly going to National Trust locations and areas for my Photography.
Your right I do have a very VERY low opinion of our country
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 name it because I visited recently. According to Wiki 5 million people a year visit the Palace of Versailles, with up to 10 million visiting the gardens. How many visit Buckingham Palace ?
I'm just trying to show that not having a Royal Family really wouldn't be an impediment to tourism, it might even help it if we were able to open the (former) Royal palaces up to the public fully.
I get the sentimental & patriotic reasons for keeping the royal family even if I don't agree with them but not the tourism argument. London's position as one of the greatest cities on earth owes much more to many other things than the Royal family.
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.
As someone who has been to our National Parks; Lake / Peak District ... Cornwall ... Devon etc. and as someone who constantly going to National Trust locations and areas for my Photography.
Your right I do have a very VERY low opinion of our country
Nice sarcasm, but there's a contradiction in your argument then, isn't there. Britain is great but no-one will want to come here if we don't have a monarchy.
Probably because those 'pro' are bored rigid of the debate on here and the strong repetitive views of those anti.
This more or less. I'm neither strongly for or against it but there's currently no good reason to put the country through yet another pointless debate. Plenty of people are willing to admit either on the Internet or in private that they want to see it abolished but are they willing to line up with those bores on the megaphones you see once a year in the high street with a 'Republic' banner? Because unless there is a visible and vocal opposition to the Royals they are not going anywhere. Therefore whilst there is no serious threat to the continuation of the monarchy, those who are either in favour or indifferent don't really need to have an argument against abolition because it is probably not going to be an issue for another 50 years.
I think people underestimate the diplomacy factor as well. All state visits from a country like the USA are always highly political. Unless both countries governments are politically aligned this can be tricky business. With a politically neutral head of state there is much less of this and the Royals are generally very warmly received all over the globe, regardless of if they are visiting a former colony or the UAE or even Ireland. Her visit to Ireland is viewed as a landmark in UK-Eire relations and the Irish public responded extremely positively to the visit. It is hard to imagine that Blair, Brown or Cameron would have had anywhere near the same impact.
One of the common reasons people cite for wanting to leave Europe is a lack of democracy, however they have no problem with upholding the monarchy. The fact of the matter is that having an unelected ruler is just as undemocratic as the rule that bureaucratic institution in Brussels tried to assert over us.
Like many here I'm apathetic toward the monarchy, but I feel it is about time we, her majesties loyal subjects, were offered the choice in a referendum.
One of the common reasons people cite for wanting to leave Europe is a lack of democracy, however they have no problem with upholding the monarchy. The fact of the matter is that having an unelected ruler is just as undemocratic as the rule that bureaucratic institution in Brussels tried to assert over us.
Like many here I'm apathetic toward the monarchy, but I feel it is about time we, her majesties loyal subjects, were offered the choice in a referendum.
See, even though I'm anti I don't actually want a referendum until there was clearly a decent public support for a republic.
The extent to which the monarchy actually undermine democracy in this country is actually pretty limited, in reality the Queen would never not give Royal Assent to legislation and they are pretty good at keeping their noses out of the national politics (publicly at least).
Oh, and we aren't subjects of the Queen, we're citizens of the United Kingdom which is a situation I'm very happy with!
If we ever lost the monarchy, would be become the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or even the United Federation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
If we ever lost the monarchy, would be become the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or even the United Federation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
I'm sure we could come up with a much better name than that !
If you are cool with cities, then London is an absolute gem. To ask what there is to do is a bit of a surprise to me. I could outline tons of days out that would not include Royal territory. In one day you could mix St Paul's, the Tate Modern, a stroll around the south bank, lunch around Borough Market, an evening at the Globe and then home. For an outlay of less than an adult ticket for Charlton v Fleetwood you can easily have a full and stimulating day out in London.
I wouldn't wish them any harm but I have to say that I just don't get it.
If it wasn't already built into the fabric and somebody proposed it they would get laughed out of town.
Think : let's elevate a particular family to a status of supreme privilege and highest lifestyle that they don't have to pay for. Give them palaces and yachts and luxury cars.
Let's give them titles, like "Your Highness" and "Your Majesty" bow, scrape and fawn on their every wish.
Supporting the Monarchy makes no more sense than supporting a football club.
Supporting the tradition of Monarchy makes no more sense than supporting the traditions of playing Red Red Robin every home game.
All that chanting and singing nonsense worshipping overpaid prima donnas kicking a football around, ridiculous.
I didn't vote for Charlton Athletic to run football club in Greenwich, we could have a referendum on whether the rate payers in Greenwich want a football club, what's the point, of it, doesn't bring in any money. Could be knocked down and used to build social housing.
We need more democracy, Greenwich residents should be able to vote on what sport is played at the Valley.
The Charlton museum should be charging £15 entry fee and paying it to the council for wasting all that space on pointless tradition when it could be used for something useful like an NHS call centre.
As for arguing allegiance to a football club helps you identify your roots, where you came from and where you belong, poppycock.
If I don't see the point of Charlton Athletic Football Club, and i am in a majority, then no one else's sympathies are relevant and the club should be demolished.
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'd rather pay to do her house up than west-fucking-hams!
Supporting the Monarchy makes no more sense than supporting a football club.
Supporting the tradition of Monarchy makes no more sense than supporting the traditions of playing Red Red Robin every home game.
All that chanting and singing nonsense worshipping overpaid prima donnas kicking a football around, ridiculous.
I didn't vote for Charlton Athletic to run football club in Greenwich, we could have a referendum on whether the rate payers in Greenwich want a football club, what's the point, of it, doesn't bring in any money. Could be knocked down and used to build social housing.
We need more democracy, Greenwich residents should be able to vote on what sport is played at the Valley.
The Charlton museum should be charging £15 entry fee and paying it to the council for wasting all that space on pointless tradition when it could be used for something useful like an NHS call centre.
As for arguing allegiance to a football club helps you identify your roots, where you came from and where you belong, poppycock.
If I don't see the point of Charlton Athletic Football Club, and i am in a majority, then no one else's sympathies are relevant and the club should be demolished.
In fact the owner and me think exactly the same.
Not sure that analogy holds up to much scrutiny...
If we are going to get rid of the monarchy then we should end of all the unnecessary pomp and circumstance in political life. Get rid of Lords, Barons and Earls, move MPs into a much cheaper, less grand building and open the Palace of Westminster up as a museum. End all this 'Right Hon' nonsense. Judges and the like need to stop wearing silly gowns and wigs. Get rid of all titles. Military titles only to be used within the military, otherwise everyone is just Mr, Miss, Ms or Mrs. Doctors to only be referred to as such when they are working in their field of expertise. The monarchy goes hand in hand with all this stuff so if we get rid of the monarchy then there is no good reason to keep the rest of it.
And I guess the Queen will need to get a passport too.
If we are going to get rid of the monarchy then we should end of all the unnecessary pomp and circumstance in political life. Get rid of Lords, Barons and Earls, move MPs into a much cheaper, less grand building and open the Palace of Westminster up as a museum. End all this 'Right Hon' nonsense. Judges and the like need to stop wearing silly gowns and wigs. Get rid of all titles. Military titles only to be used within the military, otherwise everyone is just Mr, Miss, Ms or Mrs. Doctors to only be referred to as such when they are working in their field of expertise. The monarchy goes hand in hand with all this stuff so if we get rid of the monarchy then there is no good reason to keep the rest of it.
And I guess the Queen will need to get a passport too.
Build/convert a couple of hostels/basic apartment blocks for the MPs and Lords (Senators) with a reasonable canteen and there you are, no more second home sponsorship (and send them back to their constituencies via National Express at the weekends)...
If we are going to get rid of the monarchy then we should end of all the unnecessary pomp and circumstance in political life. Get rid of Lords, Barons and Earls, move MPs into a much cheaper, less grand building and open the Palace of Westminster up as a museum. End all this 'Right Hon' nonsense. Judges and the like need to stop wearing silly gowns and wigs. Get rid of all titles. Military titles only to be used within the military, otherwise everyone is just Mr, Miss, Ms or Mrs. Doctors to only be referred to as such when they are working in their field of expertise. The monarchy goes hand in hand with all this stuff so if we get rid of the monarchy then there is no good reason to keep the rest of it.
And I guess the Queen will need to get a passport too.
I'm not sure that one naturally follows the other. There are historical reasons for the legal professions wearing gowns and wigs that are nothing to do with the monarchy.
Agree that the titled nobility is part and parcel but not sure why you think Doctors are only doctors when at work. I can live with the civility that comes with Rt Hon and again not sure why you think that a eg retired general should not keep their rank. In law I think and commissioned officer does after leaving the forces although I could be wrong.
France is a great example imho of a republic that maintains tradition, pomp and ceremony but has no monarchy.
I think when polling suggests 65+% of the population no longer want the monarchy - that would be the time for a referendum. A bit like Europe, as when you get rid, it is hard to get back, I think it should be a high percentage and we are certainly no where near that if we ever are. I think an unpopular monarch could change things though, so it keeps the royal family on it's toes which has to be a good thing too.
I think when polling suggests 65+% of the population no longer want the monarchy - that would be the time for a referendum. A bit like Europe, as when you get rid, it is hard to get back, I think it should be a high percentage and we are certainly no where near that if we ever are. I think an unpopular monarch could change things though, so it keeps the royal family on it's toes which has to be a good thing too.
I think it would be very easy to get the monarchy back if you got rid, unless you think that Liz and her family wouldn't apply for the job? Even if they didn't, I'm sure some poor family would.
I think people underestimate the diplomacy factor as well. All state visits from a country like the USA are always highly political. Unless both countries governments are politically aligned this can be tricky business. With a politically neutral head of state there is much less of this and the Royals are generally very warmly received all over the globe, regardless of if they are visiting a former colony or the UAE or even Ireland. Her visit to Ireland is viewed as a landmark in UK-Eire relations and the Irish public responded extremely positively to the visit. It is hard to imagine that Blair, Brown or Cameron would have had anywhere near the same impact.
I hadn't thought of this angle but it is a good reason to retain some form of monarchy.
Cromwell was the last non royal to take charge and he wasn’t much fun. He was a Puritan who believed that everybody should follow his example - which basically was to operate like a christian taliban.
He shut the pubs and the theatres and banned most sports. One day in every month was a fast day. Puritan women wore long black dresses that covered from neck to toe, make-up was banned as were colourful clothes.
The more the years go by, the more it dawns on me how so many people in power (if not corrupt) believe that they have some form of entitlement over others. Politicians, church leaders, royalty, top dogs in general, they’re all the same.
I am very suspicious of the finger wagging leaders who tell us what is good for us, what we should do, what we can have and what we can’t have. Evidently, it appears in all probability that they’re doing the exact opposite to what they’re telling us.
This more or less. I'm neither strongly for or against it but there's currently no good reason to put the country through yet another pointless debate. .
Pretty much my view. If we were starting from a blank slate, I would have a Republic. But abolishing the monarchy could only take place after a bitter, divisive debate which would consume politics for a year or so and the unpicking of the constitutional issues would take up at least a whole Parliament. There many more important issues.
Comments
Your right I do have a very VERY low opinion of our country
I'm just trying to show that not having a Royal Family really wouldn't be an impediment to tourism, it might even help it if we were able to open the (former) Royal palaces up to the public fully.
I get the sentimental & patriotic reasons for keeping the royal family even if I don't agree with them but not the tourism argument. London's position as one of the greatest cities on earth owes much more to many other things than the Royal family.
Like many here I'm apathetic toward the monarchy, but I feel it is about time we, her majesties loyal subjects, were offered the choice in a referendum.
The extent to which the monarchy actually undermine democracy in this country is actually pretty limited, in reality the Queen would never not give Royal Assent to legislation and they are pretty good at keeping their noses out of the national politics (publicly at least).
Oh, and we aren't subjects of the Queen, we're citizens of the United Kingdom which is a situation I'm very happy with!
To ask what there is to do is a bit of a surprise to me.
I could outline tons of days out that would not include Royal territory.
In one day you could mix St Paul's, the Tate Modern, a stroll around the south bank, lunch around Borough Market, an evening at the Globe and then home.
For an outlay of less than an adult ticket for Charlton v Fleetwood you can easily have a full and stimulating day out in London.
If it wasn't already built into the fabric and somebody proposed it they would get laughed out of town.
Think : let's elevate a particular family to a status of supreme privilege and highest lifestyle that they don't have to pay for. Give them palaces and yachts and luxury cars.
Let's give them titles, like "Your Highness" and "Your Majesty" bow, scrape and fawn on their every wish.
It's completely insane isn't it.
Republic
Supporting the tradition of Monarchy makes no more sense than supporting the traditions of playing Red Red Robin every home game.
All that chanting and singing nonsense worshipping overpaid prima donnas kicking a football around, ridiculous.
I didn't vote for Charlton Athletic to run football club in Greenwich, we could have a referendum on whether the rate payers in Greenwich want a football club, what's the point, of it, doesn't bring in any money. Could be knocked down and used to build social housing.
We need more democracy, Greenwich residents should be able to vote on what sport is played at the Valley.
The Charlton museum should be charging £15 entry fee and paying it to the council for wasting all that space on pointless tradition when it could be used for something useful like an NHS call centre.
As for arguing allegiance to a football club helps you identify your roots, where you came from and where you belong, poppycock.
If I don't see the point of Charlton Athletic Football Club, and i am in a majority, then no one else's sympathies are relevant and the club should be demolished.
In fact the owner and me think exactly the same.
And I guess the Queen will need to get a passport too.
Agree that the titled nobility is part and parcel but not sure why you think Doctors are only doctors when at work. I can live with the civility that comes with Rt Hon and again not sure why you think that a eg retired general should not keep their rank. In law I think and commissioned officer does after leaving the forces although I could be wrong.
France is a great example imho of a republic that maintains tradition, pomp and ceremony but has no monarchy.
He shut the pubs and the theatres and banned most sports. One day in every month was a fast day. Puritan women wore long black dresses that covered from neck to toe, make-up was banned as were colourful clothes.
The more the years go by, the more it dawns on me how so many people in power (if not corrupt) believe that they have some form of entitlement over others. Politicians, church leaders, royalty, top dogs in general, they’re all the same.
I am very suspicious of the finger wagging leaders who tell us what is good for us, what we should do, what we can have and what we can’t have. Evidently, it appears in all probability that they’re doing the exact opposite to what they’re telling us.