As long as they are not costing the British people too much money, the institution should be kept.
Yes, they can appear a bunch of fruitloops who may have bred too closley over their history, but it is YOUR history that would disappear with their relegation to mediocraty.
Think twice as you only miss these things when they have gone.
Originally posted by davidtravellingThat depends on the PM at the time. Do you want both Prince Charles and a dippy PM at the same time? If you have a PM you can look up to, anyone can be on the throne, and vice versa.
Should Queen Liz be the last monarch and on her death we change to a republic or should we keep with the tradition?
I have to echo the words of Scottishinnz.
I am quite proud of my Queen when i see her, even though i am a staunch Scottish Nationalist. I think William could make a good king, maybe he sould give the Scottish crown to Harry. He likes a party, and enjoys the craic, he'd fit in well, and be well respected 🙂
Originally posted by scottishinnzDo you have a source for that assertion? No offence, but the surveys I've seen have indicated that tourists visit us to see historical buildings, not the princes, princesses and gilded lilies that inhabit them - which is why republican France is so much more popular amongst tourists. As for actual trade, I can't imagine anything less influential or notional that a civil service can't do equally well: I doubt whether any civil servant could offend entire nations the way Prince Philip does, for example, and as for Princess Anne, she very nearly sabotaged our entire Olympic bid through her incompetence and insistence on protocol (i.e. she was appointed specifically to lobby for her country, but considered lobbying to be awfully below-stairs kind of behaviour and chose not to do it).
They are a net earner for the UK economy.
Originally posted by davidtravellingYou should definitely keep with the tradition. A president and his family would never bring such an amount of high class entertainment in the forms of scandals and other soaps as the Royals are bringing. Don't you agree ?
Should Queen Liz be the last monarch and on her death we change to a republic or should we keep with the tradition?
May the Windsors rule for ever !
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
Originally posted by davidtravellingI agree with some of the comments here. keep the tradition and pomp and ceremony that is steeped in history. my personal opinion, i think that is what keeps UK different from other western countries.
Should Queen Liz be the last monarch and on her death we change to a republic or should we keep with the tradition?
Originally posted by scottishinnzWe abolished burning witches didn't we?
They are a net earner for the UK economy.
I think, that whilst there are many negatives related to the monarchy, to abolish them would be to abolish part of our history and our culture.
The argument of retaining something for tradition doesn't really hold much water.
The British royal family, alike the rest of the European royalty,
provides with loads of material for TV and magazines which
should be counted when calculating their contribution
to the U.K. economy.
Besides, as royalty nowadays, they serve as a symbol of unity
through difficult times, and keep people arguing for and
against them. They are the circus in the phrase give
the people bread and circus and they shall remain tamed
🙂
Royalty is obsolete in terms of practical governance,
yet it serves a very important purpose.
Originally posted by SeitseYes, they've really served to unify the UK - a la underground bombers and such ...
The British royal family, alike the rest of the European royalty,
provides with loads of material for TV and magazines which
[b]should be counted when calculating their contribution
to the U.K. economy.
Besides, as royalty nowadays, they serve as a symbol of unity
through difficult times, and keep people arguing for and
against them. They are ...[text shortened]...
Royalty is obsolete in terms of practical governance,
yet it serves a very important purpose.[/b]
There is more strain on the 'United' Kingdom than ever before. There is a serious prospect that Scotland will elect a parliament with a majority in favour of independance. So, the royals aren't a very effective unifying force.
Liz was in Glasgow last week, opening a museum. Nobody but a small band of die-hard royalists was remotely interested. There weren't even anti-monarchy protests anymore (afaik). Nobody cares.
The argument that they bring in more money than they steal doesn't hold water either. As someone else said, the tourists come to see the buildings and the history. You can't just assume that if Liz had to get a council house and a job in Tesco's people wouldn't come to see Windor castle etc. We certainly get plenty of tourists at Edinburgh castle, and I don't know when a parasite last kipped their.
But the killer argument from my point of view is about democracy. Why should this unelected monarch have a veto an legislation?
Why should the monarch have to be of a particular religion? Why should they be banned from marrying catholics? Why are they the defender of one particular faith?
They should go, but it'll be a problem for the what's left of the UK soon enough.