Monarchy v Republic

[Donnywolf]

As we have lots of contraversial Threads running I thought we may as well throw in another "biggie"
Having just seen The Princess Royal when asked by a Reporter (simply doing her job) how is the Duke (following his Crash last night) she replied .... "I dont know -  dont you know where I am - Im here with you". So the inference I drew is either she has not been in touch in the last 14 hours to see how he is OR more likely just gave a glib dismissive reply which came over to me very very badly
So I thought do we still want to be a Monarchy - or swat to being a Republic where anyone can aspire to be President (well think Trump). I have added a third option in case someone has a different view to either of the main options

[Donnywolf]

Just hope THIS ONE does not morph into an EU / B****t debate

[IDM]

She was probably just a concerned about her elderly father to be bothered about a journalist’s question, however well intended.

[The Red Baron]

It's not just the possibility of getting another Trump that puts me off. I don't think President Thatcher or President Blair would have been appealing prospects.

Although I expect this to become a live debate when the current Queen dies.

[knockers]

I think the Royals are great

[Donnywolf]

Surprising to me - with a 21 - 8 in favour of Monarchy already

Must admit I thought this may be yet another 50 50 shot !

Plenty of time left though (and a lot of posters seem to be taking a break)

[Draytonian III]

I’ve voted for a Monarchy, with a republic the figurehead would end up being some pillock like Trump,Putin,Cameron or his daft school mate Boris

[Muttley]

I think the Royals are great

I'm sure they are all lovely people but it's time they were stripped of their "constitutional" & "promotional" roles, given a nice annual pension and a castle of their choice, with all their other properties, antiques, art etc returned to the state so that it can be used to benefit the people they stole it off.

[ravenrover]

Care to expand on who might benefit and where things were stolen from?

[Boomstick]

I think the Royals are great

I'm sure they are all lovely people but it's time they were stripped of their "constitutional" & "promotional" roles, given a nice annual pension and a castle of their choice, with all their other properties, antiques, art etc returned to the state so that it can be used to benefit the people they stole it off.

What have you got against their 'promotional' and 'constitutional' roles?

[Muttley]

I think the Royals are great

I'm sure they are all lovely people but it's time they were stripped of their "constitutional" & "promotional" roles, given a nice annual pension and a castle of their choice, with all their other properties, antiques, art etc returned to the state so that it can be used to benefit the people they stole it off.

What have you got against their 'promotional' and 'constitutional' roles?

They are an anachronism, unearned and unrepresentative of the population of the UK.

[Boomstick]

I think the Royals are great

I'm sure they are all lovely people but it's time they were stripped of their "constitutional" & "promotional" roles, given a nice annual pension and a castle of their choice, with all their other properties, antiques, art etc returned to the state so that it can be used to benefit the people they stole it off.

What have you got against their 'promotional' and 'constitutional' roles?

They are an anachronism, unearned and unrepresentative of the population of the UK.

So you say they don't work hard in their roles? And as the head of state she represents ALL her subjects, because the monarchy is a symbol of British sovereignty.
If you don't like it, go and live in a republic.
Luckily your in a tiny minority.

[Muttley]

Care to expand on who might benefit and where things were stolen from?

The country would benefit by selling off surplus castles to rich foreigners, or by opening as museums which slightly less rich foreigners would pay to look round. Or we could even convert Buckingham Palace into a shelter for London's homeless.

Their wealth was stolen from our ancestors by the royals/nobility seizing land and demanding taxes.

[Muttley]

I think the Royals are great

I'm sure they are all lovely people but it's time they were stripped of their "constitutional" & "promotional" roles, given a nice annual pension and a castle of their choice, with all their other properties, antiques, art etc returned to the state so that it can be used to benefit the people they stole it off.

What have you got against their 'promotional' and 'constitutional' roles?

They are an anachronism, unearned and unrepresentative of the population of the UK.

So you say they don't work hard in their roles? And as the head of state she represents ALL her subjects, because the monarchy is a symbol of British sovereignty.
If you don't like it, go and live in a republic.
Luckily your in a tiny minority.

Correct, they don't work hard, not in the way that the vast majority of the country put in a 40 hour week, 46 weeks of the year.

"Her subjects" - I'm certainly not one of her subject - in my eyes, she's my equal.

Monarchy is a symbol of historic oppression of the masses and is mutually exclusive of your beloved "taking back control".

[Boomstick]

I think the Royals are great

I'm sure they are all lovely people but it's time they were stripped of their "constitutional" & "promotional" roles, given a nice annual pension and a castle of their choice, with all their other properties, antiques, art etc returned to the state so that it can be used to benefit the people they stole it off.

What have you got against their 'promotional' and 'constitutional' roles?

They are an anachronism, unearned and unrepresentative of the population of the UK.

So you say they don't work hard in their roles? And as the head of state she represents ALL her subjects, because the monarchy is a symbol of British sovereignty.
If you don't like it, go and live in a republic.
Luckily your in a tiny minority.

Correct, they don't work hard, not in the way that the vast majority of the country put in a 40 hour week, 46 weeks of the year.

"Her subjects" - I'm certainly not one of her subject - in my eyes, she's my equal.

Monarchy is a symbol of historic oppression of the masses and is mutually exclusive of your beloved "taking back control".

I don't think you understand the fact that it's not about the individuals it's about what they represent.
The monarchy is of great benefit to our country, bring in millions every year, they DO work hard in THEIR roles and are the envy of the world.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I think the Royals are great

I'm sure they are all lovely people but it's time they were stripped of their "constitutional" & "promotional" roles, given a nice annual pension and a castle of their choice, with all their other properties, antiques, art etc returned to the state so that it can be used to benefit the people they stole it off.

What have you got against their 'promotional' and 'constitutional' roles?

They are an anachronism, unearned and unrepresentative of the population of the UK.

So you say they don't work hard in their roles? And as the head of state she represents ALL her subjects, because the monarchy is a symbol of British sovereignty.
If you don't like it, go and live in a republic.
Luckily your in a tiny minority.

Correct, they don't work hard, not in the way that the vast majority of the country put in a 40 hour week, 46 weeks of the year.

"Her subjects" - I'm certainly not one of her subject - in my eyes, she's my equal.

Monarchy is a symbol of historic oppression of the masses and is mutually exclusive of your beloved "taking back control".

I don't think you understand the fact that it's not about the individuals it's about what they represent.
The monarchy is of great benefit to our country, bring in millions every year, they DO work hard in THEIR roles and are the envy of the world.

How much did they (the people - not the buildings, regalia, estates etc. that don't belong to the Royal Family) bring in last year?

[Boomstick]

I think the Royals are great

I'm sure they are all lovely people but it's time they were stripped of their "constitutional" & "promotional" roles, given a nice annual pension and a castle of their choice, with all their other properties, antiques, art etc returned to the state so that it can be used to benefit the people they stole it off.

What have you got against their 'promotional' and 'constitutional' roles?

They are an anachronism, unearned and unrepresentative of the population of the UK.

So you say they don't work hard in their roles? And as the head of state she represents ALL her subjects, because the monarchy is a symbol of British sovereignty.
If you don't like it, go and live in a republic.
Luckily your in a tiny minority.

Correct, they don't work hard, not in the way that the vast majority of the country put in a 40 hour week, 46 weeks of the year.

"Her subjects" - I'm certainly not one of her subject - in my eyes, she's my equal.

Monarchy is a symbol of historic oppression of the masses and is mutually exclusive of your beloved "taking back control".

I don't think you understand the fact that it's not about the individuals it's about what they represent.
The monarchy is of great benefit to our country, bring in millions every year, they DO work hard in THEIR roles and are the envy of the world.

How much did they (the people - not the buildings, regalia, estates etc. that don't belong to the Royal Family) bring in last year?

Well, without the monarchy you wouldn't have the estates.
But to answer your question, a quick Google led me to an article on the left wing independent website, which says 1.8 Billion pounds.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I think the Royals are great

I'm sure they are all lovely people but it's time they were stripped of their "constitutional" & "promotional" roles, given a nice annual pension and a castle of their choice, with all their other properties, antiques, art etc returned to the state so that it can be used to benefit the people they stole it off.

What have you got against their 'promotional' and 'constitutional' roles?

They are an anachronism, unearned and unrepresentative of the population of the UK.

So you say they don't work hard in their roles? And as the head of state she represents ALL her subjects, because the monarchy is a symbol of British sovereignty.
If you don't like it, go and live in a republic.
Luckily your in a tiny minority.

Correct, they don't work hard, not in the way that the vast majority of the country put in a 40 hour week, 46 weeks of the year.

"Her subjects" - I'm certainly not one of her subject - in my eyes, she's my equal.

Monarchy is a symbol of historic oppression of the masses and is mutually exclusive of your beloved "taking back control".

I don't think you understand the fact that it's not about the individuals it's about what they represent.
The monarchy is of great benefit to our country, bring in millions every year, they DO work hard in THEIR roles and are the envy of the world.

How much did they (the people - not the buildings, regalia, estates etc. that don't belong to the Royal Family) bring in last year?

Well, without the monarchy you wouldn't have the estates.
But to answer your question, a quick Google led me to an article on the left wing independent website, which says 1.8 Billion pounds.

Most of the estates belong to The Crown, not the Royal Family. Abolish the Crown and the estates belong to the country so we would have the estates without the monarchy.

Which website were ylou looking at?

[drfchound]

it hard to believe that people don’t appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important.

[Glyn_Wigley]

it hard to believe that people don’t appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important.

Yes, the work itself is productive and important. But why does it have to be done by royalty? Non-royal countries seem able to do it just as well.

[Muttley]

it hard to believe that people don’t appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important.

Oh, I fully appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important. ;-)

[drfchound]

it hard to believe that people don’t appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important.

Yes, the work itself is productive and important. But why does it have to be done by royalty? Non-royal countries seem able to do it just as well.

Yes, can’t disagree with that.
The point is though that the Royals ARE there, you can’t change history, and that they do their bit for the country and various charities.
As Boomstick has already said, us having the Royal family is the envy of many countries around the World.

[Glyn_Wigley]

it hard to believe that people don’t appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important.

Yes, the work itself is productive and important. But why does it have to be done by royalty? Non-royal countries seem able to do it just as well.

Yes, can’t disagree with that.
The point is though that the Royals ARE there, you can’t change history, and that they do their bit for the country and various charities.
As Boomstick has already said, us having the Royal family is the envy of many countries around the World.

Most of Europe seemed to be able to change history and seem to manage perfectly well without a monarchy.

[IDM]

There is a very simple minded argument that imperialist dick waving was the reason for the First World War - certainly in Europe - and subsequently the second..

Then again, I have nowt against the royals..

The worst I remember was in the British GP one year - I think Mansell won - they shoved Princess Diana in front of the podium.. that should have been all about the drivers, not her, but I doubt very much it was her choice too..

[Boomstick]

it hard to believe that people don’t appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important.

Yes, the work itself is productive and important. But why does it have to be done by royalty? Non-royal countries seem able to do it just as well.

Yes, can’t disagree with that.
The point is though that the Royals ARE there, you can’t change history, and that they do their bit for the country and various charities.
As Boomstick has already said, us having the Royal family is the envy of many countries around the World.

Most of Europe seemed to be able to change history and seem to manage perfectly well without a monarchy.

Most of Europe changed history, wow. Do they have a time machine?

And do you really call bloodthirsty, and violent revolutions ' managing perfectly well'

I call the magna carta and centuries of evolution, managing perfectly well.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Never quite got this argument that we get shit loads of tourists because we have a Queen.

Do tourists really come in the belief that they are going to see her?

Would they not come to see Buckingham Palace and the Tower whether or not we had a reigning monarch?

Been a long time since there was a Pharoh on the throne in Egypt but folk still go to see the Pyramids.

[Boomstick]

Never quite got this argument that we get shit loads of tourists because we have a Queen.

Do tourists really come in the belief that they are going to see her?

Would they not come to see Buckingham Palace and the Tower whether or not we had a reigning monarch?

Been a long time since there was a Pharoh on the throne in Egypt but folk still go to see the Pyramids.

Didn't think you'd get it....

We wouldn't get half the tourists.

But then it's not just about the billions they bring in.

[Glyn_Wigley]

it hard to believe that people don’t appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important.

Yes, the work itself is productive and important. But why does it have to be done by royalty? Non-royal countries seem able to do it just as well.

Yes, can’t disagree with that.
The point is though that the Royals ARE there, you can’t change history, and that they do their bit for the country and various charities.
As Boomstick has already said, us having the Royal family is the envy of many countries around the World.

Most of Europe seemed to be able to change history and seem to manage perfectly well without a monarchy.

Most of Europe changed history, wow. Do they have a time machine?

And do you really call bloodthirsty, and violent revolutions ' managing perfectly well'

I call the magna carta and centuries of evolution, managing perfectly well.

Read what I wrote, not what you want to believe I wrote.

PS By Magna Carta, I presume you mean that document that had to forced upon a monarch by the people? I bet you don't even know what it says.

[drfchound]

it hard to believe that people don’t appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important.

Yes, the work itself is productive and important. But why does it have to be done by royalty? Non-royal countries seem able to do it just as well.

Yes, can’t disagree with that.
The point is though that the Royals ARE there, you can’t change history, and that they do their bit for the country and various charities.
As Boomstick has already said, us having the Royal family is the envy of many countries around the World.

Most of Europe seemed to be able to change history and seem to manage perfectly well without a monarchy.

But they didn’t change history did they.
What happened has happened, that is history as well isn’t it.

It’s a shame that you didn’t highlight the rest of my sentence rather than the bit you did.

[Glyn_Wigley]

it hard to believe that people don’t appreciate and understand that the work done by the Royals isn’t productive and important.

Yes, the work itself is productive and important. But why does it have to be done by royalty? Non-royal countries seem able to do it just as well.

Yes, can’t disagree with that.
The point is though that the Royals ARE there, you can’t change history, and that they do their bit for the country and various charities.
As Boomstick has already said, us having the Royal family is the envy of many countries around the World.

Most of Europe seemed to be able to change history and seem to manage perfectly well without a monarchy.

But they didn’t change history did they.
What happened has happened, that is history as well isn’t it.

It’s a shame that you didn’t highlight the rest of my sentence rather than the bit you did.

They changed their history by getting rid of the monarchy. The point being that they seem able to do everything without a monarchy that we apparently can't do without one.