Should the monarchy be abolished?

[lordofthepies]

You should just put him on ignore. Makes it a lot easier.

I'd be lying if I said I'd never considered it.

 

[HertsWolf]

I'm not a royalist, but it really is refreshing to have a politically unmotivated, dysfunctional, immigrant family up there at the top of the food-chain.

The whole tourism argument, though, is bollocks (Technical term, Google it). France has shitloads of tourists schlepping and selfie-ing their way round a million sites, many of which belonged to long-dead kings, queens and Coco Chanel. If we ate the royal family this weekend, tourism would go on. People would still queue up to see round Buckingham Palace.

Probably more important is that the royal family create a unique identity for British people, and that establishes us as different, significantly superior and braver than other nations. It's all an integral and quite interesting part of our society and culture. What other country sticks the word "Great" into its title? What makes us "Great" other than McVities digestives, porridge and Worcestershire sauce? And our main name, the United Kingdom, is an utterly useless identifier. Everyone knows wtf we are! We don't even have to say where the fucking UK is: everyone knows. There's only one United Kingdom. The royal family is part of that quirky existence.

Of course, the royal family is utterly pointless. Yes, we could do without them: it might possibly save a few quid, but what the fuck? That's exactly **why** we should keep them! We're big enough, weird enough and unique enough to have and cherish a pointless, antiquated constitutional system with tiaras and black rod and privy councillors and Prince Edward and shit.

Without it we become just another boring, bland, ordinary democracy that's a major cheese exporter.

 

[mnb089mnb]

I'm not a royalist, but it really is refreshing to have a politically unmotivated, dysfunctional, immigrant family up there at the top of the food-chain.

The whole tourism argument, though, is bollocks (Technical term, Google it). France has shitloads of tourists schlepping and selfie-ing their way round a million sites, many of which belonged to long-dead kings, queens and Coco Chanel. If we ate the royal family this weekend, tourism would go on. People would still queue up to see round Buckingham Palace.

It'd probably increase as they'd queue up to see the location where we fucking ate the royal family. Nom Nom Prince Harry.

 

[Red]

I'm not a royalist, but it really is refreshing to have a politically unmotivated, dysfunctional, immigrant family up there at the top of the food-chain.

The whole tourism argument, though, is bollocks (Technical term, Google it). France has shitloads of tourists schlepp

It'd probably increase as they'd queue up to see the location where we fucking ate the royal family. Nom Nom Prince Harry.

For my dinner I'm having bacon, egg, tomatoes, Lincolnshire sausages and the Duke of Edinburgh.

I'd like to feast on Kate Middleton's......

 

[smat]

Fucking legend, Red.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Interesting little article here, which states that 53 were born in the US in 2011, compared to just 4 in the UK.

http://upswingbabynames.com/2012/10/spotlight-on-clive/

Alright fine, geez. Never thought my salient points would be under this much scrutiny.

How about Elmer?

 

[SALTIRE]

Yes absofuckinglutely.

 

[blade1889]

The whole tourism argument, though, is bollocks (Technical term, Google it). France has shitloads of tourists schlepping and selfie-ing their way round a million sites, many of which belonged to long-dead kings, queens and Coco Chanel. If we ate the royal family this weekend, tourism would go on. People would still queue up to see round Buckingham Palace.
.

It would be bollocks to suggest all tourism would stop. It would be bollocks to suggest it will go on exactly as it was. It would be bollocks to suggest investment and trade to the UK would stop, it would be bollocks to suggest it will go on exactly as it was. If only a small % of both were negatively impacted as a result of loosing the monarchy, which I believe they would, we're better off with them financially.

Anyways I've bored myself to death with this now so I'm gonna shut up much to smat's celebration.

 

[Pagnell]

I was all for shooting them but reading this thread has changed my mind. Well done lads.

 

[lordofthepies]

I'd like to feast on Kate Middleton's......

children?

 

[merseyboyred]

I was all for shooting them but reading this thread has changed my mind. Well done lads.

You hungry too?

 

[HertsWolf]

The Queen is actually Ant standing on Dec, dressed in Simon Cowell's party clothes.

#queenfacts

 

[T.A]

Phew. All's well that ends well

Now we just have to hope the Queen fucking dies.

 

[KevinMcallister]

i know i will get alot of love for this but i don't care, ofcourse it should be abolished, it's the most egotistical practice still around

it's a medieval system that has no place in modern society, royal bloodline is the most pathetic thing i've ever heard

and ofcourse they aren't exactly British either

 

[Gladders]

i know i will get alot of love for this but i don't care, ofcourse it should be abolished, it's the most egotistical practice still around

it's a medieval system that has no place in modern society, royal bloodline is the most pathetic thing i've ever heard

and ofcourse they aren't exactly British either

More British than half the people coming into this country and claiming benefits

 

[Red]

More British than half the people coming into this country and claiming benefits

As you seem to be struggling with basic fractions please allow me to correct you. It's not half of them, it's all of them. Unless you're including ex pats who have returned, but we know you were referring to brown people weren't you? . Even then it wouldn't be half

 

[Gladders]

As you seem to be struggling with basic fractions please allow me to correct you. It's not half of them, it's all of them. Unless you're including ex pats who have returned, but we know you were referring to brown people weren't you? . Even then it wouldn't be half

reported for racism ( ), unless you're referring to ex-pats that have spent too long on a sun lounger. I didn't realise everyone coming into the country claimed benefits so no its not all of them, and secondly refer to the smiley at the end of the post. (and in the middle of this one)

 

[blade1889]

reported for racism ( ), unless you're referring to ex-pats that have spent too long on a sun lounger. I didn't realise everyone coming into the country claimed benefits so no its not all of them, and secondly refer to the smiley at the end of the post. (and in the middle of this one)

You just don't learn do you? That is not in the middle of your post. If it was in the middle it would be 1/2 of the way through. Your smiley is about 1/10th of the way through, your maths teacher would spinning in his grave.

 

[Gladders]

You just don't learn do you? That is not in the middle of your post. If it was in the middle it would be 1/2 of the way through. Your smiley is about 1/10th of the way through, your maths teacher would spinning in his grave.

The smiley is the get out clause for posting bollocks people won't take seriously, obviously yourself and Red need to learn unwritten rules. It looks more like 2/20 of the way to me.

 

[Munkiki]

I'd say 1/13th

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Hmmmm...if that's how it comes across then its not how its meant. My point was that people will always be born more equal than others, there isn't a way around that unless you do adopt a communist stance.

As argued before you are correct. Tourists will still come to the UK. Investment will still come to the UK. Absolutely. The level of that tourism will be decreased and the level of that investment will too. mnb089mnb th only effective way to demonstrate how much that will change would be to axe the monarchy and not pay them another penny for 50odd years and see what happens which is why the debate will always be there. I do not, however, find it hard to imagine that our economy easily benefits in excess of the £200mill they collectively cost. Lets suppose one tourist from.abroad doesn't come for the weekend as a result, that's the tourist attractions, restaurants, taxi and hotel money no longer in the economy (low estimate of that being £200). Now youd obviously need 1mill tourists to make up to £200mill they cost. However factor in the princes trust, that becomes ~150mill and 750,000 tourists. Factor in that much of tat money will be for security guards and people that work at the attractions (from what I could tell from the article that used that figure, presumably why its higher than the others I found) and that figure decreases further, then add in trade links which can be incredibly profitable and it decreases further. Whilst no figures can ever be definitively arrived at I dont think its hard to imagine they contribute more than they cost. Mnb theres a vast difference between the royal family and jimmy Saville & slavery which I'm.sure you appreciate.

Not having to work hard-hand on heart I'd hate their life. I really would, no way would I want to be under scrutiny every breath I take from birth. I think the best similarity i can draw is with footballers, they get payed lots because they bring in lots...however in this case I'd argue footballers dont necessarily bring in enough to go with their wages.

Controlling land-interesting point and not one I know or have read enough about to really comment. I am intrigued however about what you mean by 'controlling'. The land they have obviously gets past down, that land is still subject to democratic laws. If we axed the monarchy they would still own the land, one would assume we cant just take it off them? And also how is it different to the Duke & Duchess of Chatsworth (for e.g.) who own lots of land, 'control' it and it gets passed down through their line. Now I'm guessing you'll go back to the 'just cos it happens doesn't mean it shouldn't stop..' argument but I'm not sure what you practically suggest? Also remember that this land is going to be generating tourist income, in some parts.

Sacrificing power- no it doesn't. It opposed your undemocratic argument. Just because they sacrifice their ability to decide laws and elect PMs doesn't mean they don't benefit society.

mnb- tbf I'd agree with Prince Andrew having to pay for his own security. And a good example of what Dave was on about above where costs can be cut.

We are obviously of very different opinions, nothing you say will change my opinion and nothing I say will change yours. I can't understand how a grown adult man can look to support the Royal Family and think they deserve the status they have (and yes they do own land, they own British land because of who they are). Let's leave it here because we're not going to convince each other.

 

[blade1889]

I didn't say they didn't own land but yes I agree