Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

Are you pro or anti royal?

  • Total voters
    604
shifty_uk said:
Tourism and the income it brings.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, nations without royal families have no shortage of tourism. Just look at the USA, for example.

Zefan said:
Do you think other countries don't have the old palaces and royal buildings? They do, but they don't command the sort of attention that ours do, because ours still have the royal family living in them.
Click to expand...

The Japanese royal family still lives in old palaces and royal buildings.

You've got to realise, they really are living history!
Click to expand...

The Japanese royal family is even older living history.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
So the queen hasn't worked hard? And what do you replace it with? I certainly don't wont a presidential system which changes every 4 years. No continuity.
It's a necessity and people want it changed out of spite. Rather than going actuall this a brilliant system and the inheritance actually is such a small issue it's nit worth changing for that.
Click to expand...

Ultimately the royals don't do a large amount of "hard" work (as the idea is nice and subjective there).

I personally advocate the royals having the head of state role as just a title, no more. So there is no participation from them in the processes of the running of the state. For this to happen there has to be a large change in the roles and functions of the houses of parliament (and preferably a less public role of the royal family as its a bit like the George Bush embarrassment sometimes when they are in public).

Oddly it would resemble the Irish system a little more as the role of President is just symbolic and the parliament's legitimacy is bound by the people.

It seems a little odd to crave continuity even if it holds a large amount of negative aspects and in some cases brings real problems to society.
 
Evangelion said:
The funny thing is, nations without royal families have no shortage of tourism. Just look at the USA, for example.
Click to expand...

It is often said that American has developed their own "royal families" - the Kennedys, Bushes and Rockefellers to name but three. They crave ours. They are obsessed with ours. They come over here specifically to see ours. When ours visit the Americas they are completely mobbed.
 
Evangelion said:
Well yes, but people don't visit America to see the Kennedys, Bushes and Rockefellers.
Click to expand...

Yes, but think of it the other way round. An huge proportion of septics never leave the USA - yet masses of them are convinced to leave the safety of the Land of the Free and visit this country just to see the Royals - bringing with them their piles of dollars. The Royals are undoubtedly a major tourist attraction. Remove them and you cancel out a major enticement for people to visit the country. Visiting the UK for heritage is one thing - but living, walking, breathing (vaguely) heritage in the form of the Royals is a massive plus.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...

I said it was subjective as no one really has a definition of hard work.

But the real point is work the royals do is very fanciful, they "represent the nation" by flying about the world doing a few dignitary visits, but very little directly for the state.

The queen signs off a few laws and documents, heads the commonwealth and the church, but again these are fairly symbolic.

Most son's have done a tour of duty in the army, while admirable they aren't going to be in a position where they will be captured or killed.

There's the semi-obligitory charity work in there.

From my very quick bit of research it's a struggle to find out what the royal family actively do.
 
If they were just another tourist attraction I could understand that better, but there is still more to it than that. It's another level of society that one cannot aspire to and thus creates inherent inequality.

Just my opinion.
 
I've found that those who are against the Royal Family won't have their views changed, and I've given up trying to explain why I think that they are a good thing and why I want to keep them.

They'll be around for a hell of a long time, I'm sure of that.

Pate said:
If they were just another tourist attraction I could understand that better, but there is still more to it than that. It's another level of society that one cannot aspire to and thus creates inherent inequality.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Kate Middleton aspired to it, and achieved it.
 
pingwing said:
Most son's have done a tour of duty in the army, while admirable they aren't going to be in a position where they will be captured or killed.
Click to expand...

Now you really are talking tosh. Andrew flew Seakings during the Falklands War (I seem to recall that the Queen insisted he go rather than be given a desk job back on Blighty :eek:); Harry was stationed in Helmand recently. To name but two. Even William's career can hardly be referred to as closetted.
 
DanielMMS said:
Now you really are talking tosh. Andrew flew Seakings during the Falklands War (I seem to recall that the Queen insisted he go rather than be given a desk job back on Blighty :eek:); Harry was stationed in Helmand recently. To name but two. Even William's career can hardly be referred to as closetted.
Click to expand...

yeah like they were within 50miles of any actual danger

I hate all this queen and country tosh, its really cringe worthy
 
DanielMMS said:
Only if you amalgamate the indifferent into the antis - which is not really correct.
Click to expand...

Well, bearing in mind people that are indifferent wouldn't miss them if they were gone but don't feel strongly enough to want to remove them. If they were pro, they'd have voted accordingly. So in fact it is much more pertinent and close.


Vive la revolution! :cool: :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom