Poll: How would you vote in a referendum to abolish the monarchy?

Would you get rid of the monarchy?

  • Abolish the monarchy

    Votes: 326 30.5%

  • Keep the monarchy

    Votes: 743 69.5%
  • Total voters
    1,069
The monarchy offer an area of society that can't be bought out \ advertised on and corporatised. It is important that we keep it as a kind of safeguard or we would turn into the U.S. very quickly.
 
I like the monarchy, but they're looking pretty irrelevant these days. They lost their gloss during the 'Charles/Diana/Charles' affair with his noble sweetheart Camilla/Diana's affairs with every second bloke on the street' soap opera.

QEII is the only royal worth keeping, and she's not long for this world anyway.

I find it amusing that people will scream their lungs out against the 'unelected Eurocrats' of Brussels while in the same breath shouting down anyone who dares to suggest that we can do without the royals and the House of Lords.
 
Last edited:
MookJong said:
The monarchy offer an area of society that can't be bought out \ advertised on and corporatised. It is important that we keep it as a kind of safeguard or we would turn into the U.S. very quickly.
Click to expand...

safeguard to what?

tell me who decided that this family should have so much?
 
DampCat said:
He explained what it's a safeguard to in his sentence.
Click to expand...

really? you mean this? "bought out \ advertised on and corporatised" how would that work then and what difference would it make?

Fact is they are very wealthy and powerful because of birth, in a modern democracy this is wrong.
 
drs101 said:
really? you mean this? "bought out \ advertised on and corporatised" how would that work then and what difference would it make?

Fact is they are very wealthy and powerful because of birth, in a modern democracy this is wrong.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't follow US politics and therefore aren't aware of the current furore over presidential candidates (e.g. Hilary Clinton) accused of being under the sway of big corporations in exchange for their financial backing?
 
Lol?

You will find the mast majority of the very wealthy and powerful are like that because of birth and inheritance, they dont need a shiny hat for that.

The difference between them and and everyone else who is rich and powerful, is that they are under the public eye so much that they are forced to behave a certain way, be it for better or worst.

Are people on here just against inheritance in general?
 
Evangelion said:
Their ancestors. The argument boiled down to: 'We're more powerful than you, so we're taking all your stuff. Now sod off or you'll cop the business end of this sword.'
Click to expand...

yes sure and its an outdated concept, these people are no more special than you or me and should not be in this position.

Pudney said:
I take it you don't follow US politics and therefore aren't aware of the current furore over presidential candidates (e.g. Hilary Clinton) accused of being under the sway of big corporations in exchange for their financial backing?
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware of this, but the royals use their influence to their own ends, prince Charles is a good example of this and its just as bad.
 
Have the royals used their influence recently to start wars for profits or purchase the rights to life saving inexpensive HIV drugs so they can bump prices up for money?

The royals are little different to other rich people who inherited money and bought power to eventually use it for their own means. Difference is that the queen has a shiny hat and they are under so much scrutiny, their freedom to do as they wish is heavily limited by comparison.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Have the royals used their influence recently to start wars for profits or purchase the rights to life saving inexpensive HIV drugs so they can bump prices up for money?

The royals are little different to other rich people who inherited money and bought power to eventually use it for their own means. Difference is that the queen has a shiny hat and they are under so much scrutiny, their freedom to do as they wish is heavily limited by comparison.
Click to expand...

dont worry, I think corporate power should be curbed also,

I do think you may underestimate how much we don't know about the royals, just look at the spider memos, there are definitely known unknowns, also what about the corporate bodies they ara entangled with or part own.
 
Although I dislike the notion of a monarchy in principle, in practice they seem to add more than they take and as long as that continues to be the case I'm fine with it.
 
I'm not a royalist by any stretch of the imagination but I'd keep the monarchy.

I would however reform the payments that they receive so that they are greatly reduced (i.e. in line with an MP's salary for the charity work etc that they do).
 
drs101 said:
dont worry, I think corporate power should be curbed also,

I do think you may underestimate how much we don't know about the royals, just look at the spider memos, there are definitely known unknowns, also what about the corporate bodies they ara entangled with or part own.
Click to expand...

u wat?
 
At the moment, keep them. I actually quite like the queen, she does do a lot of good for the UK. But it might be a different story with one of the others in charge.

People make the assumption that they take more than they make, but it's not true. They might live in country mansions and attend posh tea parties, but they don't live the life of corporate billionaires or footballers. I don't think I'd want to take their place, theres no freedom.
 
Last edited:
drs101 said:
I do think you may underestimate how much we don't know about the royals, just look at the spider memos, there are definitely known unknowns, also what about the corporate bodies they ara entangled with or part own.
Click to expand...

Next you'll be talking about how they all spy on us using their 'little birds' and have secret caches of wildfire buried around London
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom