Is the Royal Family worth continuing [not the sitcom], or should we abolish? - over the past 20 or so years, they have, on the whole, been rather an embarrasment, and I for one am fed up with financing another Skiing holiday, the maintenance of Camilla's beige molars, or indeed a night of Shandies in the upper 6th's Dorm.
Royal Family - Abolition?
- Thread starter sandy10
- Start date
Soldato
always said it, always will.
The monarchy serves no purpose whatsoever aside from to make old people comfortable, yeah its nice having a figurehead, But seriously we could have a talking parrot or something that doesn't change the laws to suit themselves cost millions and millions of pounds a year to keep in a stupidly cushy lifestyle and in no way contribute to the increasingly desperate state of this country.
It also makes me wonder what the queen would do if we had a revolution and hoiked em out of power, go and sign on, or fund a private army to reclaim the throne!
The monarchy serves no purpose whatsoever aside from to make old people comfortable, yeah its nice having a figurehead, But seriously we could have a talking parrot or something that doesn't change the laws to suit themselves cost millions and millions of pounds a year to keep in a stupidly cushy lifestyle and in no way contribute to the increasingly desperate state of this country.
It also makes me wonder what the queen would do if we had a revolution and hoiked em out of power, go and sign on, or fund a private army to reclaim the throne!
Soldato
They generate a lot of income from tourism to this country, plus a lot of people relate the UK to the royal family.
I think in an age where its rare to have a tradition such as ours we should maintain it as long as possible, once its gone it'll never come back, some silly celebrity will buy buckingham palace, and the newspapers wouldn't have any interesting stories.
Plus i've not mentioned all the charity work they do. Why should the actions of a couple of bad royals make up for years of good done by the queen / princess di.
I think in an age where its rare to have a tradition such as ours we should maintain it as long as possible, once its gone it'll never come back, some silly celebrity will buy buckingham palace, and the newspapers wouldn't have any interesting stories.
Plus i've not mentioned all the charity work they do. Why should the actions of a couple of bad royals make up for years of good done by the queen / princess di.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Yeah, lets wipe our history away...
Perhaps you can tell I am slightly cynical about your proposal, although what doesn't immediately come across is the idea that I feel your opinions are myopic
Perhaps you can tell I am slightly cynical about your proposal, although what doesn't immediately come across is the idea that I feel your opinions are myopic
Soldato
IIRC most studies put the Royal Family as net contributors to the economy due to the tourist attraction effect and their work overseas in maintaining the public profile of the UK. Although that said, any decrease in tourism would probably be offset if the palaces were opened to the public at a small price for entry.
I'm pretty apathetic towards the Royals, in real terms the amount (if any) we pay towards the maintanance of the Royal Family is minimal, they are essentially figureheads and serve a quaint reminder of the countries history. They may not be particularly relevant but they are pretty much harmless. It's easy to forget as well that their influence goes far beyond their sheer physical presence, things like the Honours list and many parliamentary procedures still involve the monarchy in no small way.
Essentially, I think the hassle created by binning the monarchy would far outweigh any tangible benefit that may arise, so let 'em stay
I'm pretty apathetic towards the Royals, in real terms the amount (if any) we pay towards the maintanance of the Royal Family is minimal, they are essentially figureheads and serve a quaint reminder of the countries history. They may not be particularly relevant but they are pretty much harmless. It's easy to forget as well that their influence goes far beyond their sheer physical presence, things like the Honours list and many parliamentary procedures still involve the monarchy in no small way.
Essentially, I think the hassle created by binning the monarchy would far outweigh any tangible benefit that may arise, so let 'em stay
Soldato
anticonscience said:
Apart from the fact that she gave hope to millions of people during WW2 just by appearing in their town.
She can generate money for a charity just by becomming its patron and getting it into the papers 3 times a year.
She brings in tourists to the country, walk up to Buckingham palace right now and see how many people are there even on a cold wednesday morning, and thats just a building, its the idea that the queen is there that brings them in.
The queen is the last in a line of dignified royals who have served the public without complaint or for their own self interest. The lady is a legend.
Permabanned
anticonscience said:
Mohinder takes the thrown.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
iCraig said:
I think I was the only one who noticed your wit so far, so I'm congratulating it
Last edited:
anticonscience said:
If anything, it'll become more popular. It's a very old and medieval thing that has run throughout our history.
I think it's very exciting. Every time I see the Queen (as harsh as it sounds), I wish she'd hurry up and pass so that I can see all the excitement.
Phil.