Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

[alx]

It doesn't. It's by far a net contributor to the treasury.

That's what I thought, even more good news

 

[Naffa]

You ould be wrong, just look at the responses in this thread.

If we're going solely off the posts in this thread, then I rest my case.

Or maybe people just like the Monarchy? I for one do, and it's not because I'm afraid to speak out about it.

Perhaps they do, but it isn't because it's a superior system of governance.

 

[DanielMMS]

I would wager that nobody (or almost nobody) that actually advocates for a monarchy has spent even a minute seriously contemplating its alternatives.

[sarcasm] Yes, let's go for something based upon the French Presidential system instead. Then we could replace the Queen with someone like Chirac or Sarkozy . Now there's a happy thought [/sarcasm].

 

[Naffa]

[sarcasm] Yes, let's go for something based upon the French Presidential system instead. Then we could replace the Queen with someone like Chirac or Sarkozy . Now there's a happy thought [/sarcasm].

I can settle this easily:

Carla Bruni > Prince Phillip

 

[elmarko]

Wow. Check out Mr. Pretentious.

Yeah well.

If somebody is going to post something that stupid they should expect to be mocked.

The UK has many problems, but the desire for equality isn't one of them.

 

[DanielMMS]

I can settle this easily:

Carla Bruni > Prince Phillip

I'd rather listen to Philip's "unintentional" witicisms than Carla's singing any day

 

[Naffa]

Yes, but who would you rather look at? That's how we choose leaders now, isn't it?

 

[Glaucus]

If we're going solely off the posts in this thread, then I rest my case.

Perhaps they do, but it isn't because it's a superior system of governance.

Then can't of read the thread.

Also better system. Personally I think we have the better system. But they all have pros and cons. Just depends what you want

 

[Burnsy2023]

I can settle this easily:

Carla Bruni > Prince Phillip

Wait for William to be King, the contest will be might closer then

Perhaps they do, but it isn't because it's a superior system of governance.

What is superior on paper doesn't necessarily have the same effect in practice.

 

[andrewdodd13]

I can settle this easily:

Carla Bruni > Prince Phillip

Ok, so it wasn't you who said this but...

Scumbag OcUK Poster:

Doesn't believe people should inherit power by birthright.

Advocates installing heiress to massive fortune instead.

----

This argument has been done to death on here before, like all Internet arguments it ends up leaving everyone wound up with no real difference in opinion on either side.

 

[Hank_Marvin]

Long Live The Queen.

What is so wrong with continueing our great Royal History which so few other countrys have, it makes us unique and brings a lot to the country and Kingdom.

Harry and William seem likeable and down to earth, they don't have to be in the Armed Forces, being at the front, providing SAR services etc etc.

 

[platypus]

the monarchy costs more than the measly couple million they bring in tourism income. The stupid royal wedding security budget did that in one day

Pointless troll is..pointless. You have a colossal chip on your shoulder about a great many things.

Take a breather, step away from your keyboard, and stop posting. Go for a walk.

 

[J.T]

The Queen is awesome, not many (if any) countries that can say their head of state served in the second world war as a mechanic!

I think to many people buy into "Change" meaning out with the old, it doesn’t have to mean that at all IMHO.

Long live the Queen!

 

[DanielMMS]

Yes, but who would you rather look at? That's how we choose leaders now, isn't it?

How very true . The thing is, though, that current models of monarchic vs presidential systems are chalk and cheese. A presidential system is very much a part of the governance system for a country whereas, on the whole, the monarchy is largely symbolic. Therefore, to say that it would be appropriate to replace a monarch with a president is nonsensical. Besides, the UK already possesses a multi-tier system of governance so it would be questionable whether the addition of a presidential layer, so to speak, would provide any benefits or controls whatsoever.

And in any case, even if a true democracy could actually exist, does anyone really think that it would be the optimum form of governance? My tongue may be somewhat in my cheek, but I struggle to reconcile the thought that the direction of countrywide policy could be set by Daily Mail readers.

 

[Freefaller]

People who want to get rid of the monarchy seem to think it will save the country a lot of money. It is my understanding that the Queen is one of the more cost effective heads of state.

The money argument is the least of my worries. I just don't believe in a monarchy.

I actually think it's quaint, and fuddy duddy and "nice". I do like that bit of it, from a purely touristic point of view and "traditional" point of view, then yes lovely and charming. As a figurehead, then yes, I can accept that. As an entity that has power - absolutely not. I think it's a farce the amount of fuss that they get.

However, other than that, I have absolutely no time or care for the royal family. Though it is nice to get an bank holiday this year- about the only thing that claws back something for me!

Don't get me wrong all you royalists, I will stand when the royal anthem comes on, and will be courteous and be respectful. However, I don't "recognise" their power or appointment.

 

[DanTheMan]

I am most definitely for the monarchy and I don't buy in to the argument about nobody having the right to be born superior to somebody else as superiority is all relative. I'm sure most of us can see that the monarchy has very, very little real influence or power to dictate what we can and can't do nowadays and the chances of them actually enforcing any of their powers is even smaller.

Our history is what differentiates us from many other countries and is the reason why such a small island has managed to become such a strong political force in today's world. There are many other people in governance who have real powers to dictate what we can and can't do that should be removed first such as hereditary peers and MPs who are only in jobs because of who they know.

 

[Ceryndrion]

I would also bear in mind that the monarchy are patrons of a great number of charities and trusts, as well as spending a lot of time promoting british interests abroad, something that many of our republican neighbours do not. Without the monarchy, many of the institutions that we hold dear would be left without a figurehead.

Having a monarchy is something that makes us different, different like Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Litchenstein, Luxembourg, Monacco, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden.

And what about Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu? All of which are commonwealth countries under our monarchy, what do we tell them? Sorry chaps, queens off..

Not to mention the Church of England, who will be in charge of that if not the monarch?

I believe it has been said before, but the royal family don't just sit around putting their feet up, they are extremely hard working, and losing them would be a great blow to the nation, and the commonwealth as a whole.

 

[quickshot89]

They bring in more money than it costs to keep them safe

So shush

 

[elmarko]

I would also bear in mind that the monarchy are patrons of a great number of charities and trusts, as well as spending a lot of time promoting british interests abroad, something that many of our republican neighbours do not. Without the monarchy, many of the institutions that we hold dear would be left without a figurehead.

Having a monarchy is something that makes us different, different like Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Litchenstein, Luxembourg, Monacco, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden.

And what about Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu? All of which are commonwealth countries under our monarchy, what do we tell them? Sorry chaps, queens off..

Not to mention the Church of England, who will be in charge of that if not the monarch?

I believe it has been said before, but the royal family don't just sit around putting their feet up, they are extremely hard working, and losing them would be a great blow to the nation, and the commonwealth as a whole.

I'm struggling to find even a half decent reason to keep a monarch in that post.

You make it sound like swanning around the world as a millionaire & being treated like a god by paid lackeys is hard work - they dabble in a little charity work from time to time & get paid much much more than the charity workers who do it for free & live in poverty.

Thankfully as our older generations are dying off, our pro-monarchists numbers are thinning.

 

[Mojo]

The main consideration is keeping money rolling into England. True, monarchy is an irrelevance now, but the novelty is still bringing in a lot of tourist revenue and the publicity they bring England far outweighs the (admittedly large amount of) money that they get paid.