Poll: Will you be putting up the Bunting next month?

Will you be putting up the Bunting next month?

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 8.5%

  • No

    Votes: 330 79.7%

  • Pancake

    Votes: 49 11.8%
  • Total voters
    414
  • Poll closed .
Uther said:
Problem is William is 40 now, he could well be 60 by the time he gets the thone. Hardly relevant to the youth of the day.
Click to expand...
This is the thing, sitting there watching all this yesterday and it really felt a little silly crowing a couple of old age pensioners as king and queen. It really ought to have been Will and Kate being crowned yesterday and it would have been a good look to the rest of the UK and the world to indicate the royal family is young and modern again.

Hopefully, Charles does the right thing and abdicate the crown to William within the next decade or so.
 
Last edited:
robgmun said:
This is the thing, sitting there watching all this yesterday and it really felt a little silly crowing a couple of old age pensioners as king and queen. It really ought to have been Will and Kate being crowned yesterday and it would have been a good look to the rest of the UK and the world to indicate the royal family is young and modern again.

Hopefully, Charles does the right thing and abdicate the crown to William within the next decade or so.
Click to expand...
Yes, Elizabeth was 27 when she became Queen. Crowning a king who's now 74 isn't going to cut it for a 'modern' monarchy (if there can be such a thing)
I can't see him abdicate tbh. This is a man who has someone put toothpaste on his toothbrush...
 
Last edited:
Acme said:
Maybe open a museum or 20 as well. Maybe turn those opulent buildings INTO museums!
Click to expand...

Whose money will be used to keep those museums running? Who will pay for the maintenance of those opulent buildings?

Acme said:
Best friends with the most notorious paedophile the country has ever known?
Click to expand...

He barely knew the guy, they weren't 'best friends.'

Acme said:
Pro fox hunting and other cruel sports?
Click to expand...

I'm OK with fox hunting. What other 'cruel sports'?

Acme said:
Completely out of touch with society, fumbling and useless, treats his staff like dirt...
Click to expand...

Charles is a passionate environmentalist and known for supporting environmental causes. Hardly 'out of touch with society.' As for 'useless', I'm not sure what particular role he's failing at?

My mother's cousin used to work for the Royals at Balmoral. In the course of her duties she met Charles regularly, and she said he was always a perfect gentleman to the staff.
 
Last edited:
I don't think age is as much of a big deal as some people are making out.

Charles is obviously younger than Elizabeth II when she died, yet everyone (edit - many people) loved her.

At the end of the day the whole thing is basically just ceremonial. We are a de-facto pure democracy anyway.
 
Last edited:
Uther said:
Problem is William is 40 now, he could well be 60 by the time he gets the thone. Hardly relevant to the youth of the day.
Click to expand...
Even if he became king now I fail to see how he would be relevant to 99.9% of the population, the only people they are relevant to are the aristocracy.
 
Uther said:
Yes, Elizabeth was 27 when she became Queen. Crowning a king who's now 74 isn't going to cut it for a 'modern' monarchy (if there can be such a thing)
Click to expand...

But if we crown a young monarch tomorrow, they'll be old when they step down, as will their children. So the problem just starts all over again. That's the catch with a monarchy: you get the job for life, and there's no term limit.
 
200sols said:
Even if he became king now I fail to see how he would be relevant to 99.9% of the population, the only people they are relevant to are the aristocracy.
Click to expand...
They don't have to be 'relevant' (whatever that really means); they have to help the country and its interests and bring in tourist capital.

If helping our nation's fiscal health isn't 'relevant' to some people, then I don't trust those people to have an opinion on the nation's governance.
 
Participant said:
They don't have to be 'relevant' (whatever that really means); they have to help the country and its interests and bring in tourist capital.

If helping our nation's fiscal health isn't 'relevant' to some people, then I don't trust those people to have an opinion on the nation's governance.
Click to expand...
This argument has been put down so many times, tourism would not cease to exist if we didn't have a monarch.
 
Participant said:
I don't think anyone's said it would cease to exist? It would reduce.
Click to expand...
Why would it? As others have pointed out other countries royal palaces have greater visitor numbers, actually the scope is there for tourism to increase. Surprised your fiscal brain hasn't thought of that.
 
Last edited:
Much of the royal family’s expenses are covered by an annual taxpayer-funded payment known as the Sovereign Grant, which in the 2021-2022 financial year was set at 86.3 million pounds ($108m) – roughly 1.29 pounds ($1.61) for every person in the UK.
Click to expand...

Royals are a money making machine for the uk, non royalists who say they cost us too much money need to do one

Brand Finance, which bills itself as the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy, estimated that the royals contributed 1.77 billion pounds ($1.95bn) to the UK economy in 2017 through a combination of the Crown Estate’s revenues and indirect benefits for tourism, trade, media and the arts.


John Balmer, a professor of corporate marketing at Brunel Business School, said the British royal family is unmatched as a global brand with the exception of the pope.
Click to expand...
 
The_One said:
Royals are a money making machine for the uk, non royalists who say they cost us too much money need to do one
Click to expand...
Why do they 'need to do one'?

Guess what, all those estates and palaces they don't cease to earn money or be tourist attractions without a sitting monarch, infact they could be fully opened and attract more visitors.
 
200sols said:
Why do they 'need to do one'?

Guess what, all those estates and palaces they don't cease to earn money or be tourist attractions without a sitting monarch, infact they could be fully opened and attract more visitors.
Click to expand...
The bulk of the money the royals bring in isnt from the estates

What happens to a town when royals are doing a visit….. influx of tourists and people spending money in the local economy that doesnt happen without them

What happens to a charitys pot when royals back it or do a visit….it goes up. That doesnt happen without them
 
Last edited:
Acme said:
What would actually happen is revenue draw would stay the same or possibly even increase, because we can then sell tickets to all the yanks who want a complete guided tour around all the opulent buildings the royal family used to own.

Maybe open a museum or 20 as well. Maybe turn those opulent buildings INTO museums!

Having a monarchy in 2023 is frankly ludicrous, especially when the people in said monarchy are as demonstrably awful as they are... Best friends with the most notorious paedophile the country has ever known? Pro fox hunting and other cruel sports? Completely out of touch with society, fumbling and useless, treats his staff like dirt... Yeah what a fabulous unelected leader. King my ******* arse.

Flush it all down the pan and turn the palace into a museum. Perhaps they can continue to live there and people can peer at them through glass like the out-of-time curiosities they are.

The Queens death was a fabulous opportunity for people to realise that they loved the Queen, not the monarchy. But we missed it, and instead spent however many millions or billions on pointless ceremonies involving processions and solid gold coaches and other utter wasteful and tasteless pomp, while there is a housing crisis, and a this crisis and a that crisis and people are freezing and going hungry and whatever else.

What an utterly horrific and embarrassing state of affairs. People need to wake up and get a hold of themselves.
Click to expand...

Someones got their knickers in a twist! If it annoys you that much just ignore it.
 
We need some old battle royals, like the old days, to keep them young :D

I agree with others about the age issue. The Monarch is too old. Charles should do (like the Queen should have) and abdicate after a few years, like royal families in Europe did about 5 years ago.

The Monarchy won't survive if people can't relate to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom