Topic: Should the UK keep the Royal Family?

[Pheeny]

I am fairly neutral on some of the Royal Family but to be honest if we didn't have them a massive and extremely profitable industry would not exist here,

some Brits might not rate them but a hell of a lot of the rest of the world does and travels here in droves.

don't need the Royals to attract tourists though....

"France was visited by 84.7 million foreign tourists in 2013, making it the most popular tourist destination in the world."

[Nessy76]

don't need the Royals to attract tourists though....

"France was visited by 84.7 million foreign tourists in 2013, making it the most popular tourist destination in the world."

Great, we'll just ship over the Mediterranean coast, the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower and the Champs Elysees and we're sorted.

[Lfsea]

don't need the Royals to attract tourists though....

"France was visited by 84.7 million foreign tourists in 2013, making it the most popular tourist destination in the world."

Whilst you're obviously correct in one sense Tony, I don't think that's necessarily a fair comparison. France hasn't had a monarchy since the middle of the 19th century. As such their tourist industry has always subsisted without a Monarchy to supplement it. Although it's not a draw for the likes of you or I, our Monarchy is undoubtedly a constant source of fascination for an enormous number of nations around the world and with that comes direct and indirect income. I think it would affect the UK more than we could envisage if they went.

[redmark]

Whilst you're obviously correct in one sense Tony, I don't think that's necessarily a fair comparison. France hasn't had a monarchy since the middle of the 19th century. As such their tourist industry has always subsisted without a Monarchy to supplement it. Although it's not a draw for the likes of you or I, our Monarchy is undoubtedly a constant source of fascination for an enormous number of nations around the world and with that comes direct and indirect income. I think it would affect the UK more than we could envisage if they went.

I don't think republicans intend to demolish Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and the Tower of London. Many tourists come to England for it's history - not on the off-chance they're going to see Liz popping to the shop.

[Pheeny]

Great, we'll just ship over the Mediterranean coast, the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower and the Champs Elysees and we're sorted.

How many Castles and Palaces are there in the UK?

[Pheeny]

This year half my wife's family will be going to the UK on holiday,not one of them are actually expecting to see any Royal event!

[Jon2lfc]

They've become more relevant now that they act like the hoi polloi

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36173856

Boom!

Hahahahaha

 

[zebenzui]

How many Castles and Palaces are there in the UK?

More importantly, how many are open to the public.

What's better, going to Buckingham Palace and staring at it from behind the fence like a gormless moron, or actually getting to go inside the Hofburg?

[Zeb]

Most of the crown properties can be visited. Most depend on time of year, and whether the royals are in residence. Would be the same with a president really, just likely a three or four properties rather than a dozen or so for the immediate royal family.

Not really fussed either way myself. Would want to see detail of a proposed constitutional change before saying 'yes' or 'no'. In principle, sure, a republic is preferable but that's a very different dynamic to just replacing the Queen with an elected president.

[Mutton Geoff]

Turn Balmoral and Windsor into see the royals theme parks and we can make a killing with the US Tourist Market.

See it now Prince Edward come and rope the dope.

[TravisBickle]

that is a very funny take on it.

 It's highly accurate. They're our version of the Kardashians.

[_Lfc_]

This argument has 'raged' on for years. Should the UK embrace their past and the history of the Kings and Queens and Royalty? Or should they step forward into a modern era without the outdated system of 'Royalty'?

we have a system of constitutional democracy that was chosen by the people.

I'm proud to have the Queen represent me as a British citizen. I think she does a wonderful job. It's our history and we shouldn't be ashamed of that. And more importantly we must remember that the monarchy has no power over the people, they are merely representatives for our nation.

If we changed to a republic, we'd still have a president with special privileges representing us.  Nothing would change in reality.

[_Lfc_]

Then you have the economic argument with the crown estate profits going into the treasury etc

Tourism, and all the rest.

[redmark]

we have a system of constitutional democracy that was chosen by the people.

I'm proud to have the Queen represent me as a British citizen. I think she does a wonderful job. It's our history and we shouldn't be ashamed of that. And more importantly we must remember that the monarchy has no power over the people, they are merely representatives for our nation.

If we changed to a republic, we'd still have a president with special privileges representing us.  Nothing would change in reality.

Then you have the economic argument with the crown estate profits going into the treasury etc

Tourism, and all the rest.

As discussed above, tourism could actually increase if some of the royal residences were properly open to the public.

As for a president, there isn't actually a strict need for one, or it doesn't matter who it is. Let the PM also be head of state, or elect a popular celebrity (or worthy Joe Public) every year, for all that it matters.

[_Lfc_]

As discussed above, tourism could actually increase if some of the royal residences were properly open to the public.

As for a president, there isn't actually a strict need for one, or it doesn't matter who it is. Let the PM also be head of state, or elect a popular celebrity (or worthy Joe Public) every year, for all that it matters.

agree regarding the potential for more tourist revenue, but to give up what is part of our history, something that represents us well and is very popular among the public, would be a shame.

I don't envisage that happening anytime soon though.

[Crosby Nick]

They're like reality TV for old people. Like Big Brother and the like they should too be axed.

*Geordie accent on

Phillip has been called to the Diary Room to explain comments he made in the kitchen about the Obamas.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

As discussed above, tourism could actually increase if some of the royal residences were properly open to the public.

As for a president, there isn't actually a strict need for one, or it doesn't matter who it is. Let the PM also be head of state, or elect a popular celebrity (or worthy Joe Public) every year, for all that it matters.

They could have a "Britain's got Presidency itchy-witchy-woo" where a range of people compete to be President for a year. They could run their entire term like Big Brother - start off with 51 people running the country and each week one gets voted off. Then you start again after the one gets a week in charge.

[thejbs]

we have a system of constitutional democracy that was chosen by the people.

I'm proud to have the Queen represent me as a British citizen. I think she does a wonderful job. It's our history and we shouldn't be ashamed of that. And more importantly we must remember that the monarchy has no power over the people, they are merely representatives for our nation.

If we changed to a republic, we'd still have a president with special privileges representing us.  Nothing would change in reality.

What exactly does she do that an elected president couldn't do as well? And you can be ashamed of our history. There's copious amounts of things in our history to be greatly ashamed of - a great many  of those things are directly accountable to the birth-righted ruling elites.

And yes, a president would have privilege but they would be elected by the people, not given privilege by accident of birth. They also would have a fixed term. In the US, the office of president is something that everyone can aspire to. It's a more powerful symbol than a monarch that commands our deference without having ever earned it.

[_Lfc_]

What exactly does she do that an elected president couldn't do as well? And you can be ashamed of our history. There's copious amounts of things in our history to be greatly ashamed of - a great many  of those things are directly accountable to the birth-righted ruling elites.

And yes, a president would have privilege but they would be elected by the people, not given privilege by accident of birth. They also would have a fixed term. In the US, the office of president is something that everyone can aspire to. It's a more powerful symbol than a monarch that commands our deference without having ever earned it.

the queens duty is to represent us and she does that tirelessly. even at her age.

The people elect our government, that's where the power resides. Anyone can aspire to be Prime Minister.

[redmark]

They could have a "Britain's got Presidency itchy-witchy-woo" where a range of people compete to be President for a year. They could run their entire term like Big Brother - start off with 51 people running the country and each week one gets voted off. Then you start again after the one gets a week in charge.

Self-financing!

[KillieRed]

the queens duty is to represent us and she does that tirelessly. even at her age.

The people elect our government, that's where the power resides. Anyone can aspire to be Prime Minister.

Out of the goodness of her heart.

[thejbs]

the queens duty is to represent us and she does that tirelessly. even at her age.

The people elect our government, that's where the power resides. Anyone can aspire to be Prime Minister.

If I had spent a lifetime of privilege, touring the country and the world in luxury, for free, I'm sure I would be fairly tireless. A president can do this job. In fact, a younger, elected official could arguably do it for cheaper and with more vigour. A privileged 90 year old queen is probably the least representative person for the majority of Brits. A reminder of a time when the country was ruled, heavy handed, by an unelected elite, addicted to power.

[grizz]

Get rid, all the land and money stolen for centuries off everyone else's work 

[zebenzui]

the queens duty is to represent us and she does that tirelessly. even at her age.

How about I do her job with twice the energy, and half the money? Any takers?

[oldfordie]

If I had spent a lifetime of privilege, touring the country and the world in luxury, for free, I'm sure I would be fairly tireless. A president can do this job. In fact, a younger, elected official could arguably do it for cheaper and with more vigour. A privileged 90 year old queen is probably the least representative person for the majority of Brits. A reminder of a time when the country was ruled, heavy handed, by an unelected elite, addicted to power.

I doubt it very much. think it's fair to say the only people who have never heard of the Queen are some of the headhunter tribes living in the Amazon jungle. thousands of people will turn up around the globe just for a glimpse of her. ask someone in the USA who is David Cameron and they might say is he a chat show host. ask who is the Queen and you can be certain they know. she dosent need any introduction.
Elect whoever you want to be our president. David Cameron or whoever, people will ask who is he, nahh am not bothered, tell them the queens coming and see the reaction.
I don't know what point is being made over she is the least representative person for most British people. To believe anything along those lines I assume you would have to believe most people don't want a monarchy. I doubt that very much.

[KERRYKOP]

*Geordie accent on

Phillip has been called to the Diary Room to explain comments he made in the kitchen about the Obamas.

"The way she looked at that nurse"

[KERRYKOP]

Well the English did away with ours around 1000 years ago. Shame we never returned the favour for you.

[thejbs]

I doubt it very much. think it's fair to say the only people who have never heard of the Queen are some of the headhunter tribes living in the Amazon jungle. thousands of people will turn up around the globe just for a glimpse of her. ask someone in the USA who is David Cameron and they might say is he a chat show host. ask who is the Queen and you can be certain they know. she dosent need any introduction.
Elect whoever you want to be our president. David Cameron or whoever, people will ask who is he, nahh am not bothered, tell them the queens coming and see the reaction.
I don't know what point is being made over she is the least representative person for most British people. To believe anything along those lines I assume you would have to believe most people don't want a monarchy. I doubt that very much.

I'm sure Barack Obama is recognised the world over as well.  But did the wider world know who he was 12 years ago? 

You've not made a compelling argument for her beyond "people will show up to see her.'  They'll also show up to see One Direction.  Should the state finance them as well?

[Nessy76]

Well the English did away with ours around 1000 years ago. Shame we never returned the favour for you.

I'm sure some of you have had a crack at it over the years...

[JohnBarnesBigToe]

I think the older you get the less regard you have for them. Have a lot of respect for the Queen. But past that the members of the Royal family who are around my age and younger i'd be happy to see binned off.

The only thing that would stop me is the prospect of having to pay my hard earned towards David Beckham or Tony Blair as President

 

[oldfordie]

I'm sure Barack Obama is recognised the world over as well.  But did the wider world know who he was 12 years ago? 

You've not made a compelling argument for her beyond "people will show up to see her.'  They'll also show up to see One Direction.  Should the state finance them as well?

Can't agree, didn't they go on the streets years ago in the USA and ask some of the public if they think they will ever catch Obama??  some never even recognized the name.
The compelling argument is shes is figurehead who commands respect as she is known as the Queen of England.
Well I prefer Boyzone to One direction if we are actually giving this some consideration. obviously I know this may bring about a lot of heated debate but Boyzone would do a far better job.

[thejbs]

Can't agree, didn't they go on the streets years ago in the USA and ask some of the public if they think they will ever catch Obama??  some never even recognized the name.
The compelling argument is shes is figurehead who commands respect as she is known as the Queen of England.
Well I prefer Boyzone to One direction if we are actually giving this some consideration. obviously I know this may bring about a lot of heated debate but Boyzone would do a far better job.

A deliberate attempt to trip people up into confusing the names of Obama and Ossama.  I would be pretty certain that any American who knows who the Queen is, knows who Barrack Obama is...  And how does she command respect?  What has she done that is worthy of my respect as her 'subject'? And plenty of the royals, including her immediate heir, do a lot to ensure my disrespect.

I won't go into the finer constitutional implications, but I imagine that Boyzone's Irishness wouldn't make them ideal British heads of state.  I Spice Girls/1D coalition is the most likely scenario.

[oldfordie]

A deliberate attempt to trip people up into confusing the names of Obama and Ossama.  I would be pretty certain that any American who knows who the Queen is, knows who Barrack Obama is...  And how does she command respect?  What has she done that is worthy of my respect as her 'subject'? And plenty of the royals, including her immediate heir, do a lot to ensure my disrespect.

I won't go into the finer constitutional implications, but I imagine that Boyzone's Irishness wouldn't make them ideal British heads of state.  I Spice Girls/1D coalition is the most likely scenario.

The press stopped people in the street and asked do they think they will ever find Barack Obama,  if he was that famous you couldn't trip people up,
The other point is that happened after a few years so what made Obama more famous. politics. never being off the telly giving important interviews, the queen pops up a few times a year and says sod all most of the time, yet she is far more famous and commands more respect from every walks of life. it's her pedigree that commands that respect. Charles will also automatically command that respect when he becomes King.

[redmark]

Can't agree, didn't they go on the streets years ago in the USA and ask some of the public if they think they will ever catch Obama??  some never even recognized the name.
The compelling argument is shes is figurehead who commands respect as she is known as the Queen of England.
Well I prefer Boyzone to One direction if we are actually giving this some consideration. obviously I know this may bring about a lot of heated debate but Boyzone would do a far better job.

So, the 'compelling argument' is that she's the queen, so demands respect, because she's the queen?

What shape am I thinking of?

[KERRYKOP]

The press stopped people in the street and asked do they think they will ever find Barack Obama,  if he was that famous you couldn't trip people up,
The other point is that happened after a few years so what made Obama more famous. politics. never being off the telly giving important interviews, the queen pops up a few times a year and says sod all most of the time, yet she is far more famous and commands more respect from every walks of life. it's her pedigree that commands that respect. Charles will also automatically command that respect when he becomes King.

Is it humans or corgis we're talking about here?

The French had the right idea, you won't find this thread's equivalent on the PSG fan forum that's for sure.

[oldfordie]

So, the 'compelling argument' is that she's the queen, so demands respect, because she's the queen?

What shape am I thinking of?

No, She is the Monarch and has no need to demand respect, that's actually a very important point. she is given that respect everywhere she goes in the world.
The point is it's not about having a monarchy or a president for the sake of it, it's about having this direct line in history this country has with a Monarchy.
You can be certain if the House of Windsor were ever deposed or whatever, then even the most ardent royal supporter would never recognize the family that took the Windsors place. that would be the end of the Monarchy, there would be no flag waving or people giving them respect.
So when people keep saying we should get rid of the monarchy and elect a president then until they understand this point then they will never understand why having a president for this country as a figurehead to replace the monarchy will never work.

[Weby72.]

I'm emotionally a republican, but pragmatic enough to see that the Royal Family are an asset to the UK tourist industry.

Because a) the policies of successive governments and short-termist 'entrepreneurs' have decimated the UK's manufacturing industry; and b) the masses in this country are addicted to buying shiny things and tat from China, we need all the foreign currency we can get.

Just think of the Windsors as our version of Disney.

[oldfordie]

Is it humans or corgis we're talking about here?

The French had the right idea, you won't find this thread's equivalent on the PSG fan forum that's for sure.

I think the French went a bit over the top to be honest, did anyone not think of having a referendum at the time instead of chopping everyone's head off straight away. not much thought went into that decision that's for sure.
Am no royalist fanatic. am not coming from that angle and go back a few years I would definitely have been very anti Royal, the days of the monarchy holding true power are over,. they abused the people but they were never alone, the upper classes have abused the working class the last few hundred years far more than any Royal.
Like many people on here ive always dropped into Liverpool museum for a walkabout throughout my life, it maybe just once a year or maybe a gap of a couple of years so I can make comparisons, same with the art gallery, remember many little things on display in those 2 places even as a kid in the 60s.
I remember walking in one day well before the slavery museum was even an idea and feeling very disappointed in all the little things on display that had been removed.
Walking out of the building and just I happened to bump into one of the security guards standing outside so I was wondering what is going on so lit a ciggie and had a little chat with him.
I mentioned how many of the extraordinary things that made this museum so special had been removed. the little shrunken heads from the Amazon, the slavery  items on display. the guard told me he couldn't agree more. he said it's this PC lot they've got in there now, everything is considered an insult to some people, they've gone paranoid. we both agreed this is part of our history and should never be forgotten etc etc. ive no idea how the shrunken heads would bring offense to anyone, he said something like, yeah mad isn't it.
Thankfully people came to there senses and recognized this is part of our history and is extremely important.
I know full well supporting the Royal family is looked upon with the same sort of attitude, it does not belong in our modern world. how it's a dinosaur attitude we should move away from.
I value the history and the connection to the past far more than this particular queen. so am no flag waving queen supporter but I value our history very strongly,, we abolish the monarchy and we throw away a visual massive part of that history.
It's so easy to criticize the support for the monarchy without considering just what damage it will do if it is ever abolished.

[GBF]

the Royals and Tourist link is the most inflated link ever.  Tourist don't come to England to see the Royals because there is no public display nor possibility to visit the Royal quarters.  They'll go for 5 minutes in front of the palace gates and then go elsewhere in London.  They might as well raise chicken inside Buckingham palace without telling anyone and tourist will take a selfie in front of the palace

[redmark]

I value the history and the connection to the past far more than this particular queen. so am no flag waving queen supporter but I value our history very strongly,, we abolish the monarchy and we throw away a visual massive part of that history.
It's so easy to criticize the support for the monarchy without considering just what damage it will do if it is ever abolished.

I absolutely agree about the history. But if we - say - abolished the monarchy on Elizabeth's death, and made those royal residences museums, we're not reducing the 'visual' element of history, we're increasing it.