[Politics] Royal Family: In or Out?

[Hamilton]

Only if you agree to a vastly reduced income and other benefits package. You should be paid accordingly

No worries, a million should do fine.

 

[pastafarian]

UK - elected via biology

not an election process at all then

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

In, great for the economy and the country as a whole.

This.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hastings gull]

The royal family don’t generate money and don’t boost tourism. This has been proven time and again by visit Britain. The houses/palaces and changing of the guards etc do but no tourist ever came to the uk to spend money on physically meeting a royal

Look at Paris. Got rid of the monarch, turned the palaces into museums and art galleries. They get triple the tourists London does and generates money from historical buildings.

The royal family are simply not needed.

I suspect that this is simply not not true. There are many reasons why tourists come to Britain, of course, but I am pretty sure that the idea of the royals plays a significant part. And how exactly has it been proven, as you state? I am sure that I read that London is the most visited city in the world, and yes, museums in Paris may well get millions of visitors, but I am not sure how relevant that is. I doubt very much that three times as many people visit Paris as London.

 

[beorhthelm]

Let us not forget, one of the crowning moments of our democracy was the decapitation of a king.

and what followed? autocratic power grab, the country and parliament begged to someone to return as monarch.

 

[Hampster Gull]

They can do one. Thanks

 

[Bold Seagull]

and what followed? autocratic power grab, the country and parliament begged to someone to return as monarch.

Closely followed by the glorious revolution and the effective end of Royal power. We are over 300 years on from that now. Could be time to take the next step.

 

[wellquickwoody]

The royal family don’t generate money and don’t boost tourism. This has been proven time and again by visit Britain. The houses/palaces and changing of the guards etc do but no tourist ever came to the uk to spend money on physically meeting a royal

Look at Paris. Got rid of the monarch, turned the palaces into museums and art galleries. They get triple the tourists London does and generates money from historical buildings.

The royal family are simply not needed.

Absolute bunkum.

 

[Mayonaise]

Was once good for tourism but the current behaviours are the opposite - get rid!

 

[clapham_gull]

Surely, without the royals the whole changing of the guard malarky wouldn't have happened in the first place?

Even if we turned Buck House into a museum - which it is for 3 months a year - then that's not going to boost tourism.

Where are all these stats about Paris coming from?

Also, Paris didn't get rid of the Monarch, the middle classes did for their own nefarious reasons, not to help the working class. Then they got an Emperor and look where that got them!

It's very easy to find the visitor figures for both French Palaces and UK Royal residences. Versailles visitor numbers easily outweigh the total combined visits to all the UK residences.

There are a variety of reasons to keep the monarchy, but tourism isn't one of them. Its a complete myth that started as a promotional mechanism to get people to visit Britain.

The other more modern cliche is the one that cites "President Blair"



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

[Swansman]

Everything I've read about Charles makes me totally disgusted at the thought of calling him a King.

You should take our.



Yes, he was caught smoking, but he is a cuddly, innocent man. A reasonable fee and he is all yours.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I do not particularly love the royals, but anyone voting to end the monarchy as an institution is voting for a less wealthy UK. Bit like Brexit really.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Our history is intertwined with the Crown. The War of the Roses, Henry VIII and the Catholic church, Oliver Cromwell, James 1st King of Great Britain and enough tales that could take up all day on this board. It's not perfect - far from it - but get rid of it?

It's survived more than a non sweaty prince with dubious morals and a high maintenance Yank. Of course we should keep it.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Brexit leads to break up of the UK, Queens passes away, Commonwealth disbands, countries like Australia and Canada become republics, things are only sailing in one direction.

Today its a YES to keep them, tomorrow things are likely to be different

So, did it change?

 

[Hiney]

100% in

 

[Bold Seagull]

Our history is intertwined with the Crown. The War of the Roses, Henry VIII and the Catholic church, Oliver Cromwell, James 1st King of Great Britain and enough tales that could take up all day on this board. It's not perfect - far from it - but get rid of it?

It's survived more than a non sweaty prince with dubious morals and a high maintenance Yank. Of course we should keep it.

Getting rid of the present day monarchy doesn’t alter history. All the things you mention won’t disappear. Our monarchy could become even more celebrated with Royal properties fully opened up, Buckingham Palace could become a museum charting the entire history of Royalty in Britain. It’s relevance to our future doesn’t lesson it’s relevance to our past.

 

[Bulldog]

Keep. I can see the role gradually becoming more presidential though and certainly a lot less "god save the"

In a society where we have youtubers, love islanders, Big brother wannabes, I can't get remotely worked up about the more modern royals who primarily do excellent charity work and visit good causes for their day to day roles. To me, that's the way the role should go.

Scrap the honours list for celebs and sportspeople. Just recognise amazing charity work each year.

In my mind it would be a huge shame to lose the monarchy. We happened to be staying near Buckingham Palace on Saturday night and walked over to it on the Sunday morning. Caught the changing of the guard. It was brilliant and the levels of excitement by tourists made me wonder why you would ever want to lose that.

It needs modernisation, sure. But certainly don't scrap it.

I don't understand why people think any of the ceremonials would change?

The elected head of state would still live in Buckingham palace and be guarded by the Household regiments, the changing of the guard would go on unchanged. The state opening of Parliament would still be as ceremonial as always, just the person at the centre of it will have a democratic right to be there.

I've been a republican for a very long time and even I can see that we would lose something when the queen goes, she has been amazing, the soft power she gives us should not be underestimated.

But I will never be able to agree with inherited power and the whole quagmire of dodgy royal finances. let alone the Andrew scandal, Charlie cheating on his wife on their wedding night etc etc, to me, says we would be better off without them.

 

[Bulldog]

£100M from the £385M given to the Treasury from the Crown Estates. The £100M is for the upkeep of the royal residences (some of which like Buck House are owned by the state not HM) and payment of their staff.

But without a monarchy, the treasury would get all of the 385 million and the crown estates could be sold off, as with the then unused royal properties?

There would be no Prince of Wales so the Duchy of Cornwall's vast, untaxed profits would also go to the treasury or could be sold off for a huge price. Either way, we would be far richer without them.

 

[Bulldog]

I’d also like to paint this pretty interesting scenario…………..imagine this.

Shortly after his coronation Little Prince George turns out to be a narcissist who is intent on building walls, attacking foreign lands and locking up children in cages. He treats women like second class citizens and is openly racist.

He is in his position of HOS purely through the biological lottery.

What’s most interesting about this is:

He wouldn’t hold any power so can’t put any devilish ideas into practise. However, it does open up the question of what the actual point is of an undemocratically elected HOS if they hold not real power and are purely ceremonial..

If you haven't been voted in, you can't be voted out. How do we get rid of a bad royal? Even Trump can be sacked, how do you sack a King?

 

[Insel affe]

we would be far richer without them.

Until we spunk all that money on cross rail or some other equally over inflated project, or failing that a war.

If you think that money would go straight into the NHS or other worth while causes think again.