NationStates Jolt Archive

While I wouldn't condone killing the royal family, I'd have to generally agree with the republican (in the non-American sense of the word) sentiments expressed in this[Al Quida threatens HRH the Queen of England! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453788) ] thread. It would be interesting to do a poll of Brits here to find out what they think of the monarchy (and include a set of options for non-Brits so they can express their opinions too).
here you go...

Waste of space if you don't count the massive income from tourism that they rake in for our economy.

They're the Tabloids' pets.

Oh, I'm busy not caring about our own Royal Family, and now you want me not to care about yours as well.

How shall I manage?

Waste of space if you don't count the massive income from tourism that they rake in for our economy.

You're so right. France doesn't get any tourists at all. No one visits the former royal buildings over there.:D

Oh, I'm busy not caring about our own Royal Family, and now you want me not to care about yours as well.

How shall I manage?
you've just insulted me so much! I'm Irish. :D

As a non-Brit, I'd have to say that quite a few Americans have a real soft spot for the Royals. This probably has more to do with the lack of any sort of Royalty ( other than frakkin' "entertainers!" ) in the US than with any perceived worthiness of the current crop of Royals.

You're so right. France doesn't get any tourists at all. No one visits the former royal buildings over there.:D
Yeah, but street vendors don't sell fake mugs of Louis XVI or whoever in Paris.

We have the buildings and the residents.

Noone ever goes to France climbs to stop the top of the ifle tower, looks at the view and says "wow, the view is great but the lack of a monarch really spoils it for me".

67p a year it costs a tax payer, frankly thats not worth worrying about so im for them and the idea of president tony blair scares the hell outta me!

edit: also would any one here complain if it was them?

Noone ever goes to France climbs to stop the top of the ifle tower, looks at the view and says "wow, the view is great but the lack of a monarch really spoils it for me".

Mark Steele did ;)

Noone ever goes to France climbs to stop the top of the ifle tower, looks at the view and says "wow, the view is great but the lack of a monarch really spoils it for me".
No, but no-one goes to Paris and buys mugs with Jaques Chirac on them either.

Say what you want about the monarchy in the UK. You can even be a UK citizen, and think it's about as useful as a human appendix. A waste of money, etc.

But if al-Qaeda touches one hair on yon gray head...

something tells me the people of the UK will take it very, very personally.

I'm actually descended from the British royal family (my eldest uncle on my dad's side is 394th in line for the throne. Or at least he used to be) and I'm anti-monarchy. But it's pretty cool to be able to say that I'm related to Her Maj.

67p a year it costs a tax payer, frankly thats not worth worrying about so im for them and the idea of president tony blair scares the hell outta me!

What exactly scares you about President Blair?
Is it the thought of an elected head of state?
Is it the vast additional powers he would have like er the power to call himself president?
Is it the threat of paying 67p to someone you oppose politically?

In all practical matters a President would have the same powers as the Prime Minister, and would have the potential additional check on those powers of an opposition controled parliament.

Maybe if you got your views from somewhere other than the Daily Mail they would be more coherent.

What exactly scares you about President Blair?
Is it the thought of an elected head of state?
Is it the vast additional powers he would have like er the power to call himself president?
Is it the threat of paying 67p to someone you oppose politically?
Maybe it's because we're already so used to the idea of one big-eared twunt being our sovereign, we couldn't handle it if another big-eared twunt took his place. ¬_¬

you've just insulted me so much! I'm Irish. :D

Not too far off.

Waste of space if you don't count the massive income from tourism that they rake in for our economy.
conjecture. the only study on this issue i've ever seen is an article the times did ages back (must have been a couple of years by now) which clearly found that the tourism trade would not suffer should the royals be removed.
in light of remembering about this article i did a poll here on NS which clearly showed that non-british people would still visit britain for sight-seeing/tourist reasons should the royals be, uh, removed

besides that very idea is an insult to our wide-ranging and strong tourism industry, in that it implies tourism throughout the country couldn't possibly survive without those old fools in buckingham :rolleyes:


i mean think about it: all those castles, estates, and palaces, all opened up for the public and tourists to actually go to and view... not to mention the massive private art collection that would be opened up to the public... if anything that could well boost the tourism industry!
and don't forget crowd favourites like the changing of the guard can still take place in a purely ceremonial fashion just for the tourists


so the one thing the royals could have going for them... they kinda don't really. time to get rid of them!

What exactly scares you about President Blair?
Is it the thought of an elected head of state?
Is it the vast additional powers he would have like er the power to call himself president?
Is it the threat of paying 67p to someone you oppose politically?

the thing that scares me is he would complete power, currently the queen can stop him from putting things through (although sadly she dont).

The queen is something id want to see, but a preisdent its not really something i would go to see. and also id want my 67p back if it was to keep that person in a house, its not far we should elect him and keep him

and since when did i read the mirror?

Say what you want about the monarchy in the UK. You can even be a UK citizen, and think it's about as useful as a human appendix. A waste of money, etc.

But if al-Qaeda touches one hair on yon gray head...

something tells me the people of the UK will take it very, very personally.
like when princess di died? i mean what the fuck was that about?
i couldn't stand her when she was alive anyway - and thats apart from the fact she was aristocracy too

like when princess di died? i mean what the fuck was that about?
i couldn't stand her when she was alive anyway - and thats apart from the fact she was aristocracy too

ooo :rolleyes:

ooo :rolleyes:
:confused: what?

actually forget that: like i care :rolleyes: :p

I'm surprised some Scots haven't already said this, but the monarchy isn't just English!!!

the thing that scares me is he would complete power, currently the queen can stop him from putting things through (although sadly she dont).

The PM has all the Queen's power. Has done ever since George I. The Queen is a rubber stamp, no more and no less to the british political system.

like when princess di died? i mean what the fuck was that about?
i couldn't stand her when she was alive anyway - and thats apart from the fact she was aristocracy too

Oh, no he didn't! *Z-snap*

:confused: what?

actually forget that: like i care :rolleyes: :p

I was just making a little bit of a joke!

The PM has all the Queen's power. Has done ever since George I. The Queen is a rubber stamp, no more and no less to the british political system.
then she is without use to the british political system. get rid of her

The PM has all the Queen's power. Has done ever since George I. The Queen is a rubber stamp, no more and no less to the british political system.

dear lord, stop insulting my queen.

the thing that scares me is he would complete power, currently the queen can stop him from putting things through (although sadly she dont).

The queen is something id want to see, but a preisdent its not really something i would go to see. and also id want my 67p back if it was to keep that person in a house, its not far we should elect him and keep him

and since when did i read the mirror?

If you really believe that Queen could stop parliament putting through any bills that have passed through both houses, duly debated by the elected representatives of the people and the upper house then you are truly deranged.

perhaps you could give some examples of legislation that she should have stopped before it came onto the statute books.

Your preferences in spectating are, thankfully, not yet considered a viable basis for selecting the process of government.

Are you suggesting that politicians should work for free? That would work well. We'd really get qualified people entering parliament then wouldn't we.

Do keep up, I said the Daily Mail, not the Mirror but after reading your last effort I think it's more likely the Beano.

dear lord, stop insulting my queen.

Shall we start insulting your lord, then?

As a Brit, I have a very high opinion of the monarchy and personally cannot stand the idea of a British Republic.

I am secure in the knowledge that the republicans (not in the sense of the American party) in Britain are impotent and without mainstream political support. Considering that the monarchy has survived the worst upheavals in European history, I find it unlikely what our current generation of republicans (mostly a bunch of students stamping their feet to the tune of "ITS NOT FAIR, ITS NOT FAIR") will have much of an impact.

The reason the republicans lack any real political support is because it would simply be too much bother to write the monarch out of our constitutional procedures and write in a president. The huge amount of things that would have to be changed would consume a considerable chunk of parliamentary time, time which is already quite limited.

Also the Royal Family enjoys fairly widespread popular support - even those who are relatively ambivalent would probably choose a monarch over a President, simply to avoid the extra layer of corrupt politics that would have to be added. Thus political parties tend to avoid the subject, in order to avoid alienating their votes and to prevent themselves as appearing as extreme. Parliamentary opposition would undoubtedly be provided by the Conservative Party and the House of Lords, so even if a republican agenda did a majority in Parliament, it would still find it tough to pass the necessary laws.

While I live in the States and have all my life. I am extremly partial to the royal family. My family has served in both the US and the British Military combined for over 600 years. While my family was on the correct side during "the great state-side rebellion" (Only thing the french have ever done for us) I still fell a sense of belonging to the British culture. Now please correct me if im wrong but I am pretty sure that British Officers still swear loyalty to the crown. (I certainly wouldn't swear loyalty to Blair, or Bush for that matter)

So what I'm trying to say it that while in practice the royal family has no "real" purpose, their importance is greater than anything else in the Empire!!!!

Not too far off.
how are things in finland anyway?;)

Well, I'm American, and I don't really care much about the British (or any other) royal family. They're a relic of a bygone era, sure. But if the British want to keep a bunch of people around so they can put them on display on national holidays, it's their choice, not mine.

That being said, I do kind of respect Prince Andrew for actually going out and getting himself a real job. He could have sat around on his royal arse and been a parasite, but he joined the Navy instead.

:p

While I live in the States and have all my life. I am extremly partial to the royal family. My family has served in both the US and the British Military combined for over 600 years. While my family was on the correct side during "the great state-side rebellion" (Only thing the french have ever done for us) I still fell a sense of belonging to the British culture. Now please correct me if im wrong but I am pretty sure that British Officers still swear loyalty to the crown. (I certainly wouldn't swear loyalty to Blair, or Bush for that matter)

So what I'm trying to say it that while in practice the royal family has no "real" purpose, their importance is greater than anything else in the Empire!!!!

great first post

Wait ..... some countries still have a monarch? It's not just a butterfly?

Man ... somehow I thought it was the 21st century ... I better check my calendar.

I'm no fan of the royal family,but that's mainly cos they're predecessors invaded my country,and all the plantations.

but they arent that bad really,they bring in money from tourism,and they sell tabloids.

Fass, feel free to insult my lord.

While I live in the States and have all my life. I am extremly partial to the royal family. My family has served in both the US and the British Military combined for over 600 years. While my family was on the correct side during "the great state-side rebellion" (Only thing the french have ever done for us) I still fell a sense of belonging to the British culture. Now please correct me if im wrong but I am pretty sure that British Officers still swear loyalty to the crown. (I certainly wouldn't swear loyalty to Blair, or Bush for that matter)

So what I'm trying to say it that while in practice the royal family has no "real" purpose, their importance is greater than anything else in the Empire!!!!

Firstly, yes officers (in fact, soldiers of all ranks) do swear loyalty to the Queen rather than politicians, as the Queen is the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces (ceremonial position). In fact, I believe all politicans swear loyalty to the Queen - otherwise they can't take up their seats in Parliament (which is what the Sinn Fein MPs do - they refuse to sit in Parliament because they refuse to swear the oath).

correct side during "the great state-side rebellion

You presume there was a correct side. In my opinion, the two sides were both as flawed as each other.

how are things in finland anyway?;)

You mean the old Swedish dutchy? Lovely, I hear.

Fass, feel free to insult my lord.

He's Indian and bought his title!

Question, why do people from non-former-colonies care ? Not being insulting, just a tad curious, as it's not exactly going to affect anyone's lives much.

Righty, my piece; I'd keep the monarchy, it sets us appart from the Europeans, who haven't really changed all that much from their Royal-headed state, just a man in a suit is the figurehead instead.

Plus well, it's something embedded into the country, look how much every other european country that threw away its monarchy changed, usually they spent a good 30 years in states of anarchy.

I could point out the valid and obvious charitable work uses they have, and the tourism income blah blah blah, but I'm sure we all know those anyways yes ?

Republican arguments really are usually a bunch of studenty-types whining about it not being fair, they shouldnt have privileges and all that etc etc etc. But few ever consider the extra constraints on that kind of life; security, social rules, things like that. It is a rather two-edged sword, not all palaces and fancy cars.

And my final opinion, blaming the current Royal family for colonialism is a tad naive, the government at the time controlled that, not the King/Queen.

He's Indian and bought his title!
HERETIC!

I'm British and for the Monarchy

HERETIC!

Worshipper of foreign commoners!

I like the Royal family. A good tourist attraction (a lot of people come to Britian for it's great history, a good amount of that is royal history)

And besides, Prince phillip is a legend. I nearly wet myself laughing when he said the fuse box looked like it was installed by an Indian.

Worshipper of foreign commoners!

You wouldn't say that if I worshipped you, foreign commoner!

I love the royal family
My fav Prince Philip Quote, said to British students studying in China.
"If you people stay here much longer, you're all going to get slitty-eyed!"

I love the royal family
My fav Prince Philip Quote, said to British students studying in China.
"If you people stay here much longer, you're all going to get slitty-eyed!"
my favourite, said to diplomats in africa (forget which country): "so, you lot still throw spears at each other?" :p

ok he can stay alive just for the comedy value :P

my favourite, said to diplomats in africa (forget which country): "so, you lot still throw spears at each other?" :p

ok he can stay alive just for the comedy value :P

*giggles*

British here and all in favour of preserving the monarchy.

They are a part of our tradition, our heritage and our national identity. They cost next to nothing, and that can easily be trimmed by stopping funding the hangers on. They make an excellent diplomatic corps, so many people are impressed by a title (and the TV footage of George Bush meeting the Queen is classic - never have I see so much naked terror on a man's face), they make a good tourist attraction and they keep much of our history alive.

She has no power and I wouldn't change that - she shouldn't have any power. But she is my Queen and long may she be so.

British here and all in favour of preserving the monarchy.

They are a part of our tradition, our heritage and our national identity. They cost next to nothing, and that can easily be trimmed by stopping funding the hangers on. They make an excellent diplomatic corps, so many people are impressed by a title (and the TV footage of George Bush meeting the Queen is classic - never have I see so much naked terror on a man's face), they make a good tourist attraction and they keep much of our history alive.

She has no power and I wouldn't change that - she shouldn't have any power. But she is my Queen and long may she be so.

That's a good way of looking at it. I myself don't really mind the monarchy for the same reasons, but take it or leave it. If it could be removed at significant economic benefit to the country then great - do it, but since it really doesn't cost that much and would be difficult to dissolve, they should keep it.

British subjects presuming that they have the right to remove their own God-appointed monarchy?

Please, enough of this unseemly continental radicalism :p

You wouldn't say that if I worshipped you, foreign commoner!

You'd be kneeling before me and my mighty sceptre, and that would make up for it.

British subjects presuming that they have the right to remove their own God-appointed monarchy?

Please, enough of this unseemly continental radicalism :p

I agree, but since the 1701 Act of Settlement, the Monarch rules by the grace of Parliament, not God.

LOL, technically the queen also claims descent from Wotan, but I don't think we've held with that for some time.

I agree, but since the 1701 Act of Settlement, the Monarch rules by the grace of Parliament, not God.

Long live sarcasm:headbang:

Hope she doesn't die before she can be lined up against the wall with the rest of her family and shot *sigh* that'll be the day...

I'm glad to see so many people in favour of the monarchy, I was beginning to think republicanism was sweeping the nation!

Hope she doesn't die before she can be lined up against the wall with the rest of her family and shot *sigh* that'll be the day...

My jealousy-motivated republican radar is going into overdrive...

My jealousy-motivated republican radar is going into overdrive...
Yeah, it's not an objection to inequality and outdated systems :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's not an objection to inequality and outdated systems :rolleyes:

Inequality is inevitable, as long as everyone is not a clone of everybody else. As for outdated, has a radically superior alternative been found?

LOL, technically the queen also claims descent from Wotan, but I don't think we've held with that for some time.

Yes, I've seen that - my wife is distantly related to the British royal family (she's a descendant of Ethelred II "the Unready"). When I researched her genealogy, I laughed quite a bit when I ran into Thor and Odin/Wotan among her distant ancestors. (Well, I should have guessed she was part goddess... :D)

Waste of space if you don't count the massive income from tourism that they rake in for our economy.

That is a dodgy assumption at best.

67p a year it costs a tax payer, frankly thats not worth worrying about so im for them and the idea of president tony blair scares the hell outta me!

I dunno, a powerless President T Blair is far more preferable than a Prime Minister T Blair with few constitutional checks on his authority, no?

Also, I'd much prefer the 67p. Though to go down this line of arguement means that economic factors come before any political considerations. You argue for slavery using the same line.

Mark Steele did

Mark Steel (no final 'e')

I suppose there is some benefit to recycling the same joke over and over again for a number of years. Eventually some one will listen.

In all practical matters a President would have the same powers as the Prime Minister, and would have the potential additional check on those powers of an opposition controled parliament.

Though the most common republican system being advocated is with a ceremonial president. Hence my comment of a near powerless President Balir above.

besides that very idea is an insult to our wide-ranging and strong tourism industry, in that it implies tourism throughout the country couldn't possibly survive without those old fools in buckingham

Well it is quite obvious that all Britain has going for it is a few poxy nobles. Except for creating the most popular sport, essentially creating popular music, giving birth to capitalism, helping the birth of civil rights, creating the language of business, creating some of the best artists, poets and writers...

Dammit, your making me sound like a patriot now :mad:

the thing that scares me is he would complete power, currently the queen can stop him from putting things through (although sadly she dont).

Don't be naive.

Don't be silly.

Considering that the monarchy has survived the worst upheavals in European history,

Dirty proles baying for their blood that results in several republics and the guillotining of the royal family.

I missed that part of British history.

And besides, Prince phillip is a legend. I nearly wet myself laughing when he said the fuse box looked like it was installed by an Indian.

Bernard Manning for the next King!

:confused:

They are a part of our tradition, our heritage and our national identity.

Maybe yours. But personally I think there are better things in our history than a few poxy nobles living the life of Riley.

tbh, I think that it was simply blind patriotism that meant royals got on the recent list of 100 greatest Britons.

they make a good tourist attraction

w00t. That's what I want my country to be. A Victorian themepark for obnoxious tourists!

and they keep much of our history alive.

No they don't. What a silly assumption.

They keep history alive insofar that people act as if the monarchy has always been like this.

Hope she doesn't die before she can be lined up against the wall with the rest of her family and shot *sigh* that'll be the day...

"Should the royals family be shot or hanged?"

"Hanged, they aren't worth the bullets."

:p

]quote[Inequality is inevitable,[/quote]

So therefore it should be ingraved into a country's constitution?

A political head of state is a disaster. His/her allegiance would be to the people by who he was elected, not to the whole population. Speeches made would always appear cynical or opportunistic.

the monarchy is the greatest ever

RECLAIM THE EMPIRE! IT WOULD SOLVE SO MANY PROBLEMS

SHUT UP YOU IDIOT

How can one argue such finesse and intelligence in an argument such as shown above....

How can one argue such finesse and intelligence in an argument such as shown above....


heh heh i love the monarchy

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!