NationStates Jolt Archive

From the Prince Harry thread it seems that their are a range of views concerning the British Royal Family, I wonder if we can establish once and for all whether their an intricate part of British society, or a drain on tax payers money.

They bring in tourism, and.......well that's about it.

If anything they should drain more of the Tax payers money, least it be given to Terrorist immigrants.

the only part the Queen plays here is her head on one side of our coins and one note

The tax we pay to keep the Queen is only something like 60p a year. And She generates many millions from American tourists who seem to dote on the royal family. As for the queen doing nothing for Australia or New Zealand. Well she is the head of the commonwealth, which is a pretty important organization, and the only global one left where the USA isn’t the main member.

P.S Should have said, "I’m not bothered and I’m from the commonwealth” in the poll, sorry.

The tax we pay to keep the Queen is only something like 60p a year. And She generates many millions from American tourists who seem to dote on the royal family. As for the queen doing nothing for Australia or New Zealand. Well she is the head of the commonwealth, which is a pretty important organization, and the only global one left where the USA isn’t the main member.

P.S Should have said, "I’m not bothered and I’m from the commonwealth” in the poll, sorry.

which means she still doing nothing for us and the commonwealth just like the UN slow at things

Not that bothered with them. Longest running British soap opera and a family which appears to be fairly dysfunctional and is a side issue from where the real power lies in Britain. Do wonder if psychiatric or social work services might have been of use at various times.

Think there are much more powerful and dangerous unelected UK institutions elements of the press for example. The Sun claims to have influenced elections!! These institutions will often use the royal family as cover i.e. criticism of media then major royal family story comes out and buries it.

The tax we pay to keep the Queen is only something like 60p a year. And She generates many millions from American tourists who seem to dote on the royal family. As for the queen doing nothing for Australia or New Zealand. Well she is the head of the commonwealth, which is a pretty important organization, and the only global one left where the USA isn’t the main member.

P.S Should have said, "I’m not bothered and I’m from the commonwealth” in the poll, sorry.
Well there is the EU an the South Pacific Anti-America League.:)

Yes, of course we should.

Well there is the EU an the South Pacific Anti-America League.:)

EU slow at things too and the South Pacific Anti-America League growing by the day

With the prospect of Prince Charles becoming King, the answer has to be get rid of them.

EU slow at things too and the South Pacific Anti-America League growing by the day
Shit i meant South American Anti-America league.-I'm tired...

bunch of inbred parasites.

the perfect figureheads for the brits... :D

Shit i meant South American Anti-America league.-I'm tired...

i think theres both now days

With the prospect of Prince Charles becoming King, the answer has to be get rid of them.

He'll never be king and he knows it - which is why he married Camilla even though it blocks his access to the throne. His mum can reasonably expect another 20 years or more on the top spot by which time he will be a very very old man - who has low public respect and will be married to a woman he cannot have as his queen.

The throne will pass to William, who has pretty overwealming public support.

Just no. (To getting rid of them that is.)They're such a huge part of our identity. Ask most people what they think of when you say "Britain" and the Queen will appear pretty high on the list. Get rid of the monarchy and what makes us special then? We might as well become the 51st state (like we're not halfway there already anyway). People say they want rid of them because they don't do anything, but I'm sure they would also criticise if they tried to take a more active role? What if the Queen used her right and refused to sign a piece of new legislation? I bet you'd be howling.

Anyway, we tried a Republic once and we didn't like it very much. :p

With the prospect of Prince Charles becoming King, the answer has to be get rid of them.

that make us want to became a Republic real fast

They bring in tourism, and.......well that's about it.

people would still come see the castles, etc, if the monarchy were no more. if anything, the castles would be more open to tourists than they are now = more tourism.


i say get rid of them. they are a relic of another time, undemocratic and elitist in the extreme, a burden on the taxpayer, and do nothing an elected president with the same political powers could do.

plus it'd be good to see the vast swathes of royal land/estates opened up to the public or sold, especially considering the housing problems we face in this country. and their multi-million pound art collection would be better served on display to the public.

people would still come see the castles, etc, if the monarchy were no more. if anything, the castles would be more open to tourists than they are now = more tourism.
A lot of the padgentry surrounding them is what attracts the tourists rather than the castles.


i say get rid of them. they are a relic of another time, undemocratic and elitist in the extreme, a burden on the taxpayer, and do nothing an elected president with the same political powers could do.
They are no more a burden on the taxpayer than a president would be, and due to the way their power is applied they have little scope for intefering in the affairs of the democratic wishes of the government. In addition they gain significantly more experience than most presidents - the queen for example has been meeting leaders of nations as head of state from all over the world for over 50 years - something no president can claim.


plus it'd be good to see the vast swathes of royal land/estates opened up to the public or sold, especially considering the housing problems we face in this country. and their multi-million pound art collection would be better served on display to the public.
There are very few that are not already open, and much of the land is farm - which would stay farm after - no building there.

A lot of the padgentry surrounding them is what attracts the tourists rather than the castles.
fine. keep the changing of the guard and whatnot going for the tourists.

They are no more a burden on the taxpayer than a president would be, and due to the way their power is applied they have little scope for intefering in the affairs of the democratic wishes of the government. In addition they gain significantly more experience than most presidents - the queen for example has been meeting leaders of nations as head of state from all over the world for over 50 years - something no president can claim.
true. but that completely skirts around the elitist/undemocatic part that was the crux of my point, and also does not necessarily mean a trained diplomat will be any worse at the post than the queen is.

There are very few that are not already open, and much of the land is farm - which would stay farm after - no building there.
the arguement is moot without data to back up either claim.
however, i believe my arguement still stands that land is one of the few finite resources a nation has, and that with tens of thousands of acres owned by the crown royal estates can surely not be helping the rise in house and land prices in this country that is directly hurting the poor and first-time buyers.

Get rid of the monarchy and what makes us special then?

nothing makes us special now. other countries have monarchies.

We might as well become the 51st state

nah, become part of a Federal European Union :)

fine. keep the changing of the guard and whatnot going for the tourists.


true. but that completely skirts around the elitist/undemocatic part that was the crux of my point, and also does not necessarily mean a trained diplomat will be any worse at the post than the queen is.


the arguement is moot without data to back up either claim.
however, i believe my arguement still stands that land is one of the few finite resources a nation has, and that with tens of thousands of acres owned by the crown royal estates can surely not be helping the rise in house and land prices in this country that is directly hurting the poor and first-time buyers.



nothing makes us special now. other countries have monarchies.



nah, become part of a Federal European Union :)

A trained diplomat would be better than the queen. She doesn't usually take a stance on anything, does she? She just waves in her signature way.

They bring in tourism, and.......well that's about it.

Legalise prostitution in the UK and set up watch dogs to guarantee the sexual health and safety of those involved, and I'd wager we generate much more in tourist revenue than the royal family ever could.

EDIT: ...of course I am still a staunch supporter of the proposal that Equus put up here a long time ago: we make a the next monarch a horse.

I think that the idea of royalty is absurd. What makes them better than anyone else? Inbreeding? Money? Do they really do anything but keep the tabloids in business?

the arguement is moot without data to back up either claim.
however, i believe my arguement still stands that land is one of the few finite resources a nation has, and that with tens of thousands of acres owned by the crown royal estates can surely not be helping the rise in house and land prices in this country that is directly hurting the poor and first-time buyers.


Considering most of the land would be classed as green belt meaning that construction is prohibited or heavy restricted it likely that it will not result in cheaper houses or land prices. (green belt land is already very cheap because no one wants to buy it because they can't build anything on it.)

He'll never be king and he knows it - which is why he married Camilla even though it blocks his access to the throne. His mum can reasonably expect another 20 years or more on the top spot by which time he will be a very very old man - who has low public respect and will be married to a woman he cannot have as his queen.

The throne will pass to William, who has pretty overwealming public support.

I seriously doubt that the constitutional acrobatics required to skip over Prince Charles are likely to happen

I seriously doubt that the constitutional acrobatics required to skip over Prince Charles are likely to happen

You never know, he might die before his mother. Considering men have a shorter expected life span than women, also the women in the Royal family all seem to live very long lives.

Yeah, the Queen Mother got past 100 and Queen Victoria got past 80, so she's got long living women on both sides of her family. I think we'll end up with a situation like in 1901, Victoria dies, but by now her son is so old he only lives another ten years.

Or Charles gets so excited on hearing the news that he dies of a heart attack... "The Queen is dead, long live the King!"
"Whoopee! At last!"
*thud*
"Err... The King is dead, long live the King?"

:p

Although I'm generally against the monarchy as a ruling system, the current monarchy have no real power, so I'm not particularly bothered about them.

Legalise prostitution in the UK and set up watch dogs to guarantee the sexual health and safety of those involved, and I'd wager we generate much more in tourist revenue than the royal family ever could.

EDIT: ...of course I am still a staunch supporter of the proposal that Equus put up here a long time ago: we make a the next monarch a horse.

I approve of both suggests.
Prostitution=win
Camilla for Queen!



Oh, you meant an actual horse. That'd be even better!

I seriously doubt that the constitutional acrobatics required to skip over Prince Charles are likely to happen

There are few constitutional acrobatics to skip Charles - he just has to decline the throne.

There are however constitutional acrobatics for him to actually take the throne given that at the moment he is currently ruled out of the line of inheritance through being married to camilla.

In theory the queen has more power than any other head of state in Europe at least. Also the money she has is mostly gained from business such as farming and the opening of the castle, just because she lost her royal-ness doesn’t mean she would lose her land. Image if you were going to inherit several thousand acres and you couldn’t just because you mothers job title changed.

Also if you got rid of the monarchy you would have to get rid of the entire collection lord’s, duke’s etc. All of who make up for a large amount of the UK’s overall wealth.

And I said the commonwealth was the only GLOBAL organization left. The E.U is Europe only and has no leader; same as the others.

They are no more a burden on the taxpayer than a president would be, and due to the way their power is applied they have little scope for intefering in the affairs of the democratic wishes of the government.


Untrue. There are a LOT of royals whose expenses are paid for by the tax payer. There would be only one president.

In addition they gain significantly more experience than most presidents - the queen for example has been meeting leaders of nations as head of state from all over the world for over 50 years - something no president can claim.

what good is that since she cannot talk and negotiate about anything important? Experience in smiling politely and waving and talking small talk is not that much you know.

They bring in tourism, and.......well that's about it.

Have them bronzed. They will still bring in tourists, and will require considerably less maintenance. :)

I voted no, because it's British. You don't need reasons to keep traditions(assuming they're not ones which involve killing people or so on). In this case, the royal family has no real power and generate income from tourists and so on. As there's no reason to get rid of them, keep them.

as far as i'm concerned the royal family is entirely irrelevant. they should not be getting any state support, but to abolish the monarchy would be to give them too much credibility.

Why do people have it ingrained into their head that the queen is useless? As somebody said she has had 50 years of experience meeting world leaders, she is the head of state of several countries. Whose various prime ministers have all come to the queen for advise and help. From a young age royal men, not sure about women, are taught all about currant affairs, politics, national history and how to be a good head of state. More than any politician could ever learn.

And as far as wasting tax money. The entire royal family take 60p per person per year, that’s the price of a mars bar or two. I think there well worth that.

Why do people have it ingrained into their head that the queen is useless? As somebody said she has had 50 years of experience meeting world leaders, she is the head of state of several countries. Whose various prime ministers have all come to the queen for advise and help. From a young age royal men, not sure about women, are taught all about currant affairs, politics, national history and how to be a good head of state. More than any politician could ever learn.

And as far as wasting tax money. The entire royal family take 60p per person per year, that’s the price of a mars bar or two. I think there well worth that.

mars bars >>>>>>>>>>>>>> queenie

:p

I met the queen and shes a very nice woman.

Anyway as its been said she represents alot of what foregin people think of when you ask them to think of Britain. The monarchy of Britain and the commonwealth is respected all over the world. Pretty much. The royals are a tradition to keep...We watch them screw up and laugh at them, or cry with them when a liked one of them dies, such as Princess Diana. Surely most people remember Princess Di? She, now, was a good royal.

Technically at the time of Princess Diana’s death she was no longer royalty, merely aristocracy. Anyway, it’s because of things like the things she did that make British Royalty special. They will always be loyal to Britain and the Commonwealth no matter what happens, for example the royal family during the blitz stayed in London when everybody around them was doing everything they could to get them to move to a safer location. And I think they deserve the same sort of dedication back from the public, anybody who disagrees with royalty is ignoring everything they have done for the world and the British people.

You should have two monarchies. Would make things interesting, like in the good old days.

By all means keep the monarchy, I trust them a lot more than any elected government! Tradition is the 'democracy of the dead', to quote Mr. Burke and they must be kept, the economic revenue and their world wide presence around the world does more to Britain than any embassy, consulate or diplomatic mission could ever do.

Long live Queen!

I say eliminate parliament and give the queen absolute power.

I say eliminate parliament and give the queen absolute power.


They way things are now I dont think thats such a bad idea.

The monarchy is nothing but a ridiculous relic of a class-ridden society of the past. It is insane that the head of state is chosen in this manner in a supposed "meritocracy". A solution that would avoid falling tourism rates etc. might be something like this:

1. Monarch replaced by an elected President (elected every 4/5 years staggered so as to change in the middle of a Parliamentary term).

2. The President to be given the power to call a national referendum on controversial policies, so as to prevent the largest issues such as war being decided without reference to the people.

3. The President and their family, upon election, would be granted use of the current royal residences, and the traditional ceremonies etc. would be continued.

4. New elections for the President (or, indeed, Parliament) should be called if a certain percentage of the electorate sign a petition.

That wouldn’t work; the person that got elected for president would simply be the person that could afford the best election campaign that means rich businessmen who would probably abuse the position, or members of the recently disbanded aristocracy or royal family.

Also if any old Joe Public can become head of state it loses its affect, would you rather br reprisented as a country by person whose familyand personal history have been the single greatest contribution to Britain, The Commonwealth and perhaps even the modern world. Or just some random rich person.

I say eliminate parliament and give the queen absolute power.

I would say she'd do a better job then Blair, althought that isn't much to boast about.