Steveo2007 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Around the time of the Royal Wedding, a few Facebook arguments became quite heated over the British Monarchy and whether it should be kept or abolished and, although I'm sure there's been a discussion about it in a thread created for the Royal Wedding, thought it would be interesting to see exactly where the UKFF'ers stand on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I've always wondered what those who wish the Monarchy to be abolished would actually want to see done with the Royal family. Do we just throw them out onto the street? Do they have to get real jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalaxyV.2 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I'm not for them at all. The tourism line that gets trotted out is bollocks. People would still flock to London no matter what. Imagine opening up Buckingham Palace for a full tour, you'ld make a fortune. I have no problem with them as people, infact William and Harry seem like decent fellas, but the entire establishment of it is completley bollocks. People should not be bowing down to unelected figures in the 21st Century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg_&_The_Heads Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I've always wondered what those who wish the Monarchy to be abolished would actually want to see done with the Royal family. Do we just throw them out onto the street? Do they have to get real jobs? Â Why not the Queen could have her old age pension and move in to a old folks home I'm sure Will's would be Ok Kate has enough money to buy a house I'm sure Harry could find someone to shack up with. Â As for Charles and horse face couldn't care less what happened to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WU LYF 4 LYF Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 The Royal Family own an incredible amount of land; not just land the state owns and loans to them, they actually have the rights to much of it. They could make a perfectly good living off that. Â I don't mind the Royal Family, not exactly for them. What annoys me more is a guy like the Duke of Westminster; public schoolboy, aristocratic family, the richest man in Britain with a fortune of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted May 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 9, 2011 There are people so much better at debating this topic than me, so I will keep my input short. I like the tradition of the Royal family, I was brought up with them being a bit of a tradition (although I don't recall ever watching The Queen's Speech) and I have no problem with them. Â I will say to Galaxy.V2 most arguements for and against usually end up getting called bollocks and from what I've noticed neither side of the debate (in the stronger cases) seem willing to see the otherside. Especially when tourism is brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg_&_The_Heads Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 For the tourism argument I think if they just built a big theme park in London maybe contact Disney and build Disney Land UK or something that would make as much or even more money than the tourism the Royals bring in. Â Â Â For the tourism argument I think if they just built a big theme park in London maybe contact Disney and build Disney Land UK or something that would make as much or even more money than the tourism the Royals bring in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tom Posted May 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 9, 2011 For the tourism argument I think if they just built a big theme park in London maybe contact Disney and build Disney Land UK or something that would make as much or even more money than the tourism the Royals bring in.   For the tourism argument I think if they just built a big theme park in London maybe contact Disney and build Disney Land UK or something that would make as much or even more money than the tourism the Royals bring in. Two UK Disney Land's is being a bit greedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I don't think it's just tourism so much as giving Britain an identity on the world stage. Whatever the Royal Wedding cost, it was a pittance for the amount of good publicity that it gave Britain, at a time when it is much needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg_&_The_Heads Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I don't think it's just tourism so much as giving Britain an identity on the world stage. Whatever the Royal Wedding cost, it was a pittance for the amount of good publicity that it gave Britain, at a time when it is much needed. Â I don't think as many people cared about the wedding as what they thought would. Â Most people I know didn't watch it or care about it and were more annoyed by the whole thing and this inc people from other countries who wondered why it was been rammed down their throats when it had even less to do with them than it did us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo2007 Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 I don't think it's just tourism so much as giving Britain an identity on the world stage. Whatever the Royal Wedding cost, it was a pittance for the amount of good publicity that it gave Britain, at a time when it is much needed. This. Tourism is just a single part of it, but the main part is that they represent the UK on the world stage, and do very well at it, I think. Â Also, even if the Monarchy were abolished, they would still have the rights to reside in the majority of residences that they hold. Abolition would simply be an on the face of it thing and would likely be harder than the republicans would like to make it seem. Also, look at how much of a unifying force they are, either in a good or bad way, whether as a common enemy or a common love, they bring people from all corners of the UK together and that can't be a bad thing can it? Also, I find the whole "you can't be bowing down to unelected people in the 21st century" such a shit and meaningless argument to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted May 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 9, 2011 Also, I find the whole "you can't be bowing down to unelected people in the 21st century" such a shit and meaningless argument to make. Â Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 The cost is insignificant. If they behave well, the're useful ambassadors. The queen is probably the best confidante the PM can have, cos she's seen it all. The pomp and ccircumstance IS a big tourist draw, especially in the States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I dont actually care one way or the other tbf  The bring in money, keep stately homes from falling into rack and ruin and so forth  But cant stand about the fawning over them in the press and what not   So both have their strengths and weaknesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 How many people here have ever bowed down to a member of our Monarchy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.