Time To Abolish The UK Monarchy

[Angela Channing]

Royalty also means tourism. Who needs to see a castle if there's no king or queen in it.
Tourism is good for the hard-working everyday man.

The idea that the Royal family attract tourist to visit Britain, is just propaganda put out by Buckingham Palace and there is no evidence to support it. In fact, whenever there is a Royal event like the jubilee or a wedding, tourists it puts off tourists because its becomes more difficult to travel around.

Royal wedding could be damp squib for tourism, says official

Visit Britain research chief warns that evidence from previous events points to visitors steering clear of UK around 29 April

www.theguardian.com

More people visit the Palace of Versailles with no King, than visit Buckingham Palace with a King.

Again, the Royal Family perform no useful purpose and for the privilege they cost us £500 million every year.

Time to abolish the grifters.

 

[Angela Channing]

Here in Australia I'm surprised our Federal Labor Party - currently in government - is not taking advantage of the current woes afflicting The Royal Family. But then I'm reminded the labor party - while in office - makes little noise about Australia dumping that institution until they are in opposition.

Hopefully next year Jamaica will finally hold a referendum to dump Charlie as its head of state and plans to become a republic are already well underway. It's thought that Antigua and Barbuda, Belize and The Bahamas will follow soon afterwards. The majority of Canadians want to dump King Charlie (47% to 27%). I think the Andrew affair will just hasten it all happening.

The Royal Family represents the very worst of the UK and the Commonwealth, the tip of a disgusting iceberg of poisonous greed, stolen wealth and outrageous arrogance.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

More people visit the Palace of Versailles with no King, than visit Buckingham Palace with a King.

Really??

Time to abolish the grifters.

Heh. If only.

 

[Crimson]

Surely no one alive still believes monarchs serve some divine purpose, so why even maintain the charade? The British royals are mostly just homely* celebrities, involved in endless tedious scandals. I think Britain would be just find without a bunch of dullards in ridiculous costumes waving and making small talk.

* Ouff, those Windsor genes kick in hard after 30.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It seems a very expensive soap opera.

 

[Crimson]

It seems a very expensive soap opera.

It all played better on THE CROWN with attractive actors and good dialogue. In real life, much less interesting. Maybe the Edward VIII / Wallis Simpson stuff was glamorous and dramatic back in the day, but everything from Charles and Diana onward has been tacky and tedious.

 

[Angela Channing]

Really??

Yes and the Royals second home, Windsor Castle, isn't even the biggest tourist attraction in Windsor, that would be Legoland. Maybe not surprisng because a lego brick has more charisma than that family and not able to allegedly rape girls.

 

[anndra w]

Royalty also means tourism. Who needs to see a castle if there's no king or queen in it.
Tourism is good for the hard-working everyday man.

There’s not many castles that have kings or queens in them in the UK - there are lots of castles with lots of tourists however.

 

[Karin]

Yes and the Royals second home, Windsor Castle, isn't even the biggest tourist attraction in Windsor, that would be Legoland. Maybe not surprisng because a lego brick has more charisma than that family and not able to allegedly rape girls.

I did visit Windsor Castle when I visited England back in 2009. It was amazing.

I think Legoland have more tourists from Britain while Windsor Castle have more tourists from abroad.
If I wanted to visit Legoland I'd go to the original in Denmark. Not the one in Great Britain.

 

[Angela Channing]

There’s not many castles that have kings or queens in them in the UK - there are lots of castles with lots of tourists however.

If we abolished the monarchy, we could open up their homes to the public, attract more tourists and generate more income from them. Getting rid of the monarchy would actually boost tourism.

I did visit Windsor Castle when I visited England back in 2009. It was amazing.

I think Legoland have more tourists from Britain while Windsor Castle have more tourists from abroad.
If I wanted to visit Legoland I'd go to the original in Denmark. Not the one in Great Britain.

Actually, both have more UK based visitors than overseas tourists, it just that Lego is more popular than a family that shields alleged sex offenders.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I'm reading convincing arguments why the monarchy could/should be abolished, but one thing is not mentioned at all: culture & legacy.
Perhaps it could be argued that the monarchy has never been a great insitution to begin with, but we can't rewrite history.
It is what it is and it's always been part of England (and other European countries).

Isn't is possible that some or many people in the UK (and other countries with a monarchy) feel that their traditions are being taken away from them, but it's perfectly okay for other nations/cultures/ethnics to maintain their prides and precious customs?
I'm not saying that the monarchy is a wonderful and productive necessity but I think it represents more than just the royal family.

The monarchy doesn't affect America at all, except for the fact that it's always been the one thing they've never had.
A pro-abolition argument coming from that part of the world seems suspicious.

Like I said it feels weird to post a pro-monarchy opinion - it's just that little voice in my head that says "there may be more to it than meets the eye".
And then there's the simple fact that forum member Angela Channing has a long history of bashing everything quintessential British - and not always without good reason.
I still consider the abolition to be an option, but maybe there are things that could be improved before getting rid of it altogether. And once it's gone you can't bring it back.

 

[Angela Channing]

I'm reading convincing arguments why the monarchy could/should be abolished, but one thing is not mentioned at all: culture & legacy.
Perhaps it could be argued that the monarchy has never been a great insitution to begin with, but we can't rewrite history.
It is what it is and it's always been part of England (and other European countries).

Isn't is possible that some or many people in the UK (and other countries with a monarchy) feel that their traditions are being taken away from them, but it's perfectly okay for other nations/cultures/ethnics to maintain their prides and precious customs?
I'm not saying that the monarchy is a wonderful and productive necessity but I think it represents more than just the royal family.

The monarchy doesn't affect America at all, except for the fact that it's always been the one thing they've never had.
A pro-abolition argument coming from that part of the world seems suspicious.

Like I said it feels weird to post a pro-monarchy opinion - it's just that little voice in my head that says "there may be more to it than meets the eye".
And then there's the simple fact that forum member Angela Channing has a long history of bashing everything quintessential British - and not always without good reason.
I still consider the abolition to be an option, but maybe there are things that could be improved before getting rid of it altogether. And once it's gone you can't bring it back.

This is a load of cobblers. Why exactly do you think I have "a long history of bashing everything quintessential British"? Yes, as someone who believes in democracy, I'm against an unelected birth-right head of state and the £500 million they all cost us each year (10 times the cost of your Royal Family), but what else British do I bash?

As for culture and legacy, I would argue that the legacy of a family that has shielded and covered for an alleged child rapist is a legacy we should try to escape.

France abolished their monarchy generations ago and no one would argue that weakened their culture and legacy, in fact many would say France is one of Europe's countries with the richest culture, history and heritage.

As for options other than getting rid of the monarchy, how about an election for the head of state and a member of the Royal Family could stand against other candidates and voters could choose whether we wanted one of them for the job or someone else? I know democracy isn't a British invention but sometimes we need to learn from other parts of the world.

 

[Crimson]

The monarchy doesn't affect America at all

Europeans, of course, famously never having an opinion on what happens in the United States.

 

[Angela Channing]

Europeans, of course, famously never having an opinion on what happens in the United States.

Countries that thrive without a Royal Family have a lot of experience and relevant knowledge about how it can be done better.

 

[Crimson]

Countries that thrive without a Royal Family have a lot of experience and relevant knowledge about how it can be done better.

When the idea of Camilla becoming Queen was seemingly so unpopular among Britons, I thought that would be the "oh, this really doesn't make any sense" moment. She was going to be Queen (Consort) because she's the wife of the King. It doesn't matter that she was unpopular. The title is determined by blood or marriage, not public sentiment. If the British want their heads of state to be determined by popularity, then they should be holding elections.

 

[Willie Oleson]

France abolished their monarchy generations ago and no one would argue that weakened their culture and legacy

The way things are today, I wouldn't be caught dead in France. To be fair, not necessarily because they ended the monarchy.

Europeans, of course, famously never having an opinion on what happens in the United States.

I think Europeans have been idolising America for many decades, and it hurts when that fantasy is being ruined.

But it's a funny thing to critcise America. Americans themselves do it relentelessly but I don't think they appreciate it when non-Americans jump on the bandwagon.
Despite everything I think there's still a sense of pride.
No pride for Europe because that needs to become one big grey pap, with a new East-European countries popping up every year (how do they do that?)

Anyway, for the time being, Angela Channing still needs to bow to his king and call him Your Majesty.

 

[Angela Channing]

Anyway, for the time being, Angela Channing still needs to bow to his king and call him Your Majesty.

I would never bow to royalty, especially now that we know they have been enabling a child rapist. They disgust me and that's nothing to do with them being "quintessential British".

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I would never bow to royalty, especially now that we know they have been enabling a child rapist. They disgust me and that's nothing to do with them being "quintessential British".

Sounds like every post you've ever made... Stay strong, girl!!

 

[Willie Oleson]

I would never bow to royalty

Edit: I was curious so I looked it up, and it's not mandatory to bow to royalty (let's say, during a formal introduction).
But who wants to miss out on making a rehearsed référence?

 

[Soaplover]

The monarch seems to be the lesser of the problems afflicting the UK.

The massive migrant invasion seems to be a bigger for that country.