become a republic that is, it's not like the royal family are of any real use other than making old people feel nostalgic and getting some yank tourists into Lahndahn anyway.
become a republic that is, it's not like the royal family are of any real use other than making old people feel nostalgic and getting some yank tourists into Lahndahn anyway.
think of all the nurses and police officers
we could spend the money on instead of using it to prop up our divinely appointed 'ruler'
That's kind of a silly argument though?
I mean, health and education in 2004-2005 had a combined expenditure of around £100 billion, whereas the expenditure on the royals was around £150 million. £150 million too much, you might say, but the point is that as a proportion actually spent on health and education, it's really tiny. There are far more economically sensible ways of getting more nurses and police officers...like actually spending more of the money already assigned to health and education on police and nurses, as opposed to administration or bureaucracy .
I'm no royalist, I'm just saying that the economic arguments on either side of the debate are essentially moot. What tit comes down to is a matter of principle...
a £150m is hardly small change
i'm sure there's something more productive and beneficial to everyday life it could be put to use for
but it *is*
small change from the perspective of the government's budget. It's 0.0015% of the combined health/education budget, to be precise. That kind of saving can easily be made in other, less politically and constitutionally sensitive ways. As I said, the economic argument is moot, it comes down to political principle.
fine
they're a historical relic who wield no real de facto pwoer to govern in this country anymore, outdated, retaining their position through a misplaced sense of nostalgia and as a hollow symbol to to the old myths of nationalism.
DESTROY THEM etc
good luck with that
don't see that happening over here for the next 1000 years or so at least.
i have higher hopes for the old country though (norway, we're all uncivilised socialists up there, it was never a good place for a monarchy anyway)
The tourist
argument is such a tired one. Seem to be plenty of bloody Americans in Paris and dont think thats had a monarchy for a couple of years now.
I know, not since 1963
if you believe the person I spent almost an hour trying to explain the basics of 20th century western European history to at work - she didn't believe me.
genuine questions included:
How could it be a country if it didn't have a king?
Have they just changed his name to keep up with the big countries like America?
Which war did Saint George kill the dragon in, that was against the French wasn't it?
Christ on a bike
People need to sort themselves out.
luckily for us all...
this French 'king' took a Spanish bride which, because Spain were our friends, helped make France like us more.
Naples?!
Nipples?!
The Nipple Republic
got my vote
but if we don't have a monarchy
we'll just be like a little, more cynical version of america
but you already are
xxxxxxxxxxxx
or a less snooty garlic smelling version of France
;)
*Nepal
it's worth pointing out that it's generally been considered that the existence of the royal family leads to slightly more tourist $s in to the economy than what is taken out by them. i've always been sceptical about those surveys, but until i've got evidence of my own to the contrary, it'd be egotistical and a pretty fuckstick-ish thing to do to disagree
Well, a quick look on Wikipedia gives this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism#Most_visited_countries
And of the top ten countrie for income from tourism, 7 don't have monarchies. 8, if you count Australia as it doesn't have a monarchy in residence.
another reason to get rid of them!
and also to increase our carbon dioxide output - so people from cold countries come here because it's warm and people from really hot countries come because it's not too hot.
A good point.
I've never understood the whole "monarchy" thing, either
I seriously doubt people come to see the monarch. Surely they come to see the palaces and statues and so forth?
that proves
literally nothing, there are far too many other variables that influence why people might visit those countries. It seems to me the only way you could actually know for sure is by some kind of careful analysis of the impact on tourist revenues from countries that have actually have transitioned from monarchy to republic.
The arguments against are along the lines of:
they don't cost all that much in the grand scheme of things
they promote tourism
The most compelling is that we'd have to get a president instead and who would that be? Blair?
I'm against the royal family but figure we should give them 20 years or something to get.
who says we need a president?
the PM already fulfills pretty much all that that job would entail anyway
Considering that the queen has a pretty full schedule
going to charity things and meeting foreign guests, Gordy or Call Me Dave would be a bit overwhelmed by it in addition to actually having to run the country.
Bollocks
I say line up now. No, Im being serious, if they just abdicate then what are they going to do?? Just hang around on chat shows putting in their two pennies worth. No fuck em, their family have had it pretty bloody good for the last few centuries. Line 'em up and mow them down I say. Yes, seriously.
yeah!
let's execute them! that'll prove we're a progressive, civilized society!
^^^^
Fag
classy
are the gays gonna get it too, in your future utopia?
No
Just idiots who dont get irony. (excluding americans)
More tourism would be generated by opening up the palaces to the public.
I don't understand how people can say the monarchy boosts tourism.
"WE HAVE A QUEEN IN OUR COUNTRY!"
"A Queen you say? How quaint, we must visit."
"YOU CANNOT SEE HER THOUGH BUT YOU CAN LOOK AT HER HOUSE FROM OUTSIDE!"
Its like Ireland saying: "WE'VE GOT ENYA IN OUR COUNTRY!"
to be fair
there ARE moron tourists who come over expecting to see the Queen, and our Royal Family are probably the most well known in the world, so I think they are a tourist draw and therefore that argument holds up.
I personally think the Royalty is a stupid idea but...I cant remember what my point was.
We could always opena royal family theme park
instead.
Yeah.
The queen should just sit in a glass box all day, so that tourists can walk past and watch her.
An argument in my politics class was that they're a source of national pride.
But, ignoring the obvious amount of ridicule in the press, surely a counterargument would be the level of pride Americans/Frenchies have in their constitutions and revolutions? (Well, ignoring the fact that there's been five versions of the republic in France, they're still proud of the original Declaration). Surely full self-determination brings more pride than having a dysfunctional family of Germans and Greeks as our figurehead?
I suppose someone could argue that the removal of a constitutional monarchy wouldn't bring the same amount of pride as they're pretty much powerless anyway, it'd be a pretty lame revolution - needs more blood and violence and restriction of liberty. But that's a pretty weak argument as it's admitting how bloody useless they are formally.
And I suppose this links in with the tourism income thing...
People still go to America (less so France) to see the buildings of the Republic. Just looking at Proslo's list up there the site of the Lincoln Memorial is the second most visited site in the third most visited country in the world. There'd still be the history and pride, but I'd say there'd be more as "we" actually determined it.
maybe
but the pride the french and americans have in their revolutions stems from the fact they were genuine revolutions, ie. they represent hard fought freedom from tyrannical oppressors. If we introduced a republic now, it would be nothing like that...it would probably be remembered as little more than a depressing New Labour attempt at "modernization"
That's exactly what I said in the second paragraph.
And I've never quite figured out how to answer it, quite honestly. We need Philip to kill a few people and then the timing would be perfect.
whoops,
didn't read yr second paragraph...kinda walked right into that one. Nonetheless, I think it's a valid point - nobody's gonna look back in the hypothetical future republic of britain and think "wow, good thing we got rid of the royals, that harry was a bloody disgrace" with anything near the sincerity and conviction that Americans look back at the constitution and think about the real freedoms it brought about
i'd rather people had pride in their country
than a person.
Pretty much.
i'm not reading any convincing arguments to keep them...
looks like it's settled, DiS is leading the charge come the revolution.
Fuck that
looks like I'll be on the opposing side (like usual) from everyone on this site.
I've read no convincing arguments for getting rid of them.
_
spoil sport
and i'm not sure i've ever read any convincing arguements for keeping them
isn't that part of the problem? ;)
not really.
i disagree.
I disagree disagree.
i disagree disagree disagree... WITH YOUR FACE
1 x win... TO ME!
I disagree
with everything you stand for and everything you stand near.
Checkmate
Say it was the other way around
and you were arguing for the establishment of a monarchy someplace there isn't one - how would you justify the existence of their position in society?
.
just out of interest.
That would be a fairly futile exercise
you have heard, as have I, the arguments for and against the monarchy.
Why bother going over them again?
basically
there are far more pressing constitutional issues in the UK.
^ essentially yes.
Nepal was a completely different example.
god chose their bloodline
above all others to be that which governs us all?
......
what???
the divine right of kings, no?
i used to know someone at school
who actually believed in that. i found it a bit quaint.
kinda discredited though right?
no-one claims that anymore.
Probably since the mid 17C
yeah
i suppose i best concede that they are there by merit and are the smartest, handsomest, most deserving people in the country to have this privileged position.
Some would
some wouldn't.
I favor reform of the monarchy for sure...just not its abolition.
They
do a lot of charity work. I'm just putting it out there.
so did Jesus
Also,
they make money.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3954.asp
Urgh,
Sorry, but I really hate this attitude.
Why?
bloody immigrants
coming over here, wearing our jewels, pretending to rule the country