Your views on the Monarchy?

actually because the profits of the crown estates are given to parliament (£250 million per annum) even with the civil list payments (£59 million per annum) the monarchy saves us money that works out to be greater than £1 per person per annum so if we got rid of the monarchy then not only would the queen be richer but also all of her time would be her own she wouldn't have to allow foreign heads of state to stay in her home nor would she have to spend about 3 hrs of her day reading state papers and more time advising the parliament and on top of all this her finances would not be subject to public scrutiny and neither would her actions. Furthermore if we got rid of the monarchy we would most likely switch to the system used in Europe where we have both a president and a prime-minister and the president does essentially what the Queen currently does only (most likely)costing more money when we add the cost of elections

1) the royal family aren't our culture they are just a bunch of well off folks that think very little of you.

2) Tourists come to see landmarks not the royal family. How many times have the people who live in this country actually seen the royal family? let alone some foreigners who come for a couple of weeks.

3) Our international image and national pride are of no importance. Defeating an unfair undemocratic regime will give us far more national pride and respect throughout the democratic world.

4) we should remove them because the people want democracy. We pressure China, start wars in Iraq etc all to create democracy yet we are do not have a fully democracy ourselves.

we have a prime minister and election campaigns so your first argument is destroyed.

Having fancy dinners. Eating fancy food. Traveling around the world. Meeting powerful people. Sounds like such a difficult hard life........

Why would we put Tony Blair on a pound coin do you think they have Obama and Bush on dollar bills?

France didn't knock down Versailles or the Palais Bourbon, even in the terror of revolutionary France. Germany didn't destroy any of it's palaces or castles when the monarchy was abolished. Culture just evolves. The monarchy becomes part of our history and we move on.p7

The Royals' effect on the economy is impossibly to quantity.

No. The RSPB and RSPCA may have royal patronage, but the colossal majority of their funding comes from private citizens, lottery grants and EU/government funding. They'd just become the BSPB and BSPCA . . .

Why not just have a dictatorship like in China they seem very successful in recent years

The election campaigns in America and other republics usually involves a multiple tier system where different institutions such as the presidency and congress are elected in different campaigns (which sometimes results in opposing political views where nothing gets done, such as the current financial crisis in the US). In this respect we would have an additional election to elect a president in addition to parliament.

You seem to underestimate the pressure which is on the monarchy at these events. There may be tasty treats but they are not at ease and they are not in a relaxed atmosphere. They travel abroad very often but that is like saying drug-reps for pharmaceutical companies are on a constant holiday They are working when travelling, not having a blast without a care in the world. If the prime minister of president had to do as much traveling as a whole family of royals, to keep up diplomatic relations, they would be able to spend no time in this country at all.

The last point about pound coins was actually a joke so I don't know why you are taking that seriously

Personally I would hate to be a royal. Everything you do is deconstructed, analysed and criticised and is way to stressful. I doubt its the life of luxury which its cracked up to be.

but if their leadership makes a wrong decision, they cant vote them out of office...

but in china the politicians are extreeeeeeemely loyal to the state. You must have heard several crazy stories of execution over some corruption charges..

But a dictatorship in britain might not work, because the people are not used to being ruled like that.

Apart from that if the dictator turns out to be a joker, someone who isnt interested in serving the country, just wanting to make big money and getting out of there.......wat then?

so thats why i believe the only way to make britain a better place to live wud be to make media unbiased. Let the queen stay there and also let a democratic gov continue..

His job is not to provide "leadership" (and if he was, it would be perfect justification for removing him, he has no mandate to lead)

Also "leadership" requires knowledge, understanding and comprehension of the issues involved. Something he lacks - see anything he has ever said regarding healthcare, with particular attention to his support for the scientifically disproven practices of homoeopathy and other "alternate medicines". His "leadership" in this regard has cost lives that would have been saved with proper medical treatment, and also cost the country millions paying known frauds.

His role is to ensure the proper functioning of the democratic process and government, not be involved in it. If he wishes to be politically active, he must first resign from his position (ie abdicate)

You only praise him because you agree with him.

i disagree with the 'don't broke don't fix it' ideology it is very unambitious and results in stagnation. My ideology is 'if it isn't perfect keep trying'.

The living breahing Monarchy is part of the reason everyone comes to see our Castles and Palaces, and not Frances and Germanys

So impossible, that every year they file income reports, and every year Economic Anaylst's give us general estimates of how they did in general Tourist income.

It's amazing the Impossible thing's we can do nowadays.

There are a lot of other minor Charitys that the Royal family are involved in , I would think a four million drop in funds would effect a lot of lives, also high profile patronage, is a proven method to have other people donate as well.

Why would elections cost more than they currently do all they have to do is cross out the word prime minister and put president or whatever other term we might decide to use we could even call the sole head of state prime minister still it doesn't matter what we call them as long as it is democratic

They think wonderfully of me actually.

Are you going to make the argument , that because they live in Affluence, they harbour content for everyone who does not?
Because there actions certainly run contrary to this.
That's as ridiculous as saying everyone who is poor hates the rich.


Wrong, talk to an American, they "adore" our Royal Family, France has castles, and architechture, and Palaces and a rich history that easily matches Englands,

Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren’t plastic.
And why do the Americans think Frances castles are so boring and stinky and the UK’s castles so awesome? Because real monarchs still use them.
The tower of London is so stunning to visitors because the Royal Crest on the Yeomen Warders Uniform is real. It’s not a lame historical re-enactment or modern LARPing.

It’s the embodiment of the living, breathing queen. Everywhere you look she’s sprinkled fairy dust on banal objects to make them magically attractive to tourists.


Except it wouldn't England is overhwelmingly "in-favour" of our Monarchy, so while a few nay-sayers such as yourself would be immsnely pleased with yourself.
Everyone else would be horrified.



Unfair and undemocratic, how so?

They have no actual power whatsoever, and no influence in our nations Political system, every input they have on our Political system, is symbolic and Parliament long ago instituted laws which let them simply override the whole process at a whim.

Her powers are limited to a kabuki theater act of approving what parliament wants to do anyway.

Remove the royal family from government and fundamentally nothing would be different except now you wouldn’t live in the magical United Kingdom but the rather dull United Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A.K.A URESWNI for short. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

Oh yes, and our taxes would also go up if we got rid of them.

The fact that they "don't cost much" is irrelevant. It is an undemocratic institution.

As for tourism. I'm not advocating murdering them like the Bolsheviks. They should simply be stripped of all power. They can keep their wealth and property. I don't see how that would affect tourism.

I also don't understand how being a Monarchist = down to earth?

Yet stuff did get done with the situation in the US. It is far more democratic (assuming the politicians aren't bought out by big business....)

So our system and diplomatic relations are superior to all nations without a Monarchy? our diplomatic relations seem to be follow what the rest of Europe and America tell us to do.

You would hate to be one of the most influential/powerful people on the planet okay carry on with your peasant ambitions.

Admirable but in this case it'll be load of hoo-hah for not much gain.

that's what happened in Nazi Germany (basically)hitlers party was the largest and they had a vote in their parliament that said that the prime-minister (Hitler) could pass laws and make decisions without consulting the MP's then the one man that could stop him (the president who in that political system [that is still used in most of Europe to this day] who does the exact same job as the Queen in our country died ) Hitler took that job and joined it with his own creating the role Fuhrer. lets face it the monarch is currently the only person that can stop a revolution without her David Cameron would be the "Lord Protector of the United Kingdom" and that is not a future i want to see