This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Monarchy, are they good or useless?

Scroll to see replies

I hate them. They come from a murderous background, have done nothing to deserve their money or property and will be strung up in time unless they work like everyone else.

Reply 21

Howard

wiffmaster

Ok, then why is she there? And, like it or not, this country really needs money, and we need to stop wasting it on pre-historic crap like the Queen. Why does the Queen have to be head of state, she's no idea about real life and things, she's to far up her own backside to know anything about the day to day running of the country.

We need to spend the money on real issues, such as the homeless, people suffering from cancer, etc. Not on the queen and extravigant 50th year parties for her.

Are you kidding? The Queen is probably the most politically astute person in the land and knows pretty much everything there is to know about the "day to day running of the country" ..........the fact that she's had a weekly audience with the PM of the day for over 50 years might have something to do with it.

Reply 22

blissy

I like the monarchy but I think you must take it all "with a pinch of salt". How many of the line must have been illigitimate? Look at Harry for example - if, what might have been likely in the 16th century, his dad and brother died he would be heir. But he's the son of Diana and James Hewitt (no royal blood).

Reply 23

G4ry

Joey_Johns

WHo cares, Henry rocks even if he not legit.

None of them are legitimate, so what's the difference?

Reply 24

Howard

jammyd

The Queen signs whatever T. Blair tells her to.

Hmmmm......no points for guessing who hasn't studied much constitutional law.

Reply 25

G4ry

Joey_Johns

In that case your not legit. Your not a freeborn Athenian, making everyone not born in Athens not legit including myself. Oh dear.

What are you on about? :confused:

What have they done to deserve castles all over the country, not having to work a day in their life, top education from Eton when they're as thick as two bricks, expecting people to bow down to them. They just better hope they don't come near me and expect special treatment (which could actually happen next week).

Reply 26

Mioniel

I don't hate them, I pity them. I wouldn't want to be a member of the Royal Family for love nor money. Of course, the vast amounts of money that go towards their upkeep does limit my pity to a certain extent :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I like having the monarchy there. I see them as a kind of safety net, however true or false that impression may be. I would be very scared indeed if Tony Blair had unrestricted control over the entire country.

Reply 27

Howard

G4ry

What are you on about? :confused:

Well, I guess, in the days when Britain and Europe were made up of warring tribes the Royal families ancestors were in the "fucki*g hard tribe" and kicked everybodies ass.

In other words they fought everybody else and won and built nice big palaces with everybody else's money.

I guess conversely, that if someone lives in a council house then their ancestors were in the "soft as shite tribe" who got a good kickin from the Queen's bunch thousands of years ago.

So, what have they done to deserve an Eton education and nice big palaces? Simple. They were good scrappers!

Reply 28

jammyd

Howard

Hmmmm......no points for guessing who hasn't studied much constitutional law.

Of course not, Why would I? i'd rather have my toe-nails removed. The point stands. Blair does what he likes - what's the Queen going to do then?

Reply 29

G4ry

Howard

So, what have they done to deserve an Eton education and nice big palaces? Simple. They were good scrappers!

That's what i previously said, i said that they came from a "murderous background" to which joey johns replied "unfounded rubbish" but i don't see how it is. They really don't deserve to be where they are, and i'm surprised "The Great British Public" still tolerate these scroungers and open up their coffers every year to pay for those people to prance about all day, wihtout a worry in their head.

Reply 30

Mariam Safe

Howard

Secondly, even if it were true, is the attraction of thousands of camera clicking Japanese tourists a good enough reason for maintaining a constitutional monarchy? I don't think so!

Not just "tourists", they've got to be "Japanese tourists". Pushing it ever so slightly, dont you think?

Reply 31

makesomenoise

Down with the monarchy. We should be a republic with a sovereign Parliament in more than just name.

Reply 32

Howard

Mariam Safe

Not just "tourists", they've got to be "Japanese tourists". Pushing it ever so slightly, dont you think?

Well, just trying to add something descriptive that's all. They havn't got to be Japanese. They can be "clinically obese American tourists" if it makes you happy.

Too much time on your hands Mariam? If you're going to pick an argument then pick something worthwhile.

Reply 33

G4ry

calumc

They're there because they pretty much always have been in some form or another, so why not?

That is such a poor argument. So because we have always walked everywhere, there would be no need for aeroplanes or cars. Since people have always died of illnesses, there's no need to find cures. Since certain cities have had high drug use and deaths there's no need to do anything since it's always been like that? They shouldn't be there because they're a waste of space and money.

Reply 34

Howard

G4ry

I see your drug use/aeroplane argument but I think "if it ain't broke don't fix it" might be more appropriate here.

Reply 35

makesomenoise

Howard

I see your drug use/aeroplane argument but I think "if it ain't broke don't fix it" might be more appropriate here.

Isn't it broke? They drain money from us, and I don't really see the benefit of a Royal Family. There is the argument about tourism but so what, our tourism industry's crap and the economy's OK...

Reply 36

G4ry

Howard

I see your drug use/aeroplane argument but I think "if it ain't broke don't fix it" might be more appropriate here.

But the royal family do fix themselves. They're puppets that are controlled by society. They have had to adapt to stick around, a bit like the conservative principle "change in order to conserve". Recent examples are the queen paying taxes after the public up-roar and the black flag being raised for diana's death (which the queen did not do, until it was put in the national tabloids.)

Reply 37

Howard

G4ry

Well, society changes with time and so obviously do the members of that society. The Royal family are not immune.

Goodness, we don't have to far back in history (what? 20 years?)to see comedy shows on BBC with blacks and gays as a focal point of ridcule, take Alf Garnett foe example.

Life moves on and attitudes change, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes by the pressures that society places on us all.

Reply 38

Juwel

calumc

I'd agree with Howard on this one.

Before democratic government came about monarchy was pretty much the only system anywhere. We're one of the few countries to retain it alongside democracy, and it's worked until now, so I think it should stay.

But the monarchy has virtually no power. It's just symbolic. That's how it's been able to work "alongside" democracy.

Reply 39

Juwel

calumc

Yes, so retain it as a symbol.

Sorry, having re-read it I wasn't terribly clear in my last post. In my opinion the monarchy are an important part of our heritage, and yes, a symbol of our nation, as with the Flag, the Pound, and the Queen.