I am a Loyalist. Are you?

Yeah, how dare he respect human lives and not cause further misery and suffering you were born in the wrong century. There is no place for your now.

[video="youtube;1eMSEuAe1bg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMSEuAe1bg[/video]

Rule Britannia?

Monarchist and patriotic. Strictly atheist though. Republicans are idiots, they would destroy a primary source of income for the UK tourism industry, destroy our last great traditions and sever one of the few links keeping us together with our commonwealth peers.

And lastly, The United Republic? Really guys?

Do people like you do a bit of basic research before you post????

The monarchy does not give us any income from tourism. I could give you the sources saying so if I could be bothered.

Furthermore, we can still have good relations with other countries without a monarchy. Saying that we will not be respected internationally without a monarch is a ludicrous and unsubstantiated generalisation and a stupid reason for keeping the monarchy in place.

Seriously, just go on the Internet and do some basic research. The idiot here is you.

It's not about destroying international relations - did I say that? No.

It's one of our last great traditions and something of a national unifier. Are you a loonie lefty hell bent on the destruction of a UK wide identity? If we don't have things that we share then how do we associate with each other as a people? I thought people like you would realise that after the independence referendum in Scotland. Less things to divide us, more things to unite us.

The BTA (British Tourism Agency) estimates the monarchy generates 500 million pounds a year in tourist revenue, not to mention direct revenue to the government from the royal estates.

Do your own research rather than buying into whatever crap you read! 'I could give you sources saying so if I could be bothered'. No you can't, because there aren't any!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/tourism/8587231/UK-Tourism-facts-and-figures.html

I am not a "loonie lefty" (funny, you assume you cannot be right-wing and a republican). I am a libertarian and a proud republican, with my own reasons for being anti-monarchist. I am not a blind adherent to your sainted "tradition" or "national identity" because they are little more than tools in the hands of the state to enslave us, and you seem to be among the herd who prefer to join in with the sycophantic flag-waving and hand-kissing of anyone who comes across with a crowned head. The identity of the people is much more than one somewhat discredited and outdated institution.

Are you a collectivist? Because what you are saying sounds a lot like you care more about "national identity" than individual identity. Aren't you more worried about how we associate with each other as individuals rather than as "a people", a blanket term encompassing nothing in particular than a shared flag, language and island residence?

Oh, and the independence referendum in Scotland meant nothing. It was almost always going to be a vote for independence, however narrow the result (and the margin of the result was wider than expected) except for those last few days when it looked like our feckless politicians had almost lost it.

The Telegraph is an impartial source? Please. Go and get some UNBIASED sources of your own volition. Do not go and pick up things that already justify your stated prejudices.

And no, I will not give you the sources, because I think you are rational enough (you have proven otherwise) to go and get those sources yourself and study them. But you won't because of your blind love of the monarchy.

You sound like an anarchist. 'Hands of the state hurr durr enslaving everyone'. Do you have a chip on your shoulder?

In a country where people are increasingly so culturally polarised you would do away with one of the last unifying entities. Do you know what happened in Yugoslavia?

And no, it wasn't going to be a vote for independence. A gullible Scottish electorate bought the SNP lies which pushed it closer in the last few days, because the electorate are generally very selfish/stupid. For example, there are no logical reasons for voting for Labour in 2015. However, they lead in some of the polls. Because people are stupid and want to try the same 'spend, spend, spend' crap that brought Maggie into power in 1989. Does that mean the Tories are good? Most certainly not.

Again, no sources. 'Telegraph biased source blegh blegh'. Maybe you just can't accept there is no overall case for scrapping the monarchy.

I am a libertarian. Not an anarchist. I believe in order over chaos and the tyranny of the majority. Which is what democracy is. I believe in limiting the power of the state and empowering the individual over the state and statist propaganda which is emanated from the prison that is state education (criminal, mental retardation etc).

The end of the monarchy would cause us to become like Yugoslavia? Some hyperbole there methinks. We would carry on as normal, tourists would still arrive. Also, we are culturally polarised because of state multiculturalism, which has led us down the drain and prevented weaker and more barbaric cultures from being assimilated into the majority culture. Which is why people are voting UKIP. State-imposed multiculturalism and political correctness is what has brought us to this sorry state. It is why liberal democracy is going to collapse. It is an unsustainable system, particularly with a heterogeneous population where some parts of the population are more educated and more prosperous than others who are more likely to vote for charlatans and demagogues (which is why unfortunately my fellow blacks love voting Labour).

The monarchy is not a panacea, and mindlessly worshipping it without critical analysis whatsoever is just like religion which you profess not to believe in. Just like statist notions of "nationhood" and collective duty, taxation, etc.

And yes, the electorate were always going to be selfish/stupid because that is the nature of democracy.

You seem clever enough, you should have got my drift over Yugoslavia .

As long as there are economic arguments for retaining the monarchy then Republicanism must be quelled to generate the illusion it is a beloved and most divine entity as to not deter tourists! Use your eyes, go to London. Tell me, how many people visit London to see all of the internationally famous monuments, including Buckingham Palace. How many wouldn't without the queen?

Who the hell goes to the UK to just see Stonehenge or Nelson's Column? No one. EVERYONE sees things associated with royalty on their visits. The Queen is part of a very profitable tourism package, when combined, are a big plus. You would have thousands of people's jobs placed on the line who are reliant on tourism money associated with the royalty. You are selfish and short-sighted enough to effectively make them redundant.

*facepalms*

There are no economic arguments for retaining the monarchy. Even if there were, that is not the point. The point is whether it is a moral institution. And it is a fundamentally immoral institution. So your going on about the supposed economic advantages of the monarchy are pointless.

Are you trying to say that as soon as the Queen ceases to live and breathe people will cease to visit London and its famous monuments? What you are saying makes no sense whatsoever. France gets more tourists than we do and they have no monarch. People come to see the PLACES and the history associated with them. That is no argument for keeping the monarchy.

You clearly can't think hard enough around this one.

Yes and what is one of the biggest selling points of UK tourism? The monarchy!

And yes, there are economic arguments. Because you haven't disproved me which means everything you say is drivel until you prove me wrong!

'facepalm'... really? For gods sake you might as well be lying out of your arse if you can't back anything up with facts.

Look to my other post. I gave you a link to a source disproving your claim. VisitBritain contradicted its OWN RESEARCH by showing that people visit the buildings associated with the monarchy, not BECAUSE of the monarchy.

The monarchy could disappear tomorrow and people would still visit this country in droves.

Would masses of people cancel their plane tickets after hearing of the end of the monarchy? Would people burst into tears in their living rooms the night before their flights because of the end of the monarchy?

So there are no economic arguments. And even if there were, your argument would be none the stronger.

Brainwashed monarchists -_-

He murdered 1,000,000 British people in WW1. Nothing you say can take that away as the greatest blood bath in British history. So how dare you say this sub human bit of Progressive Liberal rubbish respected human lives or cared about peoples misery or suffering.



I was born in the 1900's.

He murdered 1,000,000 British people in WW1. Nothing you say can take that away as the greatest blood bath in British history. So how dare you say this sub human bit of Progressive Liberal rubbish respected human lives or cared about peoples misery or suffering.



I was born in the 1900's.

Churchill through his inaction, allowed the deaths of 1.5M to 4M people in the Bengal Famine.

For the record, David Lloyd George was the second prime minister during the war. The first was Herbert Asquith. His premiership had a coalition government after 1915 (although it was a liberal government before). Therefore in the context, the government of DLG was a coalition government. Needs must. Britain was also committed to intevention as a result of the Treaty of London, 1839. The Viscount Melbourne, a whig politician was PM.

I am not a fan Churchill, sure I respect him but bringing mistakes he made into the argument makes no difference. So you aren't making a counter argument with Churchill. Really though I must ask why whenever I bring up my hatred for Lloyd George or Clement Attlee people always say Churchill caused Gallipoli or a war time famine in Bengal like it some how makes what Lloyd George and Clement Attlee did okay.

Britain wasn't committed to staying in the war and forcing conscription upon the population by any treaty though was it? It wasn't forced to lose 1,000,000 people for nothing. That was Lloyd George.

Of course not. Nobody is condemning Churchill. We are pointing out that your condemnation of Attlee (?) and Lloyd George for doing the same as him makes no sense.



Duh, It was in the middle of a World War. Conscription was necessary for victory. Do you have any other bright ideas?

The Majority of people wanting to remove the Monarch makes no difference if they are all of low status and poor.

So because I only hate Lloyd George and Clement Attlee, but not Winston Churchill my arguments against Lloyd George and Clement Attlee make no sense. In fact your point makes no sense.

I don't think losing 1,000,000 people is a victory. By 1916 Britain had reached all its strategic objectives it had contained the German navy and destroyed it outside the North Sea, it has taken all but one German colony. We had victory at that point. Instead Britain alone kept the war going taking on huge debts and taking huge lose of life, plus illegal acts of government force. This is because of Lloyd George.