Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    People wouldnt go there if they didnt think there was a chance of seeing the Queen. No one goes to any of the big castles that AREN'T residential palaces. It's no coincidence.
    Nonsense. Many more people visit the Palace of Versaille than any of our royal castles and yet the chances of stumbling across Marie Antoinette are pretty slim.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think many anti-monarchists realise just how momentous the abolition of the monarchy would be, if it actually happened. After all, we're not just talking about the royal family as individuals, we're talking about an institution that is intricately (if not inextricably) connected with our system of government and law, and our historic heritage, as well as other things I've forgotten at the moment. It would make Britain so colourless and less individual to abolish the monarchy; because it wouldn't merely be getting rid of the royal family, it would be getting rid of a good deal else too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But does that get anywhere near the number of visiters that Buck Palace does? I doubt it. And besides, the Palace of Versailles is famous for historic reasons which are totally separate from the Royal Family - Buck Pal isn't. Compare the number of people who go to Windsor Castle to those that go to Leeds castle - they are similar, only one is a royal residency, and the other isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    Cup·board (cp-brd)
    n. Offensive to wood.
    A tall wooden device used for storing clothes.

    EVERYTHING OFFENDS ME! YOU OFFEND ME!
    get over it :dancing2:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Tourism.
    How many tourists see the Royal Family? And how many Republicans advocate the destruction of royal palaces and jewels?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Another one on this. :eek:

    We've had various monarchs for millenia in Britain. We've already had one constitutional mess up and would hate to have any more so keep it as it is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They've done us well in their present form for hundreds of years, why not let them live on for another thousand. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    They've done us well in their present form for hundreds of years, why not let them live on for another thousand. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
    We were a republic once and it wasn't exactly a great situation to be in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes keep them! They're one of the few bit of heritage we have remaining! Plus they're brilliant for tourism.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This really should be a poll.

    I think the monarchy as figureheads are great. They command much more respect than you might think - even George W Bush displays alsmot fawning body language towards the Queen, while he feels no such trepidation around Tony Blair. History - and, regrettably, current affairs - teach us that absolute monarchies can easily be just as bad as any other kind of dictatorship. However, the British style, with the monarch as just a symbol, is fine.

    In many republics, someone fulfils the same "impotent figurehead" role, but has to be elected to do so. France and Germany do this, although I'm not sure what the official title is. Were Britain to get rid of her monarchy, I think this need would still be there - someone to open hospitals and offer tea and crumpets to foreign potentates. An elected "figurehead" would not, I feel, command anything like the same respect as the Queen does; it remains to be seen whether even Charles will. Personally I don't think he can ever quite match her, but it is to be hoped that he will play his cards right and follow her example, and retain at least a decent proportion of the international respect, even admiration, she enjoys.

    I support the British Monarchy exactly as it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Keep the queen, shes one of the few things that makes us different from the rest of the world. And just think of the alternative, president Tony Blair!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    We were a republic once and it wasn't exactly a great situation to be in.
    Indeed. Chucked it out within 10 years! It goes to show one of the dangers of a republic: that it is much easier to suborne the constitution to your own ends and perhaps make a dictatorship than in a monarchy, whose powers are actually there to prevent Britain from turning into a dictatorship.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    Indeed. Chucked it out within 10 years! It goes to show one of the dangers of a republic: that it is much easier to suborne the constitution to your own ends and perhaps make a dictatorship than in a monarchy, whose powers are actually there to prevent Britain from turning into a dictatorship.
    Another example is to look at Libya.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This HAS been done fairly recently and I think we'll just be ploughing the same ground again.

    Keep the monarchy. The tourism argument does indeed suck.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The monarchy should be replaced. It is an institution that is ok in undeveloped countries but in a democratic, advanced nation like the UK it serves no value whatsoever.
    The tourists are attracted not because of the Royal Family but because of the buildings. Also, many countries without a Royal Family get more tourists than the UK. We should have a presidential system like Germany where the President is a figure head who plays only a small role in politics. Lets stop giving hand-outs and arse licking the richest family in the UK and start making them work like everyone else.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Japs is no more offensive than Brits. Get over it.
    Japs is used as a derogatory term. Brits isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Japs is used as a derogatory term. Brits isn't.
    Yeah, but why do you care? If a japanese person finds it offensive, he or she can say so. Why does everyone take it upon themselves to make decisions of what is offensive on behalf of other people?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Japs is used as a derogatory term. Brits isn't.
    To hell with that. The person who said it obviouslty didn't mean it offensively, so who cares about it? Attack the people who DO use it offensively, not those who do not.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Why does everyone take it upon themselves to make decisions of what is offensive on behalf of other people?
    Yes, damn those dictionary writers!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Yes, damn those dictionary writers!
    naaah it's all Labour's fault. Peter Mandelson in particular.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.