The Monarchy vs Republic Megathread - Mk I

Watch this thread
Poll: I am...
In favour of the monarchy (44)
39.64%
Against the monarchy (54)
48.65%
Indifferent (13)
11.71%
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
Welcome to the Monarchy vs Republic Megathread. As the title suggests, this is the place for discussions about the the great ol' Monarchism vs Republicanism debate that has become rather frequent on here, and this thread was created as the result of a merger of a large number of threads.

So what do you think? Should we be a monarchy or a republic? Any why?
0
reply
noobynoo
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
The King of Spain has resigned and the Spanish people are calling for an end to the extravagant wasteful meaningless Monarchy. Shouldn't we do the same?

Look at the evidence:

Like rich bankers who are "too big to fail" they live on money from the state. Going on holidays, playing around in their helicopters, visiting cheese factories for no good reason, owning racehorses, living in massive palaces with servants to warm their toilet seats and brush their teeth. They are racist (Prince Phillip obviously, and Prince Harry likes to dress as a Nazi and call arabs Towel Heads). Princess Kate is just some upper-middle class society wannabe like Diana or those buffoons on Made in Chelsea.

Look at who their best friends are:

Spoiler:
Show

Image


Spoiler:
Show

Image


Spoiler:
Show

Image


So they are either very poor judges of character or there's something sinister we don't know about them! (Remember that scandal about a member of Prince Charles' household that was hushed up?)

The people who were thought of as idols in the 70's now turn out to be a bunch of perverts or at the very least not as saintly as we imagined. Even the (ex-)Pope himself turned out to have covered up hundreds of child abuse claims and was an ex-Nazi Youth.

So we've exposed the Catholic Church, we've exposed the boarding schools and the care homes the drug companies, Coca Cola, we've exposed corruption in government with Wikileaks, Michael Jackson (turned out he was a drug addict who liked to sleep in the same bed as little boys but he got off because he is the American version of the Royal Family), we've exposed corruption in the banks. There is only one institution left that the British people are unwilling to expose and still idolize .... the Royal Family.

Viva La Revolution! Am I right comrades?
5
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
Oh no, 60p a person. How are we supposed to pay this exorbitant fee?

The monarchy serve as great ambassadors and apolitical heads of state. They are a key part of the political system.

And no-one knew those people were paedophiles. Are the Royals supposed to be mind-readers?
1
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 8 years ago
#4
(Original post by tengentoppa)
Oh no, 60p a person. How are we supposed to pay this exorbitant fee?

The monarchy serve as great ambassadors and apolitical heads of state. They are a key part of the political system.

And no-one knew those people were paedophiles. Are the Royals supposed to be mind-readers?
Unless they get political...
0
reply
noobynoo
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
(Original post by tengentoppa)
Oh no, 60p a person. How are we supposed to pay this exorbitant fee?

The monarchy serve as great ambassadors and apolitical heads of state. They are a key part of the political system.

And no-one knew those people were paedophiles. Are the Royals supposed to be mind-readers?
You know that's what Jimmy Saville used to say. "I'm a great ambassador for this children's hospital" while all the time ransacking it for all it was worth.

They are not a "key part of the political system". They are simply figureheads. The job could equally well be done by the Union Jack. Just as the Star Spangled Banner is the figurehead in America. So instead of "God Save our Gracious Queen" (ugh, such a terrible toadying song especially since nobody believes in God anymore anyway) we would have an anthem to the Union Jack.

It's not about 60p a person it's about justice, democracy, liberty and fraternity. And not being a country where our figurehead is a little old grandmother, her racist husband and her idiot children.
2
reply
alexgr97
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 8 years ago
#6
(Original post by Quady)
Unless they get political...
What's wrong with that? They are part of Parliament after all!
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
(Original post by noobynoo)
Shouldn't we do the same? Am I right comrades?
No and no.
2
reply
Jonny360
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 8 years ago
#8
The amount of money brought in due to tourism from the Royal Family is greater than the money spent on the them so it doesn't even make economic sense to end the Monarchy.
0
reply
OMGWTFBBQ
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 8 years ago
#9
(Original post by alexgr97)
What's wrong with that? They are part of Parliament after all!
No democratic mandate = no right to political voice.
1
reply
noobynoo
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 8 years ago
#10
(Original post by Jonny360)
The amount of money brought in due to tourism from the Royal Family is greater than the money spent on the them so it doesn't even make economic sense to end the Monarchy.
This is BS perpetuated by the monarchy to justify its existence. If we got rid of the monarchy we could open up Buckingham palace to tourists. How many tourists have ever seen the queen when they visit? It would increase tourism since we could confiscate their palaces and allow access to tourists.

If the changing of the guard attracts tourists then keep it as a military exercise. I'm not saying get rid of the army.

Tourists would still come to the UK even if there was no monarchy. They come to see Big Ben, the houses of parliament, the Harry Potter exhibition, the Beatles home-place, about a thousand different things. Most people who stand outside Buckingham palace and don't see the queen are very disappointed. It is a very poor tourist attraction.

Did I say burn down the palaces and castles? No. I said get rid of the worthless people who live there. And turn their palaces into tourist museums and charge entry. Make them pay for themselves. If they don't make money. THEN burn them down.

Has your decision to visit Spain ever been affected by the presence of a Spanish Royal Family? No. You go to Spain to see the architecture, the beaches, the Spanish people.
4
reply
DavidSilvaMCFC
Badges: 9
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 8 years ago
#11
The Spanish King owed his crown to Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. I'm not too bothered about our Royals but I hate the people during the jubilees/weddings/babybirths that **** over them.
0
reply
noobynoo
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 8 years ago
#12
(Original post by DavidSilvaMCFC)
The Spanish King owed his crown to Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. I'm not too bothered about our Royals but I hate the people during the jubilees/weddings/babybirths that **** over them.
Exactly, so if we get rid of the Monarchy we can stop all that nausiating royal reporting and most of all get rid of this smarmy guy:

Image
0
reply
noobynoo
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 8 years ago
#13
(Original post by Drewski)
No and no.
Because... why?
0
reply
The pencil one
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 8 years ago
#14
(Original post by noobynoo)
Exactly, so if we get rid of the Monarchy we can stop all that nausiating royal reporting and most of all get rid of this smarmy guy:

Image
Totally agree

I've seen news reporters labeled as "royal special correspondent" :puke:

Royal family are no better than anyone else
I don't give a **** about the queen, does **** all for us and does states visits wooooow.

Willy also is annoying
3
reply
somegirlcalledea
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 8 years ago
#15
(Original post by noobynoo)
This is BS perpetuated by the monarchy to justify its existence. If we got rid of the monarchy we could open up Buckingham palace to tourists. How many tourists have ever seen the queen when they visit? It would increase tourism since we could confiscate their palaces and allow access to tourists.

If the changing of the guard attracts tourists then keep it as a military exercise. I'm not saying get rid of the army.

Tourists would still come to the UK even if there was no monarchy. They come to see Big Ben, the houses of parliament, the Harry Potter exhibition, the Beatles home-place, about a thousand different things. Most people who stand outside Buckingham palace and don't see the queen are very disappointed. It is a very poor tourist attraction.

Did I say burn down the palaces and castles? No. I said get rid of the worthless people who live there. And turn their palaces into tourist museums and charge entry. Make them pay for themselves. If they don't make money. THEN burn them down.

Has your decision to visit Spain ever been affected by the presence of a Spanish Royal Family? No. You go to Spain to see the architecture, the beaches, the Spanish people.
Buckingham palace, along with other royal places of residence, is opened up to the public at certain points of he year. And the majority of visitors when I went were foreign tourists :facepalm:

And Tbh Spain doesnt have the same history of monarchy as Britain. When you go to Australia for example a lot of people almost worship the queen :dontknow:
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 8 years ago
#16
(Original post by noobynoo)
Because... why?
Well one, just because some in Spain might've said "why bother?" doesn't mean they'll actually do anything about it and will, in all likelihood, keep their monarchy going, just as the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and a few others still do. We've got a pretty vocal minority movement in Republic, but sod all has ever happened because of them, so there's no reason to assume anything will happen in Spain's case.

And mostly because your argument seems to boil down to not much more than "I don't like them". Trotting out tired and wrong old stereotypes about the various members of the family (only a few of whom have any official role/get money from the Gov) sounds like nothing but simple dislike of them. And the notion that getting rid of them would save any money (ignoring that we already make a profit from them) is fallacious.

I am, however, very sympathetic to people moaning about over-the-top pageantry for needless occasions like weddings and births, that stuff gets tedious.
0
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 8 years ago
#17
(Original post by noobynoo)
You know that's what Jimmy Saville used to say. "I'm a great ambassador for this children's hospital" while all the time ransacking it for all it was worth.

They are not a "key part of the political system". They are simply figureheads. The job could equally well be done by the Union Jack. Just as the Star Spangled Banner is the figurehead in America. So instead of "God Save our Gracious Queen" (ugh, such a terrible toadying song especially since nobody believes in God anymore anyway) we would have an anthem to the Union Jack.

It's not about 60p a person it's about justice, democracy, liberty and fraternity. And not being a country where our figurehead is a little old grandmother, her racist husband and her idiot children.
Actually, they are the heads of state and hold power of veto over the British legislature, which is a position filled in the USA by one Barack Obama (at far greater expense to the American people, and with far worse effects on their democratic system)
0
reply
noobynoo
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 8 years ago
#18
(Original post by somegirlcalledea)
Buckingham palace, along with other royal places of residence, is opened up to the public at certain points of he year. And the majority of visitors when I went were foreign tourists :facepalm:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Exactly. Certain Points. :facepalm: Get rid of the monarchy and you could open it 365 days a year. Imagine how much tourism this would generate. Yes, and you think the ONLY reason they came to Britain was to see Buckingham Palace? It was most likely one of many things they came to see. Also they may have gone to see the Natural History museum. Shall we make the dinosaurs of the natural history museum heads of state too by your logic? (They would probably be less of an embarrassment).
0
reply
somegirlcalledea
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 8 years ago
#19
(Original post by noobynoo)
Exactly. Certain Points. :facepalm: Get rid of the monarchy and you could open it 365 days a year. Imagine how much tourism this would generate. Yes, and you think the ONLY reason they came to Britain was to see Buckingham Palace? It was most likely one of many things they came to see. Also they may have gone to see the Natural History museum. Shall we make the dinosaurs of the natural history museum heads of state too by your logic? (They would probably be less of an embarrassment).
If you got rid of the monarchy noone would want to be visiting the palaces anyway so there would be no point. And I never suggested that I just said they can see it. But consider how many people turned out for the royal wedding/birth of George/etc from all round the world- it has pretty impressive global popularity :P

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
noobynoo
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 8 years ago
#20
(Original post by Drewski)
Well one, just because some in Spain might've said "why bother?" doesn't mean they'll actually do anything about it and will, in all likelihood, keep their monarchy going, just as the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and a few others still do. We've got a pretty vocal minority movement in Republic, but sod all has ever happened because of them, so there's no reason to assume anything will happen in Spain's case.

And mostly because your argument seems to boil down to not much more than "I don't like them". Trotting out tired and wrong old stereotypes about the various members of the family (only a few of whom have any official role/get money from the Gov) sounds like nothing but simple dislike of them. And the notion that getting rid of them would save any money (ignoring that we already make a profit from them) is fallacious.

I am, however, very sympathetic to people moaning about over-the-top pageantry for needless occasions like weddings and births, that stuff gets tedious.
This is wrong. We may make a money from the Royal family. But the idea that we would have less tourists if we kicked out the Royal family and opened their palaces to the public is surely more fallacious. Do the Royal Family put on a show for tourists? No. All people see is the outside of their massive palaces. They could still do that if we kicked out the monarchy. Just like people still visit Egypt even though there are no Pharaohs.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

Were exams easier or harder than you expected?

Easier (36)
26.47%
As I expected (45)
33.09%
Harder (48)
35.29%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (7)
5.15%

Watched Threads

View All