Home Politics & Debate
Ongoing maintenance - the boards are undergoing some ongoing, intermittent maintenance. Pages might load slightly slower than usual and there may be very short periods where the boards are offline.

Queeeenie

**helen****helen** Mod malarkistPosts: 9,235 Listening Ear
:heart:

Or

:impissed:


Seems like a good time to find out. The only national treasure I've been celebrating this weekend is my 80 year-old grandmother. ;)
«13

Comments

  • plugitinplugitin Noob Posts: 2,197 The Mix Regular
    Not at all bothered, quite frankly!

    Not too bothered about the Olympics either *hides*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :heart: for me!

    However I don't hold any ill feelings towards those who are indifferent about it all, or the olympics.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do love her maj. Also a big fan of the olympics
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Makes me proud to be British :wave:

    It's also a kick up the arse for all those idiots who say "we're not allowed to be British in case it offends someone".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Huge waste of money on both fronts...

    I'd much rather be a republic

    *thinks the idea of the republic of miss_riot sounds awesome*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :heart: for Queen, :rolleyes: for Olympics.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't mind the queen herself, but I don't like the institution.

    Unfortunately, it's unlikely we're ever going to get rid of it because very few people care enough about it to make a politician risk pissing off the monarchists. I'm not aware of any monarchy that's been disposed of without some sort of major (and usually violent) political struggle. It's simply not in the interests of politicians in a relatively peaceful and prosperous country to attempt to overthrow the monarchy, even if ultimately they think that it's not an ethical form of government.

    Prince Charles, on the other hand, is the dictionary definition of blithering idiot.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    I saw someone wearing a red t-shirt with a crown and the words "Thanks for the day off".
    That was here in Athens. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd rather have a Monarch as Head of State than yet another fuckwit, corrupt, power hungry career politician TBH.

    I totally accept that she lives in oppulence and that we cannot vote her off if she's crap. But her self sacrifice is pretty impressive. Whilst I chose not to take part in any of the jubilee celebrations, she doesn't have that choice... if anything we have much more freedom than she does. She didn't ask for that job and, in part, that's one of the reasons why I respect her.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ambivalent, I guess.

    It all seems like a very outdated and limited institution, but as has been said, I prefer it to a politician being head of state, and the royals do drag in a shit ton of money in tourism and souvenirs!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd rather have a Monarch as Head of State than yet another fuckwit, corrupt, power hungry career politician TBH.

    I totally accept that she lives in oppulence and that we cannot vote her off if she's crap. But her self sacrifice is pretty impressive. Whilst I chose not to take part in any of the jubilee celebrations, she doesn't have that choice... if anything we have much more freedom than she does. She didn't ask for that job and, in part, that's one of the reasons why I respect her.

    Agree.

    She has been the one constant over the last 6 decades and she is the only public figure who has managed to not piss most of the population off.
    HM for prime minister! lol.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No-one has yet managed to give an argument why we should get rid of her that beats the argument 'it works'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't mind the queen herself, but I don't like the institution.

    Unfortunately, it's unlikely we're ever going to get rid of it because very few people care enough about it to make a politician risk pissing off the monarchists. I'm not aware of any monarchy that's been disposed of without some sort of major (and usually violent) political struggle. It's simply not in the interests of politicians in a relatively peaceful and prosperous country to attempt to overthrow the monarchy, even if ultimately they think that it's not an ethical form of government.

    Prince Charles, on the other hand, is the dictionary definition of blithering idiot.

    About 70-80% of the UK population support the monarchy so I think a better description is not that politicians aren't willing to piss off monarchists but that democratically elected politicians don't want to go against the will of the people. If that changed the politicians would get rid off them... however the trouble that republicanism has is that it is able to develop arguments that persaude fellow republicans but not ones that persaude everyone else*

    (of course republicanism isn't alone in having that problem)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Charles blithers but he's not an idiot...

    The fact she can't be elected is a good thing IMHO, for what is a ceremonial role. No greasy pole climbing. The cost doesn't bother me; most of the cost is for infrastructure and security. And I'd bet my bottom dollar that President Cameron would live in Buck House, so we'd be paying for it anyway. As for the land issue, it's not as though she can turn Windsor Castle into something off Cribs, is it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For those as geeky as me here's an interesting article from UK polling report on support for the Monarchy

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5541
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    About 70-80% of the UK population support the monarchy so I think a better description is not that politicians aren't willing to piss off monarchists but that democratically elected politicians don't want to go against the will of the people. If that changed the politicians would get rid off them... however the trouble that republicanism has is that it is able to develop arguments that persaude fellow republicans but not ones that persaude everyone else*
    How many of those people if asked to come up with a constitution for a new country would decide that a monarchy, even of the type we have in the UK, would be the best way to go? They support the monarchy for reasons of tradition, not because they think it's a fair or effective way of governing a country. The fact that this country and others work is no evidence whatsoever that the monarchy contributes in any way to them working.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Charles blithers but he's not an idiot...

    On what evidence? He's a man that's had every advantage in life, and yet achieved fuck all academically (unless you consider calling in favours to get you into Cambridge an achievement). We all point to David Cameron's privileged upbringing, but at least he used it to his advantage and actually achieved something (3 As at A-Level and a first class degree from Oxford). Or perhaps we should talk about his insistence on talking out and lobbying government on issues such as alternative medicine and GM crops, despite demonstrably having all of the scientific literacy of your average Derek Acorah fan.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Duchy of Cornwall is extremely profitable and, whilst Charles doesn't run it day to day, he's bright enough to employ bright people to do it. Given some of the places I've worked, that's actually quite impressive.

    Of course his opinions on GM crops and alternative medicine are only idiotic if you don't agree with them. Personally, I generally do agree with him, especially with his views on architecture and rural life.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In addition to Mr Roll. When Charles was younger he asked what the Prince of Wales does and everyone said "Wait for your mum to die". He didn't want to just do nothing, instead, he sets up the Prince's Trust.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Duchy of Cornwall is extremely profitable and, whilst Charles doesn't run it day to day, he's bright enough to employ bright people to do it. Given some of the places I've worked, that's actually quite impressive.
    He's intelligent enough to know that he's not intelligent enough to run it himself, I'll give you that.
    Of course his opinions on GM crops and alternative medicine are only idiotic if you don't agree with them.
    No they're not. They're demonstrably false, therefore idiotic. That's like saying I'm only idiotic for claiming that Marseille is the capital of France because you don't agree with me. No, I'm idiotic because my claim is factually incorrect. He makes claims against overwhelming scientific evidence, therefore he's wilfully ignorant or an idiot. Unless of course the reason for your belief isn't factual, but based on self-interest, in which case you're not stupid or ignorant, just dishonest.

    This is all, of course, ignoring the fact that the monarchy is supposed to be politically neutral, and therefore the fact that we even know his opinion on these issues is decidedly dodgy. When he relinquishes his right to the throne, he will be free to have whatever opinions he wants, and express them openly, like any other citizen. While he still maintains his claim, he should have absolutely no right to use his position to influence politics (something monarchists always tell us the monarchy don't do, which Charles proves to be utter bollocks).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    In addition to Mr Roll. When Charles was younger he asked what the Prince of Wales does and everyone said "Wait for your mum to die". He didn't want to just do nothing, instead, he sets up the Prince's Trust.
    Well exactly. He recognises that the monarchy contributes nothing to society, and so had to do what other rich people with too much time and money on their hands do, and set up a charity. I didn't say he didn't mean well or wasn't capable of moral actions. But this is not an argument for the monarchy. There are plenty of privileged people (both earned and unearned) who set up charities after giving up their work. Bill Gates is obviously the most high profile example. Hell, there are plenty of tyrants that do lots of charity work. The Saudi royal family do a lot for charity. They tend to have a lot to gain from the positive PR.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The telegraph seems to think that the Royal Family generate around £500m a year for the British tourism industry.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/tourism/8587231/UK-Tourism-facts-and-figures.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm pretty confident that if we didn't have the royal family we'd have some other kind of national figure head. I'm also pretty confident that they wouldn't have the sense to know when their not bright or knowledgeable enough to run something - so I'm happy keeping the monarchy.

    As we've shown after the last few days, the monarchy is a pretty strong part of our national identity - and as it's almost the only thing we've got it seems right that we should cling on tight to it. Compared to what other tourism campaigns cost, they also seem to provide pretty good value for money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    The telegraph seems to think that the Royal Family generate around £500m a year for the British tourism industry.

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

    To be fair though, it's not like the Palace of Versailles or The White House aren't popular destinations too. Tourism is a bad reason to have a monarchy - especially when the political aspects are actually just a strong. It's like when people use the cost of the monarchy as a reason not to have them - this assumes that Presidents come free of charge ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .....and a president who would run for a pittance amount of pay, must have a bit of money behind him/her or influences etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    The telegraph seems to think that the Royal Family generate around £500m a year for the British tourism industry.

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

    The Telegraph would think that. I think it's bullshit. Of the top 5 most visited countries in the world, only Spain has a monarch, and I don't think many people are visiting Spain to see the king. I went to Thailand recently, and at no point was their king a factor in my decision to visit. When I went to Cambodia, on the other hand, their royal family was a specific reason why I wasn't able to get full access to certain attractions. In Japan, however, I did manage to accidentally go to see the emperor. Italy is the second most popular tourist destination. Buckingham Palace opens up once a year in the summer for (I think) four weeks, and is extremely popular. Imagine how much more popular it would be if it could be opened all year round?

    From your article:
    6. The Royal family generate close to £500 million every year for British tourism with The Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace the most popular Royal destinations.

    I'd love to see how they came to that figure, because even if it was true, it would be ridiculously difficult to measure. As I understand it, the state would still own all of these attractions whether the monarchy existed or not, and as I've said, they could arguably offer more value to tourists as they could be opened more fully than they are now. The only potentially convincing argument is that royal events offer publicity for the country as a potential tourist destination. Although I would question whether that money could be put to better use, given the paltry budget that VisitBritain actually gets for promotion of tourism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thing is, we used to rule 25% of the globe, little something called the British empire, and the Queen is head of state in 16 commonwealth countries. That could be something to debunk your "well spain has a monarchy"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Depends what "scientific evidence" you look at. Monsanto reckon GM is perfectly safe, lots of other scientists well, er, don't.

    The Prince of Wales isn't the King, you know. He's free to hold whatever opinions he wants. And even if the Monarchy was abolished nothing much would change for him: he owns the Duchy of Cornwall, not the State.

    I admit I don't care much I can't vote for the Monarch. I can't vote for the Prime Minister or the Chancellor either, yet people claim we're in a democracy...

    PS Australia is one of the most visited countries in the world, as is India. And they, er, have a monarch: Betty.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's good having a monarch, for no better reason than it's part of our national identity. I got my jubilee medal the other day, and (sad I know) I can't wait for an opportunity to wear it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't get a medal, have not served long enough :(
Sign In or Register to comment.