If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Monarchy
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
It seems to be a popular view that the Royal famuily are "parasites" who "deserve to be shot". Why?
Does anybody here think that George W. Bush is more "democratic"?
Does anybody here think that, if there was no Royal family, the PM wouldn't move straight into Buck House.
Does anybody here think that Buck House would pay for itself?
One little point about the Royal Family being undemocratic- the Queen can't actually create any laws at all, so she is reliant on democracy.
If a republic is so much better, why did we bring back the Royals?
Most of Charles' income is from his own private initiative, same with nearly all the senior royals. Even Andrew works (although he's not very good at it).
But there are 950,000 people not working, and living off others' work. Parasitic scum :rolleyes:
So why are the Royal Family so bad?
Does anybody here think that George W. Bush is more "democratic"?
Does anybody here think that, if there was no Royal family, the PM wouldn't move straight into Buck House.
Does anybody here think that Buck House would pay for itself?
One little point about the Royal Family being undemocratic- the Queen can't actually create any laws at all, so she is reliant on democracy.
If a republic is so much better, why did we bring back the Royals?
Most of Charles' income is from his own private initiative, same with nearly all the senior royals. Even Andrew works (although he's not very good at it).
But there are 950,000 people not working, and living off others' work. Parasitic scum :rolleyes:
So why are the Royal Family so bad?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Prince Charles does more good than any politician.
The Royal family also pay for themselves, they bring in American and Japanese tourists who spend lots of money.
*scuffs feet*, I promise to get a job after college....:nervous:
Tax dodger...
In theory though, she can ask a minority pary to form a Govt - basically she could have turned to Hague after the last election, rather than Blair, if she wanted.
Of course it would cause a bit of a constitutional crisis, not to mention the problems it would create for the Govt getting anything through the house. But its possible.
I think that the real concern - although I should state that republicanism isn't something I support - is that royalty is hereditary and that doesn't sit well with democratic system where the head of state should have the support and mandate of "the people".
To be fair that was a "few" years ago...
True, Charles is a saint when it comes to paying his way. Not so sure about Andrew - certainly the press give him a hard time about his golfing trips. But who doesn't do business of a course, it certainly work for me when I'm talking to doctors...
Edward is another interesting case. The man (and his wife) have tried hard to fund themselves through their businesses only to be slammed at every oppotunity by the media pukes.
Taking up Kermit's point about the parasitic scum that don't work, personally I reserve my hatred for the parasitic scum who claim to be journalists...
I'm 17, dropped out of college and I have never worked. That makes me feel really bad about how everyone else is supporting me, so I'll probably get part time work soon to go through college with, then I *will* work and pay back all that money in taxes
Dude, at 17 I had also dropped out of college.
At 33 I earn enough to be in the higher tax bracket.
I figure I have paid enough tax to cover most of the costs of my education by now. Of course, I'm employed by the NHS so my entire wage comes from taxes...but that's a different issue...
I thought that was just my view, designed to wind up the tories on here.
that to me says it all ...it's just outdated and meaningless.
Sorry to spoil your evident illusions of grandeur but the crowd numbers from a town in north wales do not represent the rest of the country in labelling something outdated and meaningless.
Bearing in mind that Charles is currently the Prince of Wales, I would argue that the Welsh population's reaction to him was even more important...
thousands were expected from all over north wales ...if you doubt my figures ...seven adults and thirteen children i'll scan a copy of the local rag in for you.
the schools hospitals ...business associations that usualy organise thousand of flag wavers ...didn't lift a finger ...were not interested ...we have known for months about the visit.
he was a five minute drive away from me ...even my wife couldn't be bothered and thats saying something.
The titles they all earn are shit too. Look at Philip. Duke of Edinburgh, who cares? Princess Diana (God rest her) was the Princess of Wales, automatically because she married Charles. Titles maen nothing in this day and age.
Having said that there are lots of non-hereditary heads of state that don't have the support and mandate of the people. Oliver Cromwell, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe and other dictators didn't inherit their positions, but that doesn't make them any nicer that hereditary heads of state.
:yes: I agree... same with the whole Asylum Seeker debate. "Ohhh they're scrounging our money", "they're coming over for an easy life"... people tend to forget how many people in the UK are too damn lazy to get off their backsides and get a job to contribute taxes. Of course it ain't always the case, sometimes there are a lack of jobs (apparently).
To be honest I have no time for the Royal Family...
I don't agree with them, they waste a lot of money but for the above reason they can't be fully disbanded.
My solution would be to stream line the royal family. Only support the immediate family everyone else get a job. I would also sell some of their houses, how many houses do you need? If you are going to Scotland then stay in a fucking hotel.
What else, oh yes, They are good diplomats. The queen and the princes so thats another good reason for keeping the immediate family.
The major royals all have charities and jobs, and I'd therefore assume the minor royals do too (but I can't put that down as fact). They bring in billions in tourism revenue, and quite frankly who'd really want to visit this country for the weather?:rolleyes:
All the theoretical power the queen has, may as well not be there. If she ever refused to ratify a law, parliament would most likly remove the royals from power, much in a similar way to (now, not sure of the name here) the parliament act being used to by-pass the house of lords.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! :thumb:
blackpool i think ...brings in far more tourists than the queen ...and comparing your beloved queen with blackpool tower to save her from extinction is ridiculous!
i have nothing against them personaly but don't see the point in them. everything they stand for and symbolise is against modern democracy.
the french got rid of theirs ...it didn't change theire past or their character ...
if ours quietly left ...we would get more tourists than ever for the next hundred yuears at least ...cos they would actualy be able to go in the buildings and tour every nook and cranny.
they have surved their purpose ...their time is over ...gone.
I've met a great big deal of tourists through my job and I must say I have never encountered one who named the Royals as the main reason or deciding factor for visiting Britain- nor did they give any indications that they would not have come if the monarchy weren’t there.
The royals might or might not bring benefits to the country's economy (business deals through diplomacy and so on) but the claims regarding all those tourists coming here because of them are, I fear, a load of rubbish.
I have said though, that I'm a shameful Royalist. But I think that the French Revolution vastly changed their national character, but we're used to what we have now.
There was a story on the BBC about the centenial of the Entente Cordial.
[URL=http://]news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3600681.stm [/URL]
Specifically the paragraph containing
In 1903, without seeking either the approval or advice of his prime minister or foreign secretary, "uncle of Europe" Edward VII arrived in Paris, charmed the initially hostile crowds - their cries of "vive Jeanne d'Arc" were replaced by "vive notre roi" - and began negotiations for what became the Entente Cordiale
I guess it depends on the royal?
How refreshing to see that the Spanish heir to the throne marries a divorcee and that his (I think) Dutch equivalent married a single mother... There's also the draconian and extravagant way of life the British royals enjoy, such as having ridiculous amounts of helpers and minions- Prince Charles is said to have his toothpaste squeezed onto his brush for him by an aide ffs!- and traditions, such as not turning your back on the Queen when you leave her presence.
The British monarchy would do well to depart from such absurd pompousness and attempt to resemble its European counterparts a bit more.
ps the european royals have some hot princesses in them too
Get rid of the behind closed doors pomp (no-one sees it, so it isn't neccesary), but keep the big public ceremonies like the trooping of the colour.
I would usually say "ooh 'eck, don't like those royals!", but I can't think of anything better, nobody else can think of anything better (Gordon Brown, a figure head?), so we might as well keep the currrent system.
It's not the royals themselves who are generating money (in the tourism department anyway), it's their pretty houses, and the fact that you can stand next to a post saying "Queen Victoria had a shite in this toilet in 1901, one of her lasts ever shites outside Balmoral". France is still making money from its royal family, and the last one was beheaded more than two hundred years ago.
I can take or leave them really, except Harry the ginger fox. Rowr.