The British Royal Family

[Ernestocheguevara]

I think they are everything that is wrong with this country!! They are sooo anti socialist by the sheer fact that they have been picked because of the blood in there veins rather than the brains in there head, which they have very little of!! They cost this country some 3200000 a year!! And do very little for it! They are a disgrace!!! I would personally torture them for the rest of there days! :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Saint-Just]

They are a part of feudal society.They are an example of the class system that operated in feudal societies. There is no need for them today, and indeed they have been reduced to having very little function, virtually no political function. They should certainly be removed.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

They are paid to live as they do out of taxpayer funds, correct? Why do so many Brits support them? They are useless, powerless parasites... why do they still get paid?

[Al Creed]

In Canada, The British Crown is the legally recognized leader of Canada.

This makes me mad. Canada no longer has need for the British Monarchy.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

RavenFan,

I know what you mean. The Brits do not even need the British monarchy. Why do you think there is such popularity for a foreign monarchy in Canada?

[Al Creed]

well, Mostc of it comes from the Progressive (HA!) Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, Canada's Right Wing.

The Liberal Party that exists today sits on the fence, and is too afraid to lean either way.

John Manley, who WAS running for Prime Minister after Jean Chretien retires (Until the quitter quit, such a quitting quitter), was opposed to the Monarchy, and wanted to sever ties.

The citizenry of Canada don't even recognize the Crown as our leader (unless theyre right wing monarchists), and probably wouldn't mind if we did sever ties with the crown.

[chetheking]

theres no point the royal fuckface family. and i dont think the majority of britain thinks there is. ask anyone under 60 and theyll tell you the rf is a waste of space and my (my parents) money

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 02:43 PM
theres no point the royal fuckface family. and i dont think the majority of britain thinks there is. ask anyone under 60 and theyll tell you the rf is a waste of space and my (my parents) money
Welcome, chetheking...

I find it interesting that someone who is so adamantly anti-monarchist would put king in his name... lol... just kidding...

Again, welcome to che-lives...

[chetheking]

good point M in N.

but i dont mean 'king', as in 'bastad who takes money off taxpayers'. :)

[Funky Monk]

I'd just like to say that i am anti-royals but i think you really need to think carefully about the reasons for keeping them

1. Tradition - I know its a shit reason but it matters to some people
2. Tourism - By far the most stated reason for keeping the monarchy, they generate a hell of a lot of money in Tourism, at least as much as they take in the Civil List
3. Presteige - The monarchy does provide Brtiain with a certain bonus in diplomatic circles and does still have bragging rights, we are one of the most important countries in the world to maintain a monarchy, without it what would we have to distinguish ourselves fro mthe rest of Europe?
4. Celebrity - Lets face it the Royals are a huge draw in Magazines, people love to see the fam doing amusing/stupud things
5. Diplomacy - The Queen and associated family go on regular visits abroad to improve relations between Brtiain and other countries.
6. Comedy - The most important reason. What would we do without Prince Phillip and his thoughtful comments, they provide a fine example of just how messed up the Upper Classes can be.


I reiterate i personally dont like them but these are a few reasons to chew over.

[mentalbunny]

I don't like having a royal family particularly, and I think that their priviledges should definitely be decreased, but I also think that wehave other more important issues to focus on and they'll go once the revolution gets going.

[Sabocat]

The English should take a lesson from the French and dispose of their "royals" like the French did. ;)



Oooops....watch your head! :lol:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 03:23 PM
The English should take a lesson from the French and dispose of their "royals" like the French did. ;)



Oooops....watch your head! :lol:
I absolutely agree!
LOL

Yeah, the monarchy, even though they do nothing political or important, like Zombie showed. They are still a symbol of feudalism. For that, they should all be thrown into the streets like the unproductive bastards that they are.

[kadamangudy]

"The English should take a lesson from the French and dispose of their "royals" like the French did."

If you are referring to the French Revolution, just remember that the french didnt dispose of
the royals for good cuz Napolean would pick up the crown soon after...
I agree more with the Russian method, cuz that was for good!!

[Hawker]

The Brit Monarchy is just like a tourist attraction.There is abosultely no need for them only for the face of the media is why they keep them.

[Mano Dayak]

I don't like the British royals very much...what do they do except filling the newspapers with their scandals (which aren't interesting at all...what do we care about Charles and Camilla or Fergie? Nothing!!!)? Ha? Nada! Nothing! The British could abolish the monarchy and establish a democracy :ph34r: ...at least this would be good for something...the Queen doesn't do anything anyway.

[Danton]

Prince Philip is the only Royal who's value for money.
As proof:

1981 - At the height of the recession...
'Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they're complaining
they're unemployed.'

1986 - To British students in China...
'If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed.'

1986 - To the World Wildlife Fund...
'If it's got four legs and it's not a chair the Cantonese will eat it.'

1993 - To a Briton in Hungary...
'You can't have been here that long, you haven't got a potbelly.'

1995 - To a Scottish driving instructor...
'How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the
driving test.'

1996 - Post Dunblane...
'Gun club members are no more dangerous than members of a squash club or
golf club.'

1997 - At the site of a British massacre in India...
'Vastly exaggerated.'

1998 - To a student in Papua New Guinea...
'You managed not to get eaten then.'

1999 - Of an untidy fuse box in Scotland...
'Looks like it was put in by an Indian.'

1999 - To deaf kids standing by a steel band...
'No wonder you're deaf.'

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Danton some fine classic examples there!lol
The queen does have potentially a lot of power doesnt she as i understand it she just chooses not to use it. In theory she is more powerful than parliament isnt she?

[mentalbunny]

The queen nicked a pen when she came to my school. she just putnin her handbag when she'd finished signing the visitors book.

[canikickit]

I would have done the same thing in her position.

[Funky Monk]

You are correct, the Queen still maintains a decent bit of power, she is restricted from using it by the public outcry which would emerge from her disdain of the system

Technically she still appoints the PM although this hasnt been effective since the early 19th century,


Where is this stuff Zombie showed?

[Al Creed]

In my paper today, in the "Entertainment" section (I wanted to read the Comics), they had this thing where Charles is trying to set up a date between his son Will and Beyonce (sp?)

What a wonderous occasion, the merger of a wealthy, upper class child of privledge, and a wealthy, worthless "musician"

God, I hate the Wealthy

[crazy comie]

death to royalty

[Funky Monk]

Where has that come from?

Last i heard Will was seeing someone from his Uni.

[Al Creed]

In the Hamilton Spectator, my towns newspaper.

Its a rag, but at my college, its free, and the only other free newspaper there is The National Post, a rightist newspaper. The Globe and Mail, my preffered paper, costs $1 :angry:

[Zafiro]

:ph34r: Eliminate them!

[Al Creed]

OH ID LOVE TO

[Iepilei]

A living museum, nothing more.

[The Children of the Revolution]

I am a Communist, therefore I abhor the idea of being the "subject" of a Monarch. I also disagree with the Royal powers that remain*, and the huge amount of taxpayers money that fills their treasury every year.

However, to dispose with the Royal family would not be a good idea. Although the Queen technically has these powers, they haven't (and won't) ever be exercised. She exerts no control over me, nor over the country. And the money they recieve from the Government (which is recieved from us, the humble taxpayer) is FAR less than the revenue generated by tourism. Some causes to which this money is put are debatable, but abolishing the Royals would put many small businesses and workers 'out of pocket'.

I think they are a harmless part of British cultural tradition. And although many people disagree with the public funding of their various exploits, I think the same public would object if they were to be "axed". (Not in the French Revolution style, one must assume)

I say keep the Royals.

* My friend informed me that there was some kind of Royal Power (left over from the days of the American Revolution) which allows for British Sovreignty to be reinstated in the U.S. should they be unable to choose a leader. It was apparently an option after a certain amount of time had passed without an elected President. And the debacle over the elections (Bush / Al-Gore) provided just such an opportunity... Maybe this was a malicious rumour, but it makes some kind of perverse sense... Imagine if it had come to pass!!! The Yank's would all be singing "God Save our Gracious Queen", not "The Star Spangled Banner"!!! Worth it just for the comedy value :)

[Soviet power supreme]

I'd just like to say that i am anti-royals but i think you really need to think carefully about the reasons for keeping them

1. Tradition - I know its a shit reason but it matters to some people
2. Tourism - By far the most stated reason for keeping the monarchy, they generate a hell of a lot of money in Tourism, at least as much as they take in the Civil List
3. Presteige - The monarchy does provide Brtiain with a certain bonus in diplomatic circles and does still have bragging rights, we are one of the most important countries in the world to maintain a monarchy, without it what would we have to distinguish ourselves fro mthe rest of Europe?
4. Celebrity - Lets face it the Royals are a huge draw in Magazines, people love to see the fam doing amusing/stupud things
5. Diplomacy - The Queen and associated family go on regular visits abroad to improve relations between Brtiain and other countries.
6. Comedy - The most important reason. What would we do without Prince Phillip and his thoughtful comments, they provide a fine example of just how messed up the Upper Classes can be.


1.Why should traditions be valued?Should we allow wife and child beating because it's tradition?
2.Tourism?Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.
3.Nationalist bullshit.Britain hasn't been important country since it's empire collapsed.
4.Aren't there enough celebrities in England?Those who deserved to be a celebrity?
5.Your foreifn minister can handle this job.There is no nedd for royal family.
6Again why should he be paied so much money for being funny?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 6 2003, 07:19 PM
They are paid to live as they do out of taxpayer funds, correct? Why do so many Brits support them? They are useless, powerless parasites... why do they still get paid?
Personally I believe them to be a waste of time and space, however they bring in more money than they take through the tourism they generate.

As for the money they take in Taxes, they are actually owed that. The royals made a deal with the government, that in exchange for funding for them and their family the royals gave them all the Windsor family properties. Hense the reason why Buckingham palace is now owned by the state, the gov would be breaking a legaly binding contract to remove the funding... but as thats never stopped them before.

[Bornagainlefty]

Whilst my heart says get rid of them completely, my head says they should be downsized, assets nationalised and benefits reduced drastically. They bring us no respect as a nation, they are just quaint remnants of more unjust days, and one way of balancing things up a bit more is to redistribute their wealth.

Also, remove the monarch as the head of the church of England, and remove them as head of state. I don't appreciate being a subject of some old bag who has done bugger all for me, or for some jug eared twat who may or may not be next in line, depending if the country can bear his infidelity. They are humans, the same as we are, it makes me sick to see these priviliged spongers idolised by fecking idiots the way they are. Their shit stinks just like mine does. (Well, maybe not quite so bad, I do like the odd vindaloo ;~) )

[Jesus Christ]

any royal family is a parasite that sucks undeserved money from its surroundings
send them to the guillotine

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think your tourism rate would skyrocket as millions flock to see the execution of that old, senile, worthless, elitist, pile of crap.

Perhaps for the future, after the execution, that is, your country can pull in more tourism bucks if you guys invest some in advertizing your greatest national treasure: the burial site of Karl Marx. I would preffer visiting him a millions times more than seeing some old hass-been wave to "her subjects".

On a more serious note, however, I believe that the castles and attractions will continue to pull in plenty of money, even if not quite as much as the presence of the queen herself. It's a small price to pay for seeing that washed-up fucker gone.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 01:53 AM
I think your tourism rate would skyrocket as millions flock to see the execution of that old, senile, worthless, elitist, pile of crap.

Perhaps for the future, after the execution, that is, your country can pull in more tourism bucks if you guys invest some in advertizing your greatest national treasure: the burial site of Karl Marx. I would preffer visiting him a millions times more than seeing some old hass-been wave to "her subjects".

On a more serious note, however, I believe that the castles and attractions will continue to pull in plenty of money, even if not quite as much as the presence of the queen herself. It's a small price to pay for seeing that washed-up fucker gone.
Yeah, but we wouldn't excecute them dude... i dunno maye were just to liberal. :P

But I actually agree with you, the money is in reality quite immaterial compaired to other investments, and its the principal, it just reaks of elitism etc.

any royal family is a parasite that sucks undeserved money from its surroundings

Yeah but like I said in this case they did ":'**pay**':" (very much " ") for thier government funding, who DO make a fortune from the tourism etc.

And more people came to the queens Juberly celerbration in London 2 million people I think it was, than to the big Iraq demo, only 1 million people... so I dont then that the people would let yo kick them or kill them.

Unfortunatly.

[Fidelbrand]

The family is a disaster.. let alone that they use huge sums of &#036;&#036; in order to keep them royal (in terms of lifestyles). <_<

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 7 2003, 01:59 PM

* My friend informed me that there was some kind of Royal Power (left over from the days of the American Revolution) which allows for British Sovreignty to be reinstated in the U.S. should they be unable to choose a leader. It was apparently an option after a certain amount of time had passed without an elected President. And the debacle over the elections (Bush / Al-Gore) provided just such an opportunity... Maybe this was a malicious rumour, but it makes some kind of perverse sense... Imagine if it had come to pass&#33;&#33;&#33; The Yank&#39;s would all be singing "God Save our Gracious Queen", not "The Star Spangled Banner"&#33;&#33;&#33; Worth it just for the comedy value :)
I think that&#39;s completely false but if you can show some proof I&#39;d love to see it.

[Jesus Sanchez]

Well, i beleive they are running Australia by Dictatorship. The technically have control over Aussie, and I&#39;m pretty sure the Brits didn&#39;t vote for them let alone us. :angry:

[Funky Monk]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 7 2003, 11:49 PM

I&#39;d just like to say that i am anti-royals but i think you really need to think carefully about the reasons for keeping them

1. Tradition - I know its a shit reason but it matters to some people
2. Tourism - By far the most stated reason for keeping the monarchy, they generate a hell of a lot of money in Tourism, at least as much as they take in the Civil List
3. Presteige - The monarchy does provide Brtiain with a certain bonus in diplomatic circles and does still have bragging rights, we are one of the most important countries in the world to maintain a monarchy, without it what would we have to distinguish ourselves fro mthe rest of Europe?
4. Celebrity - Lets face it the Royals are a huge draw in Magazines, people love to see the fam doing amusing/stupud things
5. Diplomacy - The Queen and associated family go on regular visits abroad to improve relations between Brtiain and other countries.
6. Comedy - The most important reason. What would we do without Prince Phillip and his thoughtful comments, they provide a fine example of just how messed up the Upper Classes can be.


1.Why should traditions be valued?Should we allow wife and child beating because it&#39;s tradition?
2.Tourism?Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.
3.Nationalist bullshit.Britain hasn&#39;t been important country since it&#39;s empire collapsed.
4.Aren&#39;t there enough celebrities in England?Those who deserved to be a celebrity?
5.Your foreifn minister can handle this job.There is no nedd for royal family.
6Again why should he be paied so much money for being funny?
As i stated, tradition doesnt bother me

You are missing the point, they do generate a great deal of money because people are attracted to the living history. The point is there revenue justifies their existance. People dont travel hundreds of miles to look at a guy dressed as a Duck

You can argue that no country is Europe is important but the royalty still generates presteige

There arent many upper class celebrities, the thing about celebrity is you needa variety and there are few things more appealing that seeing someone who is apparently noble indulged in something &#39;common&#39; Like Harry and the pot

A foreign minister deals with policy and deals. The queen is a much better representative, carries perhaps less power but is much more well recieved and it is seen as an honour to meet the queen, again good for improving relations.


When you consider Tourism the money thing isnt that much of an issue, its just rather amusing to realise that the guy married to the head of state is a fuckwit.

Personally i think it would be more intelligent to keep them but drastically reduce the civil list, specifically with those entitles to funds, immediate family sort of thing.
Lets face it, the Queen has very little real power and there is no way that she will aquire more, there is no need to get rid of her.

[Soviet power supreme]

You dindnt get the point.

Why should they get that much money


but drastically reduce the civil list, specifically with those entitles to funds, immediate family sort of thing

Right on boy&#33;

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Sure, lets not be barbaric, dont execute them, assassinate them. Seriously, why can&#39;t someone just assassinate them at be done with it? They don&#39;t really seem like THAT hard of a target. We get all of the people that have done great things for civil reform get assassinated. Martin Luther King, Trotsky, numerious Castro attempts, Socialist candidate against Mussolini, and many more who I can&#39;t think of off hand, can for once, just ONCE, can someone spare a bullet for the people who are truely guilty of crimes against humanity?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And If somebody was conspiring to murder the Queen of England, they would certainly post it at Che-lives for all to see&#33; <_<

[Mano Dayak]

lol :ph34r:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Lol, Im not going to assassinate any of the English monarchy, the Saudi monarchy, or conspire to or assassinate anyone else for that matter either as much as I&#39;d like to see them dead. I&#39;m just pointing out that victims of assassinations tend to be from the left, I&#39;d just like to see someone score one for the good guys for once.

[Dhul Fiqar]

So, do you folks think Prince Charles is gay? Do you think he will ever openly address the allegation without refusing to even mention what the allegation is?

This bloke that saw him in bed with another man doesn&#39;t seem like he wants a lot of media attention at all.

--- G.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 11 2003, 02:39 PM
So, do you folks think Prince Charles is gay? Do you think he will ever openly address the allegation without refusing to even mention what the allegation is?

This bloke that saw him in bed with another man doesn&#39;t seem like he wants a lot of media attention at all.

--- G.
I doubt it, but if he is does it really matter?

BTW the bloke who caught him doing the "deed", has apparantly been diagnosed as a pathological liar, according to the Palace.

[Funky Monk]

What about that dude in Holland recently?

The queen does have major security and i think it was stepped up since a man managed to handglide into the palace grounds.

I think the major problem with the idea of assasinating the Queen is the British mentallity.

[GrYnEt]

I think they are OK... i don&#39;t live in england,so it&#39;s no problem for me,but maybe it would be better to have a president

[Danton]

the bloke who caught him doing the "deed", has apparantly been diagnosed as a pathological liar, according to the Palace.

Yeah, according to the palace... Just like Burrel they will assasinate his character, Charlie&#39;s penchant for buggery must never be revealed. This is of course mild in comparison to some of the going&#39;s on in the palace - how do you think they all got that equine look and Liz&#39;s devotion to her Beagles borders on beastiality...

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 11 2003, 01:39 PM
So, do you folks think Prince Charles is gay? Do you think he will ever openly address the allegation without refusing to even mention what the allegation is?

This bloke that saw him in bed with another man doesn&#39;t seem like he wants a lot of media attention at all.

--- G.
He may not address the allegation at all. The most surprising thign will be if he does and he admits it. No one knows at the moment, they are waiting for Prince Charles to say something.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 08:21 AM
I think they are OK... i don&#39;t live in england,so it&#39;s no problem for me,but maybe it would be better to have a president
They have a Prime Minister.
That would be Tony Blair.
The queen doesn&#39;t actualy have any power.
Actualy she does, but she will never use it, so that doesn&#39;t bother people.
What bothers people is the insane amounts of money spent on her and the fact taht she&#39;s a symbol of monarchy.

[Funky Monk]

Yes but the idea is to have a PM and a Pres. The British system originally worked but the Queens power has gone to the PM making him head of the Executive and the Legislative giving him pretty much an electoral dictatorship

[Mano Dayak]

and stupid ideas like co-operating with bushie in the iraq war

[James]

What stupid little comments there are on this thread.
Is this really the state of the left? if so - call me a capitalist&#33; i do not wish to be associated with such simplton logic.

+ + +

In address to whats his name.. soviet something i think...

1.Why should traditions be valued?Should we allow wife and child beating because it&#39;s tradition?

You did miss the point as monk pointed out.
Opinion polls taken in THIS country (england) show that the majority want a review of the monarchy - but a majority want to stay a monarchy.
It is important to a vast proportion of the people - thus it is important.
You can&#39;t just wipe it out - real life doesn&#39;t work like that.

What is wrong with a ceremonial monarchy anyway?
Scandinavia is doing fine - democracy, yet have a monarchy. As bagehot stated - the monarchy makes politics "pritty". Parades and HISTORY (uniforms, procedures etc) make politics pritty - the average jo isn&#39;t interested in politics. Contary to what your mental agenda may be.


2.Tourism?Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

hmm... again you miss the point.

Alot of people come here simply to see the royal family. l suggest you look at turnouts of parades etc.
Its true we would still have the palaces if we got rid of the monarchy; but people wouldn&#39;t want to see something that is no longer "alive". For more on this look at tourist attractions in the UK.

If you are suggesting making a theme park to replace the tourism deficit - then i point out to you that we already have theme parks - and have enourmous competition from america, france etc etc etc


3.Nationalist bullshit.Britain hasn&#39;t been important country since it&#39;s empire collapsed.

Thats naive.

Arguablly the Uk prevented nuclear war several times, during the cold war, through influence of America.

You will also notice that we have something called a common wealth.

I assume that you are american - thus why you have a "only america is important today" attitude.

I suggest you educate yourself in the reality of modern day politics.

4.Aren&#39;t there enough celebrities in England?Those who deserved to be a celebrity?

The monarchy are completely different. You know this - stop making pathetic points.

5.Your foreifn minister can handle this job.There is no nedd for royal family.

The foreign minister is one person; a one set of people. They come and they go - the monarchy is permament. More alliances can be made through the monarchy, Look at the common wealt for example.

The monarchy is good for diplomacy. Only a retard who didn&#39;t know the first thing about british politics would suggest otherwise.

6Again why should he be paied so much money for being funny?"

They provide a comedy which we wouldn&#39;t get so much without.

You&#39;ll notice monk (and i) support a cut in the civil list. Thus your point is irrelevent.

And latter on you stated the following...
"They have a Prime Minister.
That would be Tony Blair.
The queen doesn&#39;t actualy have any power.
Actualy she does, but she will never use it, so that doesn&#39;t bother people.
What bothers people is the insane amounts of money spent on her and the fact taht she&#39;s a symbol of monarchy."

They have a Prime Minister.
That would be Tony Blair.

Yes... so you support our PM becoming all powerfull?
do you know about the speration of powers??


The queen doesn&#39;t actualy have any power.

She does actually.
Look at the 50s, 60s and even 70s for close calls. Read "The hidden wiring" for more on recent examples of the monarchy felexing its muscles.

Actualy she does, but she will never use it, so that doesn&#39;t bother people.

oh.. a tack.
She has used them moron.

Don&#39;t bother commenting mate if you don&#39;t know the first thing about the reality of the matter...

What bothers people is the insane amounts of money spent on her and the fact taht she&#39;s a symbol of monarchy.

Yes, people are concerned with the money.
No, people like the monarchy. Or, "we" dislike the monarchy; but we dislike america and frances&#39; system more&#33;

Please shut up. These trendy "left wing" views are pathetic.

[Funky Monk]

Think you are talking a load of bollocks there lad.

[James]

haha&#33;

[Funky Monk]

hoho&#33;

[Jesus Christ]

hehe&#33;

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 5 2003, 11:28 PM
Think you are talking a load of bollocks there lad.
Actually he&#39;s not... but I can forgive you, as i agree with you in principal.

What bothers people is the insane amounts of money spent on her and the fact taht she&#39;s a symbol of monarchy.

This is true, however what most people dont realise is that the monarchy saves the UK millions in diplomacy, and brings in millions through tourism. It evens out, I would even go as far as saying that the monarchy is "profitable", however its the principal isn&#39;t it. Why should someone be born to privalige?

But if you want to get into real pointless spending we build tents in the middle of London which cost in the region of 150 million £££, and bring in next to nothing.

[Soviet power supreme]

Opinion polls taken in THIS country (england) show that the majority want a review of the monarchy - but a majority want to stay a monarchy.


The majority of people in western countries think that capitalism is ok.It is a good tradition so we must keep it.


2.Tourism?Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

hmm... again you miss the point.

Alot of people come here simply to see the royal family. l suggest you look at turnouts of parades etc.
Its true we would still have the palaces if we got rid of the monarchy; but people wouldn&#39;t want to see something that is no longer "alive". For more on this look at tourist attractions in the UK.

If you are suggesting making a theme park to replace the tourism deficit - then i point out to you that we already have theme parks - and have enourmous competition from america, france etc etc etc



Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

Did you got it?

Why Pete who work as donald duck gets a helluva less money than queen?
You come and talk about some theme parks and other shit and miss the point.


Arguablly the Uk prevented nuclear war several times, during the cold war, through influence of America.

Don&#39;t remember any of those situations but I sure remember the crisis in Suez where Uk and france almost started world war 3 against USSR.



The monarchy are completely different. You know this - stop making pathetic points.


Tell me why it is pathetic?


The monarchy is good for diplomacy.

Then why haven&#39;t all countries changed to monarchy?The tradition has been that monarchies changes to republic.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 09:23 PM
The English should take a lesson from the French and dispose of their "royals" like the French did. ;)



Oooops....watch your head&#33; :lol:
hey- the english ( i dont say we cos im welsh) started that craze- remember cromwell?

[James]

"Opinion polls taken in THIS country (england) show that the majority want a review of the monarchy - but a majority want to stay a monarchy."


The majority of people in western countries think that capitalism is ok.It is a good tradition so we must keep it.


Oh please don&#39;t start the, "i&#39;m going to reply to this part of the sentence; but not the second half" - its boring.
I said the majority like the monarchy (thus your tenuious link is slightly valid), but the majority want a review - ie change. I don&#39;t see opinion polls suggesting the same on the subject of capitalism.

Also - i think u&#39;ll find the monarchy pre-dates capitalism.



"2.Tourism?Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

hmm... again you miss the point.

Alot of people come here simply to see the royal family. l suggest you look at turnouts of parades etc.
Its true we would still have the palaces if we got rid of the monarchy; but people wouldn&#39;t want to see something that is no longer "alive". For more on this look at tourist attractions in the UK.

If you are suggesting making a theme park to replace the tourism deficit - then i point out to you that we already have theme parks - and have enourmous competition from america, france etc etc etc



QUOTE
Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

QUOTE
Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

QUOTE
Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland.

QUOTE
Why should they get that much money comparing for example that guy in Donald Duck suit in disneyland."


Did you got it?

Why Pete who work as donald duck gets a helluva less money than queen?
You come and talk about some theme parks and other shit and miss the point.


Oh, i see. I didn&#39;t realize that was your point.

Okay - so you are comparing someone who dresses up in a duck suit to someone who IS the attraction?
The monarch does a slight bit more than the guy who dresses up as donald duck...

I think you should answer your own question.

Many can dress up as a duck, many can&#39;t be international diplomats etc etc etc etc


QUOTE
Arguablly the Uk prevented nuclear war several times, during the cold war, through influence of America.


Don&#39;t remember any of those situations but I sure remember the crisis in Suez where Uk and france almost started world war 3 against USSR.

Your point was that the UK wasn&#39;t important. Thus you contradict yourself when you claim that the UK nearly caused a world war... lol

I was refering to Atlee, Truman and the Korean war. Read up you lazy bastard.



QUOTE
The monarchy are completely different. You know this - stop making pathetic points.



Tell me why it is pathetic?

The monarch can&#39;t be compared to a celebrity.

The monarchy can be compared to the collective celebrety however.

The monarchy and other celebs are famous for different reasons. The monarch is historic, and a key part of our constitution.

[quote]
"The monarchy is good for diplomacy."


Then why haven&#39;t all countries changed to monarchy?The tradition has been that monarchies changes to republic.
[quote]

Pardon?
I said the monarchy is good for British diplomacy. I made the points that the monarchy is a permament source of diplomacy (doesn&#39;t change every 4 years), is another source of diplomacy - thus we have the advantages of a republic (the elected office) and a whole bunch more ( the "establishment"). etc etc etc

Also a country just can&#39;t "change" overnight into a british monarchy - likewise - britain can&#39;t change overnight into a republic.

I have a serious suspicion that you don&#39;t know what you are talking about. Ok, i&#39;ve got your "i&#39;m a cool leftist" message - now please stop with your contradictions and rhetoric... its quite frankly; boring.

[communistbutter]

Well i think we should just get rid of them....they have no use other then looking fancy and representing the whealthy part of england...which is a very small population of the whole people...though i do like watching them parade around being all fancy and stuff...well im English and from a poor third class family...so no surprise really

[RedAnarchist]

I like all working-class Brits do not have much respect for the Royal Family. They are just dysfunctional, boring, useless and the only people who like them are the trash tabloid media of the right-wing, Blair, right-wingers and themselves.
Its time for them to be gradually phased out of 21st century Britain.

[Hawker]

Well my other opinion is that the Royal Family is completely uneccesary,but getting rid of them and not harming the populace at the same time would be very hard.You see the English monarchy has lasted since the time of William the Conquerer and during those centuries the more people have become so attached to the monarchy that they would do anything for the King and the Royal Family.It&#39;s the monarchy that fueled Britian&#39;s nationalism.So you see,the monarchy is uneccesary,but must be preserved for the welfare of the country.

[FabFabian]

The Royal Family are a reflection of British society. They are the main reason why British tourism exists. How else would they lure people over to their miserable little island??? :lol: blague

[The Children of the Revolution]

How else would they lure people over to their miserable little island???


GRRRR&#33;&#33;&#33; INFIDEL&#33;&#33;&#33;

We could start holding show trials OF BRIT HATERS SUCH AS YOURSELF&#33;&#33;&#33; Imprison them in the Tower of London then hang them from London Bridge&#33;

England is the greatest. (Poor Grammar)

And the monarchy does no harm to anyone, they bring in more revenue than they take from the taxpayer. Also, we get the comedy antics of the Duke of E - Gaffe&#39;s aplenty&#33; Plus, we retain some degree of cultural autonomy. Which is always a good thing.

Keep the monarchy&#33;

[Soviet power supreme]

[/QUOTE]
Oh please don&#39;t start the, "i&#39;m going to reply to this part of the sentence; but not the second half" - its boring.
I said the majority like the monarchy (thus your tenuious link is slightly valid), but the majority want a review - ie change. I don&#39;t see opinion polls suggesting the same on the subject of capitalism.

Also - i think u&#39;ll find the monarchy pre-dates capitalism.



Oh look how many capitalist is in you parliament and how many communist.Are you saying that Britain isnt democratic?Or labour party is a communist party?Holy shit this is a good news .Blair is a communist. :)


Why are you mixing tourism and diplomacy?You are arguing tourism benefits with diplomacy.
Many can dress up as a duck, many can&#39;t be international diplomats etc etc etc etc


Should truck drivers be paid for their dancing skills?Doctors for their singing skills?


I was refering to Atlee, Truman and the Korean war. Read up you lazy bastard.


:lol: Dont put the credit for Britons.The reason why usa didnt use nukes because they knew that Soviets would give em hell with their nukes.

The monarch is historic, and a key part of our constitution.


So is capitalism part of your history and your constitutional.

Also a country just can&#39;t "change" overnight into a british monarchy - likewise - britain can&#39;t change overnight into a republic.


Who talked about overnight change?Me?You made that just up.

I have a serious suspicion that you don&#39;t know what you are talking about. Ok, i&#39;ve got your "i&#39;m a cool leftist" message - now please stop with your contradictions and rhetoric... its quite frankly; boring. [QUOTE]

Im so cool. :cool:

Do you know what is boring?You fanatic golly monarch arguing here.

[Intifada]

Keep the monarchy&#33;

fuck the monarchy&#33;
they&#39;re lazy fuckers who havent earned anything for themselves, while the hard working brits slave in factories trying to earn a few quid.

[James]

Sovite something or other...
Okay, please try and learn how to post properly.

quote here - minus the "*"[/quote*]


[quote]Oh look how many capitalist is in you parliament and how many communist.Are you saying that Britain isnt democratic?Or labour party is a communist party?Holy shit this is a good news .Blair is a communist.

Pardon? I really don&#39;t understand that. I suggest you try to write at a basic level - so i get your point. There is no need to introduce "wit". If thats what you are doing...


Why are you mixing tourism and diplomacy?You are arguing tourism benefits with diplomacy.

I&#39;m not "mixing".

Two benifits of the monarchy (and thus arguments against simply sweeping the monarchy away) are; diplomacy AND tourism. They are quite different points. One is very political, whilst the other is economic.

Thus why i... as you put it... "mixed" them


Many can dress up as a duck, many can&#39;t be international diplomats etc etc etc etcQUOTE


Should truck drivers be paid for their dancing skills?Doctors for their singing skills?

Again, i don&#39;t have a clue as to what you are going on about...



I was refering to Atlee, Truman and the Korean war. Read up you lazy bastard.QUOTE


Dont put the credit for Britons.The reason why usa didnt use nukes because they knew that Soviets would give em hell with their nukes.

Him, this is very debatable. The US at this time had far superior nukes, and could easily have taken the USSR out - as many in Trumans administration wanted to do.

I&#39;d like to remind you as well, that your point was that the UK is not politically important.


The monarch is historic, and a key part of our constitution.QUOTE


So is capitalism part of your history and your constitutional.

Well i think you missed my point slighlty... My point was that the UK&#39;s constitution is held together by the monarchy in many parts. You can&#39;t just tipex it out and expect it to all be ok. Likewise, its historic. People LIKE the monarchy. People HATE most presidents around the world.
Why trade in a nice model (the monarchy) for one that we know to be not nice at all?

I suppose you could argue the same of capitalism... You simply couldn&#39;t have a revolution in the UK today or tomorrow.

You seem to be confused in your understanding of society... change can&#39;t simply happen like that. True, it would be good
if things could simply be changed like that, but they can&#39;t.
For example look at the french revolution; even though their society had been pushed to revolution, simple change couldn&#39;t be introduced in many areas. For example the 10 day week was abandoned - and i think you&#39;ll find the housing that they tried to introduce didn&#39;t last too long.

I suggest that you read some of Bagehot&#39;s work on the british constitution (alot is still valid), and some books like Burke&#39;s "Reflections" on the french revolution - to learn more of the failures of trying to introduce snap change.



Also a country just can&#39;t "change" overnight into a british monarchy - likewise - britain can&#39;t change overnight into a republic. QUOTE


Who talked about overnight change?Me?You made that just up.

Well you are in favour of abolishing the monarchy, yes?
I thought i was the only one in favour of a simple review and reduction (as the british public want). If i was wrong though, and you are actually on "my side" - i&#39;m very sorry, and embrace you.



Im so cool.

Do you know what is boring?You fanatic golly monarch arguing here.

I&#39;m not a "fanatic golly monarch" - it is boring that you seemingly keep contradicting yourself, making U-turns constantly, and make statements on the british society, whilst it is quite clear you don&#39;t know a thing about REAL british society. You&#39;ll notice that i support my statements, quoting polls, books and ideas - and provide you with further reading.

I wish the same could be said of you.

[katie mccready]

don&#39;t forget without the royls we would not have a good econmy but if we where without them it will even out enyway

[Danton]

DEATH TO ALL MONARCHIES&#33;

[Fidel Castro]

I think when people use the example of the monarchy to insult the UK in general, it really is quite pathetic. I also get quite pissed when I see "England should get rid of it&#39;s monarchy", can people please remember that there are 3 other nations in the union.

In Scotland at least I see very little real popularity for the monarchy,I do think indeed that it is more of an English tradition, e.g:

1. The National Anthem (God save the Queen) has a verse about crushing rebellious Scots.

2. Scottish banknotes do not contain the queens image.

3. Many MSPs did not show up for the queens opening of the Scottish parliament (namely Socialist and Nationalist members)

4. One can read in the decleration of Arbroath (basically a letter to the Pope declaring Scottish freedom) that Scotland has reserved the right to dispose of it&#39;s monarch as it sees fit.

5. The desire for independance from the UK is growing in Scotland (we even have our own freedom fighter group, they don&#39;t do much, but they did send poisoned cosmetics the Cherie Blair which I found quite funny)


The monarchy is outdated, and it&#39;s political use is near nill. Iwould rather see the millions spent on that lot given to schools and hospitals.

[James]

Don&#39;t you think that you guys benifit, economically, by being in the Union?

[{scarface87}]

The British "royal" family is a joke. If anything they should be hung drawn and quartered&#33; In a real democratic republic we would dispose of this insult but the royal family does drive the UK tourism. Now that is a shame&#33;

[Fidel Castro]

Don&#39;t you think that you guys benifit, economically, by being in the Union?

This has always been a problem question in the independance argument. Could little Scotland survive and thrive if independant? I would say yes, don&#39;t forget that if we gained independance the North Sea oil would be ours by right, and Scotland attracts millions of tourists, especially for our Edinburgh Festival and famous Hogmany street party. Whiskey is another multi-billion pound industry, and dispite those bastards at the EU trying to crush it, the fishing industry is importaint. With our small population of less than 5 million (Greater London has a larger population) I think we could hold our own quite easily. :)

[Danton]

the royal family does drive the UK tourism. Now that is a shame&#33;

That&#39;s a myth, Uk tourism is driven by many different factors and the Royal family and their palaces reflect a tiny fraction of overall income...

[James]

well i can tell you now&#33; Alot of English people feel you benifit quite well economically&#33;

I personally don&#39;t think you guys should go independent, because i feel its mutually benificial, and its not as if the english did to you, as what we did to the welsh&#33;

I&#39;m more in favour of regional assemblies, with devolution to national parliaments. Thus we would have regional assemblies, in england say for example, in the North west, yorkshire, Cornwall etc,
We would have the following parliaments; your scotish one, the welsh one, and the creation of an English one, with a UK parliament being made in addition.
This one could travel i suppose, be in each country on a term bassed rota.

I think the Union is a good idea, but i see the demand for more regional control.

OH&#33;
And one more point - don&#39;t forget it was YOU lot who imposed the union on us all&#33; lol
So don&#39;t complain now...

[cubist]

the average public royal garden pulls in about 150,000 punters a year. all paying good money.

but i don&#39;t think that with or without the monarchy we would be anyworse or better.

[Fidel Castro]

don&#39;t forget it was YOU lot who imposed the union on us all&#33;

It cannot be denied that the first king of the UK was James the 6th of Scotland, who became James the 1st of England (Strangly enough old Lizzie is Elizabeth the Second, despite the fact she is the first queen Elizabeth of Scotland <_< ). I also do not deny that all parties in the UK benifit economically from the union, but there is more than just economics to be considered here. I am of course looking beyond "Auld Enemy syndrome" and all that old rivalry crap about what happened hundreds of years ago.

At this time the majority of Scots appear to be pro-union, but those in favor of independance are growing in number, mainly at this time due to the socialists. The argument of some is that we already have much control of our own affairs, and our own judical system, so why should Scotland not have the right to have control over her own armed forces, decide our own foreign policy rather than have Westminster (which has a majority of English mps) decide what direction our country is going in?

The fate of thousands of Scottish soldiers, Scotland&#39;s relationship with the rest of the world, even the fate of our essential fishing industry, is currently being decided by a government in which Scots themselves are a minority. It alsoworks both ways, see the sutuation of Scots MPs voting on foundation hospitals, a non-Scottish matter.

[James]

It cannot be denied that the first king of the UK was James the 6th of Scotland, who became James the 1st of England (Strangly enough old Lizzie is Elizabeth the Second, despite the fact she is the first queen Elizabeth of Scotland ). I also do not deny that all parties in the UK benifit economically from the union, but there is more than just economics to be considered here. I am of course looking beyond "Auld Enemy syndrome" and all that old rivalry crap about what happened hundreds of years ago.


The union came during James&#39; rule - he rulled after Queen I in England, so when this current queen came along it was your first Queen Liz, and our second.

But it is funny that we should have different queens...



At this time the majority of Scots appear to be pro-union, but those in favor of independance are growing in number, mainly at this time due to the socialists. The argument of some is that we already have much control of our own affairs, and our own judical system, so why should Scotland not have the right to have control over her own armed forces, decide our own foreign policy rather than have Westminster (which has a majority of English mps) decide what direction our country is going in?

The fate of thousands of Scottish soldiers, Scotland&#39;s relationship with the rest of the world, even the fate of our essential fishing industry, is currently being decided by a government in which Scots themselves are a minority. It alsoworks both ways, see the sutuation of Scots MPs voting on foundation hospitals, a non-Scottish matter.

Aye, i see your points.

[monkeydust]

Prince Charles is actually a socialist, which seems pretty surpriing considering he plays polo and eats caviar.

[&#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;]

I think tradition plays a very important role to the English people that&#39;s why they haven&#39;t been removed until today..but if we consider how many lovers the kings&queens of England had,these people might actually be common people&#33;hehe&#33;Imagine that&#33; :D

[mentalbunny]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 06:04 PM
Prince Charles is actually a socialist, which seems pretty surpriing considering he plays polo and eats caviar.
He hunts as well. Don&#39;t forget that one&#33;&#33;&#33;

[FabFabian]

Calm down Child of the Revolution....

FYI, my mum is English so start untying the knots in your shorts. Blague is a french word for JOKE.

As far as the Royal Family being a drain on the public purse, the woman pays taxes now. This excercise seems redundant in my opinion. The Queen herself is a notoriously frugal woman and I challenge anyone to say otherwise. The woman is a child of the war afterall.

Charles is a very progressive person, but like most Scorpios they let their passion for a topic override reason sometimes and can be misinformed. Yeah, the guy lives the high life compared to you and I, but the man was the first royal to persue higher education, established the Prince&#39;s Trust to help youth in crisis and he is an enviromentalist seriously against GM foods.

The Royal Family are there to be patrons of Arts and Sciences, charities and are embassadors for the British Isles. Just look at the U.S., as much as they like to pride themselves on being a republic they so desperately want the glamour that royalty lends. The best they can come up with are The Kennedys. :P

[mankymole]

i&#39;m english. I think the royal family are a disgrace, but i still think we need them. They ad an extra layer of democracy in the uk (must pass all reforms, armed forced alliance is to them and only they can declare a state of emergency) plus the queen is the head of the common wealth.

also if u look back in the past to before the first world war they helped the liberal party introduce the peoples budget which stopped everyone dying and probs stopped a revolution in britian (which would effect the world as at the time britian was the most powerful contry in the world)

So we should keep them, they have been useful and still can be - however we should chip away the bad points, ie the taxs we pay for them, so take away a few hundred staff, houses and cars and problem solved.

ah plus they make money through tourism. so we keeping them :angry:

[suffianr]

ah plus they make money through tourism. so we keeping them

Haha. What about all that rich cultural heritage and stuff? What happened to that? :lol:

[Funky Monk]

Fuck it

[Rastaman]

they are the smallest problem.. as soon as a new government is in place they will be as any other.

[mentalbunny]

Well said Rastaman. Worrying about theb Royal family is the least of our problems.

[Yevgraf]

Come the revolution, after which a Peoples Republic of Britain will be established, all members of the in-bred degenerate royal family will be rounded up and sent to live in the zoo, where they belong.

Now THAT would be a major tourist attraction&#33;&#33;&#33; :D :hammer:

[mankymole]

:o Treason &#33;

- off with his head&#33; :o

[Danton]

Off with your fucking head&#33;

They ad an extra layer of democracy in the uk (must pass all reforms, armed forced alliance is to them

How is that democracy?

and probs stopped a revolution in britian

And that&#39;s a good thing how?

Are you aware what kind of board this is?

[James]

They ad an extra layer of democracy in the uk (must pass all reforms, armed forced alliance is to them[I]

How is that democracy?

Basically its the theory of Peer review.

[Danton]

Well I&#39;m not a peer, are you? Where are our voices in this "democracy"?

[James]

Well i&#39;m only just old enough (in march) to vote.
I havn&#39;t had a say in anything, at all.

Are you aware of the theory - checks and balances?
and the danger that is mob rule?

[Danton]

The peerage and the monarchy are a mob...

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 07:28 PM
In Canada, The British Crown is the legally recognized leader of Canada.

This makes me mad. Canada no longer has need for the British Monarchy.
Um....I am NOT a fan of the Crown, but Canada does use the Parliamentary system, which does require the Queen as Head of State, and the Governor General is Her representative in Canada. I will Not sing "God Save the Queen".

[Soviet power supreme]

Sovite something or other...
Okay, please try and learn how to post properly.
[quote*]quote here - minus the "*"[/quote*]

Well it would be polite at least remember the name of the debator. :)


I&#39;m not "mixing".

Two benifits of the monarchy (and thus arguments against simply sweeping the monarchy away) are; diplomacy AND tourism. They are quite different points. One is very political, whilst the other is economic.

Thus why i... as you put it... "mixed" them

Well you see im against allkind of over work.The people shouldnt work overworks or being in 2 or more jobs.


I&#39;d like to remind you as well, that your point was that the UK is not politically important.

Well im sorry if I was misleading but the Uk wasnt the major politic power in Coldwar.

The monarchy cant be destroyed now, but it should be in future,agree?