Printable View
If we (the UK) were to get rid of HM the Queen and the monarchy in general what would we do with them?
What do they acutely mean by getting rid of them (throw them out of the country, ignore them, just stop her from having the right to make decisions or just cut her of from government funds.
Would she still have the right to call herself the queen?
And finally do you actually think that there is any point in getting rid of her?
Happy birthday to her (two birthdays a year just plain greedy)
You get the ankles and I'll get the wrists.
There is no model in the world that either works better or is less expensive than the monarchy. Getting rid of them would be a terrible mistake that would be difficult to reverse.
~:smoking:
your joking right?
You guys should take away her status, if she protest...civil war (which she'll lose in 3 days:2thumbsup: )
Im anythink but a monarchist, but I dont see the point in getting rid of Lizzy. The style of government in the UK, where the power is de facto with the Prime Minister, but where there is still a need for a figurative head of State, why the hell not just keep her in place. We have a similar enough system in that we have a PM (Taoiseach) and then a President who does next to nothing except finally sign legislation when its gone through the bicameral system. Presidential elections every 7 years are a joke here. The last one went UNCONTESTED! Imagine that! So why not just enjoy the fact that the Monarchy brings hundreds of thousands of eager tourist to London each and every year.
All UK military personnel swear to serve the Queen, so if the military does it's duty, chances are she will win.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
I believe funding of said military is a different story, but I'm sure they could last long enough to seize Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Attestation
http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...m/monarch.html
http://www.serendipity.li/more/monarch.htm
''Startling new facts came to light in research for a Channel 4 programme on Richard III. The historian Michael K Jones had uncovered what appears to be strong proof that the 15th-century English monarch Edward IV was, in fact, illegitimate, thus throwing the legitimacy of all the kings and queens who followed into question. In fact, it appears that the royal line should have extended, not through Edward, but through his brother, George, Duke of Clarence, and his heirs.''
Erm, her line is from Germany...
~:smoking:
Well it could be worse. We could have President Bliar..(jeez) or President Prescott. :sweatdrop:
At least Prescott would be willing to give 'good 'ol boy' Shrub a 'Kirkby kiss'...now I'd pay for a ticket for that.
:2thumbsup:
Doesn't matter. *Checks British royal desent* Henry VII's (as Henry Tudor) claim to the throne is based on his marriage to Elizabeth of York. King Edward VI daughter. The Stuarts claim is based off of James I great-grandmother being Henry VII's daughter Margeret. The Hanovrian claim comes from George I's grandmother being James I daughter Elizabeth. So you see if Edward VI is illegitimate then all who came after him are too. After all they didn't just toss George I the throne for no reason right?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And I've seen that show Byz-merc is linking too. That man Michael is an Auzzie. Or rather is a naturalized Auzzie who happens to be a peer of the (British) realm.
And they got in through the Stuarts who got in through the Tudors who used Edward's legitimacy as their basis of power (Damn, beaten to it). Either way it doesn't bother me that much. They worked their way onto the throne.. good for them. Perhaps it would be better if they weren't there, but given how well many of us live would you really want to risk such a major change? Personally I can understand Republicans and Monarchists.. the problem is they both generally say the same things.Quote:
Erm, her line is from Germany...
Besides.. if we did kick out the royal family we couldn't just pull a Russian and shoot them all. We'd be doing Republicans in Canada, Australia, and certain other Commonwealth nations a favour, aye, but to a certain extent wouldn't that be like declaring war, explicitly killing off their Head of State and all? Add on to that the fact that the Windsors own a fair chunk of Britain regardless of their station.
Psst, I've got a suggestion on how to get rid of a monarchy... http://matousmileys.free.fr/fluester.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts
Psst, I've got a suggestion on how to get rid of a monarchy...
Do we have to supply our own wool for the knitting ?
As Arthur Scargill said on Question Time back in the 80's, "I am sure we could find her a nice little cleaning job" - or words to that effect.
Kick the leechers out, at least politicians are accountable.
She costs me $4 a year.
To the lions. :stupido:
LOL! :laugh4: Politicians accountable. That'll be the day. I'd actually be curious to see how much and to whom the public purse pays to the royal family.
The monarchy will be in trouble when old big-ears assumes the throne. Is there anybody in Great Britain that actually likes this clown?
On the other hand, you may have a resurgence of popular suport of the crown with those two young scrapper princes there. A couple of storybook princes, they are. Who was it- William or Harry that demanded to "serve in combat"? Good lads. :2thumbsup:
edit: BTW, it seems the monarchy these days is at the mercy of the populace, much as is a politican.
I say keep 'em, for tradition alone. God knows the Crown won't extend the veto. It would be "Republic" from shore to shore!
"God save the Queen!", but maybe we could chuck out that incessant Charles :hanged:.
P.S: Isn't it hung, not hanged?
A person is hun, dead meat is hanged. So technically both takes place...
There have been problems with the Monarchy before. Victoria was not liked, George III was mad.
Charles has more substance in his little finger than most politicians do in their whole bodies'. He has beliefs and sticks to them. He doesn't lie to hide what he has done, and doesn't change his views as the fickle public's short concentration flits to a different issue. The Princes Trust quietly helps people, as opposed to Dianna's Trust which appears to be better at fame than doing anything.
The populace seems to be mainly ambivalent about the monarchy until someone tries to get rid of them. But then that's England all over: muddles along until some sod tries to pinch something, then focused as a sex crazed rhino on acid.
~:smoking:
Leave her in place, she has no power and the NET cost to the country is nothing.
anybody that cant see that, needed their bumps checking over by a doctor. That is of course if you can find one. :laugh4:
Hehe the French model for abolishing monarchy :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Why, the royal family is like a huge tourist attraction, and if there was a civil war id Be royalist all the way and die for it.
Without the queen the English are just Americans with bad teeth an funny accents. There my hat is in the political arena
Since we are civil, unlike the Greeks, she would keep the bulk of the Crown Estates and the Royal Collection as private property. If she was cut from government funds, them she would presumably take up her own income which currently goes entirely to HM Treasury to be spend as public funds and such, like our taxes. This income amounts to £180+ million, which far outstrips the monies she receives from the government for State business. The public purse would be out of pocket by a considerably sum...Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts
And just like the Greeks, the Germans, and so on, our Queen would still be able to call her self HM Queen Elizabeth, like HM King Constantine
Do you have hard figures for those assertions? Not that I don't believe you but I'd just like to see some figures that the government has put together (aausming they exist at all :sweatdrop:).
Being as Chuckles will be my king too I can say I'd have him as my monarch. His problem is that he's socially inept, and a wierdo. But if I was in his place I doubt I'd come off any different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Harry, either in Afghanistan or Iraq. Not sure which place. Chances are though that he'll go. His grandmother sent his helicopter pilot uncle to the Falklands in '82. The MoD was ready to keep Andrew home too. But the Queen said he's a serving officer if his unit is deployed he'll be going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Ahahaa, its the other way round mate, the americans are just english with a funny accent and weight problems and no monarch.
It was taking too long to traipse around the website of HM Treasury only to find how much it spends...Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Here's something from the Crown Estate
So basically all the private property owned by the royal family is managed like a corporation. All of it's profits are turned over to the treasury each year as taxes. Is the landlord on over 10000 tenancies all over the UK. And has extensive mineral rights, gold and silver on shore and all offshore save hydrocardons. Damn!, all corporations should be run like this. That's what I was looking for. :2thumbsup:
Touche:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ragnar
Getting rid of the queen will hurt tourism alot... I think.