Great Britain: Republic or Monarchy?

**TonkaToys** · 11-29-2005, 14:51

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

Consider renaming ships from HMS (Her Majesty's Ship) to BS (British Ship).

Considering what BS otherwise stands for, that might not be so good... "Here comes the B*llsh*t Invincible to rescue us".

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

Besides, getting rid of them would be surrendering to mediocrity, conforming to the rest of the world. No thanks.

Nice one.

Long live the Queen.

**Somebody Else** · 11-29-2005, 16:37

Originally Posted by TonkaToys

Considering what BS otherwise stands for, that might not be so good... "Here comes the B*llsh*t Invincible to rescue us".

You noticed that did you?

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I'm pretty sure that that's mostly the buildings they're squatting in.

Well, yes - in part. But would those buildings be worth visiting without the knowledge that the reigning monarchy live in them? After all, how many people go to see Buckingham Palace compared to going to see say... Caernarvon? They're both lovely historic sites, one just happens to be the home of the Queen.

What would happen to all those chaps in busbies? The changing of the guard would likewise go, but of course, no-one's ever interested in that...

Most importantly, that fantastic bar-room antic, 'saving the Queen' would no longer be applicable (for those who don't know - dropping a coin in a person's drink results in said person having to save the Queen from drowning by downing said drink ASAP).

**English assassin** · 11-29-2005, 17:01

Most importantly, that fantastic bar-room antic, 'saving the Queen' would no longer be applicable (for those who don't know - dropping a coin in a person's drink results in said person having to save the Queen from drowning by downing said drink ASAP).

No it wouldn't. I play this game already, and its called Freddie Fivepence. You lob 5 p into the victim's drink and all shout "he's drowning, he's drowning, Freddie Fivepence is drowning" then the victim has to save Freddie by necking it.

If we shouted Save the Queen no one would have the faintest idea what was going on and Her Maj would meet a beery end. Still, not a bad way to go.

**Somebody Else** · 11-29-2005, 17:24

Originally Posted by English assassin

No it wouldn't. I play this game already, and its called Freddie Fivepence. You lob 5 p into the victim's drink and all shout "he's drowning, he's drowning, Freddie Fivepence is drowning" then the victim has to save Freddie by necking it.

If we shouted Save the Queen no one would have the faintest idea what was going on and Her Maj would meet a beery end. Still, not a bad way to go.

Ah, but there are nuances to 'saving the Queen'. Firstly, the victim does get to keep the coin - so depending on circumstances, one could be particularly harsh (or if the drink is already considerably low) and chuck in a mere penny, a 50p is considered gentlemanly. Anything more would only occur if a) generosity was a bit too prevalent, b) the victim was slightly low on funds - a pound would allow another drink to be bought.

Plus, everyone in my bar's sworn an oath, it's our duty to down pints!

**Ziaelas** · 11-29-2005, 17:25

I would have to say away with the royals. The Royals are not what makes Britain Britain. They serve NO purpose anymore, and they are given rights and priviledges no-one else has purely because they exist. Just for being born. Not to mention they ruin good TV with their silly weddings and stupid events. I would vote with getting rid of the Royals, and I wouldn't stick out my neck to save them. I have a profound hatred for the "hanger-onner royals".

"Hey look, I'm the Queen's granddaughter's husband's cousin's brother-in-law! Can I have some free money now?"

It's not really as severe as that but there are a lot of pointless lords not working a day in their lives, and mooching off my money. Not to mention they own a LOT of land which SHOULD belong to the state. They're supposed to uphold the Church of England faith but ruddy Prince Charles is in no way a real christian. I think the royals have grown too accustomed to their "rights", and have forgotten their responsibilities.

**GiantMonkeyMan** · 11-29-2005, 20:20

you can't say they are born into a privaliged family (well you could) because Bill Gates' family is going to be just as rich (if not richer?).... i say keep the royals so we do not fall into the trap of having another person in charge who gets just as big a house and tax benefits (eg presidents).... Long Live The Queen (and down with the french

)

**Ziaelas** · 11-29-2005, 21:00

Actually, Bill Gates isn't giving any of his money to his children to my knowledge (If I am incorrect, please correct me ;))

**BDC** · 11-29-2005, 21:04

Maybe we should rebrand. If we called ourselves Narnia we'd do quite well out of tourism plus we've already got lions and unicorns everywhere so it would be quite cheap..

It's pure genius. The marketing for the tourism adverts basically write themselves.

**el_slapper** · 11-30-2005, 10:54

Originally Posted by GiantMonkeyMan

(.../...) (and down with the french

)

Chaaaaaaaaaaaaarge!!!

let's not let this insult stay unpunished

and this time, don't let the roastbeefs fire in first

Nah, frankly, a president/king for the decorum & a full-time man for the real power, whatever the name of its function, THAT is good.

**thrashaholic** · 11-30-2005, 11:49

The monarchy is a living embodiment of Britain's history, its traditions, its culture. To remove it would be to remove an integral connection we have with our past. To replace the Queen with a slimy politician president would be akin to knocking down stonehenge, knocking down all of our castles, knocking down our monuments and building a concrete monstrosity like a car-park in their place. We'd be waterring down our culture for no real purpose (as the anti-monarchists have readily admitted: the monarch has no real power, thus an elected president would have no need to have any power - the difference would be that we'd have to elect him/her, so they'd have political alligances, and that they wouldn't be rooted in our culture at all).

The cost arguments, in terms of money alone, are a fallacy. The real cost would be to the people of this country, and dare I say to the people of the world, as we'd have an institution so steeped intradition, a living history if you will, destroyed and replaced by a generic one-size-fits-all make-a-quick-buck psuedo-culture of rubbish television, disgusting fast-food and anonymous presidents.

The anti-monarchists arguments seem steeped in jealousy, that they can't be the monarch, and in racism, that a family have to live in this country for over 250 years to truly be British (although the Queen can, of course, trace her lineage back to Edward the Confessor, the last 'English' king, and there have been both considerable Welsh and Scottish influences on the family...). I say it's a good thing the general populace can't get their hands on the role of head of state: the charisteristics of ruthlessness and deceit endemic in politicians are precisely the qualities you don't want in the head of state.

The royal family, and the aristocracy in general, may be an anachronism, but they are a charming anachronism. This reason alone justifies their existence. Now that the fuedal system has gone, they can't do any harm, only remind us of our history and what it truly means to be British.