Great Britain: Republic or Monarchy?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Interesting thing. I remember reading about a poll in the paper in my childhood, that is early 80's like '83 maybe; the monarchy had 99.7% (or 97.9%) public support.

Hmm, I would support it I guess.
.

[English assassin]

On the names front, we could replace the Royal stuff with United Kingdom-So, UKAF instead of RAF, UKS Invincible

Umm, but BKS, we wouldn't BE the United Kingdom would we? We'd be the United,er, damn, nations has gone, states has gone er, Countries? UC. Hmm. The Yew See. Not so good.

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..

[TonkaToys]

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".

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.

[Spetulhu]

Sure the tourism might be helpful, but who'd keep an extremely unjust system because of the money?

What's so extremely unjust about it? Last I heard Prince Charles never had anyone executed for calling him a knob. The Queen can't invade countries, it's Bliar who handles that.

Perhaps the injustice you see is only that you're not the one getting paid to appear in public?

[Snowhobbit]

The injustice is that he as is born with privilegies that no one else can have, there's something so 18th century about it

[English assassin]

Last I heard Prince Charles never had anyone executed for calling him a knob.

I bet he'd like to though. Or have them horsewhipped at least. Show the oiks their place.

There must be someone more useless and plain wrong headed than Charlie (Hey, listen to my laughably ill informed opinions because I'm the Prince of Wales) but I can't think who right now.

Edit: Prince Edward of course. D'oh.

[Somebody Else]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[BDC]

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.

[Duke Malcolm]

God Save the Queen!

I too shall defend Her Brittanic Majesty, and her heirs and successors, even HRH Prince Charles, who has made a few good points in the past...

And what is all this clap trap about Her Majesty costing the British people money? The Crown Estates, Her Majesty's private property, earns about £175 million a year. All of this money goes to the Government. Her Majesty and their Royal Highnesses cost the British Taxpayer much less than £175 million. Hence, Her Majesty provides money for the british people reaching into hundreds of millions of pounds per annum.

And besides, it would be an awful lot of hassle to abolish the monarchy. Consult the British Commonwealth, consult each area of the UK (England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) separately, deciding on a new name...

[GoreBag]

Bruce would be a great monarch, he would bring heavy metal to the masses!

:D

Oh, please, not again. We'd barely shaken off the hair metal of the 80's in time to get blasted with this nu-metal garbage, and now we have short-haired, metalcore, trendy impostors running around.

[rasoforos]

Bruce would be a great monarch, he would bring heavy metal to the masses!

:D

Yeah Bruce would be cool!


Seriously:

I have to agree with Jag. I dislike monarchies. I cant understand why taxpayers have to pay good money so a selected few wont have to even bother to scratch their own arse. Its just silly and it doesnt do justice to the country.

And they are not even British anyway. So its not like they are guardians of any great tradition...

Jokingly:

American dream ' Through hard work, courage and determination one can achieve prosperity no matter his race/sex/colour is '

British dream ' As long as you are a really lucky (mostly) German lady, you can really strike gold...and the hell with hard work '

[Duke Malcolm]

I have to agree with Jag. I dislike monarchies. I cant understand why taxpayers have to pay good money so a selected few wont have to even bother to scratch their own arse. Its just silly and it doesnt do justice to the country.

As previously:
The Crown Estates, Her Majesty's private property, earns about £175 million a year. All of this money goes to the Government. Her Majesty and their Royal Highnesses cost the British Taxpayer much less than £175 million. Hence, Her Majesty provides money for the british people reaching into hundreds of millions of pounds per annum.

And they are not even British anyway. So its not like they are guardians of any great tradition...

They have been of born in this country since Queen Victoria (her children, not herself). If someones family is resident in a country for over 150 years, they are generally considered to be of that country

[rasoforos]

They have been of born in this country since Queen Victoria (her children, not herself). If someones family is resident in a country for over 150 years, they are generally considered to be of that country

Yep, and this is fine for you and me. I am foreign myself but my kids wont be.

My point is that, if there was any potential 'tradition value' it would need the royal family to be the the descentants of a dynasty that spans for centuries...and not a bunch of interbred mostly-germans

As tradition goes they are more akin to bierwurst than to the Excalibur

[Duke Malcolm]

Generally the spouses of the kings have been British. Queen Victoria and King George I and William and Anne were, I believe, the last truely foreign monarchs of the nation.

[Productivity]

On the names front, we could replace the Royal stuff with United Kingdom-So, UKAF instead of RAF, UKS Invincible, and possibly something like the National Mail. Or we could go back to Consignia for that last

EDIT: EA Beat me

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm a yank of Irish (no traditional reverence for the English monarchy) and Polish (actually elected their kings) descent, so I really don't have a dog in this fight, but....

Practical Point:

Somebody in government has to do all of the ceremonial chores, the acceptence of letters of credence, the hand-waving appearances at new reseach hospitals, photo ops with the latest sports winners....

If you lack a ceremonial figurehead -- and the practical power of the monarchy is about as limited as it can get short of abolishing the monarchy or repeating the Charles I solution -- then you end up ladling all this crap work on top of the real work of your executive. Believe me, that stuff certainly takes up way too much of the time of a U.S. President.

Impractical Point:

If you do scrap the royals, maybe the ships could all be styled "Prime Minister's Ship Insert Name" -- after all, they're traditionally thought of as female.

[English assassin]

and now we have short-haired, metalcore, trendy impostors running around.

I know this is off topic, but HOW can anyone call Bruce Dickinson, lead singer of iron maiden, (after the first few albums) a trendy impostor? Or Metalcore, whatever that may be, when Maiden were and remain one of the greatest NWOBHM bands? (He has got short hair now though.)

I saw their show at the Reading Festival this year and unlike some cash in come backs we could mention, cough Mötley Crüe cough, maiden have still got it.

In fact anyone who has seen Bruce giving it some with the Union Flag AND dressed as a Redcoat while singing the Trooper live knows that THIS is the man who should be the UK's figurehead on the world stage.

Its all decided. Lock teh thread.

[el_slapper]

(.../...) (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]

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.

[Slyspy]

Sure the tourism might be helpful, but who'd keep an extremely unjust system because of the money?
Time for a new revolution I say

Unjust system? I've managed to live my life so far without once being opressed by the monarchy. Parliament maybe but not the royals!

[Mouzafphaerre]

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.

.

.

[Snowhobbit]

I refer to my previous post.

The injustice is that he as is born with privilegies that no one else can have, there's something so 18th century about it

[Kralizec]

If you do scrap the royals, maybe the ships could all be styled "Prime Minister's Ship Insert Name" -- after all, they're traditionally thought of as female.

That's even better then British Ship

[InsaneApache]

well PMS Warspite sounds like the missus .....I'll get me coat ....

[InsaneApache]

Why on Earth would anybody want THIS guy to be King???????????.....

Dickinson