The Royal Family

[Eligius]

Was great to see little Prince Louis sitting on his grandfather's knee watching the Platinum Jubilee celebration, I bet Prince Andrew was so jealous 

[Davkaus]

44 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 I  quite like the fact that we are a monarchy  ... it hardly makes me a flagshagger anymore than voting leave made me a gammon  ..   

 

What is it that you like about us being a monarchy?

It's fairly unobtrusive so I just ignore it, and it's easier to just accept the status quo and not get too worked up about it, but if it were put to the vote, I'd struggle to think of a good reason to cast my ballot in favour of inequality by birth.

[Davkaus]

4 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Was great to see little Prince Louis sitting on his grandfather's knee watching the Platinum Jubilee celebration, I bet Prince Andrew was so jealous 

I don't think there's any allegation that he's a sweaty gay nonce. That might be a step too far for even the Windsors  

[Mr_Dogg]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I don't think there's any allegation that he's a sweaty gay nonce. That might be a step too far for even the Windsors  

He's probably considered an ephebophile.

[tonyh29]

51 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Also known as reasoned, rational common sense.

the only thing in your sentence that's correct is "common"  

 

a quick read of the various flagshagger posts and its quite apparent that "reasoned" doesn't enter into the equation 

[Mister_a]

Sums it up for me.

 

[Ingram85]

‘Antiquated working class chip on your shoulder views’.

**** me lol. 

[tonyh29]

50 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

What is it that you like about us being a monarchy?

It's fairly unobtrusive so I just ignore it, and it's easier to just accept the status quo and not get too worked up about it, but if it were put to the vote, I'd struggle to think of a good reason to cast my ballot in favour of inequality by birth.

I just prefer a constitutional monarchy over a republic  , the Queen is just a figure head with no power and above politics , republican president type figures  are more likely to act without any democratic input  ..i.e the Italian president removed an elected Prime Minister undemocratically 

The French president (for example) costs the French taxpayer significantly more than the monarchy costs the Uk tax payer  , to an extent they carry out the same ceremonial duties but without the heritage and pageantry   , unless people are proposing we abolish the monarchy and leave it at that then there isn't any cost savings to be had , it wont result in x more nurses or hospitals 

I've seen the old tourism debate mentioned here and of course dismissed by the "anti" brigade , but ask yourself who is probably the most famous woman on the planet  ( behind Kim Kardashian  ) .. its the Queen ... the Europeans , the Asians , the yanks they go mad for a bit of regal pomp and people do come to the UK as a result of this   ... I  accept that these people could of course still come and see an empty Buck palace but those celebrations yesterday were beamed around the globe to an audience of billions , as "free"  advertising goes for a tourist board its not a bad one  ... Ask those same people to name the Italian president  or if billions will watch him have tea with Paddington bear 

as you say , its unobtrusive and not worth get worked up about  , and getting rid of the Monarchy isn't going to solve inequality by birth either ... we'd still have a North /South divide after all  

[TheAuthority]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

the only thing in your sentence that's correct is "common"  

 

a quick read of the various flagshagger posts and its quite apparent that "reasoned" doesn't enter into the equation 

Stay classy.

[tonyh29]

12 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Stay classy.

it's 2022 i shouldn't have to explain what  means surely  

but selective indignation is fine  I've been here long enough to know how the game works  , its all cool 

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

 

I've seen the old tourism debate mentioned here and of course dismissed by the "anti" brigade , but ask yourself who is probably the most famous woman on the planet  ( behind Kim Kardashian  ) .. its the Queen ... the Europeans , the Asians , the yanks they go mad for a bit of regal pomp and people do come to the UK as a result of this   ... I  accept that these people could of course still come and see an empty Buck palace but those celebrations yesterday were beamed around the globe to an audience of billions , as "free"  advertising goes for a tourist board its not a bad one  ... Ask those same people to name the Italian president  or if billions will watch him have tea with Paddington bear 

I don't disagree with this - I find it hard to believe it'll survive much longer than the next coronation though. Most of us don't know a world without Liz as Queen. Even outside of the UK, she's often seen as the Queen, completely eclipsing other monarchs. I'm not sure the same influence will be there when Charles the Third rocks up - the younger royals remain somewhat popular, it'll be a race against Charles' health to see how well the reputation of the monarchy holds up before he's gone, I think,

[Lichfield Dean]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I just prefer a constitutional monarchy over a republic  , the Queen is just a figure head with no power and above politics , republican president type figures  are more likely to act without any democratic input  ..i.e the Italian president removed an elected Prime Minister undemocratically 

The French president (for example) costs the French taxpayer significantly more than the monarchy costs the Uk tax payer  , to an extent they carry out the same ceremonial duties but without the heritage and pageantry   , unless people are proposing we abolish the monarchy and leave it at that then there isn't any cost savings to be had , it wont result in x more nurses or hospitals 

I've seen the old tourism debate mentioned here and of course dismissed by the "anti" brigade , but ask yourself who is probably the most famous woman on the planet  ( behind Kim Kardashian  ) .. its the Queen ... the Europeans , the Asians , the yanks they go mad for a bit of regal pomp and people do come to the UK as a result of this   ... I  accept that these people could of course still come and see an empty Buck palace but those celebrations yesterday were beamed around the globe to an audience of billions , as "free"  advertising goes for a tourist board its not a bad one  ... Ask those same people to name the Italian president  or if billions will watch him have tea with Paddington bear 

as you say , its unobtrusive and not worth get worked up about  , and getting rid of the Monarchy isn't going to solve inequality by birth either ... we'd still have a North /South divide after all  

There are other models though. Head of state doesn't have to be different to head of government. If we do get rid of the monarchy we could devise a whole new system of government and state, there are no restrictions.

Also, it's not really true that the Queen has no power. She may not always exercise it, but if she wanted to...

[Mark Albrighton]

I find it wryly amusing when the tourism argument comes up in support of her maj, there’s also an accompanying sense  (from some), that those who don’t care for the Queen are unpatriotic or “doing Britain down”.

I’m of the belief that the country has ****ing loads of non royal family related attractions to offer tourists. Personally, I think people who think the Queen and her family are the cornerstone of tourism are the ones “doing Britain down”.

[tonyh29]

7 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I don't disagree with this - I find it hard to believe it'll survive much longer than the next coronation though. Most of us don't know a world without Liz as Queen. Even outside of the UK, she's often seen as the Queen, completely eclipsing other monarchs. I'm not sure the same influence will be there when Charles the Third rocks up - the younger royals remain somewhat popular, it'll be a race against Charles' health to see how well the reputation of the monarchy holds up before he's gone, I think,

yeah Charles could well be where they lose some support , his coronation coupled with the anti monarchy Starmer   as PM could set events in motion   .... 

 

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I find it wryly amusing when the tourism argument comes up in support of her maj, there’s also an accompanying sense  (from some), that those who don’t care for the Queen are unpatriotic or “doing Britain down”.

I’m of the belief that the country has ****ing loads of non royal family related attractions to offer tourists. Personally, I think people who think the Queen and her family are the cornerstone of tourism are the ones “doing Britain down”.

I don't know if that's aimed at me or elsewhere , but I qualified the argument of the whole tourism thing ..  I don't disagree that people would still come here / do come here regardless but events like the last few days will almost certainly up sale tourism ...  same way that people ride a train in Scotland cause it was in Harry Potter or that people were visiting  parts of Iceland because it was in game of thrones  

[mjmooney]

28 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'm not sure the same influence will be there when Charles the Third rocks up

As I understand it, he's going to be called George VII. 

[bickster]

12 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

yeah Charles could well be where they lose some support , his coronation coupled with the anti monarchy Starmer   as PM could set events in motion   .... 

 

It could just as easily be anti-monarchy Liz Truss 

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

As I understand it, he's going to be called George VII. 

I understand there's a tradition of regal names, but I don't think there's anything he could do to look more out of touch than renaming himself when he gains the throne.

[tonyh29]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

It could just as easily be anti-monarchy Liz Truss 

never thought anything you could say would have me longing for Starmer as PM  

[Mark Albrighton]

17 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I don't know if that's aimed at me or elsewhere , but I qualified the argument of the whole tourism thing ..  I don't disagree that people would still come here / do come here regardless but events like the last few days will almost certainly up sale tourism ...  same way that people ride a train in Scotland cause it was in Harry Potter or that people were visiting  parts of Iceland because it was in game of thrones  

No, if it was aimed at you, I would have either @ you, or just quoted your post. Hence why I put “(from some)”, I’m not referring to anyone on this site. I’m speaking in general.

Do events like the recent few days help tourism? Yes, they probably do help (they probably don’t hurt, at the very least). But then do other countries need such pageantry to advertise why people should visit? I’m not sure they do.