Jump to content

Royalist or Republican?


TheDrums
 Share

Recommended Posts

There are some intelligent posters on this forum, and I was wondering on which side of the divide between the two they fell on, unless they are an Anarchist, or something else. I do apologise if that is the case.

Anyway, I myself cannot stand the Royal Family. I believe they are frankly a bunch of spoilt parasites stuck in times that should have been confined to the pages of historical textbooks.

I was reading a story today about Kate Middleton, she never seems to be off the news. *Yawn*. Once again she was compared with bloody Diana. Anyway, she visited a homeless shelter. How nice of her, and was given flowers, chocolates and worshipped like some Goddess, all whilst wearing a £4,000 outfit, no doubt paid for by the British taxpayer. All of the attention was paid on her visiting the unworthy beggars, who weren't pictured at all, nor were the actual issues on homelessness raised to create awareness and understanding. They were pushed out of the way. Homeless people do not sell newspapers, but Kate Middleton smiling and posing with flowers will.

How people can worship such parasites is beyond me. They are given all of these palaces, countryside mansions and funds from the public purse, all because they were born into it or decided to marry to join the gravy train.

Look at Andrews children Beatrice and the other one. They are regularly pictured falling out of nightclubs pissed, and looked after by police officers and guards 24/7. They look down no us normal folk and think we are peasants, yet it is the hard work of us peasants that upkeeps their lavish and ridiculous lifestyle.

I pray a revolution comes soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite like the Royals. I dont think they oppress us, do they? We can afford them, and I think London is one of the greatest and most architecturally interesting cities in the world because of the Royal touch. I like the history and tradition, and as long as it remains a constitutional monarchy then I am fine with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly ambivalent on the whole thing, but it's a bit stupid to dislike somebody just because they were born to a privileged background - they didn't choose it after all.

I don't believe for one moment that members of the royal family are generally any way worse in their attitudes or behaviour than any other stupidly rich people are - if anything they're probably better due to the public scrutiny.

I'm also pretty sure that the royal family are one of the most popular tourist draw cards in the world, and I also suspect that the income from this more than pays for them itself - I'm not sure they are really much of a tax payer drain at all. I could well be wrong. But I like the fact that they're "living history".

Personally I'd rather have a Prince Charles in charge than a Thatcher, a Blair or a Cameron. And politicians as a general rule seem to be corrupt self serving rich arseholes beholden to big industry and paid for by... the tax payer. It's not like there is some royalty-free utopia waiting to happen if we just ditched the Windsors is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

I don't care about them, I have no reason to be bothered about these people, much like I don't give much of a shit about any other Tom Dick or Harry. It doesn't actually over bother me that they make money for er... **** all. But I dislike what they represent, so, for want of a better turn of phrase, orf with their heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The country is up to its eye balls in debt, they can't afford the Royals.

I don't buy the tourism argument as well. The hundreds of thousands that goes towards protection for Beatrice and her sister to get pissed in nightclubs could go towards training programmes for youth unemployment. That would benefit the country a whole lot better than having a few spoilt parasites look down their nose at the common folk. It would boost the economy, get people off benefits, and improve communities.

As for tourism, if stately mansions were open to tourists throughout the year the country might actually make more via tourism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
The country is up to its eye balls in debt, they can't afford the Royals.

Did a very quick investigate and the first thing I found suggested that in 2011, the Queen cost the Government £32.1M. It also indicates that Her Madge "surrenders" all income to the crown estates which is estimated for 2011 as £210M.

Even if you want to claim that crown estates shouldn't really belong to the royals, I would guess that the royals easily bring in £32M in tourism. Probably no easy way to quantify it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Royal family cost about 69p per British person a year. Interestingly, the Republican German and French heads-of-state cost more in their respective countries.

Tax income from royal lands are somewhere in the region of 200 million quid a year. So before you even factor in tourist appeal, we're well in profit.

What would really benefit the country is if government grew some balls and made the richest people/companies actually pay some **** tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are forgetting other costs. There are hidden charges of over £100m a year the tax payer pays for the Monarchy. Royal Finances are also exempt from the Freedom of Information act.

Also, she cannot surrender income to crown estates that she doesn't actually own. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Monarchists tell us, as if this is the killer argument, that the monarchy is great for British tourism. It is sad that we have to include tourism as a subject of our campaign. This question should simply have no place in any debate about our constitution. As former Economist editor Bill Emmott observed: "This [argument] is embarrassing because it suggests we should maintain a constitutional arrangement for purely commercial reasons." In other words, monarchists seem to believe we should sell our democracy for the price of a postcard.

Unfortunately this argument is repeated too often for us to simply ignore it. So let's take it on face value and answer the claim that monarchy is good for tourism.

Quite simply there isn't a single piece of evidence to support the claim. The question that monarchists cannot answer to their advantage is this: would tourism suffer if the monarchy were abolished? We can't tell the future, but we can point to a number of facts, statistics and arguments which allow us to safely conclude that tourism would not only continue successfully in a British republic - it would probably benefit from the abolition of the monarchy.

The 'tourism argument' for a republic

A simple piece of reasoning is a good place to start.

Tourists come to see the sights and to pay for experiences while on their holidays.

In so far as the monarchy provides any tourism value it is in the shape of palaces and castles.

Buckingham palace is closed to tourists for most of the year. When it is open the visiting public are only allowed to see a small fraction of the rooms. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that if the palace were open all year round, and if the entire palace and gardens were open to the public, tourist visits would increase considerably.

Why wouldn't they? It would be a far better bang for the tourist buck.

This point is demonstrated by contrasting the success of the ex-royal Tower of London with Buckingham palace.

Buckingham palace is falling down and the palace officials have been demanding more cash from the government. As a tourist attraction it doesn't even make it into the top 20 in the country. The Tower of London's funding is entirely independent of government grants and the tourist revenue they bring in allows them to maintain the buildings to a high standard, while providing tourists with an exceptional experience.

VisitBritain, the body responsible for researching and promoting Britain as a tourist destination, surveyed 26,000 people about what attracted them to Britain. The monarchy was well down the list. A spokesperson from VisitBritain said the palace is: "one of those iconic photo destinations and we try to discourage 'tick-box tourism' - just going and having your photo taken somewhere and moving on." So even though people may go to see the sights, the monarchy is of limited value to the tourist industry as it does not generate revenue and is not the reason people visit Britain.

Even if there were a small minority who came to Britain for the monarchy - a minority no doubt outweighed by the extra tourists who would come to see a fully accessible palace - such tourism only benefits central London. The monarchy can do little for tourism in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.

As we've said, Buckingham palace doesn't make it into the top 20 of tourist destinations. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes the grade, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). It has been estimated that royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue.

Finally let's speak up for the ingenuity, creativity and hard work of ordinary people in this country. It is our heritage, our culture, our attractions that people want to come and see. We don't need the Windsor family to lend a helping hand for us to bring in tourists. We're doing pretty well without their help and would do better still if they handed the palaces back to the people who paid for and own them.

Why the tourism argument is bobbins, Republic.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if I were creating a governing system in hypothetical country there would be no monarchy. In that sense im a republican, but frankly its far down my list of things to be pissed off over. They're inoffensive, and whilst ideologically abhorrent, I manage to ignore them pretty successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we have to have a politician as head of state?

Why couldn't we have someone randomly selected from the electoral roll (some kind of Head of State Lotto each Christmas day) to serve as the figurehead for the forthcoming year?

Oops - spelling fail. :bonk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

Why couldn't we have someone randomly selected from the electoral role (some kind of Head of State Lotto each Christmas day) to serve as the figurehead for the forthcoming year?

I'm all for this, provided at the end of the year (or for the traditionalists, when the crops next fail/plague arrives/things go otherwise tits up), the person given office is sacrificed by druids.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys seem to be forgetting that the future king of England is a Villa fan. Hopefully it happens soon so we have the King, the PM and the head of the Bank of England. If that happens I think it will only be fair for the country to impose a "Villa tax" on its citizens, £1 a week for every man, woman and child in the country. If that happens we can buy Leo Messi and maybe finish in the top half this season!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that happens I think it will only be fair for the country to impose a "Villa tax" on its citizens, £1 a week for every man, woman and child in the country.

seems reasonable to me but surely Villa fans are exempt though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite like the Royals. I dont think they oppress us, do they? We can afford them, and I think London is one of the greatest and most architecturally interesting cities in the world because of the Royal touch. I like the history and tradition, and as long as it remains a constitutional monarchy then I am fine with it.
Exactly this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â