Should the UK have a Royal Family?

[Karma168]

This argument simply does not wash. They do not bring in tourist money. Their houses bring in tourist money.

If they didn't live in them anymore, then we could open up all of their estates in their entirety to the public and make even more money from tourism.

Imagine if you could go and walk through pretty much any room of Buckingham Palace any time you wanted, if it was opened up as a museum. It would surely still rake in the money, probably more than it does now.

More importantly I don't think we should have a monarchy because the very concept itself is disgusting, this is supposed to be the 21st century and we still have kings and queens, come on! How can we ever hope to have true equality whilst there is still a nobility?

How long before people stop caring though. Sure the buildings would have increased profits for a while but after that it's just another boring museum and that revenue would drop off. Compare the white house and Independence hall (where the declaration was signed) in the US. Which do you think has the highest tourist revenue? I'd put money on the White house, because it is a living building, things still happen there - it's not just a piece of history.

Does it really matter that much? We still have a House of Lords that get to decide our laws, I'd be more pissed about that than a figure head with less voice in how things are run than any ordinary person on the street (since it's seen as improper for the queen to vote in elections)

 

[Darksteel Mike]

think of how people boast about seeing a celebrity

Which is also pretty damn up there on the dimwit scale.

Aye but it makes cash.

So in short before this turns into a quote waterfall, Stupidity = Moolah.

Royalty is a historic curiosity and such things belong in history books. Their job description belongs inside the job description of our politicians, their "heritage rights" is arbitrary as all hell and the next time someone makes a big fuss over a wedding because there's regal blood and not because two people are commiting to eachother for life (or until divorce) I will paint the walls with that same blood, I swear to god.

 

[ElPatron]

Get a president or prime minister willing to let his offspring go to war.

Then we talk.

 

[jordan312]

I think the royal family is great, they make money, and make good ambassadors, even prince Andrew. The only political powers the royal family has is that they can't vote (bummer), and the queen has to sign all the laws that go through parliament. If she doesn't sign them we basically get rid of her.

 

[Karma168]

There is an international reverence for "real" nobility at all levels, and that gives the British monarchy political clout that should not be underestimated. Of course that is rather insubstantial, but what are international politics, if not smoke and mirrors?
Even at home they've got a lot of influence. Not power, but influence.

Name one time the Queen, or any other royal has ever said "this policy is wrong". You'll struggle, they are very careful not to say anything in public that could be seen as influencing people when it comes to politics.

The closest you'll find is some royals promoting certain ideas, Prince Charles and being green or Harry and showing support for our troops. While you could argue that influences peoples votes thats not the point; you don't see them say "vote for them, they are the best for this policy" what you see is them encouraging a personal choice, changing our lifestyle to fix the environment or treating servicemen and women like the heroes they are. There's no hidden agenda, they patron charities to raise awareness, nothing more.

 

[Darksteel Mike]

I think the royal family is great, they make money,

And cost money.

and make good ambassadors, even prince Andrew.

This is the job of our prime minister and other politicians.

The only political powers the royal family has is that they can't vote (bummer),

How is that a political power?

and the queen has to sign all the laws that go through parliament. If she doesn't sign them we basically get rid of her.

So what purpose does this serve again? Extra red tape just in case?

 

[Gudrests]

you will not be able to get rid of her easily.

GOD SHAVE THE QUEEN!!!!!

That and the royal family probably makes money off of other things too...like...selling their weddings to the boob tube.

 

[Zeriu]

They are a big part of your national identity. The fact that all foreigners think of the royal family when they think of the UK us proof enough. Not enough you say? Well I'm just going to ask you the name of your country and don't lie to yourself. The people who contributed the most to British music, science, movies, and other crucial factors that form your national identity, are knighted. Sir Alec Guinness, the actor who played Ben Kenobi; Sean Connery, the actor who played the first James Bond; David Gilmour, the lead singer and guitarist of Pink Floyd, one of the greatest Rock bands in history; Robert Plant and Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin; and the list goes on and on. There are also a lot of bad things that the monarchy has done over the time that also influenced your national identity. Either way, as long as you call yourself British, you are tied to the Crown.

 

[uzo]

The sales of those damned magazines with pictures of royals ALONE support thousands of workers, from photographers to writers to editors and newsagents; bringing in VAST sums of money. Then you can start looking at the corporate taxes levied upon these companies, in the UK and elsewhere, all of which is absorbed and used by the gov't to support society.


To say that the royal family are more expensive to support than they bring in is daft at best.

EDIT: Plus, without the royal family, we would never have been exposed to the glory of Pippa Middleton's bum.

 

[Zeriu]

1. They make more money than they spend, as shown by the video in every other comment. Please pay attention. If you hate the monarchy just say so. Don't make up bullshit unfounded arguments for why they should go away.
2. You can't trust politicians for shit. The Queen wouldn't cheat her own country when she had the chance.
3. More power to you then.
4. It's just protocol.

 

[Kargathia]

There is an international reverence for "real" nobility at all levels, and that gives the British monarchy political clout that should not be underestimated. Of course that is rather insubstantial, but what are international politics, if not smoke and mirrors?
Even at home they've got a lot of influence. Not power, but influence.

Name one time the Queen, or any other royal has ever said "this policy is wrong". You'll struggle, they are very careful not to say anything in public that could be seen as influencing people when it comes to politics.

The closest you'll find is some royals promoting certain ideas, Prince Charles and being green or Harry and showing support for our troops. While you could argue that influences peoples votes thats not the point; you don't see them say "vote for them, they are the best for this policy" what you see is them encouraging a personal choice, changing our lifestyle to fix the environment or treating servicemen and women like the heroes they are. There's no hidden agenda, they patron charities to raise awareness, nothing more.

You're talking about political power. I'm talking about political influence - which never exerts itself when Joe Public is watching.
Most political wheeling and dealing doesn't happen at rallies and televised speeches, but at backroom conferences and private dinners.

It is the same thing as the simple truth that a minister's wife often has as much say in policy matters as any member of parliament.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Britain would be worse off without a Monarchy.

The money they spend on diplomatic visits are earned back usually within the first hour of them being there.

They brought in a much welcomed boost to the economy during the royal wedding.

It defines Britain as a nation.

They help a lot with certain diplomatic situations.

They are celebrities all around the world, as they are the most famous royal family to ever walk the Earth.

National pride somewhat increases with their presence.

+ Whats the harm in not having a monarchy? They don't rule, it's a constitutional monarchy. Plenty of countries have that. Japan, Norway, Netherlands. Are in a constitutional monarchy system. Not to mention Canada, and Australia and 4 American states + many more. Their monarchy IS our monarchy.

 

[triggrhappy94]

How does the Royal Family still have money?
You guys arent giving them tax dollars (or pounds) are you? Or do they just get everything for free?

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

you will not be able to get rid of her easily.

I have learned something new today.

And now I will regurgitate those facts as if they were my own!

[HEADING=2]Huzzah![/HEADING]

Glad to know I have contributed to someone's gains in knowledge.

Except you haven't. Every time I see that bloody video I really wish someone would post the response to it. So here it is:


And the financials aren't the point anyway! I would much rather sacrifice the money they [don't actually] make and live in a proper democracy with an elected house of Lords, separation of church and state, no more Lords Templar etc etc etc.
One person says one thing, the other person says another. Which is right, we will never know...

The tourism thing is nonsense as well. If we turfed the Royals out of Buckingham Palace and Windsor, and opened up the stunning royal collections of art that for some reason no one is allowed to see, we'd make a fortune.

Happily I think it won't take too many years of King Charles to convince everyone to get rid of them.

One person says one thing the other says the opposite. You will believe who you want to believe.
The guy in the second video was being unsporting and making an ass of himself so I'll go with the first video.

 

[sharpsheppard]

i don;t think i need to hear people bad mouth the royal family when the only the closest they have got to culture is when eating yogurt.

 

[coolkirb]

I think the monarchy shouuld stay. Besides the economic gains pointed out haveing a monarch seperates the power and cerimonial aspects of the leader between the Prime Minister and the Queen (or Governor General if your a canadian like me).

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

The way I see it the Royal Family are living, breathing monuments to Britain golden age. I can see people complaining about their upkeep but I ask you what if your government wanted to take down the Eiffel Tower or that German Gate thingy in Berlin or the Washington Monument in Washington because they wanted to spend that money on baby incubators or something. A nation has to take pride in something. As for the people who say they got their land illegitimately well, I might agree with you but you should take that argument to the Natives in America and see what they say...

 

[Slippers]

As a foreigner who has visited England as a tourist, I can say this.

I don't give a rats ass for Buckingham palace. Palaces are a dime a dozen in Europe. The existence of a public queen, knights and the like is what spikes my interest, gives it a certain charm.

If there was no figure head to speak off, please give me a reason why I should visit Buckingham instead of say Versailles? The royal family is what makes it stand out.

 

[Dusk17]

What exactly would you do to the royal family anyways besides not paying them? They dont have any real power (any they do have is purely for show) and would still be wealthier than anyone on this site and even if you take away their titles or something it wont change who and what they are, so unless you have them executed or something it wont do much. Also from what I have looked up the royal family still PERSONALLY owns (not conquered or taken by force but legally bought) Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House so they would still retain some of their property anyways.