Technology0 min ago
Republican or Monarchist
10 Answers
Probably already been flogged to death, but here goes...............freeloading waste of space parasites or essential to our country? I am firmly of the parasite school of thought.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by number8. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I can't see how they can be considered in any way essential...they perform no real offical functions in the running of the country with only ceremonial token jobs (Opening parliment etc.)....as for the bringing tourists in line....does France not have a decent tourism dollar since madame guillotine had her way? (Now there's an idea!)
Anyway's it's not my monarchy and until they do away with the third verse of the so-called national anthem I will not stand nor serve them in any way shape or form.
im with you scuba,i asked a similar q a few weeks back
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/DisplayAnswers.go?q
uestion_id=33519&category_id=18&index=0 didnt really get the answer i was looking for, i.e the best way to protest against them.
uestion_id=33519&category_id=18&index=0 didnt really get the answer i was looking for, i.e the best way to protest against them.
-- answer removed --
Thank you for your responses - it's nice to see there are like minded republicans out there.....................and the whole "ambassadors for tourism" argument really p****s me of because (a) it simply doesn't hold water (see France, Italy etc... as previously mentioned) and (b) whenever I get into an argument about the monarchy that pathetic argument is always, without fail, the first thing that is thrown back at me.
yeah, but they bring in a lot of tourists, dont they. when you think about it tho, what would you do with them? their income is mainly from property they own ( e.g. charles is the duke of cornwall) so given that you have got rid of 'em ( they have no real power now ) unless you sieze their assets ( i'd love to see that court case ), what have you achieved? do you want an american style of gov't?, french?, italian? we already have a constitutional dictatorship. i think that before we do anything we should reform parliament and make it acountable. don't ask me how tho, coz it's very tricky stuff.
jim.
Well, I take the opposite view. Without the Monarchy we would still need a Head of State, presumably a President. Wouldn't Tony and Cherie love that! A President would still need official residence(s), staff, security, transport etc. to represent our country in suitable style, and would cost just about the same. There would be no cost saving. Besides, the present incumbent has been doing it for 50 years and her family for quite a bit longer, so she's got some idea how to do it without wasting too much.
Those who criticise the Monarchy always conveniently forget that in 1760(?) the then King agreed to surrender the income from the Royal estates in perpetuity in exchange for provision of the Civil List monies. Last year, as http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page433.asp will tell you, the Queen gave up �170.8m to get back �36.2m - not a bad bargain for the country.
Abolishing the Crown would also abolish the abstract focus for our national loyalty. We swear allegiance to the Crown to represent the country, our values, our beliefs, our whole way of life. We would need another focus, perhaps the flag like the Americans - or is it illegal to respect the Union Jack these days?
A President would mean Presidential elections, with political manoeuvring and the suspicion (at least) of the buying and selling of favours, as well as the man himself looking to make a packet from his office.
Why should we abolish near a thousand years of history and the way it has developed, except to pander to envy?
Why should we abolish something that has existed for most of our civilised history just to satisfy a bunch of wet republicans, most of whom can't give a good reason for why we should do it.
And why can we never have a question on Answerbank that relates in some minor way to the royal family without one of these republican wags making some predictable, contrite statement that contributes nothing to the discussion?
1 to 10 of 10
