In reference to the visit by your future King in Canadia, i ask; is monarchy still a relevant force, or just a way to holdon to a way of life that is no more?

But then our Queen's representative is pretty hot...



Another poll that may be coming: why attractive women marry goofy looking guys?

I am not ashamed to admit that I am a monarchist. But then, I have never courted popularity.

Nor have I found it.

Whenever the question of dismantling the monarchy comes up in this country the only argument that seems to hold some water is that they are a strong tourist attraction. I'm not sure that there are any other arguments for retaining them, to be honest.

I don't mind them, to be honest. The Queen seems like a good egg, but I don't like Charles. I do not like the cut of his jib.

But how about countries like France or Italy? They have no monarchy but have loads of tourists.

I used to be violently opposed to them but now I just can't see the point of getting worked up about the monarchy. When people do they just seem feeble-minded. As if there aren't infinitely more important issues in the world!

Obviously if you were creating a country from scratch you wouldn't have a monarchy at the heart of it in this day and age but we're lumbered with them now and since they definitely are a major tourist attraction I'm quite happy for them to rot on the throne while I don't pay them any attention whatsoever, thank you very much.

Charles though is a self-pitying pompous twat who has an incredibly high opinion of himself and as he'll be unable to keep his mouth shut I foresee republicanism getting a major boost during his reign.

I used to have reservations about Prince Charles myself, but ever since I heard his off-mic comments about Nicholas Witchell ("I can't stand that bloody man"), he has become one of my favourite people on earth.

The William and Harry generation does nauseate me a bit. Couple of chinless bores living an existence that only Evelyn Waugh and Mrs Colin Campbell could dream about. But I have to admit that, for princes, they're brave guys for wanting to fight in wars (at risk of personal death or illness) .

I love the royal family!
They are racist, right-wing and not in any way English - god bless them all. :wub:

I don't know what important problem abolishing the monarchy is intended to solve.

It seems to gratify people's need for historical attachments, reverence etc. - apparently the royales get huge line-up when they tour the US, for example.

But maybe it gratifies this to excess in the home country - is there a lot of Royalty-fixation in the UK? I mean actual people, not the fake-up media front page unrepresentative crap.

Sponging parasites the lot of 'em. <_<


They are funny though. :lol:

They are great.
Without them, well, what would I eat my lunch off?

Or brew my tea in?

Where does the tea come out, please?
Thank you.

From the nose my friend.
No mystery here... move right along.

:sick:

On the other hand, The Monarchs were a fine doowop group.

Yes, but those Monarchs didn't rule you in perpuity in a madly non-democratic way on account of someone shagging some Germans 100 years ago...

No, there is that to consider, and I think it's a valid point....now some of the Monarchs made have shagged the odd German or two, but the issue, if any, did not evince any proclivity to being deserving of an eternal High Tea....Yes a fine point, like we've come to expect from your person.

At least if they were batshit insane, riding into town on black horses, beheading peasants at random, living in a scary cartoon castle, dressing like nazis at partys...

Basically, anti Monarchists are just jealous of all the money and priveleges the Royal Family have. They may dress it up in all sorts of fancy language like "I have a passion for fairness" and so on, but yeah, just dominated by envy really. No doubt someone will start droning on about constitutional issues, but even they will be bored by their own post.

Having said that, the Monarchy are hardly the bunch of people who I'd choose to represent the UK overseas, but that's life.

Garry Bushell there...

yeah but they are living it up on your money....the citizens are paying for these leeches to the tune of a billion or two a year....a billion for what?
Talk about a group of people who could be replaced by a roomful of empty chairs!

Well, it's actually about 60p a year for each Brit, but I hear what you're saying. To be honest, I have no opinion either way (and hence haven't voted in the poll). In my youth I was anti-Monarchist myself, until I grew up a bit and realised my true motivations...

Personally, I think Capp has nailed it upthread.

American perspective-

It's too ridiculous to abolish. Absurdity demands its continued existence. And-

If you do dig its grave, are you prepared for the weird backlash of those trying to preserve it? Dole mothers donating 15% to house the children in the best hotels? Do you really want to see just how disturbed the conservative poor really are? The rallies/riots would be the very length of eyesore...

Fox news would love it.

Im with Exo on this one, but without the absurdist slant (which is a bonus). The main reason I think it should be preserved is that it is a living reminder of society’s evolution (from unrepresentative feudal totalitarianism to constitutional monarchy to your current bourgeois democracy)–in the UK.

Come the revolution there should be some sort of continued representation of our bourgeois democracy, how so Im not sure

I think the english monarchy is a fantastic institution - not only because its anachronistic nature is a wonder to behold in the modern age but also because it still possesses enormous symbolic value. For many years the english monarchy was mocked by european royalty for its lack of real power, but it is the only one that has survived - due in large part to the powers it has abrogated over the centuries, beginning with the magna carta in 1315. While other kings and emperors clung desperately to theirs, the english monarchs were forced to compromise, and they are now a living testimony to the strength of those compromises.

I also think it has one practical benefit: whilst the monarch cannot rule the country, it can prevent others from doing so. Of course, that is a double-edged sword, but I would rather have this check on executive authority than not.

Mind you, it is better that they get the money from their subjects rather than some independant source.

A Gold semi-detached house inhabited by a family kitted out in Next clothing that bases its entire world view on what it reads in the Daily Mail.

In-bred freaks the lot of 'em.

better weather?

I used to want to get rid of them but that's because I am feeble-minded and envious.

I don't see why we can't scale them back a bit - Dutch or Scandinavian style.

The tourist thing is a bit of a red herring - people come to see castles and palaces and soldiers dressed in nice red uniforms and history and stuff, they do not come to see the Queen.

Yeah me too. If only somebody had told me. :lol:

I think Charles will do for them in the end.

It does perpetuate the belief in privelege, Establishment entitlement and forelock tugging. But then again, I'd ban private education, so what do I know? :lol:

Re; your English Royal Family

Isn't this wasted 60p a year off everyone quite enough to considerably boost our ailing health service? Besides which, it is not just Brenda, Big Ears, Phil The Greek and Arkle that are costing all these £, there are considerably more of your inbred fox-hunting bastard cunts who we never get to see at all.

Get rid of the lot of them. Pointless parasites. There is not a single argument for sustaining the institution of monarchy in 2009's Britain that stands up in any meaningful way.

Well I made a couple of arguments for them on the previous page so be my guest and 'knock them down' - (if u can. :P)

Righty ho then:-I met a royalist in a pub once and he came up with that very point. If Nazi Germany took over in WW2 they wouldn't be able to go changing any laws because they would have to get the monarchy to countersign.

"Oh you think so? They wouldn't just, like, shoot them in the head if they refused?"

All of that.

Well the anti-democratic left certainly seized their opportunity and made hay when the capitalist system went into meltdown last year.

The world was awash with ideas to finally replace the current system, eminating from all the intellectuals of the far left. Poor Keynesian economics and social democracy couldn't get a look in. Or was it the other way round? :confused:

is what? Good? Crap?

They ought to set an example by stopping blasting the living daylights out of our wildlife, sticking to the speed limits on our roads and not misusing our expensive military equipment to further their sex lives. Bastards.

All of that.