Should the Monarchy be abolished?

[Kate!]

Not sure if this topic has ever been debated, apologies if it has.

If not, let's discuss. Should Britain do away with the Royal Family (not in a murderous sense :hugesmile:) and have a President, rather than Prime Minister?

I can see that the Royals do bring an awful lot of revenue in with tourists etc, but they are also a huge drain with all the hangers on and the ridiculous lavish lifestyles for the flip side of the coin. I suppose I'd say on the whole, don't get rid of them altogether, but cut it right down, why should cousins, second cousins, aunts, uncles, etc etc, get given money and homes for just being born into THAT family.

I admit right of the bat that I'm not highly informed in politics, so my views may be somewhat naive, but I'd be interested to read all your opinions on the subject? :)

[Shaun]

Yes. Inherited legislative power (however little), and its accompanying wealth, is ridiculous and draconic.

[Niall]

I can never make my mind up on this.

I mean the radical part of me wants to abolish it and introduce a republic because, its quite backward and elitist.

But then another part of me doesn't want to end 1000s of years of tradition and cut off the Royals as a tourist attraction. :suspect:

[Kate!]

damm, meant to add a poll. Yay or Nay.

[Vicky.]

Public/private poll?

[Kate!]

Public/private poll?

I usually make my polls public, so public please Vicky.

cheers.

Voted yay in the poll, because I actually can't stand the majority of the royals tbh, Prince Phillip wants a good hard kick in the balls for a start, Charles and Camilla are bastards (poor Diana, how she suffered).

[MTVN]

Against it in principle, in practice I'm indifferent

[Niall]

Hmm on second thought I'd have to say I'd abolish it. I just started thinking about Prince Charles and the way that bastard meddles in governmental affairs (for the worse) really does make my blood boil, so. -votes yay-

[Kizzy]

get rid! And 99% of the house of lords too :)

[Marsh.]

If it means snatching Camilla (or the Wicked Witch as my nan calls her :laugh:) away from her pedestal then yes I'm all for it.

[Shaun]

The thing with the tourism argument is that:

a) the history would still be there. It's not like tourists around the world would go "Oh the Queen ain't there any more? Well idfc about Buckingham Palace then."
b) if the entirety of London was bombed by a nuclear warhead, in about 100 years once the fallout dissipated it'd become a tourist site. Tourism =/= moral soundness.

[Patrick]

Yes, completely and utterly.

The only reason it's kept is because England want it so it looks like they're 'proper' and stuff like that, when all it does is give off the stereotype that British people are dull and worship the Queen when infact, we act like Simon Cowell has more relevance than the Queen.

It means nothing, it's pointless, just get rid of it.

[thesheriff443]

leave it!

[Me. I Am Salman]

Oh snap I picked the wrong vote, I should have picked Nay, didn't read the question properly urgh.
Anyway no we should not abolish them because they are a national icon, they boost tourism and plus I like them :thumbs:

[Marsh.]

Yes, completely and utterly.

The only reason it's kept is because England want it so it looks like they're 'proper' and stuff like that, when all it does is give off the stereotype that British people are dull and worship the Queen when infact, we act like Simon Cowell has more relevance than the Queen.


On what planet do people think we all worship the Queen? Most people seem to know it's all bollocks and only kept for traditions sake.
In reality, the entire Royal Family don't hold very much power at all. Most of what they did have was taken away.

[joeysteele]

Nay for me, I have my disillusioned periods with the Monarchy but I still support it and doubt I would want to ever see the UK go to a Presidential system.

In fact,watching the State opening of Parliament today made me feel quite proud of our Country that we have such as this still going on.

Imagine having a President Blair, a President Thatcher or someone like them,no thank you, they can be Prime Ministers such people but I for one will always want to keep the Monarchy even with its faults,over a President any day.

[Kizzy]

Nay for me, I have my disillusioned periods with the Monarchy but I still support it and doubt I would want to ever see the UK go to a Presidential system.

In fact,watching the State opening of Parliament today made me feel quite proud of our Country that we have such as this still going on.

Imagine having a President Blair, a President Thatcher or someone like them,no thank you, they can be Prime Ministers such people but I for one will always want to keep the Monarchy even with its faults,over a President any day.

The queen makes no decisions... Do you think th PM has to run everything by her he does?.
I think all the pomp and ceremony is ridiculous. Herand her entourage are just a drain, we would have tourists without her.

[Saph]

No I like having the Royal family :amazed: its the only thing Britain is known for..

We should be done with Priministers though, i'd rather have a President

[Marsh.]

The queen makes no decisions... Do you think th PM has to run everything by her he does?.
I think all the pomp and ceremony is ridiculous. Herand her entourage are just a drain, we would have tourists without her.

TBH, most of the Royal Family's money and property were taken by the government a long time ago. They're very much a business now and are required to pay taxes. The money they give back to the state outweigh the money they take from it. And I'm pretty sure the American taxpayers pay much more towards the expenses of their First families than we do for the Royals.

[Me. I Am Salman]

No I like having the Royal family :amazed: its the only thing Britain is known for..

We should be done with Priministers though, i'd rather have a President

We can't though because we have a Queen :laugh:
-I think-

[Me. I Am Salman]

Yes, completely and utterly.

The only reason it's kept is because England want it so it looks like they're 'proper' and stuff like that, when all it does is give off the stereotype that British people are dull and worship the Queen when infact, we act like Simon Cowell has more relevance than the Queen.

It means nothing, it's pointless, just get rid of it.

Tourists worship the Queen more than us :tongue:

[Patrick]

On what planet do people think we all worship the Queen?

America.

[Marsh.]

America.

Lol, I think they worship her more than we do. She doesn't even run the country in the strictest sense.

[joeysteele]

The queen makes no decisions... Do you think th PM has to run everything by her he does?.
I think all the pomp and ceremony is ridiculous. Herand her entourage are just a drain, we would have tourists without her.

No kizzy,of course I don't think the PM has to run things past the Queen,in fact I know he doesn't but if we don't have a monarchy then we would have a President and quite frankly when I look at the often chaos over the water,also the politicians we get as leaders,I say no thank you to that.

The Monarchy has no power that is true but the Royal family bring in loads of income from tourists and I cannot for the life of me see where say,a President Blair,President Brown,President Thatcher or President Cameron would generate that income. Far from it but that is what we would get, Parties with leaders who would become President with all the funding that would entail too.

I personally love the pomp and ceremony,it is something unique we have, outdated maybe but it is like history coming alive.

For me anyway,long may it continue, I am at present 20 years old but I cannot see the monarchy being abolished in my lifetime and I certainly hope it won't be either.
I would never vote to abolish it and I doubt really,especially with William and Harry likely to be at the forefront of the Royals for decades to come,that the UK would in a referendum vote to abolish it either.

[Bollo]

Nay, I agree with Joeysteele... I personally think it's a part of british culture, however outdated. The attention / tourism/ unity the Kate/ Wills wedding brought to the Uk, never mind the extra bank holidays (+Jubilee), makes them still relevant I think

[King Gizzard]

That was a dramatic turn around in the poll

[Kizzy]

Sorry bollo I don't believe the royal wedding brought any unity to the UK...At all.
And if you guage your commitment to the monarchy by the number of holidays per year, my guess is they are not so much sovereignty more novelty.
But it seems to be a theme, maybe those further south feel more 'connected' to the ideal of royalty?...

[Bollo]

Each to their own Kizzy...I guess I'm just going by the amount of people I know that got together to watch it /celebrate it with family and friends and got all nostalgic..and no I don't have a massive commitment really to them... just a lot of things they helped create I have got enjoyment out of in the past...art exhibits, museums, castles, chelsea flower show...heck even the D of E! Not sure about the Southern thing though..I have family and friends that aren't from the South that don't mind having them around...I guess I'd rather they were around than not...but I understand why people don't like them

[InOne]

I might mean something to English people but not sure about Britain as a whole.

[Shaun]

It says a lot about how much people cared about the royal wedding when the most-talked-about subject was Pippa Middleton's arse.

I just don't see the need for them. There's nothing admirable about a bunch of out-of-touch privileged racists in some fancy buildings. And before anyone claims the amount of charity work they do - so do volunteers in Oxfam, but you don't see those getting diplomatic trips to the Caribbean.

[joeysteele]

The Royal wedding pulled a lot of the UK together definately Bollo, I know of students friends and family from abroad too who came over just to say they were there when the wedding took place.All of my family for instance loved every minute and many of them went to London at the time to catch a glimpse of things too.
I guess I am a Royalist really,I like the continuity the Monarchy represents in an ever changing World, it is something that is ours and it is loved and actually respected by great numbers of people in other countries.

Of course tourism would continue if we hadn't a Monarchy but not on the same scale I believe, a great many tourists flock to Balmoral for instance,when they know the Queen is there, just hoping to catch a glimpse of her maybe going to Church, the same with all the other Royal residences, with no monarchy though, the numbers would in my view likely fall quite heavily with the knowledge none of the Royals were there now.

For me the question is, would we as a Nation want someone like President Cameron for instance as a absolute leader,I sure wouldn't.
The Monarch may have no power,but I would guess PMs do draw on her vast experience of the UK and the World on a fair few issues,not as policy but as a sounding board.

Parliament wll always be there but it is strengthened and complimented by the continuity the Monarch brings to things as well.

[Patrick]

Everything Shaun said.. :worship:

Serious question, is it possible for this to actually happen anytime soon?

[King Gizzard]

I think the new wave of Royals like Will, Kate Harry etc'll make it more interesting/try get in touch more with society if that makes sense

[Kizzy]

I really hope that is the case nathan, out of all of them I feel wills may be a positive force in the royal line. His influence could do much more for the country than a set of dusty old relics wheeled out for the 2o'clock show for the visiting public.

[Jack_]

Yeah this has been brought up a few times, I started a thread on it a few months back I think :p

A bit like MTVN said, against them in principle, but in practice I think as a result of tourism they're quite beneficial. I think we'd be a lot worse off without them. I found this (http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-true-cost-of-the-royal-family/) which is a blog explaining 'the real cost of the royal family'. I found it quite interesting.

In an ideal world they wouldn't exist, but then in an ideal world everyone would be equal and elitism on the whole would be non-existent.

[King Gizzard]

I really hope that is the case nathan, out of all of them I feel wills may be a positive force in the royal line. His influence could do much more for the country than a set of dusty old relics wheeled out for the 2o'clock show for the visiting public.

Yeah, they seem to have bit more of a humour and have been exposed to real life situations more as opposed to alot of sheltered Royals who just live on their titles for most of their life

[Omah]

I can never make my mind up on this.

I mean the radical part of me wants to abolish it and introduce a republic because, its quite backward and elitist.

But then another part of me doesn't want to end 1000s of years of tradition and cut off the Royals as a tourist attraction. :suspect:

TBH, most of the Royal Family's money and property were taken by the government a long time ago. They're very much a business now and are required to pay taxes. The money they give back to the state outweigh the money they take from it. And I'm pretty sure the American taxpayers pay much more towards the expenses of their First families than we do for the Royals.

Yeah, it's a tough one for for a former revolutionary anarchist, but nowadays I'd rather keep the monarchy who, by and large, pay for themselves, and shoot the bankers and brokers, who are just parasites ..... :cool:

[Omah]

It says a lot about how much people cared about the royal wedding when the most-talked-about subject was Pippa Middleton's arse.

Well ..... it WAS perfect ..... :pipe:

[Kizzy]

Yeah, they seem to have bit more of a humour and have been exposed to real life situations more as opposed to alot of sheltered Royals who just live on their titles for most of their life

Deffo, he has his mothers humility. Coming from a broken home...Experiencing the death of a parent, his father marrying a horse (not SJP the other one)...It shapes a young man.

[Omah]

Deffo, he has his mothers humility. Coming from a broken home...Experiencing the death of a parent, his father marrying a horse (not SJP the other one)...It shapes a young man.

"Nay" to that ..... :eek:

[Shaun]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18018232

K I've changed my mind they can stay.

[MTVN]

:joker:

[Vicky.]

It says a lot about how much people cared about the royal wedding when the most-talked-about subject was Pippa Middleton's arse.

I just don't see the need for them. There's nothing admirable about a bunch of out-of-touch privileged racists in some fancy buildings. And before anyone claims the amount of charity work they do - so do volunteers in Oxfam, but you don't see those getting diplomatic trips to the Caribbean.

:joker:

I think a large percent of those who 'celebrated' the royal wedding were simply looking for an excuse to get pissed tbh. They were celebrating the extra bank holiday more than anything else

[Liberty4eva]

The tourest thing gets exaggerated. Just because Egypt has no more pharohs doesn't mean people don't want to visit Egypt and see the pyramids. Radio host Alex Jones will tell you that the British royalty are among the most evil people on the planet.

scrap the monarchy. This is the 21st century in case you were unaware.

[Omah]

The tourest thing gets exaggerated. Just because Egypt has no more pharohs doesn't mean people don't want to visit Egypt and see the pyramids. Radio host Alex Jones will tell you that the British royalty are among the most evil people on the planet.

scrap the monarchy. This is the 21st century in case you were unaware.

Scrap the Fascist USA Presidency, which subjugates and brutalises its own (specifically non-white) people while attempting to murder what's left of the planet (whatever colour) in the pusuit of oil and profit (since the 19th century) ..... :hmph:

[arista]

It says a lot about how much people cared about the royal wedding when the most-talked-about subject was Pippa Middleton's arse.

I just don't see the need for them. There's nothing admirable about a bunch of out-of-touch privileged racists in some fancy buildings. And before anyone claims the amount of charity work they do - so do volunteers in Oxfam, but you don't see those getting diplomatic trips to the Caribbean.


Spiffing

[arista]

The tourest thing gets exaggerated. Just because Egypt has no more pharohs doesn't mean people don't want to visit Egypt and see the pyramids. Radio host Alex Jones will tell you that the British royalty are among the most evil people on the planet.

scrap the monarchy. This is the 21st century in case you were unaware.


No they will not.

Maybe Down Under they can do that
but not here

[Pyramid*]

Nope, they should stay: for all the reasons given on the thread that Jack mentioned earlier: many of which have been mentioned on this thread also.

[Novo]

26 Million people Alone here watched the Royal Wedding which is more then the Population of Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together and then some, so yeah people still care about the Royal Family, and i don't know how anyone can judge the wedding being taking seriously by some Gif being spread on the internet.. it's the internet.. 1) Everything is a Joke on the internet 2) Most people who would watch the Royal Wedding wouldn't even know what a Gif is

[lostalex]

It's really not my place to say what's best for the UK.

But i would not be happy having a monarchy in my country.

[Livia]

The Royal Family are good value for money. The Queen pays tax, and draws only around £9million pa from the public purse - compare that some some of the other nonsense that is funded by the public. The Royal Household is also a major employer and much of the public money they bring in goes to pay staff wages. Also - forget tourists - the Royal family do a lot of diplomatic stuff that brings in trade and therefore revenue to this country. But the most important factor is that is it can only be a good thing to have a non-political head of state.

[lostalex]

The Royal Family are good value for money. The Queen pays tax, and draws only around £9million pa from the public purse - compare that some some of the other nonsense that is funded by the public. The Royal Household is also a major employer and much of the public money they bring in goes to pay staff wages. Also - forget tourists - the Royal family do a lot of diplomatic stuff that brings in trade and therefore revenue to this country. But the most important factor is that is it can only be a good thing to have a non-political head of state.


All of those points are well made, however you completely ignore the inherent discriminatory issues with the monarchy. It is a completely UNdemocratic institution.

First of all, because the monarch is also the head of the National Church(Anglican Church) you lose any and all sense of separation of church and state, which makes the monarchy being christian an inherently islamophobic, anti-semetic, and every other word for discrimination against religion too

Second, because the monarchy does not recognize same-sex couples, it is an inherently homophobic institution. The Monarchy would not recognize 2 kings, and would not acknowledge any children whether adopted or through a serogate to be recognized as legitimate parts of the royal family.

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.

It is an inherently discriminatory institution on every level. Arn't you offended by any of these points?

[arista]

The Royal Family are good value for money. The Queen pays tax, and draws only around £9million pa from the public purse - compare that some some of the other nonsense that is funded by the public. The Royal Household is also a major employer and much of the public money they bring in goes to pay staff wages. Also - forget tourists - the Royal family do a lot of diplomatic stuff that brings in trade and therefore revenue to this country. But the most important factor is that is it can only be a good thing to have a non-political head of state.


Yes Very True
thats why they are staying in place

[Niall]

No I like having the Royal family :amazed: its the only thing Britain is known for..

We should be done with Priministers though, i'd rather have a President
You can't have a president without abolishing the Queen though. A president is an elected head of state, whereas the Queen is an inherited head of state. A prime minister is something completely different.

[Omah]

Third, all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline.


Phil's a Greek ..... ;)

[lostalex]

You can't have a president without abolishing the Queen though. A president is an elected head of state, whereas the Queen is an inherited head of state. A prime minister is something completely different.

That's right. The Prime Minister of Britain is equivalent to the US Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The Equivilent to David Cameron in the US is not Obama, it is John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representitives (the majority leader).

That's why when the UK PM visits the US he never gets a state visit reception. The Equivalent to the President is the Queen, and that's why only the Queen get's official State visits with the President.

[lostalex]

Phil's a Greek ..... ;)

He's white enough for government work. :P and doesn't he hate the greeks? lol

[Livia]

All of those points are well made, however you completely ignore the inherent discriminatory issues with the monarchy. It is a completely UNdemocratic institution.

First of all, because the monarch is also the head of the National Church(Anglican Church) you lose any and all sense of separation of church and state, which makes the monarchy being christian an inherently islamophobic, anti-semetic, and every other word for discrimination against religion too

Second, because the monarchy does not recognize same-sex couples, it is an inherently homophobic institution. The Monarchy would not recognize 2 kings, and would not acknowledge any children whether adopted or through a serogate to be recognized as legitimate parts of the royal family.

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.

It is an inherently discriminatory institution on every level. Arn't you offended by any of these points?


No, I'm not offended by those points. The Pope is head of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make him an anti-semite. In fact, Prince Charles has stated publically that he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faiths" rather than "Defender of the Faith" when he becomes king to reflect the variety of religions in the country.

It's a little far-fetched to call the whole Royal Family homophobes. Give it time, I'm sure this ancient institution will catch up. They've only just granted that if William and Kate have a female child, that child will rule. I'm sure the USA would never elect a homosexual president right now. Does that make the whole of the USA homophobic?

No, there is probably no chance right now that a black child could be king or queen. In much the same way that it's unlikely that someone Christian and white will ever be King of Jordan. That doesn't make them racist.

It's not an undemocratic institution because the Royals hold no political sway. They don't make decisions about taxation, about the armed forces... about anything. That's the Government's job.

[Niall]

I've always wondered what would happen if one of the heir to the throne was gay. I'd love to see that happen just to see how they'd handle it.

[lostalex]

No, I'm not offended by those points. The Pope is head of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make him an anti-semite. In fact, Prince Charles has stated publically that he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faiths" rather than "Defender of the Faith" when he becomes king to reflect the variety of religions in the country.

It's a little far-fetched to call the whole Royal Family homophobes. Give it time, I'm sure this ancient institution will catch up. They've only just granted that if William and Kate have a female child, that child will rule. I'm sure the USA would never elect a homosexual president right now. Does that make the whole of the USA homophobic?

No, there is probably no chance right now that a black child could be king or queen. In much the same way that it's unlikely that someone Christian and white will ever be King of Jordan. That doesn't make them racist.

It's not an undemocratic institution because the Royals hold no political sway. They don't make decisions about taxation, about the armed forces... about anything. That's the Government's job.

They don't exercise the power over those things, but they DO still have that power(legally). Why should you wait for a tyrant to come along to amend what obviously should be amended?

[Omah]

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.

Well, the UK is mostly white*, whereas, in the US, Black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed-race births made up 50.4% of new arrivals in the year ending in July 2011.

There were 52m Hispanics in the US in 2011 - the largest minority group - followed by 43.9m African-Americans.

More than half the populations of four states - Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas - plus Washington DC - are "minorities".

As the population changes the US will see an inevitable decline in the numbers of whites in the labour force.

In the not-too-distant future, there may be no possibility for a white child to hold the highest office in the US of A.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457


*White British 50,366,497 (85.67%)
*White (other) 3,096,169 (5.27%)

:idc:

[Z]

I've always wondered what would happen if one of the heir to the throne was gay. I'd love to see that happen just to see how they'd handle it.

There's been a lot of speculation over the sexuality of a lot of European royalty in history, but obviously back in the day treason was a serious crime so no one would have breathed a word. I imagine they would deny everything and they'd marry that person off into a heterosexual relationship, much like Hollywood...

[Kizzy]

Step forward Eddie....haha

[joeysteele]

There's been a lot of speculation over the sexuality of a lot of European royalty in history, but obviously back in the day treason was a serious crime so no one would have breathed a word. I imagine they would deny everything and they'd marry that person off into a heterosexual relationship, much like Hollywood...

I 100% agree with all your comments,especially the last part that would be as near certain as anyone could be that would be what was done.

[Omah]

There's been a lot of speculation over the sexuality of a lot of European royalty in history, but obviously back in the day treason was a serious crime so no one would have breathed a word.

Rumours about Monarchs have always been rife :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_II_of_England#Edward_and_Piers_Gaveston

Edward II and Piers Gaveston

Several contemporary sources criticised Edward's seeming infatuation with Piers Gaveston, to the extent that he ignored and humiliated his wife. Chroniclers called the relationship excessive, immoderate, beyond measure and reason and criticised his desire for wicked and forbidden sex. The Westminster chronicler claimed that Gaveston had led Edward to reject the sweet embraces of his wife; while the Meaux Chronicle (written several decades later) took concern further and complained that, Edward took too much delight in sodomy. While such sources do not, in themselves, prove that Edward and Gaveston were lovers, they at least show that some contemporaries and later writers thought strongly that this might be the case.

Gaveston was considered to be athletic and handsome; he was a few years older than Edward and had seen military service in Flanders before becoming Edward's close companion. He was known to have a quick, biting wit, and his fortunes continued to ascend as Edward obtained more honours for him, including the Earldom of Cornwall. Earlier, Edward I had attempted to control the situation by exiling Gaveston from England. However, upon the elder king's death in 1307, Edward II immediately recalled him. Isabella's marriage to Edward subsequently took place in 1308. Almost immediately, she wrote to her father, Philip the Fair, complaining of Edward's behaviour.

British historian Ian Mortimer has drawn attention to the use of 'anti-sodomite' smear campaigns in the late 13th and early 14th centuries against Pope Boniface VIII and the Knights Templar. In the latter case, Orleton was a protagonist at the Papal Court at Avignon.

The relationship was later explored in a play by the 16th-century dramatist Christopher Marlowe. This is unusual in making explicit reference to an open sexual relationship between king and favourite. More frequently the nature of the relationship between the two is only hinted at, or is cited as a dreadful example of the fate that may befall kings who allow themselves to be influenced by favourites, and so become estranged from their subjects.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England#Allegations_of_homosexual_r elations

Allegations of homosexual relations

During the 1690s rumours grew of William's III's alleged homosexual inclinations and led to the publication of many satirical pamphlets by his Jacobite detractors. He did have several close, male associates, including two Dutch courtiers to whom he granted English titles: Hans Willem Bentinck became Earl of Portland, and Arnold Joost van Keppel was created Earl of Albemarle. These relationships with male friends, and his apparent lack of more than one female mistress, led William's enemies to suggest that he might prefer homosexual relationships. William's modern biographers, however, still disagree on the veracity of these allegations, with many contending that they were just figments of his enemies' imaginations, and others suggesting there may have been some truth to the rumours.

Bentinck's closeness to William did arouse jealousies in the Royal Court at the time, but most modern historians doubt that there was a homosexual element in their relationship. But William's young protege, Keppel, aroused more gossip and suspicion, being 20 years William's junior and strikingly handsome, and having risen from being a royal page to an earldom with some ease. Portland wrote to William in 1697 that "the kindness which your Majesty has for a young man, and the way in which you seem to authorise his liberties ... make the world say things I am ashamed to hear". This, he said, was "tarnishing a reputation which has never before been subject to such accusations". William tersely dismissed these suggestions, however, saying, "It seems to me very extraordinary that it should be impossible to have esteem and regard for a young man without it being criminal."

[michael21]

bank hoilday and concert and stuff

[Niamh.]

I just read this as Should Monday be abolished..............that would be a YAY

[Kate!]

I just read this as Should Monday be abolished..............that would be a YAY

:hugesmile:.wishful thinking there Niamh.

[Marsh.]

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.


These points were all discussed at length in a thread many months back when you made the exact same statements. It seems you didn't take anything from it and have gone back to incorrectly using terms such as "racism". Perhaps educate yourself before using them. "Snobby" perhaps but not racist. Harry dated a girl from South Africa.

[joeysteele]

The Royal Family are good value for money. The Queen pays tax, and draws only around £9million pa from the public purse - compare that some some of the other nonsense that is funded by the public. The Royal Household is also a major employer and much of the public money they bring in goes to pay staff wages. Also - forget tourists - the Royal family do a lot of diplomatic stuff that brings in trade and therefore revenue to this country. But the most important factor is that is it can only be a good thing to have a non-political head of state.

Absolutely spot on, long may it continue to be that way too.