[Shaun]

Are you pro- or anti-monarchy? Is it time we abolished it for good, or does it have its benefits too?

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with it; the fact we have one generates a lot of tourism (people coming to see Buckingham Palace, etc.) and memorabilia so it's good for the economy...plus I think it's good for British tradition.

[Fom]

I am Pro it for the fact it brings a lot of money to our country due to tourism... but I am against us having to pay for them! In fact! I would rather the Royal family were gone and the buildings were allowed for even bigger tourism attractions... people come to see the building rather than the royal family themselves!

Then again people go and see it because its where "The queen lives" dunno, I am a bit 50/50 on this one. I would like to think if there was no more royal family that tourism would still be large for our shopping and theatres.

[razorbladeromance]

Im sure their are other ways of increasing tourism.

Destroy and put their seven billion in assets to better use. Like putting homeless Britons in shelter.

Just a thought...

[Nurse57]

I have put anti. Not because of what they stand for, but because we pay for them. They are rich enough to look after themselves. Why should I pay for the upkeep of the queen when she has more money than I could dream of.

[bananarama]

Was undecided but am now steering towards anti. Don't see any point to them any more........

[Marc]

I'm both, I like the tourism generated; I think its a very clean way of making money - less pollution and fumes, more open for intellectual people to come visit and for education for children.
But then again we pay for them .

[Llamajohn]

Pro

tourism...and who else would we have on our monies????????

and the Queen...she's just.....
if the monarchy was abolished....then...just no.
no.
its staying

[Nurse57]

What??? Can someone translate for me please?

[Shaun]

I believe his argument was "just no" and "who else would we have on our currency?"

[Scarlett.]

Undecided, sometimes I love them, sometimes I'm indifferent

[Tom]

Originally posted by Shaun
I believe his argument was "just no" and "who else would we have on our currency?"

Someone worthwhile who has actually done something for the country? Anyway I don't like them but they provide a lot for our failing economy.

[bananarama]

I think tourism would do better without them as the Royal houses could be properly opened up for tourists to visit our history. No need for the expensive puppets to still be there.....

[Llamajohn]

Originally posted by Shaun
I believe his argument was "just no" and "who else would we have on our currency?"

yayyy, someone else speaks blah like me

[SiaSiaSia]

I just would prefer the queen on my money and stamps than Gordon Brown :/

[Spike]

I am strongly against it, I don't see any real need for it.

[Barbie]

they themselves have no influence on anything but it is part of british culture... which not alot of places around the world have and it brings money through tourism
i think its more of an ethical thing than a practicality

does anywhere else in the world have a king or queen?

[Novo]

am all for it!!!!!

we are only 1 of a handful of country's with a monarchy

[brandstifter]

41% in favour? So much for this site's reputation for attracting young, modern, forward-thinking people!

Oh well, I'll leave you to your parasites, leeches and outdated symbols of feudalist oppression.

Sad.

[brandstifter]

Originally posted by Shaun

...the fact we have one generates a lot of tourism (people coming to see Buckingham Palace, etc.)...

Lol. There speaks a true lover of the Monarchy - I'm sure Prince Charles is over the moon to learn that his entire reason for existing is because he's a tourist attraction!

By the way - no one would come to visit Britain if it didn't have a royal family? Hmm.