[Liberty4eva]

I'm not religious but it's a bit rich of some people here to call the US "backwards" for being more religious than most. Isn't the Queen supposed to be like the head of the UK's official state religion? From what I understand she is, in theory, supposed to get her power to govern the peasants by the will of god. Until you guys scrap this disgusting royal family (with all its wealth that it never earned) it's a bit hypocritical for you to bemoan the US for not being atheist enough or call us "backwards". At least we don't maintain and take pride in a system that belongs in medieval times.

I'm proud to say the United States was founded by deists, the 18th century equivalent of atheists. All the founding documents were written by and the first few presidents were secularists. Thomas Jefferson practically defines what America is supposed to believe and he was one of the most skeptical of religion and certainly was not a Christian.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I'm not religious but it's a bit rich of some people here to call the US "backwards" for being more religious than most. Isn't the Queen supposed to be like the head of the UK's official state religion? From what I understand she is, in theory, supposed to get her power to govern the peasants by the will of god. Until you guys scrap this disgusting royal family (with all its wealth that it never earned) it's a bit hypocritical for you to bemoan the US for not being atheist enough or call us "backwards". At least we don't maintain and take pride in a system that belongs in medieval times.

I'm proud to say the United States was founded by deists, the 18th century equivalent of atheists. All the founding documents were written by and the first few presidents were secularists. Thomas Jefferson practically defines what America is supposed to believe and he was one of the most skeptical of religion and certainly was not a Christian.

The Monarchy is only really symbolic these days though, it exercises no real political power, you can't say the same for Religion in the States

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The Monarchy is only really symbolic these days though, it exercises no real political power, you can't say the same for Religion in the States

Your Queen owns more land than any other human being on the planet. I'd venture to say she is merely "symbolic" is a bit of an understatement. If all that land was converted into money at market value, she'd make Bill Gates look like a pauper. It seems to me she has more influence and power than people in the UK would like to admit. I remember that during the last royal wedding people who planned to protest (peacefully) the royal family were preemptively arrested before even going there.

[Liberty4eva]

For those who say that the Queen has no political power...
when the Prime Minister and Queen meet, who bows down to who? That's a pretty good litmus test on who has power.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

For those who say that the Queen has no political power...
when the Prime Minister and Queen meet, who bows down to who? That's a pretty good litmus test on who has power.

Its called decorum and not something you will understand

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Its called decorum and not something you will understand

it's called antiquated classist/racist/homophobic tradition. Stop trying to defend a system that is obviously unfair and undemocratic.

[Liberty4eva]

Having a Queen in the 21st century? Come on. Time to get with the times and scrap this family. You oughta dissolve the Queen's vast, vast, vast land estate and give it to the poor and needy. Who wouldn't want that?

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

For those who say that the Queen has no political power...
when the Prime Minister and Queen meet, who bows down to who? That's a pretty good litmus test on who has power.

That doesn't prove anything, yes the Queen is technically above the Prime Minister in the hierarchy of power but as I said it's all symbolic and theoretical

[MTVN]

You'd think UK was the only country with a constitutional Monarch, what about Norway and Sweden, two of the progressive and prosperous nations in the world yet both also still have a King

[Shaun]

-agrees-

except for the Robin Hood diatribe at the end. Sounds nice but it's unrealistic - there're more needy than there is to give out

[Mystic Mock]

Tbf having a Queen is good for this country at the moment otherwise we would be ****ed for tourists.

[MTVN]

Hmm I'll move the posts from the other thread to here to save two discussions on the same thing in seperate threads

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

Tbf having a Queen is good for this country at the moment otherwise we would be ****ed for tourists.

Does the fact that Egypt no longer has Pharaohs stop tourists from visiting Egypt and the pyramids?

[MTVN]

Ok well that made things a bit confusing because now the OP is the 7th post in

[Shaun]

I think people exaggerate the tourism factor. I'd say more come to see Westminster, St. Pauls, the TATE or Madame Tussauds than they do Buckingham Palace. Is there even anything to do there that makes direct revenue?

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Having a Queen in the 21st century? Come on. Time to get with the times and scrap this family. You oughta dissolve the Queen's vast, vast, vast land estate and give it to the poor and needy. Who wouldn't want that?

You don't understand it though do you? The Queen may cost us money, but she isn't that much of an expense when you break it down per person.

Also she's a massive source for tourism. Hell you yourself live in the US (?), and you lot went bananas over the royal wedding in April. You lot were worse than us most of the time in terms of the coverage. The amount of money the royal family attract in terms of tourists is very significant, and something that would probably diminish greatly should we abolish them.

Its a necessary evil in my opinion.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

For those who say that the Queen has no political power...
when the Prime Minister and Queen meet, who bows down to who? That's a pretty good litmus test on who has power.

Thats nothing more than a ceremony. The Monarch is nothing but a figurehead for the Government. Proof of that can be seen in the way that the Monarch never actually writes the speech (which is called the "Queen's/King's Speech") that marks the beginning of a new session in Parliament, but rather his/her government does it for her.

[MTVN]

To some extent the Royal Family does contribute to tourism, attractions like the Changing of the Guard for instance wouldn't exist without it, and the Royal Wedding drew huge amounts of worldwide interest, especially in America and Germany. But I'm not sure the tourism industry would suffer as much as people make out, because we still have plenty of other attractions like Shaun mentioned and Buckingham palace could probably still be a point of interest even without the Queen.

In principle I'm against the Monarchy but in practice I'm pretty indifferent, they don't do all that much these days and it isn't hugely costly to the taxpayer either so I find it something hard to care about

[lostalex]

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I think people exaggerate the tourism factor. I'd say more come to see Westminster, St. Pauls, the TATE or Madame Tussauds than they do Buckingham Palace. Is there even anything to do there that makes direct revenue?

It makes revenue for the local businesses. Hotels, cafes, shops etc. If we get tourists coming to see the landmarks and famous spots then they spend money while here.

[Marsh.]

I don't know why the OP is using "you" as though we on this forum could do anything. Lol. If anyone British has said anything about the US it's hardly the opinion of the entire country.

Originally Posted by lostalex

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

Again, that's you. There's lots of people that would like to look at the palace and other landmarks.

Just like I'm sure plenty people spend money to see the White House in Washington.

And as another poster said, the Queen harnesses no "real" political power.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

Thats just your opinion though.

Lots and lots of people do turn up to see the Queen. I live on the outskirts of London and I've been up to see the changing of the guard at the Palace more times than I can remember and it does draw a big crowd, with a large percentage of them being tourists.

[Scarlett.]

And lets not forget all the merchendise

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Does the fact that Egypt no longer has Pharaohs stop tourists from visiting Egypt and the pyramids?

No but London is the only interesting place in this country for tourists to visit because of its royal family background.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I think people exaggerate the tourism factor. I'd say more come to see Westminster, St. Pauls, the TATE or Madame Tussauds than they do Buckingham Palace. Is there even anything to do there that makes direct revenue?

What about the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10794577

Royal historical sites attract millions of visitors

Overseas tourists spent more than £500m visiting attractions associated with the history of the Royal family last year, a report by VisitBritain found.

Of the 30 million tourists in 2009, 5.8 million visited a castle, another five million went to a historic house, while 6.4 million saw a religious monument.

The top tourist spots were the Tower of London, the National Maritime Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace were also among the most visited sites.

'Monarchic heritage'

The Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 could be a "bonanza" year judging by the popularity of the monarchy among tourists, the organisation said.

The Tower of London was most popular and welcomed about 2.4 million tourists last year, an increase of 11% on 2008.

About 2.37 million tourists visited the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich - part of which is housed in the Queen's House, a former royal residence.

And 2.27 million people went to the Victoria and Albert Museum.

About 987,000 people visited Windsor Castle - a rise of 6.3%, while 402,000 tourists saw Buckingham Palace in 2009, up 2% in a year.

Of 25,000 potential foreign visitors surveyed by VisitBritain, 60% said they would like to see places associated with the Royal Family and several others said they would send home a postcard of the Queen.

VisitBritain chief executive Sandie Dawe said: "This fascinating research shows Britain's monarchic heritage draws foreign tourists to just about every corner of the country from Scotland to Cornwall.