Abolishing the Monarcy.

[Helendee]

Good or bad idea and reasons for your opinion?
I don’t feel strongly either way but I am curious about what aspects of becoming a Republic are more beneficial than the UK’s stable current system.

The civil war in Northern Ireland. You know, the "troubles".

Secondly, I seriously doubt Prince William has had affairs. He seems like a really nice guy and above all else, a good father, and I highly doubt having experienced how poorly Charles treated Diana and how much it affected him and his brother he would repeat the same mistakes and cheat on Kate. He loves his children, and I think he was always serious about staying loyal to whoever he married because he took so much time to propose and settle down (breaking up with Kate twice too) - all so that he could have fun and sleep with as many women as he wanted to before he got married.

It was widely reported outside the UK that he had a longstanding affair with a local rose , whose husband is reputed to have little interest in roses anyway.

He did indeed date widely before committing to Kate, but the only one who he was serious about had zero interest in becoming the next paparazzi prey or locking herself into such a toxic family. It kind of seemed in the end that Kate was the only taker for the royal engagement ring.

people come to see Royal events, such as Trooping the Colour, State Opening of Parliament, or events where Royalty are present

Oh yeah? prove it. Let's travel to London specifically to see the State Opening of parliament, said no tourist ever.

You can use the name Rose Hanbury.

Interestingly, I could've written that interesting long post of mummmz years ago. In fact on a different forum about ten years ago I wrote something very similar with some more figures in it.

However, my views have changed a lot over the last decade. To be frank, it started with Andrew and that was before the paedophile friend of his came to light. The extravagence, him as a UK Trade Envoy, the way he treats people, Sunninghill House gifted by the Queen then left to fall into disrepair, the £18M swiss chalet and on and on. I had my eye on him and I did not like what I was seeing!

A lot of divorces, affairs, and ridiculous extravagence, and then H&M I felt were not backed up enough by the RF. What finally did it for me was the Queen sticking two fingers up to the rest of us the very day after 'that interview' with Andrew. She publicly supported him when she could have just lied low and no one would have thought anything of it. I then thought... well... anything goes then doesn't it? As long as you protect the family they can do what they like. I lost some respect for the Queen at that point.

We aren't losing the monarchy anytime soon but if Charles doesn't pull his finger out and slim it down drastically, the voice to abolish the whole lot of them will become louder as the older generation die off.
Oh... and... I am that older generation by the way!

@jasjas1973

we do need the Monarchy. They cost 67 million quid to the taxpayers but bring in 1.8 BILLION on average every year. They're mostly what tourists come to the UK for. They're more than just statues and ceremonial figures, to be honest, they're a HUGE part of our culture and I cannot stress this enough

4 x as more people visit Versailles than Buck house, why? because you can go into that ex royal palace.

You can stress it all you like, its just your opinion, many people disagree, just 49% support QE, 3% Charles.

Bit like Brexit, the older you are, the more likely you support the monarchy.

You can go and visit inside Buckingham Palace, it's open to visitors every summer. Other royal residences that you can tour are Clarence House, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, and Sandringham.

It's not about the individuals for me, it's about the institution. I have nothing against the vast majority of them and wish them no ill, but they could be the best humans ever to walk the planet and I still would disagree with the whole concept of monarchy. You cannot be born to a role. No one can have superior status by birth. It genuinely offends me.

My only issue with the monarchy is you can't really usurp them anymore. In the good old days I could round up a bunch of my mates, storm Buckingham Palace, chuck old Queeny off the roof and take the throne for myself. Now I'd probably get arrested before even setting off!

As such I'd be happy for them to stay as long as there was a contest once a year to challenge them. I've already planned it out, it's called The Usurper's Games and the rules are as follows.

Every year the ruling monarch get to select a secret champion to represent them in the final - no one gets to know who the champion is or what the final challenge will be until the very end.

There will be preliminary regionl rounds, open to everyone and consisting of wipeout style challenges (these would be split into categories and tailored to ability so we don't end up with a bodybuilder competing against a 70 year old woman). There will be a total of 256 regional winners who go to the finals.

Once regionals are done we move on to the finals. Where the 256 regional winners will compete in a completely random set of knock out events. One week it might be chess, the next might be f1 racing, the following rodeo riding, there really is no limit to what might happen. But over a period of 8 weeks these 256 contenders will be whittled down to 1 ultimate usurper.

The ultimate usurper will then have the right to challenge the queen's champion in the queen's event. So we might have Joe Bloggs fighting Anthony Joshua in a boxing match, Joan Bloggs playing Joanna Konta at tennis or Jimmy Bloggs trying to out cook Heston Blumenthal.

If the usurper wins the queen's challenge they become king or queen and the current monarch and their family is demoted back to normal life.

If we can't have this then I'm all for abolishing the monarchy.

@crosspelican I know all about Rose Hanbury, and frankly, I don't believe it. Nobody has any hard evidence on it - it wouldve been blown up to the extent charles and camilla had if they had.

If youre talking about Isabella Calthorpe etc, honestly, do we even know what he was thinking? How do we know Kate wasn't the one? Maybe she wasn't, I really dont know, I said what I had to say about all of this. I genuinely think looking at the larger picture they shouldn't be abolished, but thats just my opinion so. :)

You can use the name Rose Hanbury. Were threads not being deleted about it before? Wasn't trying to be twee!

@jasjasa,

"4 x as more people visit Versailles than Buck house, why? because you can go into that ex royal palace."

^Not entirely true. You can visit Buck House from July to Sept.
Don't forget it is someone's home.
How would you like strangers tramping through your home gawking at your Laura Ashley Curtains and collection of Toby jugs?! ^

Yes I have to laugh when people believe that Harry set up Invictus all on his own steam. Barely scraped two A levels after the finest education money can buy. And after all the cheating allegations never came to anything, did they?

And Kate's "important work" on ealy childhood. I mean I have nothing against her personally but the idea that someone with an MA in art history is doing significant groundbreaking research in child development is just ridiculous.

They cost 67 million quid to the taxpayers but bring in 1.8 BILLION on average every year.

The Sovereign Grant alone is way in excess of £67M for this year.

The £1.8 billion figure is an estimate from a brand valuation company. No indication as to who commissioned it, who paid for it or whether they've done it off their own bat as a promo for their services.

@KeflavikAirport,

Oh yeah? prove it. Let's travel to London specifically to see the State Opening of parliament, said no tourist ever.

www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/31837164-state-opening-of-parliament#:~:text=October%202021%20(Exact%20dates%20to%20be%20confirmed)&text=See%20the%20Queen%20travel%20in,annual%20State%20Opening%20of%20Parliament.

www.parkgrandlondon.com/blog/visit-the-state-opening-of-parliament-2016/

The £1.8 billion figure is an estimate from a brand valuation company. No indication as to who commissioned it, who paid for it or whether they've done it off their own bat as a promo for their services.

Agreed. So far on this thread we’ve been assured that the royal family cost us £1.24 each annually. Or 65p each per year. Or something. What’s the denominator of the fraction? Every citizen of the U.K. including children? Or just taxpayers?

Show your workings, and prove that they bring in what you say they bring in.

Again with the missing the point Anita. Some people might pop along to the state opening if they are in London on holiday. That does not mean that the RF is the reason they travelled to the UK in the first place.

Anita, you need to drop it. Stop digging. Pointing to the Visit Britain website, which says that plebs can’t attend the state opening of Parliament but are permitted to stand in the streets of London for free does not establish that overseas tourists flock to Britain solely for the opportunity to..er...stand in the streets and watch a procession going to an event they can’t attend.

They might come for other reasons. Seeing buildings, the lakes, historic towns, shopping at Bicester village (!) but the state opening of Parliament is not why they are getting on a plane.

@Iamthewombat
'Anita, you need to drop it. Stop digging'

What's got into your pouch?

No need to get tetchy because I am challenging the herd mentality on this thread..

Definitely get rid.

@KeflavikAirport

'Again with the missing the point Anita. Some people might pop along to the state opening if they are in London on holiday. That does not mean that the RF is the reason they travelled to the UK in the first place.'

Who really cares why they came? They might have been looking for the public lavvies in St James' Park, got lost and ended up in The Mall.
The point is that they come and spend money.

A family member has worked with the queen and Prince Charles on several occasions. No they are not particularly nice. Yes they are utterly entitled.

The person that impresses me is Carole Middleton. Her children have turned out well and she set up a business from scratch that was a massive success. No I am not Carole Middleton 😁

Who really cares why they came? They might have been looking for the public lavvies in St James' Park, got lost and ended up in The Mall.
The point is that they come and spend money.

Well clearly you do, Anita, because your argument is based on the claim that people visit Britain because we have a royal family. Glad to hear that the public loos have the same power to draw the tourists!