Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

What is the point of our monarchy? Sport is the new patriotism and the Queen does FA ... discuss!

40 replies

Fastasleep · 23/07/2006 20:04

I'm open to having my mind changed on this one, if you guys could give me some good reasons for having a monarchy in this country, other than for giving out awards and street parties...

OP posts:
CantSleepWontSleep · 23/07/2006 20:07

Beats me! People tell me that it would be bad for tourism to get rid of them, but then I just think how much less crowded London would be without so many tourists, and it only convinces me more that they should go!

Original poster
Fastasleep · 23/07/2006 20:08

Well we'd still have the palace... hey, you could open thew whole thing up to tourists!

OP posts:
Original poster
Fastasleep · 23/07/2006 20:19

I guess there is nothing to discuss then

I'll go tell the queen then shall I

OP posts:
schneebly · 23/07/2006 20:20

Not a big fan of the monarchy here either.

CantSleepWontSleep · 23/07/2006 20:21

Excellent plan. And we could move queenie out to live on a council estate in East London (no offence to anyone living in such an abode!), and put her on benefits as she doesn't really have any work experience .

Original poster
Fastasleep · 23/07/2006 20:23

Fab idea!

And the ball rooms and grounds could let MN in for free to have parties in when ever they want.. because we thought of it all

OP posts:
spidermama · 23/07/2006 20:24

I don't mind them but I really resent that our national anthem is based on a plea to 'God' to save some woman. It really winds me up to watch our national team grovelling and scraping the national anthem. It's disempowering and I think it has a bearing on our motivation and chances of success. We need to scrap the national anthem and make the Sax Coburgs cost us less money.

southeastastra · 23/07/2006 20:25

we'd be like america - the new monarchy would be based on money

Original poster
Fastasleep · 23/07/2006 20:27

But is it not already SES?

Our national anthem should be about Britain IMO, SM you're right.

OP posts:
WigWamBam · 23/07/2006 20:39

I'm with spidermama, I think.

I'm not too fussed about the Queen, but I do think we could do without all of the hangers-on, the minor royals who are happy to take the money and the reflected glory but who don't put anything back.

There are some of them at least who seem to want to do things for the good of the country and to put something back into society; the Prince's Trust is one that springs to mind. But there are far too many who don't.

southeastastra · 23/07/2006 20:41

i don't really mind the queen and quite like charles too - it wouldn't be the same without them

sobernow · 23/07/2006 20:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

southeastastra · 23/07/2006 20:45

it's part of our history! the americans would never come again, i was in the tower of london, americans everywhere - they love it!

sobernow · 23/07/2006 20:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WigWamBam · 23/07/2006 20:49

Yes, the bowing and scraping and forelock-tugging gets the anarchist in me fighting to get out ... that part of it sticks in my craw. I do think that it's all in need of a lot of modernisation, but it won't happen while the Queen is still alive.

southeastastra · 23/07/2006 20:52

but people come to london because of the queen, they don't bother me at all, think the system works quite well

motherinferior · 23/07/2006 20:55

I am not partial to violence myself, so probably would not advocate lining them up against a wall and shooting them, but cutting them off without a penny and seeing if they could earn a living would be, you know, amusing. In a vivisectory sort of way.

WigWamBam · 23/07/2006 20:57

People come to London for all kinds of reasons, not only the Queen.

There are other parts of the country for whom tourism is important too, not only London - the Queen and the palaces aren't there but the tourists still visit.

sobernow · 23/07/2006 20:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

moondog · 23/07/2006 20:58

Vive la Revolution.
It will come.
Only mad pensioners and very small children (who know no better) like them.

motherinferior · 23/07/2006 20:59

Oh, Sobernow, can't we take potshots at them as well, though?

WigWamBam · 23/07/2006 21:00

My 5 year old doesn't even know who the Queen is. I suspect that someone, somewhere would think that was very bad. She has just never seemed important enough to me to tell dd all that much about.

puff · 23/07/2006 21:02

I am a fanatic - have a small room given over to royal memorabilia.

sobernow · 23/07/2006 21:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

expatinscotland · 23/07/2006 21:03

according to a recent report, they only cost each British taxpayer 63p/annum.

i don't mind that, compared to all the other crap they waste money on.

the problem i have w/them is that they aren't the true heirs in their own version of succession - the history book you're recommended to study in order to become a naturalised British citizen even tells you this point blank.

they were installed by Parliament as Queen Anne's nearest Protestant relations. Charles Stuart was the rightful male heir by blood.

they're not the real royal family at all, hence, when Diana married Charles, all the whispers of her blood being bluer than his.