I just want to know who approves of The Royal Family. I mean come on what do they do for us. If you ask me i dont think this country needs one. All they seem to do is go on holiday 70 times of year to ski. Princess Diana was brilliant but the rest of them just seem to sit on there backsides all day living off our taxes. So here is a poll should they stay or should we just get rid of them.
Just think we give all our taxes to them, what have they ever done for us.:thumbsup:

Apart from bringing us millions in tourists money every year not a lot. Leave 'em to it I say - what would we sing about for the national anthem otherwise :)

Good point,but do you think tourists would not come here if we got rid of them. I think they would, i mean there is more to london the Buckingham Palace dont you think.:confused:

I think they should go. Yes i agree they are a tourist attraction and when i went to New York it was assumed that i came from London + lived near the Queen's house!

I think there was a place for them in the olden' days, because they fitted in with the class system. But now i don't think there is as much of a divide anymore, certaintly you do have your rich society - alot who are celebrities + people who work very hard for their money etc. I don't think the royal family fit into this, why can't they live in a more modest size house? With all the empty rooms in Buckingham Palace you could at least start to reduce the amount of homeless people in London. I wonder if they feel guilty?

I don't like them because they get born into money, they have everything they want and more, and the ordinary folk don't have enough schools, hospitals, jobs, houses etc. The Queen waves at a few people, doesn't even smile. They have the best healthcare, can pay for great education, they have servants for gods sake! And why? because they are lucky enough to be born into royal blood.

I'm sure i've missed off a few points here, but don't want to rant!!

I think its about time we had another series.Baby David should be about 3 now so mabye Denise is ready to have another sprog.
What does everyone else think?

Originally posted by uncleheed
I think its about time we had another series.Baby David should be about 3 now so mabye Denise is ready to have another sprog.
What does everyone else think?

agreed, especially now that 'Two Pints Of Lager' is finished and Anthony is available again to do a new Royals series.

Leave the Royal Family alone, they are doing a good job, we should be a lot worse off with a president or a Dictator like Saddaam Hussein.

Other countries of the World have been robbed of their wealth by unscrupulous leaders and they have had many of them, bleeding the country dry, whatever the faults of our Royals, they are good for Britain.

The Royal Family- well what do you know?


For one, they're ugly. Diana brought in some good genes but Charlie is a disgrace.



What can you do?


Mmmmm Hewitt!! :D

Originally posted by halevan
Leave the Royal Family alone, they are doing a good job, we should be a lot worse off with a president or a Dictator like Saddaam Hussein.

Other countries of the World have been robbed of their wealth by unscrupulous leaders and they have had many of them, bleeding the country dry, whatever the faults of our Royals, they are good for Britain.

why do we have to replace them with any of these suggestions? the royal family reputedly bring the country millions in tourism, but they also cost us millions. nothing wrong with having a figurehead, i guess, but they should be self-sufficient like Royal families in other countries.

Charles is,he has his own Duchy brand of stuff,the others are pretty useless.Prince Andrew recently had a go at the British people for not being commited enough to our jobs,because he obviously is an example to us all!

I think the tax breaks and income the queen recieves from the state should be removed. Other than that, if they own it we can't go taking it off them and they are who they are, unless we drain their blood and replace it then they have royal blood.

Possibly the Queens role as head of state should be removed as well, but that would probably mean introducing a president in addition to a prime minister (unless the roles were combined).

I dont think we should have a royal family subsidesed by the taxpayer....but I see people have arguments about them brining cash in etc....but personally I'm just against a monrchy full stop.

What I think should defo happen is get rid of those people who's names I don't even know (like the queens 2nd cousin etc.) who live in huge mansions and have servants and do bugger all cos nobody knows who the sodding hell they are.....somebody asked tony blair about this at a press conference once...it was funny...he didnt know how to answer.

I was hoping when William went to Uni he would getting into far left politics and denounce his right to the throne......I can but dream

they own that manor and pay the servants though.

As long as we no longer subsidised them i'd be happy.

I have read that the royal family bring at least as much money into the country from tourism etc as they spend from our taxes, so I don't really see a problem with keeping them.

I'm not a fan of the royal family and personally I find them utterly boring, but I don't see the need to get rid of an old tradition for no good purpose.

Originally posted by Cyclone
they own that manor and pay the servants though.

.

I think it i us who pay the servants...they don;t do it from their own bank accountent...they get a ridiculously high living expense....paid for by the taxpayer



Originally posted by Patchy
I have read that the royal family bring at least as much money into the country from tourism etc as they spend from our taxes, so I don't really see a problem with keeping them.



This really can't be verified in anyway because as long as we've had a tourist industry we've had a Royal Family. Most people asked actually say without a Royal Family they would still visit the UK.

Keep them for me. I'm of the opinion that they bring in more than they cost. Although, I'd like a few of them to take on a little more responsibility.

the only part of the royal family to receive state money is the queen and her immediate family, for which they have to perform state functions.
Most of the royal family are however exempt from certain taxation laws.

The queen gives an allowance from the privy purse (her money) to the majority of royals, this money will be what is used to pay the servants.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Apart from bringing us millions in tourists money every year not a lot.
I've never understood this claim. Its completely flawed. Millions of tourists do not come to see the Queen every year, just the paraphenalia around the monarchy. Cermonies, palaces, gardens, etc. You can get rid of the monarchy and still get millions of people every year coming to see Buckingham Palace - hell, we might even be allowed in aswell.

I say get rid of them, quick. They are a disgusting spot on the face of humanity.

Originally posted by halevan
... we should be a lot worse off with a president or a Dictator like Saddaam Hussein.
In the history of the monarchy we've had our fair share of evil dictators aswell.

Chris.

Yes well said Chris i totally agree. Although the voting is now tling us something different.:P

I like Prince Phillip. You can always count on him to offend other nations. Not that they let him out much these days...

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
I've never understood this claim. Its completely flawed. Millions of tourists do not come to see the Queen every year, just the paraphenalia around the monarchy. Cermonies, palaces, gardens, etc. You can get rid of the monarchy and still get millions of people every year coming to see Buckingham Palace - hell, we might even be allowed in aswell.
I say get rid of them, quick. They are a disgusting spot on the face of humanity.
Chris.

I'm afraid your juvenile armchair Marxist theory simply doesn't hold water in the real world. I don't think many tourists would come to see "the big house where the Queen of England used to live before they got rid of her and installed a family of homeless people".

Like it or not we get BILLIONS of pounds (not millions) from tourism. People from countries like the USA and Australia where heritage and tradition are in short supply just can't get enough of the pomp and ceremony we can offer in Britain.

Whatever you think of the hereditary monarchy system (and there are inherent flaws with it, I concede), Britain would be a much poorer place (in every sense of the word) without a thousand years of history and tradition to share with the rest of the world.

I suppose the US has mickey mouse, and we have the queen. Kind of similar really. they both bring in tourists

Tourism is not just about the royal family, it's about the pomp and tradition that goes along with royalty. If you get rid of the queen then much of the stuff that Britain is famous for goes too.
Anyway, what are you complaining about. The queen is the head of Australia as well, though we are relegated to the presence of a Governor General. Not much of a tourist attraction there !
We had a referrendum a few years ago to see if the Aussie public wanted to get rid of Queen Liz, but even here she is still popular, and was given resounding support as "Our Queen".

Originally posted by mojoworking
I'm afraid your juvenile armchair Marxist theory simply doesn't hold water in the real world.
I'm not juvenile, i don't sit in an arm chair and i'm far from Marxist. I concede on the fact that they do bring in money from tourism, although i'd like to see some evidence on whether it stretches to billions, but Britain can still have an active tourist industry without a working monarchy in place. I don't beleive its going to disapear completely.

Chris.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
I'm not juvenile, i don't sit in an arm chair and i'm far from Marxist. I concede on the fact that they do bring in money from tourism, although i'd like to see some evidence on whether it stretches to billions, but Britain can still have an active tourist industry without a working monarchy in place. I don't beleive its going to disapear completely.

Chris.

No offence, it was your sweeping anti-royal comments I found juvenile. They're exactly the kind of thing I used to say when I was a student.

Anyway, here are some figures regarding tourism:

Business tourism alone is worth £3.6 billion to Britain a year.

The Tower of London: gross revenue in 2002 from admissions, retail and concessions was £23,319,000.

Buckingham Palace: the State Rooms were open during August, September and part of October 2002. Gross total revenue from visitors was £5,491,000, comprising £2,993,000 for admissions, and £2,498,000 for shop sales.

(source: Hansard, 19 Nov 2003 )

I think it's fair to say that total revenue for holiday tourism for the whole of the UK would at least equal that of business tourism.

In light of Prince Harry's dress sense and having read some of the other topics and opinions, im interested to find out what your views are on whether weactually need a monarchy, or is it out dated and just another public cost?

I have no desire to see the royal family or monarchy disbanded as I suppose they do have a certain touristy attraction. However it does annoy me when they are held up as supposedly 'better than me' because they are in some way linked to the royal family by blood or marriage. Neither do I think that they should be 'ambassadors' for this country as most people have heard of them falling flat on their faces and behaving like the humans they are, please don't put them on pedestals !!

We should keep Princess Anne and banish the rest of them to that island where they tested anthrax in WW2.

Get rid of the lot of them ASAP.

On the tourist bit, do that many tourists actually *see* the royal family, or do they come for the historical stuff (palaces, castles, etc) which would raise just as much revenue in public ownership. Also, with the weak dollar (most royal tourists are americans) are we actually risking that much anyway.

Overall, bye-bye (and don't forget to nationalise the assets).

If we must keep them, can't we go more along the Dutch, Norwegian or Spanish model, ie just pay for the top one or two, not the host of the buggaz we pay for now.

As an ex pro royal, I find myself now seriously questioning the needability for such a strange bunch of people.

Whilst I do appreciate the effect they do have on tourism in this country, I feel the whole operation needs scaling down dramatically and that their overgenerous allowances be cut accordingly.

I find some of their antics embarrasing and, more worryingly, many foreign countries find them a never ending scource of amusement.

I resent the way they look down their noses at the "commoners" of society. What's so special about them anyway? All they have is a blood line that goes back to warriors and killers and I reckon that we all have that somewhere along our ancestry.

In my opinion they're redundant in this day and age .

I can't stand the way I see everyone fawning when they meet members of the royal family ....... bowing and curtseying etc. Their s**t stinks the same as mine and if I ever meet any I'll say "how do" and then get back to what I'm doing.

Get rid as soon as.

no, the royal family seem to be a bunch of evil people who have nothing better to do then shoot animals and go fox hunting

What I wanna know is, why is there such a hoo-har cos harry decides to wear a swasticker!?

If anyone else (member of general public) wears one, no-one cares, so what's so important about harry?

He's no more (and no less) important to me, than a festering down and out tramp lying in the gutter ... i.e. just another human being.

I resent the image potrayed that they're somehow superior to the rest of us ... and they do seem to be out of touch with the common person.

I say stuff them (literally) all and sell them off.

...and arnt the royal family from germany anyway?

I resent the way the Queen pays her staff appallingly low wages, obviously so that she can keep more for herself.

I completely agree. There was understandably a point to them many years ago when the actually ruled the country and made the decisions but now we have a crap government to do that for us instead! It is a nice tradition but a costly one when the money could be better spent on the NHS and saving peoples lives.

Plus and as far as i'm aware, technically she has to agree to and sign off any Acts of Parliament and could veto them if she wished. Does she have any other powers ??

Keep them, they are a national treasure who make us stand out from every other country in the world.

Originally posted by f_g
...and arnt the royal family from germany anyway?

You can trace some of our royal family back to Germany, I think it was when the Stuarts died out when we had a German king.

Any yes stuff the royal family :P

Originally posted by IanMitchell
You can trace some of our royal family back to Germany, I think it was when the Stuarts died out when we had a German king.
It was a bit closer than that, the family name was changed from "Sax-Coburg-Goetha" (Sp ?) during WWI to a more British sounding "Windsor", actually taken from the castle, not the other way round.

A few years ago, I was keen on keeping them, as let's face it - all you plebs out there need to someone to aspire and look up to.

However, with their recent behaviour rivalling that of lower-order chavs and D-list celebrities, it may be worthwhile to have a cull. Keep the Queen, Charles, Wills and Harry and hand the rest their P45s. Book them an interview at their local jobcentre and let life continue as normal.

Like the Dangerous Dogs Act, they should be prevented from breeding, so the Royal Family will die out within a century.

As the cost of maintaining this large family of workshy immigrants will decline over time, I for one will look forward to a reduced income tax bill when I prepare to retire.

Many thanks

Harsh words from Abdul there! "Workshy immigrants" indeed! I will have you know that the Saxe- Coburg-Gotha [ er, sorry, Windsor] family are 100% British and hardworking to boot. Prince Charles served bravely in the Navy, and learnt how to make Bread and Butter Pudding [ People's Friend, 6th July, 1976]. Just because his son likes to lewdly desport himself in tight lederhosen, whilst singing the "Horst Vessel" song at parties, it doesn't mean to say that Charles is not a fine and very capable [his schoolbooks were full of eights out of tens] heir to the throne. One day he WILL be Queen of England.

Abdul advocates a nightmarish, eugenic solution to the "problem" of the Monarchy. How dare he suggest that they be neutered?! Within the Royal Family are some of the finest examples of finely-chiselled, aristocratic features. Just take a good, long look at the porcelain beauty of Princess Anne, Abdul, and then tell me that you would like to see an end to such perfection in phenotypes.

I'm a royal fan all the way, not of the people, but of the principle. I would hate to think of the PM being President (too much power), hate to have some old politician who the PM wants out of the cabinet being handed the presidency (Imagine 2Jags as President John) and equally hate the idea of the public electing some monkey as president (which they invariably would). Having a monarch means continuity, a figure who is above the political scene and represents the unity of the nation. But only the monarch and the heir should have any royal state role. Abdul's right: p45s all round!

However, recent events are making me think. Charles must be king as he is the heir, that's the point of the monarchy, you take the heir. But he's old and won't last long if the queen, who is 79 this year, lives as long as her mum. William is the hope of the Windsors. But just think what might happen if he dies before he has kids: Harry would be king. That would cause the powers that be to come together and proclaim a Republic sharpish!

FHAIN29

ps: The Royals' German roots: The Stuarts didn't die out. James II/VII was Catholic and was deposed. William of Orange came from Holland (Glorious Revolution) to secure the Protestant Succession with James's daughter, Mary II. After them came Mary's sister, Queen Anne, who had 14 children, but outlived them all (poor love). The Act of Settlement (1701) lays down that the monarch must be a Protestant successor of James I/VI's daughter Elizabeth, which meant that George, Elector of Hanover became king in 1714 (he was actually only something like 60th in line to the throne). The German and foreign blood thickens as:

-George I married a German
-George II married a German
-George III married a German
-Edward, Duke of Kent (4th son of GIII) married a German
-Victoria, married a German (Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) - recordings of Victoria show her to have a German accent when speaking English
-Edward VII married a Dane
-George V married a German (Mary of Teck, naturalised a Brit before the marriage)
-George VI married a Scot (the first British spouse of a future monarch since James II married Anne Hyde in 1660)
-Elizabeth married a Greek-Dane with German ancestors (naturalised a Brit before the marriage)

off-topic: Will Charles when he becomes king take the title
Charles III? I personally think he will go for George VII as the other Charles we have had were authoritarian, degenerated adulterers.

As a conservative I like the idea of the continuity of tradition, and I certainly wouldn't want a President. However, I can understand the resentment towards the family. They, aided by the media since that fateful documentary in the 1970s which exposed how the family supposedly lives behind closed doors, have made first rate buffoons of themselves over the years.

Threads merged.

Good idea to merge the threads

Originally posted by fhain29

-Victoria, married a German (Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) - recordings of Victoria show her to have a German accent when speaking English
.

:hihi: I just got a mental image of where they took the inspiration for Herr Flick :D

Did anyone see the Tony Robinson programme last year where he traced the 'real' heir to the throne following the Royal line of deposed heirs???

Some used car dealer (or similar) in Australia.

It was very well done / researched.