Non political-Why is there still a Monarchy in the UK?

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Stinsok, Mar 21, 2005.

  1. Stinsok

    Stinsok Supporting Member

    Dec 16, 2002
    Central Alabama
    Serious question (and I ain't hatin'.) Seems like the royal family is pretty expensive to prop up. Now it appears that anyone can be Queen. All you have to do is boink Prince Charles. Seriously, does anyone complain about that or is the royal family a keeper?
  2. canopener


    Sep 15, 2003
    Isle of Lucy
    Maybe the Royal Family gets a better dental plan?
  3. UnsungZeros

    UnsungZeros The only winning move is not to play.

    There's no real need for them. However, it sounds much cooler to say you have a Royal Air Force, a Royal Navy, Royal Mail, etc.

    They also give all the tabloids something to print.
  4. Nostalgia? I think an even more confusing question is why is the Royal family still a part of Canadiann political life and culture? Really though I think it's just symbolism.
  5. Munjibunga

    Munjibunga Total Hyper-Elite Member Gold Supporting Member

    May 6, 2000
    San Diego (when not at Groom Lake)
    Independent Contractor to Bass San Diego
    It's because Great Britain doesn't have Hollywood.
    -By order of the Quing
  7. 5stringDNA


    Oct 10, 2002
    Englewood, CO
    Exactly. That and changing names and stuff is a pain...
  8. Vorago

    Vorago (((o)))

    Jul 17, 2003
    Antwerp, Belgium
    Doesn't monarchy in the UK still have a lot of power? Here in Belgium we have one too, but that is a more ceremonial monarchy, the king doesn't have a lot power, but I though the UK was different. Ask the Brits here ;)
  9. dlloyd

    dlloyd zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Apr 21, 2004
    People complain about it, sure enough. It's nothing new either, they were nearly removed for good 350 years ago.

    There are a lot of monarchists around, particularly in middle England and they hold a lot of political sway. It'd be political suicide for any mainstream party to suggest a republic.
  10. wingnutkj


    Mar 27, 2003
  11. Bruce Lindfield

    Bruce Lindfield Unprofessional TalkBass Contributor Gold Supporting Member

    Nope - Camilla will not be Queen - she will be Princess Consort! :eyebrow:
  12. Bruce Lindfield

    Bruce Lindfield Unprofessional TalkBass Contributor Gold Supporting Member

    Nope - the Queen has a purely ceremonial position and all policy is decided by the government - Monarchy is useful for Tourism, Ceremony etc. - but there is no doubt that as Prime Minister, Tony Blair can do what he likes without asking the Queen!!

    Whereas Charles had to ask the government if his marriage would be legal!

    The Queen has no money unless it is voted by Parliament!

    Anybody who thinks the Queen has any political power, is just deluded!! ;)
  13. Vorago

    Vorago (((o)))

    Jul 17, 2003
    Antwerp, Belgium
    But isn't the Queen on of the richest persons in GB? I heard the royal family owns a lot of land all over the country.

    GB is a strange country, you still have the house of Lords and all the high dukes,lords, counts etc who seem to have considerable power.

    Isn't it also true that a lot of Brits still linger to the "old" days, when they were the most powerfull nation in the world? Maybe the monarchy is one of the last pillars on which that feeling is based?
  14. Toasted


    May 26, 2003
    Leeds, UK
    Lets take the heresay out of this and put some figures on the table.

    The Royal Family and associated history are the biggest tourist attraction we have in the UK. They generate untold revenue for our cities and all of the assocaited enterprise.

    We have to 'give a turd' about the Royal Family because the Queen is still head of state in England, and she still opens and closes our parliament, as well as writing into Law every bill and statute that’s passed by the Commons and Lords.

    She is the head of the C of E, she is head of the Judiciary, and she is leader of the Army.

    Also, she is useful because they give Australians something to be proud of, some form of historical significance, so we have to keep her for the Aussies sake ;)

    People complain about the money that the Royal Family receive from the Tax Payer, but this is recouped in excess from the Tourism generated by their existence. Tourism in London (and only alone London) generated £15bn in 2004, and that equates to approximately 10% of our GDP.

    Overseas visitors are major investors in London visitor attractions; they buy 30% of theatre tickets and account for at least 50% of all visits to London attractions.

    You may say 'this is all well and good for London, but I live in Scotland’ (and I too live in Manchester), but, according to the Office of National Statistics, Tourism in London, as a direct consequence of the Royals, is the prime generator of growth for UK tourism and London plays an important role in welcoming overseas visitors, creating a first impression and in providing an opportunity to influence visitors. Half of all overseas visitors spend time in London, with 3 out of 4 overseas visitors passing through to their regional destinations.

    Don't get me wrong, I’m not a Monarchist, but I think that they're great for the Economy. And I think my next point is the crux of the argument; Our quaint and Antiquated system of Monarchy and government must seem quite idiosyncratic to the millions of visitors to the capital each year - and the £££ that they bring with them.

    As for the Queen being one of the 'richest,' heres last years Rich List, she doesnt even figure:

    1 Roman Abramovich £7,500m
    2 The Duke of Westminster £5,500m
    3 Hans Rausing and family £4,950m
    4 Philip Green £3,610m
    5 Lakshmi Mittal £3,500m
    6 Sir Richard Branson £2,600m
    7 Kirsten and Jorn Rausing £2,575m
    8 Bernie and Slavica Ecclestone £2,323m
    9 Charlene and Michel de Carvalho £2,260m
    10 David and Simon Reuben £2,200m

    Sources: GLA Economics, London Development Agency, Society of London Theatre, Visit Britain, Times Online and Office of National Statistics
  15. bassmonkeee

    bassmonkeee Supporting Member

    Sep 13, 2000
    Decatur, GA
  16. Toasted


    May 26, 2003
    Leeds, UK
    Ill believe it when i read it in a broad sheet. The Mirror is a sensationalist joke.
  17. dlloyd

    dlloyd zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Apr 21, 2004
  18. bassmonkeee

    bassmonkeee Supporting Member

    Sep 13, 2000
    Decatur, GA
    Heh--What paper isn't a sensationalist joke at this point, unfortunately?

    Better? It appears that laws will have to change in 17 countries for her NOT to become Queen.

    dlloyd beat me by a minute. Ya punk! :D
  19. Toasted


    May 26, 2003
    Leeds, UK
    "I think he [Prince Charles] is deliberately holding this wedding under the smokescreen of a General Election." - Andrew McKinlay []

    Heh, go McKInlay, go BBC. I dont give a crap if she's queen or not. Its all revenue.