Referendum for Abolishing the Royal Family After Queen Dies? | Vital Football

Referendum for Abolishing the Royal Family After Queen Dies?

Whilst they continue to make more than they cost it's a no brainer. There is a sense in ending after the Queen but with the role Wills and Harry are playing I think I'd consider culling it then as I can't see the money element continuing post them?
 
Used to be very anti. Then became less anti. It grew into ambivalence.

I then starting observing the pleasure they bring to so many, that any annoyance a grumpy git like me felt didn't seem to be valid to me anymore.

I did a thread a few years back talking about the slow modernisation and now think that Harry and William are doing a good job at bringing it more into the modern era and pushing charity work (one of my major gripes, how there can be so much wealth when there is so much poverty/homeless in London)

I did used to think I wanted major change, I still would like to see some reform, most noticeably - going slightly at a tangent - a massive reduction in the House of Lords (no hereditary peers for a start) - but do see for so many they are needed and when I look at what a mess our politics/politicians are in right now, I don't really want them heading our state. Take it slightly further and would you run the risk of a Farage doing a Trump and representing?

I'm all for a modernisation but an abolition. I think the country needs something to cling on to with so much of it seemingly eroding.

I did used to think it should end when the Queen abdicates or passes. Looking at how Will and Harry are conducting themselves I no longer do. I get the feeling they are keen to modernise and scale things back.

I think I'm just no longer young so can't be young and angry. I don't want to be middle-aged and angry at things I have no real need to be angry at.

I have not changed my mind on karaoke or cheese though and I would like to re-affirm, I don't do dancing.

Will see if I can dig out the thread I did on Harry's interview not that long back (6 months or more ago though I guess). The intrusion by the press in his life I found very distasteful and very sad. And his comments on being made to walk with the other royals, as a young kid, at his mothers funeral very interesting and again, extremely sad.

Good thread TuBBz.
 
I'm not really bothered either way, to be honest.

Have no interest in them or their activities. I'm sure they are perfectly nice folk. If the monarchy makes people happy and patriotic, fair play to them.
 
Yes I can warm to the likes of Wills and Harry , but I do have a problem with Edward , and Andrew and all the minor royals like the Duchess of Kent etc who seem to swan about and seemingly do very little at great expense to us. A few years ago Andrew got a helicoper from Birmingham airport to the Belfry which is a right piss take.

Anyway Sir Dennis jnr met Princess Anne as he greeted her on a visit to his college and said how nice and down to earth she was so she is fine by me . I think she does the most engagements out of all of them as well.
 
Yes, it needs slimming down, I think it has had some cutting over recent years?

And yes, Princess Anne I think does a good amount for charity from the small bits I've read. Seems to be a royal who does a fair amount and is a bit more able not to be constantly in the spotlight?

Not reading the tabloids, or indeed any papers these days, and avoiding the gossipy tv stuff, I am probably not the best to judge that though.
 
Definitely changed under Wills and Harry I think, their charity work, mental health awareness - Harry with Invictus etc - they have re-energised but think they will be the final 'punt' so to speak.

Bottom lining it though, when they cost more than they create that's decision time.

But I also like cheese!

Re sirden's comment, Edward quickly got into employment setting up his own media company or something from memory? Andy on the other hand...walks of whistling.

I wouldn't be against however, Wills and Harry aside, a total trimming. Okay kids are going to get the education and expensive at that, but from kid 2 onwards they all need a job/volunteer by default at the very least. They can enjoy the status/trappings of a Royal Family without being so much of a drain (granted security etc).

The bill could certainly shrink, the property could certainly shrink etc.
 
I have no problem with having a royal family. However, there needs to be moderation. I wholly object to the person now 6th in line to the throne having his wedding as such an occasion, causing so much disruption and hassle and dominating the headlines as it will do. The pooch will get a hell of a walk on May 19th.
 
I don't think many would disagree Melon.

But Harry's work does make him an aberration I would say. But there is a debate to be had there now. Whether it means a change in succession (who wants to get into the realms of age discrimination?) for example.

Something has to change.
 
I would prefer William to inherit the throne, after The Queen, rather than Charles. I think alot of people think like that from what I have read and those who I have spoken too
 
I personally don't think they will survive in their current state after the Queen finally drops
 
They certainly won't in current state Tubbz. They do need to twist and change and however bad this sounds when you talk about a family - they need to become more profitable to exist by culling those who are irrelevant in the family tree.
 
Same old story dressed up differently. If we had no Royalty, were would all the tourists go instead of England/London and the like?

Let's not be silly about this, economically they are worth their weight in gold. Besides, we wouldn't be able to boast the future king is a Villa supporter!!!!!...........
 
Pride of Lions said:
Same old story dressed up differently. If we had no Royalty, were would all the tourists go instead of England/London and the like?

Let's not be silly about this, economically they are worth their weight in gold. Besides, we wouldn't be able to boast the future king is a Villa supporter!!!!!...........
Click to expand...

I wonder though, Pride, particularly in relation to visitors.
We've been on a short visit to France which is a Republic (which used to have a monarchy).
Comparing capital cities, Paris seems to do at last as well in the tourism stakes as London.
I am broadly in favour of the British monarchy but, like many others on here, it will need to continue to reinvent itself, especially when HM QE2 is no longer with us.
 
BBJ said:
I wonder though, Pride, particularly in relation to visitors.
We've been on a short visit to France which is a Republic (which used to have a monarchy).
Comparing capital cities, Paris seems to do at last as well in the tourism stakes as London.
I am broadly in favour of the British monarchy but, like many others on here, it will need to continue to reinvent itself, especially when HM QE2 is no longer with us.
Click to expand...


I'll be honest BBJ, I'm quite a Francophobe, so Paris for me isn't a good comparison....Lol However, I take your point. What I would say, is, to me, Paris has a different style of attractions. The Louvre, Eiffel Tower etc and Paris is supposed to be a 'romantic destination' for some reason.

With all due respect to Paris, I feel London has more depth of history, hence attraction because we are a monarchy.
 
The Fear said:
Used to be very anti. Then became less anti. It grew into ambivalence.

I then starting observing the pleasure they bring to so many, that any annoyance a grumpy git like me felt didn't seem to be valid to me anymore.
Click to expand...

:stupid:


Completely agree with Fear. Always considered myself anti-Royal for the majority of my life, but have mellowed the last 5-6 years.

As said they bring more money in to the country than they take out, and they give joy to millions. The new lot also seem far more in touch with the real people than in the past.

King William The Villan has a nice ring to it too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.