Referendum for Abolishing the Royal Family After Queen Dies? | Page 2 | Vital Football

Referendum for Abolishing the Royal Family After Queen Dies?

Pride of Lions said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, both the United Kingdom and France have plenty of history, that's for sure.
And France used to be a monarchy and its leading tourist attraction (apparently the top one in all of Europe) is the Palace of Versailles (totally over the top but with lovely gardens), the brainchild of Louis XIV.
So, even the UK had President Blair (I jest) in the morning, and William and Harry were earning their crust in a more conventional way, the history would still be there, likewise Buck House, Windsor, the Tower of London, Westminter Abbey, the royal parks etc etc.
I like both cities very much but, like yourself, would have a marked preference for London. I lived there for four years and it's where I met and married Mrs BBJ.
But as I said, I have a lot of time for the British monarchy. And to say it's "old fashioned" misses the point. Some of the most modern states have Kings and Queens - Denmark being a case in point. But there, there is much less of the "them and us" as you might possibly meet the Crown Prince when strolling in Copenhagen. And I see the younger royals in Britain pushing the envelope in that direction and making the whole operation more streamlined with the hangers on being gently discarded.
And maybe we'll see Wills on the Holte one of these days??
 
I do agree with that BBJ, charging for people to be able to go into Buck Palace etc would be a massive money spinner, the history would remain
 
Have to say I don't understand the fuss over Paris. I thought it bang average, quite tatty and very monotone.
 
If the monarchy was abolished it would need a major overhaul of the constitution, and considering we have no written constitution that would be a huge undertaking. At the moment the judiciary and the armed forces owe allegiance to the monarch and not to a politician. In theory this means that, without the monarch's permission, no military action can be taken to overthrow a legitimate government. Who would they owe their loyalty to afterwards?
We tried a republic once and ended up with a military dictatorship in all but name. ( the rule of the major generals under Cromwell).
Then we had General Monk leading his troops south to reinstall the monarchy.
Looking at our politicians, who would you fancy as president?
 
ironside said:
If the monarchy was abolished it would need a major overhaul of the constitution, and considering we have no written constitution that would be a huge undertaking. At the moment the judiciary and the armed forces owe allegiance to the monarch and not to a politician. In theory this means that, without the monarch's permission, no military action can be taken to overthrow a legitimate government. Who would they owe their loyalty to afterwards?
We tried a republic once and ended up with a military dictatorship in all but name. ( the rule of the major generals under Cromwell).
Then we had General Monk leading his troops south to reinstall the monarchy.
Looking at our politicians, who would you fancy as president?
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no way we will abolish the monarchy. Charles will succeed the Queen (unless he croaks before her) and William will succeed Chaz.

Things will carry on as they have for centuries. All that might happen is a few fringe royals get chopped off the civil list and we pay a bit less for their luxurious lives in the future.

The establishment is too well, er, established to be making any significant changes.
 
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...


This is simply not true, do you really think that people just come to the UK to see them?

People will still come, we have more to offer than just the royal family, and how many of these visitors actually get to see any of them?

Imagine how many people would visit the Palace if they had access to all areas?

That isn't going to happen while the Windsors are in charge
 
Who would lead the nation in times of crisis, who would all those commonwealt countries toady to if we had no royals?
 
I suppose the bottom line is IF a royal (Queen, Phil the Greek, Will or Arry) we coming to your area would you line the streets to see them or go to a center where you could see them opening Poundland or Greggs?
 
If I had to bone anyone, obviously Kate and Meghan would be tempting but I think I'd go with the Queen, jut so everytime I paid for something in a shop I could hand over the money and say "I've had her"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.