Is it time for Britain to become a republic?

[Audley Strange]

No. It's WELL PAST time we got rid of the most opulent inbred worthless dole scum of this nation.

[Mallardz]

I say keep the queen and the next one or two in line the rest can get a fucking job. There's masses of them and they shouldn't all get the same treatment. No one cares about Anne, Edward or Andrew they and their kids can fuck of they're mute and no tourist has ever come to see them.

[Tyrannical]

The Royals probably generate far more in revenue and jobs than they cost.

It's not even the tourism, but all the space on the TV news, magazines, WWW, and newspapers dedicated top following the Royals generates jobs and add revenue. Even something as silly as comedians that poke fun at them still derive their living from them.

No, they do not, sir.

How could they 'generate' revenue? their historic allure? our nation has that already without the perpetuation of an archaic, redundant political system.

Furthermore, how can anyone put tourism and revenue before the dignity of the British people, and the important of a written constitution?

There simply isn't any evidence to suggest that they generate more than what they take.

A five minute news story on the Royals generates five minutes worth of ad revenue. The Super Bowl in the US generated $1.7 Billion in ad revenue, I'd be surprised if the Royal Wedding didn't generate at least that much for various media outlets.

[Coito ergo sum]

They symbolize tyranny, exploitation, colonialism, elitism, aristocracy, class systems, despotism and spoliation of the dignity of the individual. They symbolize a boot on the neck of the common man. They are no better than bums on the street begging for handouts, as their entire situation is maintained by the dole. Worse than that, they have engineered the machinery of the State to divest people of less means than they to support them.

[MrJonno]

Used to be for a republic until I saw the US system in action.
Their President either gets treated with kid gloves by the the press as he is head or state and at the same time people critize him get accused of being unAmericans.
You get this problem when you link head of state and an politican.

British politicans get treated like dirt by the press and no one cares less if you slag them off, while people may not like the monarchy as a concept no one is going to make personal attacks on a head of state who is just a figurehead.

A monarchy is also an excellent anti-libertarian symbol, it reminds people that if they live and work in a country there are not just individuals but part of something bigger than themselves and even better they don't get a choice in the matter

[Clinton Huxley]

They symbolize tyranny, exploitation, colonialism, elitism, aristocracy, class systems, despotism and spoliation of the dignity of the individual. They symbolize a boot on the neck of the common man. They are no better than bums on the street begging for handouts, as their entire situation is maintained by the dole. Worse than that, they have engineered the machinery of the State to divest people of less means than they to support them.

And your point is?!?

[Lozzer]

The Royals probably generate far more in revenue and jobs than they cost.

It's not even the tourism, but all the space on the TV news, magazines, WWW, and newspapers dedicated top following the Royals generates jobs and add revenue. Even something as silly as comedians that poke fun at them still derive their living from them.

No, they do not, sir.

How could they 'generate' revenue? their historic allure? our nation has that already without the perpetuation of an archaic, redundant political system.

Furthermore, how can anyone put tourism and revenue before the dignity of the British people, and the important of a written constitution?

There simply isn't any evidence to suggest that they generate more than what they take.

A five minute news story on the Royals generates five minutes worth of ad revenue. The Super Bowl in the US generated $1.7 Billion in ad revenue, I'd be surprised if the Royal Wedding didn't generate at least that much for various media outlets.

That generates revenue, yes, but not for the national treasury. Private firms will always make money from reporting and promoting the affairs of heads of state.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a strangely self-contradictory post.

You complain about the President because some of them get treated with kid gloves, but then you laud the Monarch because nobody is going to make personal attacks on him or her. And, you laud the fact that British politicians are treated like dirt. Which is it? Is it good to treat them like dirt, or ought they not be attacked in that manner?

You also forget to note that the American politicians are not shielded from criticism, dirt and attacks. Actually, they're shielded less than Brit pols, because in Britain there is a remedy for libel against a politician. There is no such remedy here in the US. We can say what we want about them.

The accusation of being unAmerican is a red herring. First of all, lots of people accuse lots of other people of being lots of things. Having someone say that you're "unAmerican" is a rather tame insult in the grand scheme of things. Secondly, the cry from Democrats under Bush that they were being called unAmerican was largely unwarranted. It's one of those things where nobody, or nobody of consequence, was calling Democrats unAmerican, but the Democrats preemptively complained about being called unAmerican. Nobody literally called them unAmerican. It's a political strategy, much like the preemptive denial, where someone asks a politician if they deny an allegation that was never actually made.

[Tyrannical]

The Royals probably generate far more in revenue and jobs than they cost.

It's not even the tourism, but all the space on the TV news, magazines, WWW, and newspapers dedicated top following the Royals generates jobs and add revenue. Even something as silly as comedians that poke fun at them still derive their living from them.

No, they do not, sir.

How could they 'generate' revenue? their historic allure? our nation has that already without the perpetuation of an archaic, redundant political system.

Furthermore, how can anyone put tourism and revenue before the dignity of the British people, and the important of a written constitution?

There simply isn't any evidence to suggest that they generate more than what they take.

A five minute news story on the Royals generates five minutes worth of ad revenue. The Super Bowl in the US generated $1.7 Billion in ad revenue, I'd be surprised if the Royal Wedding didn't generate at least that much for various media outlets.

That generates revenue, yes, but not for the national treasury. Private firms will always make money from reporting and promoting the affairs of heads of state.

Sure it does through both personal and income taxes. People like to read about what they Royals are up to, and they pay a lot of money to do so. The US has movie stars, the UK has the Royals.

[mistermack]

Tyrannical, your argument is ludicrous.
Serial killers generate income in the same way. People tune in to the news, buy newspapers, listen to the radio, and all the advertising that goes with it.

Jack the ripper still attracts tourists to London a hundred years later.

This sort of thing happens whatever. If it wasn't the royals, the money would get spent elsewhere.
If it wasn't spent, it would get invested.

The royals generate NOTHING that wouldn't happen anyway, in another form.
But think of the tourist opportunity if we brought back the guillotine.
Somewhere around Marble arch would be a good place to finish em off. After all of the tv rights had been sold of course.
Or you could make it part of the olympics. Perhaps they could be targets for the javelin event?
The ticket sales would go through the roof.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah people go to see the palaces and castles, I don't think many outside those weirdos with the plastic union flags and hats really give a shit about the Winsors. I think if we opened them all up completely to visitors all the time we'd make more money. Liz and her brats can move to an inner city estate and live off income support, since I don't doubt most of them have never paid enough in contributions to get jobseekers allowance.

[Tyrannical]

Tyrannical, your argument is ludicrous.
Serial killers generate income in the same way. People tune in to the news, buy newspapers, listen to the radio, and all the advertising that goes with it.

Jack the ripper still attracts tourists to London a hundred years later.

This sort of thing happens whatever. If it wasn't the royals, the money would get spent elsewhere.
If it wasn't spent, it would get invested.

The royals generate NOTHING that wouldn't happen anyway, in another form.
But think of the tourist opportunity if we brought back the guillotine.
Somewhere around Marble arch would be a good place to finish em off. After all of the tv rights had been sold of course.
Or you could make it part of the olympics. Perhaps they could be targets for the javelin event?
The ticket sales would go through the roof.

Serial killers are worth money, no surprise there. News that people want to watch is worth money, and as long as people are curious about the Royal family they are worth money. Bedsides, the Queen is probably by far the smartest and most loved person in British politics.

[mistermack]

Serial killers are worth money, no surprise there. News that people want to watch is worth money, and as long as people are curious about the Royal family they are worth money. Bedsides, the Queen is probably by far the smartest and most loved person in British politics.

I thought she was above politics. Anyway, if that's the reason for keeping her, then it's an equally good reason for getting rid of Charles.
As he is undoubtedly the dumbest and least loved in the KINGDOM.

If you want a president that everybody loves, get one with terminal cancer.
Preferably a footballer.
That way, we can have a regular change of face on our banknotes.

[MrJonno]

That's a strangely self-contradictory post.

You complain about the President because some of them get treated with kid gloves, but then you laud the Monarch because nobody is going to make personal attacks on him or her. And, you laud the fact that British politicians are treated like dirt. Which is it? Is it good to treat them like dirt, or ought they not be attacked in that manner?

Its strange contradictory behaviour by the public and the press. Interviews by the press of Obama are incredibly polite while regardless of who is president half the US population openly despise their head of state. Didnt some soldier get sacked for mocking Obama?. This makes sense if your mocking your boss but not if they head of state in a democracy