A new King?!

[Robpthegills]

I just get bored posh that everytime the royals do something the left wing on this board seem to want to come out and hammer them

Yet they do very little wrong, an awful lot right and cannot help being born into what they are born into.


As for my right wing views causing me to spout about Scum class NO YOUR WRONG.... the anger and the defence I feel in my heart when I hear people slating our royals is what made me react like that. Or is it only okay to slag off the royals.

Anyway I wont be engaging in this conversation anymore as its pointless.

MARK you slag the royals off but what have you done for your country, Shit you dont even give to charity never mind to the country so dont give me all this anti royal shite.

[Poshgill]

I've no idea about Mark's politics and I''m not sure you do either. Rimshot has confessed his allegience to the Left a few times, but I certainly wouldn't call him scum. In fact, he is a very succesful business man.

As for me. Well actually I'm pretty ambivelent towards the Royals. I was a confirmed Republican in my youth and I'd have certainly been willing to string them up. Ironically, it was your beloved Maggie that changed my opinion. I could not ever think how bad this country would have been if she had been President (or even Blair come to that) and sometimes it is better the devil you know. My daughter is a confirmed Royalist, so my extreme views of my early days does not seem to have clouded her opinions.

Your vitrolic outburst because your beloved monarchy has been afronted is really quite unnecessary. As Oscar Wilde said, Patriotism is the virtue of the vicous.

[Garawa]

Question is, what alternative would there be? It is a case of:

Cost of running a monachy minus value of tourist income minus business generated from royal connections

against

Cost of paying a President plus loss of above income

I wouldn't mind betting there wouldn't be an awful difference in it, especially as I believe those figures would grow substantially once William becomes King (providing he and has family remain a vision of virtue until then). It is too simplistic to just say they should be got rid of, there are too many variables involved. We have seen how the world (and this country) has responded regarding the jubilee celebrations and is quite clear the country would vote to retain a monarchy if a vote were to be cast. I haven't always agreed with some of the things they have done but I feel a lot has been done to streamline the family in this economic climate. I don't think we would be any better off without them and could end up worse - if you hate Cameron Posh imagine him as President because that is what the public would end up doing. I can't see millions of Chinese visitors flooding to London to see him can you?

[Poshgill]

Re read my post Gary. I do not advocate us being a Republic (I did in my youth but my opinion has changed) There are no politicians that are good enough to be a figure head for the country.

However, I will question the theory that the Monarchy brings tourists into the country. I suspect that some tourists will come to look at Buckingham Palace or Windsor castle but they would come even if we had no monarchy. The Chinese do not flood to London to see the queen as you so succinctly put it, they come to see the history and the buildings. I went to the Vatican to look at the buildings and the Sistine chapel. I did not go to see the Poe and it does not mean I am a Catholic. The French are a Republic and yet they have a lot more tourists than we do. I suspect that this myth was perpetuated by Royalists to justify what we spend on the royals.

[Robpthegills]

posh I am not calling you, Rimshot or mARK scum class.

You know that, you are one of the few people I actually respect and look up to even if you are politically bonkers lol.

It wasnt the buildings or the rivers or the culture that had our country advertised all over the world at the start of this year, it was the link to the royals. The advertising that gave our country was amazing, the togetherness people felt who got involved.

All i am saying is Kate Middleton has worked, she has worked tirelessly since her new found position. SO WHAT she gets to go to hospital with Morning sickness, i would imagine her weight has a lot to do with that.

I would rather her be getting this medical attention than

the council house spongers who are not paying anything towards the country but drop sproggs faster that a bad juggler drops balls and they get all the health stuff for free but no we are LABOUR we have to love those little darlings......

[Rimshot]

Rob, if you had ever done any political canvassing you would know two things;
First, nothing offends a working class Labour voter more than a scrounger, particularly if they get a massive unearned income, say from the Royal Duchy of Cornwall .
Second, those who abuse the system are the last people to have political allegiances...they tend to belong to the 'I don't vote, cos they're all the bleedin' same' group.

[Elgrande]

Seems that many women are hospitalised with this severe form of Morning Sickness; just had one on BBC South East. As for the rest; can't be bothered rowing with people over something that most people in the world admire us for!

[Poshgill]

I know what you meant about Left wingers Rob and knew that we were precluded from your statement, but it is very easy to generalise and tar everyone with the same brush. In fact the 'the council house spongers who are not paying anything towards the country but drop sproggs faster that a bad juggler drops balls and they get all the health stuff for free but no we are LABOUR we have to love those little darlings.' rant is not true either. As Rimshot pointed out, these people generally do not vote and if they do vote, in my experience, they are of the EDL or BNP type. Its also not true that Labour voters support these people. The whole concept of socialism is you should only get out of society what you put in (From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs). We do need a benefit system in this country but most right-thinking people would argue for some sort of means-testing.

Yes, it is true Rob, the Diamond Jubilee celebrations did attract a lot of visitors to this country this year. There is no country on earth that can do pagentry like the British. I went to see the changoing of the guard in Cape Town once. It was not a patch on how we do ours though. However, it was a special year. We had more visitors for the Olympics than we did the Jubilee. Would the visitors still come if we didn't have royalty? Probably. Do we get visitors to this country just because we have roya;ty? Possibly not.

[Garawa]

Whilst there may be elements in what you have said, millions don't flock to Buckingham Palace because of the architecture, it's because of the royal connections. Of course people would come anyway but how many come to London to visit places just because of the royal connections - it must be an awful lot. Had we had a president for the last 100 years I don't think anyone would bother. I love Greenwich and we visited the Henry VIII celebrations a couple of years back. Suddenly seeing everyone playing a tudor part really transported you back and you couldn't help but think of what happened under your feet all those years ago. Same with visitors from overseas, they are drawn by the history as you said but that history came from the royal connections. I doubt the Tower of London would have hardly any visitors at all were it not for the beheaded queens and crown jewels.

[mark8364]

Rob, I didn't actually slag off the Royal Family. I just said they should abolished. As for my political preference, I voted Conservative in 1983, the first election I was old enough to vote, but haven't voted since.