Should the monarchy be abolished? [08/05/2011]

[Zak]

I personally don't think it should be abolished, not in this country anyway. I think a Queen/King is a good representative for a country. As long as their power is not abused, like I believe they don't in this country. I'm all for it here in England.

However, I live virtually right on where the Battle Of Bosworth really took place. This is the place to be viewed by many historians as last 'true' English King died, as Richard III was killed in Battle by Henry the VII in 1485. Which marked the end of the Plantagenet kings of England. (There is a lot of evidence to show that Edward IV was illegitimate). So this would mean that the Queen herself today is illegitimate. I wondered if this bothered any of you? It certainly doesn't bother me, as I realise the first Plantagenet King was Henry II who was French born anyway..

[Charlottay!]

we gain far too much from the royal family to abolish them! Tourism alone generates most of the profit in London, we would be in more monetary trouble without that. I rather like the royal family, they are far to embedded into the history of the country to get rid of them.

[Eoin247]

I wish this debate was about monarchies in general rather than just in Britain. It excludes people not from the UK. As i know very well, whenever the monarchy is brought up a lot of people on here get very defensive and don't even like questions being asked by "outsiders" .

[BlueEyedSarah]

Yes they should.

Edited by sct (Assistant Forum Manager): Please do not make pointless posts that do not contribute to the debate!

[GommeInc]

I wish this debate was about monarchies in general rather than just in Britain. It excludes people not from the UK. As i know very well, whenever the monarchy is brought up a lot of people on here get very defensive and don't even like questions being asked by "outsiders" .

You could suggest another debate on Monarchy in general Naturally the British will think of their Royal Family when Monarchy is mentioned. A debate would be good, as the British Royal Family is unique in a few ways compared to many other types of Royal Family, particularly Middle-Eastern Royal Families.

[Zak]

I don't know much about foreign royal families though? Hence why I based my comment on the British Monarchy. I'm sure GommeInc knows about foreign monarchies, he seems to know everything.

[GommeInc]

I don't know much about foreign royal families though? Hence why I based my comment on the British Monarchy. I'm sure GommeInc knows about foreign monarchies, he seems to know everything.

I know they exist? It's usually a start Many seem to own businesses outside of their own countries and are only royal by name but not necessarily by nature. I /think/ Harrods was bought by a member of a Middle-Eastern Royal Family.

[Eoin247]

I think Grig specified the UK in this case . However can i ask one question? I have been told numerous times that it brings in much tourism. Yet it was never specified as to why it does when people told me. Surely most tourism related to the royals involves visiting the royal buildings? They'd still exist without a monarchy i'm guessing. I mean look at how many visitors the shas palace still gets. Only now, since he's gone, it's more open to public tourism.

Speaking of the Sha though ( not entirely sure of the spelling here ), not many liked him in his area as he was considered to be installed by the west.

[Zak]

I think Grig specified the UK in this case . However can i ask one question? I have been told numerous times that it brings in much tourism. Yet it was never specified as to why it does when people told me. Surely most tourism related to the royals involves visiting the royal buildings? They'd still exist without a monarchy i'm guessing. I mean look at how many visitors the shas palace still gets. Only now, since he's gone, it's more open to public tourism.

Speaking of the Sha though ( not entirely sure of the spelling here ), not many liked him in his area as he was considered to be installed by the west.

I think it's the simple fact of "There's Buckingham Palace, that's where the queen lives!". Rather than it just being another building.

[GommeInc]

I think Grig specified the UK in this case . However can i ask one question? I have been told numerous times that it brings in much tourism. Yet it was never specified as to why it does when people told me. Surely most tourism related to the royals involves visiting the royal buildings? They'd still exist without a monarchy i'm guessing. I mean look at how many visitors the shas palace still gets. Only now, since he's gone, it's more open to public tourism.

Speaking of the Sha though ( not entirely sure of the spelling here ), not many liked him in his area as he was considered to be installed by the west.

Isn't that looking at boring architecture? I went to Venice in the Autumn and liked the Doge Palace, but I also liked the building next door which had nothing to do with Government. So your argument falls a bit flat. A buildings architecture remains after a Monarchy, but what brings Tourism to the UK is the fact that many buildings owned and managed by the Royal Family are still in use and are given some value by this. Afterall, they are sat in the middle of a huge city (London) so they're naturally on the stop of many tours.

The Sha Palace doesn't get as much Tourism. The British Royal is often looked at when the words of "Royal Family" or "Monarchy" are mentioned. There's an air of regality knowing that the British still have a Royal family that are involved in a lot of public service, without them we'd be boring like the French who have the same old Presidential infrastructure as Germany, US etc. Royal Families just seem more interesting