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

[Eoin247]

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.

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

The most visited things in the world are visited for history rather than for present day happenings. Zak is saying that it would just be another building, but really, unless history is erased it's hardly just going to be another building? The architecture, decor, furniture, history and upkeep of it will all still be there. I visited Beethovens house when i went on an orchestra trip earlier this year . They told us it is the most visited thing in the city, yet beethoven as we all know isn't alive. Also consider the palaces in France, the huge unused ones in Spain, and all the rest of the royal buildings that are in countries no longer with royals and the tourism they get. The Shas palace doesn't get as much tourism because of where it's located rather than what it is.

I don't really agree with the tourism argument as it's been put to me, but i do believe she does a lot of good for you as a figurehead for your country. This is a relatively new view for me, but i'll explain why. After looking into the queens visit to Ireland, i have to say i was impressed. Looking at her itinary for the week and then looking at her age, i really have to applaud her on what must be a very exhausting week.

Some of you may not realise the significance of what she did so far. But visiting the garden of rememberance and laying a wreath is hugely significant symbol considering who the garden is for. Also she visited croke park just now. Again hugely significant and the amount of interest and energy she seems to be giving the trip is really changing a lot of peoples mind about the queen in Ireland.

I'm still not too sure on the timing of the visit. But if anybody has any doubt about the significance of it then consider this,

I'm guessing most of you know about Gerry Adams? Well a few months back was totally against the visit and called the queen only by "Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth Windsor". Now however he says the visit is a good thing and believe it or not, he called her "Majesty".

[GommeInc]

The most visited things in the world are visited for history rather than for present day happenings. Zak is saying that it would just be another building, but really, unless history is erased it's hardly just going to be another building? The architecture, decor, furniture, history and upkeep of it will all still be there. I visited Beethovens house when i went on an orchestra trip earlier this year . They told us it is the most visited thing in the city, yet beethoven as we all know isn't alive. Also consider the palaces in France, the huge unused ones in Spain, and all the rest of the royal buildings that are in countries no longer with royals and the tourism they get. The Shas palace doesn't get as much tourism because of where it's located rather than what it is.

I don't really agree with the tourism argument as it's been put to me, but i do believe she does a lot of good for you as a figurehead for your country. This is a relatively new view for me, but i'll explain why. After looking into the queens visit to Ireland, i have to say i was impressed. Looking at her itinary for the week and then looking at her age, i really have to applaud her on what must be a very exhausting week.

Some of you may not realise the significance of what she did so far. But visiting the garden of rememberance and laying a wreath is hugely significant symbol considering who the garden is for. Also she visited croke park just now. Again hugely significant and the amount of interest and energy she seems to be giving the trip is really changing a lot of peoples mind about the queen in Ireland.

I'm still not too sure on the timing of the visit. But if anybody has any doubt about the significance of it then consider this,

I'm guessing most of you know about Gerry Adams? Well a few months back was totally against the visit and called the queen only by "Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth Windsor". Now however he says the visit is a good thing and believe it or not, he called her "Majesty".

I'm fairly confused by your argument as you seem to focus too much on history with no further uses rather than history in the making. Can we not have someone use the buildings then? People like visiting them and the buildings they own. Of course the history will be there IF they left, but the fact they're alive and do a lot of work for the country is an added bonus. It adds an extra charm to the buildings. The Doge Palace in Venice was a particularly interesting building, and would still be interesting if Venice was still a Republic and the power wasn't shifted to Rome and Italy. History and architecture are seperate to the ongoing work the inhabitants do Zak's argument did fall short off the mark, as he claims that the buildings would no longer be visited, when really the buildings and the uses are seperate entities.

It was interesting to see how Ireland took to the visit, but I guess that's a discussion for another thread It's strange one hasn't really been made, or taken off :/

[Zeptis]

I do not think that the English Monarchy should be ended because as far as i know it is not in an economical down turn, and once again as far as i know it's government is not hated, so i think it is just fine

[Zak]

Zak's argument did fall short off the mark, as he claims that the buildings would no longer be visited, when really the buildings and the uses are seperate entities.

No no! What I was trying to say was I don't think there would be as much interest in the buildings if the royal family wasn't involved. Then again people would still visit the building itself for the architecture, wonderful decor & items. I suppose it's like when people visit a stately home, they don't care who lived there, they just go because they like the building, landscape, setting etc etc.

Then again even for some homes this won't be the case. My parents went to Blenheim Palace a couple of years ago just because it was the birthplace of Winston Churchill. ;/ so yeah.... confused!

[:.JessLiu.:]

The Monarchy's great unites like 86? countries together. As long as they don't rule in tyranny, that is. Not like Elizabeth does anyway.

[Eoin247]

The Monarchy's great unites like 86? countries together. As long as they don't rule in tyranny, that is. Not like Elizabeth does anyway.

If i remember correctly there are about 15 or so countries that consider her their queen right?

[GommeInc]

If i remember correctly there are about 15 or so countries that consider her their queen right?

Interestingly countries she's not the Queen of like the Royal Family quite a lot too. America and a few European countries loved the Wedding, and enjoy the whole monarchy vibe

[Zak]

Interestingly countries she's not the Queen of like the Royal Family quite a lot too. America and a few European countries loved the Wedding, and enjoy the whole monarchy vibe

My friend John in Canada was more stoaked about it all than I was. He was like DID YOU WATCH IT? I was like what? he was like THE ROYAL WEDDING! Glad it happened though, it gave us an amusing South Park episode.

[Wig44.]

I genuinely see nobody but possibly the government in power who could benefit from abolishing the monarchy... It's doubtful they would remove the tax which pays for their lifestyle, rather just keep it to themselves and claim that they need it for funding or such.

The monarchy piss our money into the wind.

Monarchy should be abolished.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm guessing most of you know about Gerry Adams? Well a few months back was totally against the visit and called the queen only by "Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth Windsor". Now however he says the visit is a good thing and believe it or not, he called her "Majesty".

I very much doubt most people care what Gerry Adams thinks or wants, he is the definition of total scum.

The debate over tourism, of course it brings tourism and also adds to the profile of the United Kingdom overseas - its mostly common knowledge that not that long ago, that little island nation off the coast of Europe with its Kings and Queens ruled the waves and vast swathes of land all around the world. The present day monarchy relates to this, its living evolving history as opposed to a disliked President who leaves office after five years.

The benefits of monarchy over a Republic are enormous aswell, it helps prevent a coup taking place as with what happens in many Republics, or for the simple example of France who are now on their Fifth Republic after abolishing their monarchy - monarchy brings stability.