Should the Queen be the Last Ruling Monarch?

Mike

Mike

Well-known Member
Location
London
This was the question that the BBC asked on the radio this morning
and of course the person that they spoke to about it was a republican,
who didn't really like the Monarchy, or see the point in having it!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56201331

I don't think that she should be the last, but I am as they say on older
person who are mainly all in favour of the monarchy,

Mike.
 

Mike, here in Canada we are part of the Commonwealth. More and more there are rumblings of discontent and cries to go our own way.

I do admire the Queen, she has class, period. The royal family also has a lavish lifestyle and the people support that lifestyle. So much more could be done with that money.

Would the UK be as popular with tourists should there not be a Monarchy? Tourist $$$$ might dwindle but I think your country offers a lot more than that. Charles and Camilla will never cut it. While William and Kate are popular I have to ask if either would win a run for Prime Minister, a true test of popularity rather than popularity by right of birth.

So I am saying that if it was my choice, Elizabeth should be the last.
 

This is a matter for the British people to decide, not outsiders. Unless you have been born and brought up in a country which has had a monarchy for over a thousand years, you are not qualified to comment. Equating a queen with a Prime Minister is nonsense.
I get the impression that the Royals would prefer to be able to just live normal lives, without all the obligations they now have. Perhaps a compromise might be possible.
 
Lavinia said:
Unless you have been born and brought up in a country which has had a monarchy for over a thousand years, you are not qualified to comment. Equating a queen with a Prime Minister is nonsense.
Click to expand...
That's not quite so. On the 20th April 1653, England, (it wasn't Britain or UK back then,) England became a republic.
Oliver Cromwell finally became so frustrated that on 20 April 1653 he led an armed force into the Commons Chamber (as Charles I had done in January 1642) and forcibly dissolved the Rump, stating: " You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. In the name of God, go!" In its place Cromwell established a Nominated Assembly in July 1653, popularly known as the Barebones Parliament.

On a more trivial but amusing note, seen on top of the Royal Mail postage box in the Dorset village of Verwood:
Verwood PO 002.JPG
 
Lavinia said:
This is a matter for the British people to decide, not outsiders. Unless you have been born and brought up in a country which has had a monarchy for over a thousand years, you are not qualified to comment. Equating a queen with a Prime Minister is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Lavinia, I was not equating the Queen with a Prime Minister, ,only suggesting that IF members such as William and Kate would run for Prime Minister what would their odds be of winning votes. They did not earn their position by a popular democratic vote, the position came by birthright and through marriage. But all in all I do like that pair, down to earth.

As a Canadian, a member of the commonwealth, we here in Canada may have a say on whether or not we continue along the path.
 
Last edited:
Got no dog in this fight, either. If the Queen lives to be 100+, the next monarchs are going to be rather old men. Her grandson, the 'young' prince is in his 40s. A woman wearing a sparkling diamond tiara looks regal, a guy with a sash doesn't.
 
Lee said:
Mike, here in Canada we are part of the Commonwealth. More and more there are rumblings of discontent and cries to go our own way.

I do admire the Queen, she has class, period. The royal family also has a lavish lifestyle and the people support that lifestyle. So much more could be done with that money.

Would the UK be as popular with tourists should there not be a Monarchy? Tourist $$$$ might dwindle but I think your country offers a lot more than that. Charles and Camilla will never cut it. While William and Kate are popular I have to ask if either would win a run for Prime Minister, a true test of popularity rather than popularity by right of birth.

So I am saying that if it was my choice, Elizabeth should be the last.
Click to expand...
69p per person in the UK , that's what it costs to maintain the lifestyle of the monarchy.. 70 million people times 69p = Ā£4 Billion 838 million.. annually...


If we didn't have a Monarchy, that money would go to the government, and we the public wouldn't see a penny of it... as per normal with any government in the UK

There's been rumblings here for a long time as the Queen has aged about disbanding the monarchy, but I feel that they bring value to the UK as world ambassadors.

In Spain, Norway, Sweden, or Denmark or any European country that has a monarchy, you never hear of people asking for them to be disbanded, but always the UK... I believe that Charles, and then William will go on to represent the UK in a quieter manner such as all the other Royal families in European countries, instead of being as prominent as Elizabeth and the previous royal family have been in the past
 
Last edited:
I think that without the Monarch and all the Pomp & Ceremony,
London would be just another city with some old buildings, but
with the Royals and all the trimmings, Trooping the Colour, makes
it, a more interesting place that people want to explore, to see the
places that were built hundreds of years ago and are still in use.

So they are the best tourist attraction in Europe and probably a
lot further, all because of the troops and bands and horses.

Mike.
 
Mike said:
I think that without the Monarch and all the Pomp & Ceremony,
London would be just another city with some old buildings, but
with the Royals and all the trimmings, Trooping the Colour, makes
it, a more interesting place that people want to explore, to see the
places that were built hundreds of years ago and are still in use.

So they are the best tourist attraction in Europe and probably a
lot further, all because of the troops and bands and horses.

Mike.
Click to expand...
I agree. You never hear of tourists going to visit Monarchical sites in any other European country.. or lining up 20 deep to try and catch a glimpse of a member of any other European Royal family
 
We;re all over it.. the Roman stuff tbh.. we're completely surrounded by Roman artefacts Roman roads, Roman Baths everything, always have been...it;s all around us. I would imagine simialr to native American historical stuff, you in the USA have seen enough of it...
 
The Queen is a great lady but when she dies, the attraction ends for me where the rest of the royals are concerned. There's no doubt all the pomp and ceremony brings in a lot of tourist revenue for the UK.
 
Would this influence your decision to dissolve the Monarchy?

Canada contributes 58 million $$$ yearly as a member of the commonwealth and rumblings are to leave. This is fact.

Barbados has declared it's independence already. Australia is thinking about it. Likely others are too.

So if $$$ support is withdrawn then I suppose citizens of the UK will have to foot more of the bill. Do you think this would lessen support for the Monarchy in the UK?
 
Lee said:
Would this influence your decision to dissolve the Monarchy?

Canada contributes 58 million $$$ yearly as a member of the commonwealth and rumblings are to leave. This is fact.

Barbados has declared it's independence already. Australia is thinking about it. Likely others are too.

So if $$$ support is withdrawn then I suppose citizens of the UK will have to foot more of the bill. Do you think this would lessen support for the Monarchy in the UK?
Click to expand...
IMO immigration will be the biggest factor.

The newest members of society have no roots or attachments to the traditions of their host country.
 
Yes... to both...

If Canadian revenue was withdrawn and the British were then expected to pay more.. then I feel that support , particularly at this juncture when we Brits are teetering on a recession ..then I feel that would make a huge difference to the support of the monarchy.. at least the funding of it..
However she is Queen of 14 countries... as well as being head of the Commonwealth of 54 Independent countries..


...and Bea.. I couldn't agree more..
 
Buckeye said:
So, what would be the benefit to the common man/woman on the street in England to disband the Monarchy?
Click to expand...
As a citizen of Australia, which still is a constitutional monarchy, I would like to see us transition to a republic before I die. I have nothing against the Royal family; on the contrary I admire Queen Elizabeth greatly, but IMO she belongs to the British people, not to us.

I also think that the monarchy (and Royal Family) is an asset to the UK that is worth a lot more than whatever is the cost of maintaining this institution.

My only reservation about becoming a republic is that I would not like to follow the US model. I favour the Irish version of a presidential republic.
 
Jules said:
Iā€™m pro-monarchy.
Click to expand...
I am as well. Not only for the glitz and glamour, tourist aspects, but also because in a precarious, frenetic world, it stands for continuity, a certain stability not easily found elsewhere. A thousand years is a long time! I canā€™t speak to other provinces, but by and large, BC is content with the Monarchy.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top