Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Like Graham, I couldn't find about Blackpool or the Royals in there either, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, so lets say that Blackpool does attract more than all the royal attractions put together.

How many of those Blackpool visitors are from outside the UK? How many people in other countries, when planning their trip, say, nah, sod Buckingham Palace, let's go to Blackpool? Probably not many. Most of those Blackpool visitors are Brits, which does our economy no good. It isn't generating money, it is just moving it about from one place to another. We generate money from overseas visitors, not from ourselves.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

i was in the forces and as such swore to protect my country and the queen having a royal family is an honour i live on a council estate and still proud to be british as we all should so stop the anti royal and stand up and be proud ( with a big please )

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

You see that's the point. We keep all the heritage stuff that tourists like but rid ourselves of the costly inbreds. ;) :)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I want to keep the costly inbreds.Who else can we point the finger at and laugh?They are worth it from an amusement angle alone.So much more classy than Posh and Becks... ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

One thing - President Blair, how does that sound? How much would the presidential jet cost, we know he wants one.

The Austrailians had a referendum to abolish the monarchy, the thought of President Keating (?) was one of the many that kept them a monarchy.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

perish the thought of blair force 0ne:Yikes:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I have to concede that point. The other thing in their favour is they almost singlehandedly keep the populist press profitable, what with all those Di conspiracy theories, fancy dress outfits, disparaging comments about foreigners, alleged exam cheating......
__________________

Does abolishment of the monarchy automatically mean the creation of a presidential role? :shrug:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I'm proud of my anti-royal stance ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Do you believe that for yourself of because it was drilled into you by the army? No offence, but if you want to persuade someone to charge at a heavily-armed foreigner who is probably going to shoot you to pieces, it is easier to get you to do it if you're convinced that you are fighting to serve a glorious, powerful almost mystical figure like a king or queen than it is to get you to die for esoteric notions like democracy and freedom.

I lived on a council estate for the last five years and I'm still proud to be British too. Why, do council estates tend to make people ashamed of being British?

I don't agree with your implication that to be anti-Royal is to be anti-British. It would be interesting to get everyone who is interested in this thread to compile a list of things that define Britishness. Then we can compare it with what the royal family stands for and perhaps find out whether, in fact, having a royal family is becoming increasingly un-British.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I think it does. The queen currently presides or queens (is that a verb) or rules over the country. She has the executive power to enact laws etc, this is delegated to the elected parliment.

If she is abolished then someone has to have the executive power to enact law, to be the ultimate arbiter of the country, to preside over the country.

I'm not fully aufait with global politics, but for example, France who ditched their monarchy have a President. I don't know if there are examples to the contrary.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I don't think our monarchy really defines Britain. Lots of countries have monarchies, so we aren't special there. Our monarchy is descended directly from Germany, so its not even that British.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

France and the USA have executive presidents who hold power in a far more real way than our monarchy does. Executive power might technically rest with the Queen but she does not really make policy or ask her legislature to allow her to do things. Those powers are delegated to such an extent that she might as well not exist. Our queen is more like the presidents of Ireland or Germany, who are figureheads, albeit elected.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

The way I understand it, is that all republics generate a presidential post, which is the new head of state (what the royals were), although I don't really see the need, it is just more beaucracy.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

we could go down the they are german road but then again st george was a turk and we are a multi racial nation.

and i apologise for the council estate comment as where i live there is a good sense of community and i wouldnt live anywhere else.
everybody is entitled to there opinion this is a free country and thats what makes britain great :Peaceman:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I thought the Royal family were responsible for making Britain great?:Sprint: