Jump to content

UK Politics - Democracy for the 0.27% - Worst Past The Post edition


Which Tyler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just a reminder for those people (like me) who get confused by the British Monarchy and it's subject.

Simon Pegg is an English actor born under the name Simon Beckingham and is in no relationship to the Royals. 

The royal seat is Buckingham palace (not Beckingham), William is Prince Pegg and the the Prince of Wales, but not Welsh.

I think that's about right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, john said:

Did feel a bit of a twinge of something like sadness, even as a lifelong republican. Mind you, I felt the same kind of thing when Scott Mills left Radio 1 a couple of weeks ago, so probably doesn’t mean much.

I think weirdly Scott Mills leaving Radio 1 actually had an even bigger impact on me, even if that impact was still quite small. I didn't even listen to him that regularly (especially since they moved his time slot) but its weird that I feel like a radio DJ had a bigger impact on my life than the Head of State. I guess that just shows how useless the monarchy actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

What?

No I just thought they MIGHT possibly show some decorum and get rid of an insulting title that celebrates the subjugation of Wales.

Not trying to have a go, mate, it's just they're not going to be doing anyone any favours, are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

Not trying to have a go, mate, it's just they're not going to be doing anyone any favours, are they?

Yeah it was just wishful thinking on my part. I just don't understand the logic behind keeping it.

Just re affirms my dislike of the Royal Family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Liffguard said:

I guess today we have found where the "nothing is off-limits for comedy, stop being offended snowflake" free-speech brigade draws the line.

 

 

*(just kidding, the line has always been wherever they want it to be on any given day).

I’m remember when some of them declared booing a Royal couldn’t qualify as free speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, lessthanluke said:

Can't really ignore it if it affects your life?

Luckily doesn't affect mine but anyone who's events get cancelled may be rightfully angry about it.

Eh.

12 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Fuck this shit. They are shutting down the country and it's fucking ridiculous. Abolish this bullshit.

 

 

 

But what of the tourism the royals bring in? 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think now is the time for the SNP to double down on independence.

The people of Scotland voted to keep the queen. Nobody told us, she would die and we would get Charles. We were promised Lizzy, and we all believed you meant Queen Elizabeth II, and you give us Liz Truss? 

I mean, it's bit like with the previous election. The British voted for Boris, thinking of Yeltsin. And they ended up with drunk pig throwing parties, ok, that was actually not really mislabeling the product.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Soylent Brown said:

Booting the royals out of the palaces and opening them up to the public would bring WAY more people in than it does currently. Let's do that.

Possibly. I mean they can still call themselves royalty and make bank from promoting England as a place to visit people whose biggest accomplishment was being born.

I guess there really isn’t any good reason to keep the undemocratic institution around.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, Tourists are mostly interested in the members of the royal family, you remove them then something like Buckingham Palace just becomes a historical curiosity ( and not even all that historical). 
 

Without the interest in the actual living Royals that tourist income would soon dry up as people just forget about them and then it gets demolished and turned into apartments for Middle Eastern oil baron’s children within ten years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Thing is, Tourists are mostly interested in the members of the royal family, you remove them then something like Buckingham Palace just becomes a historical curiosity ( and not even all that historical). 
 

Without the interest in the actual living Royals that tourist income would soon dry up as people just forget about them and then it gets demolished and turned into apartments for Middle Eastern oil baron’s children within ten years!

I've done changing of the guard loads. Never seen a royal. seen big crowds though. 

Churchill doesn't live at blenheim anymore. Still busy as fuck. 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sure about the economics of the tourism side of the argument. London is full of Royalty-related merchandise, and things like the changing of the guard are a big draw - I suppose that could stay on post-monarchy, but it would be even emptier than it is now. I've had a quick look but I haven't seen any surveys/studies on what international tourists describe as attracting them to the UK. Not sure if someone else would have more luck?

I'm in favour of keeping the royals for now so that head of state and head of government are separate. Even with a purely ceremonial President, someone like Nigel Farage, for example, could be absolutely poisonous in that role. The conventions governing the behaviour of modern constitutional monarchs at least pushes them towards reserve and an illusion of universality. Of course, Charles may try and change that. In which case, I'll have the popcorn ready for the constitutional fun and games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Without the interest in the actual living Royals that tourist income would soon dry up as people just forget about them and then it gets demolished

The royals could still be living—they could also not  be undeservedly given power/immense wealth based on their bloodline.

56 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

and then it gets demolished and turned into apartments for Middle Eastern oil baron’s children within ten years!

I’m not going to comment on the peculiarity of you mentioning a potential buyer’s race.

Also, what you described doesn’t sound especially abominable especially if you believe that there’s no string historical importance to the palace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...