god save the queen

Longest serving monarch in two days time.

God save the queen




Edit for spelling

shorely it's time to sack them off, once she goes?

Gawd bless her.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

shorely it's time to sack them off, once she goes?

Absolutely.

Every politician has to take tough decisions, and as a result they're hated and despised by the whole country. Brenda there has had 63 years of opening hospitals and waving, and the OK! brigade think she's wonderful. Why can't we stick her on the Today show and ask her to justify the Sovereign Grant? When they open their mouths we can how off their tits they all are - see Queen Mum, Margaret, Brenda's kids - so it's no wonder that they're told do look good, say nothing and produce kids. It's no life for them, and it's no way of running a developed country in the 21st century.

Also the National Anthem is crap. Obviously all national anthems are crap, but we could at least have something vaguely interesting. Just compare the Italians' operatic bonanza to our dreary trudge through meek subservience.

Britain would be better off without the Royal family and the £500,000,000 they bring to the economy through tourism alone?

Yeah, course it would.

Ah, that old nutshell. There's no evidence whatsoever that the monarchy increases tourism. Do tourists really choose their holiday destinations through the system of government that various countries have? And if so, why do we receive 50 million less tourists a year than France, 40 million a year lesson than the US, and less than other republican European countries like Italy, Turkey and Germany?

Cornish Chris wrote:

Ah, that old nutshell. There's no evidence whatsoever that the monarchy increases tourism. Do tourists really choose their holiday destinations through the system of government that various countries have? And if so, why do we receive 50 million less tourists a year than France, 40 million a year lesson than the US, and less than other republican European countries like Italy, Turkey and Germany?

It isn't about governing systems is it? The Royal family and associated estates etc are a massive tourist attraction in themselves. To say that the same numbers would come here generating the same amount for the economy without them, is beyond absurd.

It's almost as silly an argument as saying tourists don't necessarily go to Florida for the theme parks.

I'm not anti monarchy, gives something back to the simple people and keeps the crap souvenir business going but I don't see why we as a nation should add to their already enormous wealth, Chaz has his duchies with income of a few mill a year and they all have vast agricultural landholdings that recieve the totally unlimited and uncapped farm subsidy. Funny that Austerity doesn't touch the massive farmers (although I lost my £30pa) or the monarchy. Give them 35p a mile traveling and pay them for their lunch and evening meal, upon producing the relevant receipt obviously.

Czarcasm wrote:

Cornish Chris wrote:

Ah, that old nutshell. There's no evidence whatsoever that the monarchy increases tourism. Do tourists really choose their holiday destinations through the system of government that various countries have? And if so, why do we receive 50 million less tourists a year than France, 40 million a year lesson than the US, and less than other republican European countries like Italy, Turkey and Germany?

It isn't about governing systems is it? The Royal family and associated estates etc are a massive tourist attraction in themselves. To say that the same numbers would come here generating the same amount for the economy without them, is beyond absurd.

It's almost as silly an argument as saying tourists don't necessarily go to Florida for the theme parks.

Again, where's the evidence? If anything it points in the opposite direction. At the moment the only royal residence which is open to visitors on anything like a regular basis is Windsor Castle, which is something like 25th in the UK's list of most visited attractions - respectable enough, but nothing extraordinary. If Queenie's other properties could be opened to the public (which are, after all, maintained by public money), it would undoubtedly provide more income and more jobs.

The theme park comparison is ludicrous - what can a tourist actually do with the monarchy? Fly in to London, watch the changing of the guard and then toddle off back to Des Moines or Dusseldorf or whichever republic they come from?

I really can't be fecked to argue the toss with you on this, tbh. You probably wouldn't be content until Buckingham Palace was filled with dormitories full of asylum seekers.

As it goes I'll just leave it at this. It isn't 'evidence; people aren't filling in questionaires declaring why they come here, but this report (although ironically less than most people apparently would have thought) puts the Net worth to the economy of the  Royals at over a Billion for last year...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No, I'd just like to be able to vote for who my head of state is. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

Looking at the crop of presidents and dictators around the world, we have not done to badly. Electing one every few years would cost a fortune.

Our lot of elected heads of state don't come cheap either.

Elias wrote:

Longest serving monarch in two days time.

God save the queen




Edit for spelling

look how far she's come!!!! Surely due a mural or a herald column now.... this achievement is all down to the stripes and plebb of course.

An unpatriotic cornishman, now there's a surprise.

Agree with Chris*. Slack them off as soon as possible.

*Hope I'm not upsetting anyone by saying that, am I?

Par for the course, geddon Josh.

Czarcasm wrote:

I really can't be fecked to argue the toss with you on this, tbh. You probably wouldn't be content until Buckingham Palace was filled with dormitories full of asylum seekers.

Sounds grand to me. At least then the space would be going to people who genuinely need it rather than lifetime benefit-scrounging parasites.

Cornish Chris wrote:

No, I'd just like to be able to vote for who my head of state is. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

i rather have the queen as head of state other the likes of jeremy corbyn.

The queen/ royal family bring far more wealth to this country than she takes out, she's done a fantastic job as head of state over the last sixty years. Whats the alternative? a Rank politician like Corbyn or Cameron, or even worse a gobby socialist worker Student who's never worked a day in his life. When the Queens reign ends i'd like to see William take over, a nice sensible intelligent chap.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

The queen/ royal family bring far more wealth to this country than she takes out, she's done a fantastic job as head of state over the last sixty years. Whats the alternative? a Rank politician like Corbyn or Cameron, or even worse a gobby socialist worker Student who's never worked a day in his life. When the Queens reign ends i'd like to see William take over, a nice sensible intelligent chap.

Here here

Punchdrunk wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

The queen/ royal family bring far more wealth to this country than she takes out, she's done a fantastic job as head of state over the last sixty years. Whats the alternative? a Rank politician like Corbyn or Cameron, or even worse a gobby socialist worker Student who's never worked a day in his life. When the Queens reign ends i'd like to see William take over, a nice sensible intelligent chap.

Here here

Here here here!

'Tis true the Cornish have little regard for the freeloaders, and for very good reason.
Tourists come for the history, the architecture, the estates, not the people themselves. The strutting soldiers in funny hats can stilldo their stuff, without a monarch, just like the soldiers on the Indian/Pakistan border. The main attraction is London itself.
The tourism thing is just more propaganda.
Stability is important for nation states. The monarchy is not that popular in the other United Kingdom countries. The biggest problem I can see is the honours and patronage that results from the monarchy system. Perpetuates establishment and elitism, so the likes of me can have the life of riley. Still, some cap doffers are happy to have an elite. Strange animals.

There's always been an elite, in every civilisation throughout history, including the one revered by the far left, communist Russia.

Another myth there Les. The far left never idolised Stalin's Russia, and following regimes. It was regarded as state capitalist. The real communal folk were done away with when the pigs rose to the top with help from the thugs. Not very communal behaviour I'm sure you would agree. Community is not about encouraging children to dob in their parents. Funnily enough our Western democracies are starting down this sort of road.