Can someone explain to me....

I wouldn't say it's a 'hysterical' report. It's given arguments from both sides and presented the facts pretty well.

Where does the majority of that money come from? Probably tourism, yes? What I'm saying is that I'd still visit Buckingham Palace even if Mrs Kebab Man didn't live there and I'm sure most would. If they weren't there I think we'd make more money as a country as all the land and assets would be opened up to all, generating more tourism around the country, not just in good ol' London.

As a country we live in the dark ages when it comes to subjects like this. A Royal Family, an unelected chamber of our legislative etc. Scrap the lot and let the people decide who they want to be the Head of State and to represent us.

 

As much as yours was me thinks... nt

 

And I couldn't agree more nt

 

And who should be this elected head of state?

Taking into account we can't even find someone to vote for in an election at the moment.</p>

Lets go for David Beckham, or even the next winner of big brother.</p>

To be honest one of the only things that makes me proud to be British is the fact that we have the most famous Royal family in the world. </p>

</p>

 

Most of our museums are completely ruined and in desperate need of money

Turning all our palaces and royal residencies into museums would come ata far greater cost to the public than the royal family.</p>

The tax payer again would end up footing the bill.</p>

 

Ah, you mean seize their property?

</p>

We could get Robert Mugabe in to advise.</p>

And you can hardly call the report factual or reasoned when it completely misses the massive profit we make out of them. ******** would be closer to the mark.</p>

 

Sounds good to me...

but hang on..does it not already belong to the state? and therefore the "people".

 

'Massive profit'

My point is we would probably make just as much, if not more, without them! Do you think that's not possible?

 

Aren't we footing the bill for them already?

 

RE: Sounds good to me...

</p>

No.</p>

 

</p>

&quot;Massive profit.&quot; Deduct what they &quot;cost&quot; from &pound;190m. What do you get? Ten bob?</p>

And no, it's not possible to &quot;make more without them&quot; unless, of course, you propose the state starts seizing property. If so why stop with the royal family? </p>

They're putting money in your pocket. That'sa fact whichever way you try to twist it.</p>

 

Hark at Wolfie Smith.

'Power to the people' etc.</p>

A wonderful idea - until you get a President you don't like. What then ?</p>

&quot;Ah hello President Thatcher, what's that ? in order to ensure the 'security' of the nation you're cancelling elections until further notice ? &quot;</p>

Thatcher started it and Blair gleefully took it on - the removal of genuine power from parliament - resulting in the mess we are in. Now it appears to be the Monarch's fault. Alrighty then....
</p>

 

But you were saying that we would still get same money from tourism without the royal family

And I am saying we can't even look after the ones we already have.</p>

Whether you want to believe it or not; The royal family bring in an massive amount of money to our ecomony far outsripping any money we would make from becoming a republic and opening up our palaces as museums that would be **** holes within 20 years.</p>

 

It's essential they remain.

</p>

Otherwise our armed forces are at the complete behest of whichever government gets itself voted in.</p>

 

No, why would we need a President?

Surely we are capable of electing (more) representatives and then forming government from the whole of the elected body and for one or more of these to represent the contry when required.

A lot needs to be swept away in this country. Like the charade the other day of "dragging" the speaker to the chair and the Commons going to the Lords to authorise the move. Archaic and just a little over dramatic. No wonder the general populace are switched off from politics when all it seems is a load of people feathering their nests (granted) shouting at each other for the sake of it and seemingly never being focussed on sorting out any problems in any meaningful way.

 

What I don't like...

...and I have nothing against them as people - is the concept that someone is born 'better than you'. All the ridiculous kowtowing, head-bobbing formalities surrounding them, purely because of tradition, belongs in the Dark Ages. I know there are some modernisers in the Royal family, but the system doesn't seem to want to change.

 

Are they not anyway?

What control does the monarch have over the armed forces other than being its nominal head?

Stop worrying about the Islamic take over...

 

Who's in charge ?

And I think what 'turns people off' from politics is the move to unelected quangos doing parliaments job, the removal of legislative powers to unelected european bureacrats , our esteemed elected representatives taking the opportunity to enrich themselves at our expense, moving their kids into the best schools (Blair and the London oratory) whilst making it a scrum amongst the populace to get their kids into a half decent comp, safeguarding their own pensions whilst aboloshing tax relief on private pension schemes, and a general disregard for the people who elect them.</p>

A few wigs and a bit of pomp and tradition mean fck all when put at the side of that.
</p>

 

Agreed. nt

 

RE: What I don't like...

We just do it to the Blairs and Kinnocks etc these days as well....