POLL - Should the UK monarchy now be abolished ? Y/N - all ATS members please contribute

Yes or at least remove all remaining constitutional powers. More important get rid of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

As a blonde haired blue eyed Englishman I say:

YES

Abolish those elites. I do not wish false patriotism on any of my fellow countrymen, not even the racist bugge**.

Yes, but I am afraid a MAJOR war will unfold first. Maybe after the dust settles we can get rid of the US monarchy, I mean democratic government as it is now too.

The western corruption is starting to implode, and I am afraid 'they' will try to take as many of us with them as possible.

I hate to do this, but the other day I got into an argument over this and came across this good Yahoo answer.

answers.yahoo.com...

The dude pretty much sums it all up in the 'best answer'.

Myself personally, I am dating an English girl and hang out with her family a lot here in Canada (they immigrated) and they like the royal family, it gives them a sense of being different from the rest of the world.

I say yes , but they better start doing a bit more instead of winging it !
Lead with an iron fist and close the borders.
I'll be happy.

Yes out with the jimmy savile gang.

No.

There is too many reasons as to why and I can't be bothered to go through them all.

No.

The legacy of the UK Monarchy is nothing more than the usurption of the power that rightfully belongs to the people by an inbred German family.

That's right GERMAN.

INVADERS.

USURPERS.

BANJO PLAYING INBRED TWITS.

Time to take out the trash.

Not enough context... Replace it with what? Do you really want parliament to gain more power?

Or do you want to go with a president? (it's not working so great for your former colonists)

Diana's kids seem to be pretty good, let them have a shot before you try to tear everything down.

So no from this yank for what it's worth.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

No as they serve a important diplomatic and tourist function.


Providing they keep out of politics they can continue to exists.

I only support the upkeep of the King/Queen and immediate heir though. And only so long as they are serving there diplomatic function.

Here comes there German part again:-/

Poor old lizzy,we have flown her out to every corner of the globe for our country

Say what you like about the royals but at least they were willing to sacrifice their own children in wars unlike the politicians who send other peoples children in harms way

Got to love class warfare,still alive and kicking or the daily mirror wouldn't make any money

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite






I only support the upkeep of the King/Queen and immediate heir though.

Yes, those multi-billionaires need welfare money from the pockets of hard working Britons.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

NO - as having the Queen as our head of state is a much better than "President Cameron, Glegg or Milliband" any day!

originally posted by: FlyersFan
The only people who should have say in this would be those who are subject to the crown. And since I'm an American, I have no say in the matter.

That to add I think few Brits actually feel subject to the crown. It the parliament that holds all the powers.


At the end of the day the monarchy is just a big fun game of make believe that's useful for tourists and diplomacy.

They are basically expensive and fancy historical reenacters

I think its ironic that the best reason to keep them around at all
seems to be for tourism lol. That is really funny. Hey lets pay a
family millions a year to be a side show act, odd.

originally posted by: abe froman







Yes, those multi-billionaires need welfare money from the pockets of hard working Britons.

Are you British?

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

No,

I am not anything near an authority on the UK or monarchies in general but, from what little I know, I think the Monarchy should remain because - and this is purely my PoV, no real facts to back it up except for pieces I have learned in my life - they are supposed to be the personification of what is right and good with the people they rule. They have to shoulder the burden of being a figurehead while the day to day politics are left to the PM. Correct me on that if I am wrong. Her father said "the highest of distinctions is in the service to others." I believe that the Royal family are an example of national spirit. If they weren't, then why keep them around? They are there to serve others and frankly, what would you replace the current system with? George VI, Elizabeth II, Diana and so far her sons all seem to personify George's quote. Now I could be misinformed as I am not from the UK and really know nothing other than what I read in different places but as it stands, my vote is no. Void if you are only looking for UK member contributions.

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
Here comes there German part again:-/



Say what you like about the royals but at least they were willing to sacrifice their own children in wars unlike the politicians who send other peoples children in harms way

First, the Windsor name now used by Queen Elizabeth II and other British royals only dates back to 1917. Before that the British royal family bore the German name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha in German). Yes they are imported from Germany.

Second, making your offspring officers and keeping them far away from any real fighting is hardly sacrificing their own children, it's a publicity stunt, the royals see as much combat as the American king did when he was in the US Army.-Elvis.

YES!

a reply to: abe froman

If you think they are not making us more than they cost us, your sums are wrong.

They are responsible for the vast majority of genuine tourism in this country. No one comes here for the food, no one comes here for the wine, no one comes here for the views, and no one, not a single solitary bastard comes here for the damned weather. They do come here to sample our history and culture, because it has been so vastly influential over the centuries on matters more than half a world away, and a fundamental part of that influence has been the footprint of the Royal family.

We give that up, and we remove any good reason for anyone to holiday here, and that might sound like a really weak reason to keep the Royal family around, but actually, between the tourist draw that Royalty has, and the fact that Her Majesty and family are active in promoting our nation abroad, and speaking directly with other influential types in order to secure their attention shall we say, and I think you will find that the people are actually up on the deal, and have been for some considerable time.

I would much rather have Elizabeth II than bloody David Cameron and his shiny faced army of accountants.