Frogmore Cottage

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Nobody can seriously believe that if Buckingham Palace fully opened up as a museum after the royals were ****** off that people would STOP going.

I said a dip in numbers, not a complete collapse in numbers
The attraction to some is the actual existence of our royal family.

How difficult is it for some of you to comprehend this...

[Rileybobs]

I think the point is that tourism is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have a monarchy.

[daveisaclaret]

Class move to post something breathtakingly stupid and then think nobody is understanding it

[Corky]

Elaborate on that if you would/can

More than happy to.

Your opening premise is a strange one. You suggest that tourists actually come to this country to see the royal family. Really? As you have alluded to, they do, in my view come to look and take in our history and our wonderful countryside. If they were hoping to catch a glimpse of the King I would suggest they would be mightily disappointed. Most tourists visit London and we could still have changing of the guard and trooping the colour etc whether a king was head of state or not. And as you reference France you may like to know that they generate more in tourism than the UK so perhaps we need to become a republic. Finally I must congratulate the jug-eared prat Charles for his magnificent start to modernising the royal family I gather that we no longer have ladies in waiting they are now to be referred to as ladies of the household. Fantastic!!!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Claiming that people don't come here because of the royal family is patently false.

We would have a dip in numbers if we decided to do away with them.
On the whole they're no issue, apart from a couple of idiots in the current lot.

France's tourism numbers aren't comparable in this discussion, entirely diff country.

So as yet none of you have really managed to justify doing away with the Royal family.

Not a shock really.

[Bosscat]

IMG-20230304-WA0004.jpg (100.62 KiB) Viewed 837 times

[Rileybobs]

So as yet none of you have really managed to justify doing away with the Royal family.

Not a shock really.

How about it’s 2023 and the idea of being ruled over by a king is simply archaic.

[1882Clarets1882]

Having a monarchy means there the country will avoid having a president Tony Blair or president BoJo. That's a good enough reason for me.

[Corky]

Having a monarchy means there the country will avoid having a president Tony Blair or president BoJo. That's a good enough reason for me.

But don’t you realise that as the king is a constitutional monarch with no power that in the two PMs you mentioned were effective Presidents in all but name.

[1882Clarets1882]

But don’t you realise that as the king is a constitutional monarch with no power that in the two PMs you mentioned were effective Presidents in all but name.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Claret Toni]

Having a monarchy means there the country will avoid having a president Tony Blair or president BoJo. That's a good enough reason for me.

A tragic early accident in the life of King Charles could have seen us with a King Andrew though, and no matter what we may think of Blair and BoJo, entitled fatboy as King doesn't bear thinking about - the swamp would be endless.

[wbfc]

More than happy to.

Your opening premise is a strange one. You suggest that tourists actually come to this country to see the royal family. Really? As you have alluded to, they do, in my view come to look and take in our history and our wonderful countryside. If they were hoping to catch a glimpse of the King I would suggest they would be mightily disappointed. Most tourists visit London and we could still have changing of the guard and trooping the colour etc whether a king was head of state or not. And as you reference France you may like to know that they generate more in tourism than the UK so perhaps we need to become a republic. Finally I must congratulate the jug-eared prat Charles for his magnificent start to modernising the royal family I gather that we no longer have ladies in waiting they are now to be referred to as ladies of the household. Fantastic!!!

There is no point to a royal family....they have been exposed as entitled and devoid of any reality ...now the Queen has gone who was a fantastic women has gone ...let's get something better ...

[Bin Ont Turf]

I don't think he'll lose any sweat over it.

[Bin Ont Turf]

I like having a monarchy, but it's so much better with a Queen.

[dougcollins]

I like having a monarchy, but it's so much better with a Queen.

Kingist.

[Bin Ont Turf]

Kingist.

That's fair.

You could also add sexist to that, as I prefer females to males.

[Corky]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

That is not up for debate it is a fact.

[1882Clarets1882]

That is not up for debate it is a fact.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[dsr]

There is no point to a royal family....they have been exposed as entitled and devoid of any reality ...now the Queen has gone who was a fantastic women has gone ...let's get something better ...

200+ countries in the world. Is there a single one which, historically over the past couple of hundred years or so, has had a better system than ours?

There is a huge advantage in putting power into the hands of someone who can't use it. America has its equivalent with the Constitution. Scandinavia and the low countries are monarchies too. But large chinks of Europe do not have constitutional monarchies and also don't have a very good record of political stability and human rights.

Would our recent political history be any better if the PM had had presidential powers? Would the long term future be safer? You sound like Keir Starmer - "I don't know what I like, but I'm going to pass a law to make it happen". (Ref. House of Lords. Not a word for word quote.) At least make a sensible suggestion for what might be better before scrapping the system that works well.

[Darnhill Claret]

Talking about under 16 Timshorts, that is at the least mischievous and if a reference to Andrew completely wrong. 17 isn't under 16, neither is 18.