[Closed] Royal Succession changes (RANT)

I'd rather have the Queen as our head of state than Tony Blair.

As I've got older I've begun to quite like the fact that we don't have a politician in the job.

I'd rather have my mum as head of state than Tony Blair but I dont see how the fact that many many people would be better than Tony Blair is relevant to anything.

I've begun to quite like the fact that we don't have a politician in the job

WHAT ****IN JOB?

I've got no problems with the queen keeping in the role.

But her son? A wannabe tampon as head of state? **** me

😆 at this thread

While it doesn't make my piss or any other bodily fluids boil, I find it amusing that 'fairness' is being wheeled out as part of the reasoning as to which inbred will be our next head of state.

[i]WHAT **** JOB? [/i]

If we had a politician as head of state they'd invent things to do. Things that would either just **** things up further or cost lots of money and then **** things up further.

As it is we have a nice old dear we can roll out when other heads of state visit and she does no more than shake hands, look regal and sign bits of paper put in front of her by parliament.

The problem is not with having politicians.

It's having politicians whose first loyalty is to their corporate sponsors and not their constituents.

WIth an upper house a non-elected body, and us being subjects not citizens, maybe we need a local version of the "Arab Dawn".

Does this mean Wills doesn't want the job?? 😯

rule of law in action. interesting stuff.

If we had a [s]politician[/s] inbred as head of state they'd invent things to do. Things that would either just * things up further or cost lots of money and then * things up further.

Fixed....

Thats exactly what they do do isn't it? 😕

There are no girls even close in the line to succession..
Unless Kate is up the duff and they already know its a girl!

I like the Royals.. they give the UK a sense of comedic value that as a nation we are generally missing.

Thats exactly what they do do isn't it?

I personally like the Royals, they make the UK a mountain of cash, which means I pay less tax.

Given that the American president spends close to a billion dollars just to get the job I can't see that anythign we spend on royalty in this country each year is a 'bad thing' in itself.

I don;t really care if we have a titular head of state or an elected one but I can;'t see the latter saving the country money or making things 'fairer' for the population as a whole?

Life isn't fair. Boo hoo. I don't know why people waste so much energy getting bent out of shape about the Royals.

Plus i love all the associated history and heritage. Much more interesting for us as a country than yet more politicians.

At the risk of calming down from my rant, why do we need a head of state? I mean she does **** all thats worthwhile so why bother?

I personally like the Royals, they make the UK a mountain of cash, which means I pay less tax.

can you prove that?

Life isn't fair. Boo hoo. I don't know why people waste so much energy getting bent out of shape about the Royals.

Oh excuse me but its that tit Cameron spending his time on this shit that boils my piss almost as much, arent there a few important things he could be dealing with going on at the moment?

Getting rid of the Royals wouldn't get rid of the history you know.

Getting rid of the Royals wouldn't get rid of the history you know.

indeed, France seems to have lots of history and old buildings for tourists to visit

I personally like the Royals, they make the UK a mountain of cash, which means I pay less tax.

But do they really? I'm not so sure. Tourists come over to look at where British royalty lived and the history and pageantry of it not to meet the actual royals themselves. And it only actually makes money if they would actively choose not to come to the uk at all if we did not have a sitting royal family. And even then what money they do spend mostly goes into the coffers of the large hotel chain conglomerates who I'd imagine manage their accounts offshore somewhere and pay sod all tax.

But that's missing the point - some things are more important than money and personally I'd like to be a citizen not a subject - it leaves a bad taste in the mouth in this age of supposed equality.

But what do I know, the whole country seemingly got suckered in to the wedding in the summer - bunch of mugs.

The world's going to Sheol in a handcart, and all you can find to rant about is a change to the royal line of succession? How about corporate bosses pay up by 45%, while everyone else has an effective pay cut. Get a sense of perspective.

The world's going to Sheol in a handcart, and all you can find to rant about is a change to the royal line of succession? How about corporate bosses pay up by 45%, while everyone else has an effective pay cut. Get a sense of perspective.

They can get it too come the revolution!

How about corporate bosses pay up by 45%, while everyone else has an effective pay cut. Get a sense of perspective.

FFS thats the point, what the **** are the government up to pissing about withtrying to make something thats wrong less wrong when all sorts of other shit that affects people is going on....

Because you have to start somewhere ...... and its an easy win

Because you have to start somewhere ...... and its an easy win

surely its just more promotion of Royalty and moves us further away from ever getting rid of the wasters

For an indication of how much impact having a current Royal family has on tourism look at the worldwide coverage of the Royal wedding this spring and the amount of visitors, in particular yanks, to that occasion. That is directly due to the existence of the current Royals, not the "buildings and pageantry" of a bygone royal family.

Like it or not the Royal family is still a big noise internationally.

Prince Charles is currently on a diploamtic visit in Saudi Arabia, at short notice, due to the death of their crown prince. It is this sort of international diplomacy that they do. And it means that it is them, not the actual leader of the country who apparently has better things to be doing, that is doing it.

I'm no Royalist, but I can see the positives in what they do. There is a lot of blinkered ill-informed vitriol above.

<Adds in two peneth>
Without reading all of the above posts, I can safely say that I am generallyin favour of a monarchy, despite their shortcomings.
Cameron, Blair or any other head of state were brought up with choices. You would expect that, as a minimum, each sibling is educated to the knowledge that this is to be their role in life from a very young age? Firstly, that is a lot of responsibility and secondly, they should be better prepared for it than afore mentioned elected ministers?

Additionally, I like the fact that the queen has certain veto powers over the government. Keeps the plebs in check see.

Edit, not s royalist, just a cyclist. Woz out on bike while the wedding was on.

As for Royals making the UK a ton of cash, lets break it down into easy to understand chunks; we *KNOW* a lot of people come to the UK and spend *ALOT* of money to visit the royals, as the Royal family a hell of a tourist pull to people in the US/China/Japan as well as commonwealth countries.

By removing them, people *MIGHT* still come here and spend their cash to see the remnants; however that's a hell of a *might*

So, what you are proposing is changing; our current cash cow system, with a gamble to save a minor amount of money compared to the return. Great business sense, are you George Osborne is disguise?

And that's without working out what we do with the Royal estates and properties ......

and finally the majority of UK citzens want to keep the Royal family (during the last YouGov opinion poll only 13% of people, indicated that they would like the Monarchy abolished) so why should we follow the opinion of the minority?

As for Royals as making the UK a ton of cash, lets break it down into easy to understand chunks; we *KNOW* a lot of people come to the UK and spend *ALOT* of money to visit the royals, as the Royal family a hell of a tourist pull to people in the US/China/Japan as well as commonwealth countries.

absolute tosh. There is NO evidence to support that whatsoever.

Firstly, The royals would not soil themselves with being seen by tourists. Except by complete chance few if any tourist have ever seen any member of the Royals. FACT

Secondly, Our near european neighbours list Tourism as one of the major planks of their economy, last time I checked I think it produced directly and indirectly something like 45% of GDP. They executed their royals in the 1700's. What people actually go for are much more mundane things than visiting the royals, which off course none of them can actually do. ALSO A FACT!

Hands off H R H. She's alright by me and I own a Crass album.
Even if you don't like them just think of them as a tourist attraction.

Our near european neighbours list Tourism as one of the major planks of their economy, last time I checked I think it produced directly and indirectly something like 45% of GDP. They executed their royals in the 1700's.

Yes. Generally our European neighbours have a better climate and are joined, by land roads, to other European neighbours.
I suggest you join a Japanese photography forum and inform oneself.
It is the remainder of our country that is more shit than theirs why our %ages are down.

I'd rather have the Queen as our head of state than Tony Blair.

Now that makes the assumption that given the choice the British Electorate wouldn't do something bloody-minded for a bit of a laugh. Boris Johnson is mare of London FFS!!!

If it was put to the vote, I reckon we'd end up with someone like Gazza. Imagine what a laugh thAt would be when visiting foreign dignitaries pitched up. Who's up for getting a campaign going? 🙂

[img] [/img]

Prince Charles is currently on a diploamtic visit in Saudi Arabia, at short notice, due to the death of their crown prince.

Nothing to do with the old boy network, prince to prince obviously.... just doing it as his own expense to save us poor old taxpayers the burden yeah right!

People still go to France and take pictures of the palaces dont they?
Anyway I'm an idealist, if something is wrong its wrong and I dont care about the money and Royalty is very wrong.

Yes. Generally our European neighbours have a better climate and are joined, by land roads, to other European neighbours.

Which is what I said, people go for reasons other than royalty.

Regarding how many photos are taken by Japanese tourists, presumably all of those are of members of the royal family ?? Get a life, have you ever been near any Japanese, Chinese, or Korean tourists?? For reasons that escape me they fire off more cameras per second than you can imagine. Subject matter rarely relevant. Evidenced by the fact that when I am in those places which I often am I am routinely photographed either on my own of with their kids. Does that make me worthy of a huge segment of the public purse???? I'd hope not

Erm, yes? We seem to agree on certain points but not on others. From an outsiders point of view (read foreigner), what attracts them to the UK to spend their money?

If, as per your statement above, the royal family ceased to exist. Would more or less people want to visit?

Now, I wouldn't spend my hard earned on a weekend in that London to see the royals. My money is better spent in a pub near a good trail, as I expect yours is too. But, I'm not one to discount Jonny's opinion, infact, I understand it is a vitals part of our economy.

Ps, my life is pretty good thank you. 8.5/10.

The queen was an army car mechanic in the second world war.
Not many politicians have that sort of real-world base in life; despite her wealth etc, she still seems to be a lot wiser than most elected heads of state to my mind.

Prince Charles has someone apply paste to his toothbrush and I think quite ****ing right, tax payers money should be spent on such important things as this otherwise all those looney lefties will blow it on health care and education for the dirty general public, even northerners in some cases.

The queen was an [s]army car mechanic[/s] photo opportunity in the second world war

Not bad keeping the same job for 60 odd years.... not many miners could claim that, mark you different reasons though.

Prince Charles has someone apply paste to his toothbrush and I think quite ****ing right

Well if we are moaning about what people choose to spend their own money on, then I've heard that some mental people spend thousands on bikes! when a £99 one would do the job.

Anyway I'm an idealist, if something is wrong its wrong and I dont care about the money and Royalty is very wrong.

Well who died, and made you arbiter of what's right or wrong?

Sounds like you want to remove a democracy (remember that the Royal Family is wanted by the majority of the populace) with a authorisation dictatorship. Seems a funny attitude for a self confessed (albeit deluded) idealist

D'you think we'll ever get a black, gay atheist for a Queen?

PS: Boris Johnson is a horse?

D'you think we'll ever get a black, gay atheist for a Queen?

Well who knows what'll drop out given the shennaigans the royal prodgeny get up to?

Well who died, and made you arbiter of what's right or wrong?

Richc - the op is expressing his opinion about how he would like the country he lives in to be structured on a mtb forum. This is not a precursor for national change - just a bored bloke mouthing off to a bunch of other bored nobodies. Why do you find it so objectionable for someone with (what you claim to be) a minority opinion expressing it? Is it because it is not the same as your own?

Why do you find it so objectionable for someone with (what you claim to be) a minority opinion expressing it?

Self Evident: He's a royalist

I dunno why people start threads like this.

Yes, we know some people don't care about Royalty. We also know some people do.

If you don't care, don't post about it. End of.