Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK

[RichA]

woooo, amazing. One eh. And where was the BBC's usual "balance" for the last fortnight, we got one side on TV constantly. As I said, you're so far down the propoganda road you can't even see it, ebcause it aligns with your views.

The coverage was a bit much, but it was a hugely historic event.
The time and place for the opposing views is probably in the run up to the coronation of the new monarch, rather than the funeral of the one that's just died.

 

[chrisd]

woooo, amazing. One eh. And where was the BBC's usual "balance" for the last fortnight, we got one side on TV constantly. As I said, you're so far down the propoganda road you can't even see it, ebcause it aligns with your views.

How do you know that wasn't " the balance", one anti monarchist to dozens of monarchists interviewed seems about the right numbers to me.

Also I haven't dipped a toe on the " propoganda road" - I dont see "it" because I believe a monarchy is infinitely better than the alternative, that's my view and has always been. Possibly you're so anti, you cant see the wood for the trees

 

[SocketRocket]

As I said, you're so far down the propoganda road you can't even see it, ebcause it aligns with your views.

That's so ironic it's hilarious ?

 

[2blue]

Banchory Buddha said:
As I said, you're so far down the propaganda road you can't even see it, because it aligns with your views.

That's so ironic it's hilarious ?

As BB is absolutely correct....... that's even funnier

 

[SocketRocket]

Banchory Buddha said:
As I said, you're so far down the propaganda road you can't even see it, because it aligns with your views.



As BB is absolutely correct....... that's even funnier

Ooof!

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Here’s a radical idea

If nobody replies, then the antis will have nuffin to talk about , we have 2 sets of entrenched views that are never ever going to change, so why bother ?

 

[Slime]

Here’s a radical idea

If nobody replies, then the antis will have nuffin to talk about , we have 2 sets of entrenched views that are never ever going to change, so why bother ?

Give the antis time, they'll realise they're wrong ......................... but probably won't admit it!

 

[chrisd]

Here’s a radical idea

If nobody replies, then the antis will have nuffin to talk about , we have 2 sets of entrenched views that are never ever going to change, so why bother ?

Or maybe have a poll, and when we royalists pulverise the naysayers they all get blackballed?

 

[BiMGuy]

That's so ironic it's hilarious ?

You know BB is the sort of chap that believes he is immune to marketing and advertising.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

…strikes me that the answer to the op question is

‘it depends upon what you want the Monarchy to do, and whether you consider that the Monarchy = the RF’

I consider the Monarchy and the RF as separate, and having said that I could feel uncomfortable that the RF are becoming considered as a commodity - indeed verging upon being a bit of a British ‘show pony’.

 

[theoneandonly]

Or maybe have a poll, and when we royalists pulverise the naysayers they all get blackballed?

Or maybe just be more accepting of other views and drop the labels.

 

[chrisd]

Or maybe just be more accepting of other views and drop the labels.

Brilliant idea, maybe you should try it ?

 

[theoneandonly]

Brilliant idea, maybe you should try it ?

No issue with me, Its the aggressive and rude posting that's disgusting and in the name of the king/queen too. Embarrassing

 

[Voyager EMH]

Here’s a radical idea

If nobody replies, then the antis will have nuffin to talk about , we have 2 sets of entrenched views that are never ever going to change, so why bother ?

This is where I must beg to differ.
I am not pro-monarchy or pro-royal family. But neither am I "anti". I consider myself to be a realist and a fact-finder.
I addressed my comments to the question of whether the monarchy is too costly for the nation.
I am willing to be persuaded that an alternative to the monarchy would be better.
But I've listened to 50 years of grumblings and nothing has yet persuaded me.
I do not believe my views are "entrenched".
This has been an interesting debate.
But I would find a debate on the wealth of the nation, where it is and what is done with it, much more interesting.

 

[theoneandonly]

I see a few articles in the media suggesting KCIII is looking to slim down the monarchy with just a small group of "working" royals. I don't suppose that means much in real life, like removing titles etc.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I see a few articles in the media suggesting KCIII is looking to slim down the monarchy with just a small group of "working" royals. I don't suppose that means much in real life, like removing titles etc.

The key words there are, "media suggesting" and "small group".

The "slimming down" will occur naturally as Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Royal are knocking-on a bit and will probably be seen to be doing less and less of the "working royal" role as the next ten years go by. Some time after that, the three children of William and Kate may be seen to be taking on royal duties and functions. This will be the opposite of "slimming down". This has been the way of things for a very long time and I do not foresee any of it changing in any dramatic way as a result of enforced changes.

 

[theoneandonly]

They're my words so not key at all, better off to get out there and read for yourself.

 

[Voyager EMH]

They're my words so not key at all, better off to get out there and read for yourself.

I do a great deal of reading thank you.

 

[drdel]

…strikes me that the answer to the op question is

‘it depends upon what you want the Monarchy to do, and whether you consider that the Monarchy = the RF’

I consider the Monarchy and the RF as separate, and having said that I could feel uncomfortable that the RF are becoming considered as a commodity - indeed verging upon being a bit of a British ‘show pony’.

I agree. It's a pity that some responders seem unable to separate the two. Criticism of the economic issue of affordability is NOT a criticism of the Royals as people.

Centuries ago the Government adopted the Kingdom's cost because the King was getting into debt.

In posing the question I was not knocking the individuals. We ought to be able to have a grown up debate.

 

[IanM]

Crikey, you mean people can have a grown up debate on an internet forum??