There's no end to what these Royals can do!

[millmoormagic]

You just don't get it!

The Royal family is as much a money making machine for the UK as the Eiffel Tower is for France.

You could leave as is with an unelected Royal family that don't interfere with the politics of the UK or have succession of useless tw@ts who are in it for themselves!

You haven't been given a choice but think about this but who would you replace them with? A President?

Word of warning - Donald Trump!

I think that proves a particular point though froggy, France has no royal family, yet still commands epic tourism re it's history etc, the same would be for the UK without the royals, we don't need em, not at all....


ps, i take your point about Trump though!!!!

[frogmiller]

I think that proves a particular point though froggy, France has no royal family, yet still commands epic tourism re it's history etc, the same would be for the UK without the royals, we don't need em, not at all....


ps, i take your point about Trump though!!!!

Paris is the most visted capital city in the world isn't it? The comparison to the Eiffel towe is the iconic red telephone boxes, The post boxes, the black cabs, the old London red double decker bus but most of all the Union Flag.

[John2]

Paris is the most visted capital city in the world isn't it? The comparison to the Eiffel towe is the iconic red telephone boxes, The post boxes, the black cabs, the old London red double decker bus but most of all the Union Flag.

Erm, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, Buckingham Palace? I don't think red boxes are what people are coming to see.

Apparently last year Bangkok #1, London #2, Paris #3.

Tourism shouldn't be a reason for compromising on democracy though. There isn't good reason to think the lack of a state recognised monarch would affect tourism though. I'd favour an elected monarch with the largely ceremonial role perhaps every 20 years, and right now the Royal family would easily win, nothing would change except the anti democratic aspect of it.

I just think any child should be able to aspire to be head of state in the country they live, and we're of the countries where that isn't possible, but there are ways it can be achieved.

[frogmiller]

Erm, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, Buckingham Palace? I don't think red boxes are what people are coming to see.

Apparently last year Bangkok #1, London #2, Paris #3.

Tourism shouldn't be a reason for compromising on democracy though. There isn't good reason to think the lack of a state recognised monarch would affect tourism though. I'd favour an elected monarch with the largely ceremonial role perhaps every 20 years, and right now the Royal family would easily win, nothing would change except the anti democratic aspect of it.

I just think any child should be able to aspire to be head of state in the country they live, and we're of the countries where that isn't possible, but there are ways it can be achieved.

Firstly John I didn't say that they came to see them. They are iconic things that people throughout the world recognise. I accept the places you have mentioned are a good representation of what people see as British.

What is democratic about the way our government works with the oyal family?

We have a number of MPs voted for by the people. Then there is a second chamber. The Lords who scrutinise every bill that passes through the parlement.

This houses of lords with its Hereditary peers could be the base of anyones argument of un-democratic system in the UK. Some of its out dated appointments should be debated upon.
Having quangoes in there and appoited members who don't turn up often should be got rid of. Having ex polititions is a good thing as they know how the system works. Having heads of industry is another good thing as long as they turn up.

Should they be voted in every four or five years? I think that you have a good argument for that .

But to have two elected houses with two leaders isn't the way forward. The Prime Minister would be in a pointless apointment if there was a President as well.

Dmocracy isn't compremised on tourism John. The democratic system in the UK works fine without any Royal interfering and anyone can become Prime Minister.

[John2]

Firstly John I didn't say that they came to see them. They are iconic things that people throughout the world recognise. I accept the places you have mentioned are a good representation of what people see as British.

What is democratic about the way our government works with the oyal family?

We have a number of MPs voted for by the people. Then there is a second chamber. The Lords who scrutinise every bill that passes through the parlement.

This houses of lords with its Hereditary peers could be the base of anyones argument of un-democratic system in the UK. Some of its out dated appointments should be debated upon.
Having quangoes in there and appoited members who don't turn up often should be got rid of. Having ex polititions is a good thing as they know how the system works. Having heads of industry is another good thing as long as they turn up.

Should they be voted in every four or five years? I think that you have a good argument for that .

But to have two elected houses with two leaders isn't the way forward. The Prime Minister would be in a pointless apointment if there was a President as well.

Dmocracy isn't compremised on tourism John. The democratic system in the UK works fine without any Royal interfering and anyone can become Prime Minister.

I'm not saying our system doesn't work, it does, it's one of the most successful democracies in the world.

I'm just saying we should always strive to make it better and more democratic, we agree it's not perfect.

You're right about the Lords. The changes in 1999 did much to improve the situation, I can stomach appointments made by elected governments much in the way I can accept appointments in the judiciary system. The lack of restrictions and bloat of the lords certainly needs addressing and I would not be opposed to an elected lords, but it would need to be much different to how we elect MPs I think, we want to attract a different type of person.

People say the monarchy doesn't interfere with our government, but we know for a fact that the monarchy enjoys special influence. Prince Charles abuses his influence to lobby the government, peddling his utter ignorant position about things like homeopathy, just look at the black spider letters.

We also have to trust the monarchy to remain benevolent. They technically have huge powers, we're just relying on their common sense not to use them... why not just remove that risk from the system completely, history is full of examples of people who have abused their power. That said, I'd kind of like them to abuse it as it would be a very swift way to end the institution, I just think we can remove those powers in a way that retains the integrity of the institution from a traditional and even tourist perspective. The family and the palaces aren't going anywhere even if they cease to be head of state.

[frogmiller]

I'm not saying our system doesn't work, it does, it's one of the most successful democracies in the world.

I'm just saying we should always strive to make it better and more democratic, we agree it's not perfect.

You're right about the Lords. The changes in 1999 did much to improve the situation, I can stomach appointments made by elected governments much in the way I can accept appointments in the judiciary system. The lack of restrictions and bloat of the lords certainly needs addressing and I would not be opposed to an elected lords, but it would need to be much different to how we elect MPs I think, we want to attract a different type of person.

People say the monarchy doesn't interfere with our government, but we know for a fact that the monarchy enjoys special influence. Prince Charles abuses his influence to lobby the government, peddling his utter ignorant position about things like homeopathy, just look at the black spider letters.

We also have to trust the monarchy to remain benevolent. They technically have huge powers, we're just relying on their common sense not to use them... why not just remove that risk from the system completely, history is full of examples of people who have abused their power. That said, I'd kind of like them to abuse it as it would be a very swift way to end the institution, I just think we can remove those powers in a way that retains the integrity of the institution from a traditional and even tourist perspective. The family and the palaces aren't going anywhere even if they cease to be head of state.

I think that after Charles the connection between the Royals and political system will lessen. I don't think Will ad Harry have the stomach for it.
The Queen has sat through years of deminishing responsibilities and Charles will be the last to benefit from connection.

Good debate.