Jump to content

UK Politics Thread


deanb
 Share

EU Referndum  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. Should UK leave the EU

    • From UK: Should Stay
      3
    • From UK: Should Leave
      0
    • Outside of UK: Should Stay
      4
    • Outside of UK: Should Leave
      0
    • Outside of UK: None of my beeswax
      1
    • Left Leg In UK, Left Leg Out UK: Do the Okie-Kokie (that's what it's all about)
      1


Recommended Posts

I'm pretty okay with it. Adds a bit of pizazz to the country and daily life. Royal Mail delivering your letters, Royal Warrant on your cereal, Royal Navy out patrolling. Palaces n such around the place. Get the Duke of Edinburgh award as a teen then do some Princes Trust stuff a bit later on. We'd miss them if they were to go. Yes many would argue that "they don't do anything", but that's pretty much the point. Would we want them being a major part of UK politics? They bring in substantial amounts of cash, wave, and let life generally go on while lending the whole monarchy naming scheme to everything. I think we get a pretty good deal out of it all. Especially compared to monarch of the past with the whole Divine Right of Kings malarkey.

 

Also Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith kicks the crap out of most other titles various leaders have (including "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland").

 

Anyway would you really want to lick the back of this?

Cameron_stamp.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to note that the palaces or your country's history will not magically go up in smoke if the monarch goes away, nor does most countries I know of put their current prime minister on their stamps.

 

I can see the economic argument though. If they are a source of cash and don't really get in the way, keeping them might not be the worst option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Buckingham Palace wasn't the Royal Residence what would it become? A hotel? The History wouldn't disappear, but it would lose some of its relevance.

 

As well as bringing in cash, they tend not to embarrass the country much (compared to politicians at least) and best of all they can send the Argentinians into a mouth foaming frenzy just by strutting around the Falklands like a Sovereign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's tons of historical castles about, homes of kings n queens of past n that. But they get nowhere near the attention Buckingham Palace gets. Who goes to Louvre Palace for the history of the French monarchy as opposed to the (really tiny) painting? UK doesn't really have the weather n beaches, nor tacky neon casinos or mythical homes of santa, to draw in international tourists any other way. So a nice slice of living history does just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys added in an extra P? That's not fooling anyone. Either way: Lapland = "home of santa", and also a region crossing a few Scandinavian countries, Sweden included. If Sweden isn't taking advantage of that it's not my issue. You do need something on the tourism front to balance out the fact it's fucking freezing and the whole rotten fish thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Monarchy I don't generally support it because a lot of money is pumped into that archaic system which would be incredibly useful elsewhere.

 

However, I do actually kinda like dem characters. Queen's gotta cool head. Charles is a legend. Love the Harwill bros. Plus Kate is a babe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

someone posted a video a while back which I can't be bothered finding about how hundreds of years ago the monarchy were short of money so agreed to a deal with parliament that the monarchy would have regular payment prom the Government. In return the Government would receive the profits from Royal land. As time passed the deal got better for the Government to the point where they make more from the land than they pay out in the purse. That means they make a profit for the country not including all the tourism and publicity they provide.

 

edit: Dean beat me to it. got a bit distracted by my pad thai.

Edited by TheFlyingGerbil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys added in an extra P? That's not fooling anyone. Either way: Lapland = "home of santa", and also a region crossing a few Scandinavian countries, Sweden included. If Sweden isn't taking advantage of that it's not my issue. You do need something on the tourism front to balance out the fact it's fucking freezing and the whole rotten fish thing.

 

Lapland refers to several areas. Lapland as in a region of Finland is the region said to be the home of Santa. Lapland as in in northern Scandinavia (Technically Fenno-Scandinavia) doesn't even have any clear borders and is usually not referred to in any context, ever. You might be confusing it with Sápmi. Lappland as in the cultural region of Sweden is not thought of as the home of Santa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...