At what point will this fool learn?
1 Like
That’s my main criticism. I dont mean Thomas Becket, Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, Mary Stuart, Charles 1 or the likes. I mean the 100s of 1000s who had no say. That and the political machinations that have established the line. Im mean, which house? York? Tudor? Stuart? Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?. The House of Windsor is only 108 years old and is fundamentally German, bourne out of a marriage two generations earlier between a half German princess and a German prince. Cousins, probably. Every monarch from Victoria to George V married a foriegn relative. And S-C-G wasn’t the first German House. The House of Hanover, The lineage and the continuity are myths.
Except thats not true, is it?
So is society. At a faster pace.
Since world war 2, 20 countries have indeed ditched the monarchy. Mostly by referendum, constitutional amendment or a new constitutional, sometimes with one in conjunction with another.
Interestingly, countries that revert to a monarch often do so off the back of military dictatorship. England, Spain, Thailand and Cambodia for example, although Cambodia’s followed the defeat of the dictatorship.
1 Like
Actually, I think you’ll find that the debate of Monarchy versus Republic has been going on for over 370 years.
The subject was much debated towards the end of The Long Parliament, as by Jan 1st 1660 it was clear that the experiment of Republicanism had failed and that the country was virtually ungovernable and was descending into anarchy. The Long Parliament therefore dissolved itself in mid March of that year to make way for elections that established the ‘Convention’ Parliament which first met on 25th April for the purpose of re-establishing the Monarchy on acceptable terms – no doubt after much debate between the various factions. The subsequent decision was to receive the then King’s (Charles 2nd) return from exile and he was welcomed to London by the Speaker of the Commons.
Moving forward to today, “Opinion research suggests strong overall support among the UK public for the continuation of the monarchy; and abolition is not on the mainstream political agenda.” Not my words but those of The Constitution Society, who further opine that "One might argue that, for the foreseeable future, it is hard to conceive of there being any serious effort to remove the monarchy and that this debate is more theoretical than practical." The Monarchy - The Constitution Society refers.
I think you will have to concede Ally that the debate of Monarchy versus Republic has indeed been going on for centuries, sometimes in a noisier manner that at others, but that clearly the minority Republicans have not as yet managed to sway the majority of the populace to their view.
1 Like
Well as stated previously many countries have given up their royals which probably makes ours more valuable in the goldfish bowl of life, certainly plenty of interest and income brought in seems.
4 Likes
But I managed it by emigrating to a republic, and very pleased I did too. 
1 Like
I accept that it has been discussed in limited terms from time to time by certain groups going back a lot further than 370 years but not in public as a movement. 200 hundred years maybe. Society is changing and the tide is flowing in one direction. Because of past criticism, I’m limited in how iI can artiulate my point.
A myth that has already been debunked.
1 Like
Has it, not seen that, but as with most things bias can be a strong influence as can cash, who did it and when and who paid?
Working at a tourist hot spot I can say the industry as a whole benefits. Ready to hear otherwise of course.
Surely tourists visit the places, not the ‘royals’ in person?
As @David_Spardo mentioned previously, plenty of folk visit Versailles.
4 Likes
It may be debatable that the UK royals gilded cage existence influences tourism but I would think royal warrants and associations may be selling millions of products compared to warrantless ones. Particularly abroad.
There is a marketable cachet for goods that does translate into import revenue and jobs in UK to produce, sell and transport them. I’m not saying these products would not still be desirable without a royal stamp of approval but without the branding image they may be significantly less popular in global competition. And in terms of selling, the global market counts more than domestic.
Really? If they are such a boon, how come I can’t think of a single item I have seen with the royal warrant on it? Not saying they aren’t there, just that I wonder if anyone bothers to look and buy accordingly.
You’d have to be a pretty daft shopper to buy something just because Charlie likes it. 
1 Like
Here’s a list, @David_Spardo .
Scroll down to the champagnes and see if that jogs your memory 
It is a badge of quality that new markets read as prestigious
What about your Fortnum and Masons christmas hamper
Its all part of the visit to England stuff, you can get a pass (paid for) that is for a lot of the tourist spots, royal castles etc. Who prioritises what I cant say but all the businesses benefit highly from being linked in some way.
Have you got a Barbour ?
Mine’s got three Royal Warrants. Mind you two are from deceased Royals and the third’s from one who’s since been promoted.
I’ve no problem with that. What I’m saying is that the average tourist won’t ever clap eyes on a ‘royal’, so their existence isn’t required to sell the attractions, or gift tat.
I view a royal warrant in a similar vein to positive reviews by the Daily Mail: I’m inclined to think less well of the brand and disinclined to buy the product.
1 Like
Isnt that the same with most “influencers” but it doesnt seem to make a difference they still come and spend.
Timely.
1 Like