It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLL - Should the UK monarchy now be abolished ? Y/N - all ATS members please contribute

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I couldn't give two #s either way to be honest, although if pushed for a vote I see no moral or just reason for the head of state of any nation to be decided by accident of birth in the 21st century. The UK is maxed out on it's credit cards, and has been for years now, so whatever the financial costs of running our constitutional monarchy it is unlikely to ever make any difference to my life.
Monarch or president, I'll still keep on making my own opportunities and take full responsibility for what I achieve or fail at. The monarchy to me is a minor distraction at best, but irrelevant to my day to day life.

That said though, I note "HM" (Her majesty) is the official prefix for a few key UK government departments and not others:

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Her Majesty's Land Registry
Her Majesty's Treasury
Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service
Her Majesty's Prison Service
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons

...wealth, property, and punishment, says it all really lol

edit on 26.1.2015 by grainofsand because: typo




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001 the Royals are purely ceremonial? When was the last time a prime minister came to tea at your house?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman


In interviews conducted in Afghanistan, the third in line to the British throne described feeling boredom, frustration and satisfaction during a tour that saw him fire at Taliban fighters on missions in support of ground troops. Source



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Yes. Emphatically and absolutely yes get rid of them



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Yay. I mean Liz is alright, but how long do people want this archaic institution to go on for?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I'm American, so it's not my place to determine, but I personally enjoy them. I like the clothes, and the naughty behaviors. : ) (Yes, I know how shallow that is.)

I cried for days when Diana died.

Some folks even say Americans are so caught up with their little "celebrities" now, because we don't have "Royals". I personally think it would be a loss to the culture.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

YES



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite I do not see what good the Monarchy does. I vote YES!



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
America has got royals

The Clinton and Bush family



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Who was flying combat missions? I can not find any record of any royal in actual combat in the last 65 years.


Not only has Harry done two tours of Afghanistan, Prince Andrew flew helicopters in the Falklands War in 1982. His father (Prince Phillip) served in a combat role in the Royal Navy during the second World War. Is the reason you "can not find any record of any royal in actual combat in the last 65 years" because you simply haven't bothered and were hoping you were right?

As for the OP - why the big push against the Royals? Seems you have been quite vociferous on that topic of late.

My vote - No. They don't cost a penny and are a link to our history (good and bad) - it's what makes "us, us".



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
As an outsider I don't see any benefit in you outing them.

They perform an important diplomatic role that carries weight with countries far more weight than any other diplomats. That alone gives them quite a bit of worth. They have the ability to rally many people behind a cause. Name/status recognition goes a very long way for many issues. IMO it would be foolish to abolish the monarchy. They can't screw up the country they don't have that type of power.

All that being said I don't envy any of them I feel like I have far more freedom than any of them.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

When was the last time anyone would want a Prime Minister to come to tea? I feel sorry for the old bat, having to sit there and listen to the self-serving trough-feeder give her platitudes and BS then have to scold him for being a pompous little bastard and send him on his way back to Downing Street to ignore everything you just told him, only to do it all again the following week...



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
America has got royals

The Clinton and Bush family


Actually, that would have been the Kennedy's.

Sorry for the OT... no more....



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Yeah that family are too scared to throw their collective hats in the political ring as they keep getting killed



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

And why would anyone care about the Palaces, the pageantry (such as Changing the Guard) etc when there are no Royals to give it any meaning?

After all, look at Greece - got rid of their King some years back, but still have soldiers poncing about and they just look daft




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Whereismypassword

By "keep getting killed" you mean once, about 350 odd years ago?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Talking about the kennedys stu!



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: ScepticScot

When was the last time anyone would want a Prime Minister to come to tea? I feel sorry for the old bat, having to sit there and listen to the self-serving trough-feeder give her platitudes and BS then have to scold him for being a pompous little bastard and send him on his way back to Downing Street to ignore everything you just told him, only to do it all again the following week...

A fair point Stu.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

Oh dear, the old "german" line again (and he seems to think he is "revealing" something shocking as well!)

It get's boring correcting people on this, as it does when morons think the Royals get taxpayer money...

So many stupid people, not enough time...

Ahem, anyway, let's do this again....

The last German born Monarch was over 300 years ago, since then, they have all been born and bred British. In this country, as many countries around the world, people immigrate. Considering the Royals "immigration" happened some 300 years ago, they are a good deal more British than a sizable portion of the British population, with some 6 million alone claiming very recent Irish ancestry just to start, before we even go and check on the Asians....

Now, do you still claim they are German? I could really go to town on several points of fact over this, but I think the above will suffice unless you really want to look a wally.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I believe the World Health Organization put out a
stat that said 40 billion dollars could end world hunger permanently.
So is trading in a palace it's holdings and 5 residents to save a billion people worth it ?

It's genocide not to.

Or we can let them prance around a while longer for tourists....
edit on 26-1-2015 by UnderKingsPeak because: puncuation



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join