StarGateWars Forums

i am of the opinion that the British Monarchy should be removed as they serve no purpose whatsoever and are a burden to the tax payer...well i actually think ALLOT worse of them than that, but we wont go into that here.
lets put aside the fact that they draw in tourism, i just want to concentrate on their benefit to the British people, if any.

anyways...


what do you guys think of the British Monarchy?


and though we wont be going into the conspiracy side, i still want to gauge peoples thoughts on this question...

was Diana murdered?



hope i've got the poll right lol

I voted
keep the monarchy, they serve a purpose, no she wasn't killed, it was an accident

A drunk driver trying to evade the paps on motorbikes wrote off the car, anything else is just conspiracy theory. Frankly, Diana's very public affairs were a disgrace.

The Monarchy generate more money through tourism than they cost, and the top monarchs make for far more respectable and trustworthy heads of state than any politician ever could.

The lesser monarchs do mess up a lot, mainly because they live more normal lives where as the top monarchs are more careful.

As for people who say the monarchy should be scrapped, that opens a far bigger question, what about all the property they own ? The various palaces and castles do belong to them through inheritance, as do the many artworks and jewels. Would you have the state buy these things from them ? Let private buyers get their dirty hands on them ? Simply declare the property to be the property of the state and take it ? If your going to take it, what about every other rich person in the county, will you just steal their private property too ? Revolution, redistribution of wealth like a bunch of communists ?

The British Monarchy is the last Monarchy in the world and it serves a purpose yes to unifi England,wales,Northern Island and Scotland.


The British Countries will not kick out the queen or the royal family at all. to some greedy control freeks behind a desk who all they think about is themselves.

As for the murder then no it wasnt a conspirercy as PAPS are crazy anyway.

1 who the hell lets a royal family person walk around in a foriegn country without heavy security?

2 The paps were chasing the car this is normal when being famous.If you watch katie price's programs and that you will see the paps doing the same thing.

3 It was reason to believe the driver was drunk when they were getting chased by the paps and thats what caused them to crash.


If their were no Monarchy the british countries would not know what to do at all.

They will not abandon Monarchy for some polotics crap.Its not going to happen.

O_Altair_O wrote:The British Monarchy is the last Monarchy in the world

Umm.. *facepalm* No.

Juliette wrote:

O_Altair_O wrote:The British Monarchy is the last Monarchy in the world

Umm.. *facepalm* No.

Ok i was guessing about that one but i do know that its the last one in Europe.

O_Altair_O wrote:

Juliette wrote:

O_Altair_O wrote:The British Monarchy is the last Monarchy in the world

Umm.. *facepalm* No.

Ok i was guessing about that one but i do know that its the last one in Europe.

*chuckles* No, silly. There are twelve.
Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the State of the Vatican City.

You beat me to it.

Even though I admit I forgot about Liechtenstein, Vatican, Luxembourg and Norway..

Grand duché of Luxembourg, didn't really know what kind of regime it can be considered as lol.


However, how can one say that UK is the last moarchy in the world or Europe?

I am uncertain about Diana's murder...however I don't think UK is made for anything else than monarchy.

Leg Apophis wrote:

However, how can one say that UK is the last moarchy in the world or Europe?

just like you and Juliet, i also * * <<< did the same lol


the last monarchy?!...

MEZZANINE wrote:The Monarchy generate more money through tourism than they cost, and the top monarchs make for far more respectable and trustworthy heads of state than any politician ever could.

i concede the fact they draw in tourism,to claim otherwise is stupid to say the least. that's not up for debate (for obvious and stated reasons) and as such, is not a valid reason for keeping the monarchy because it is outside the scope of this discussion.

Leg Apophis wrote:You beat me to it.

Even though I admit I forgot about Liechtenstein, Vatican, Luxembourg and Norway..

Grand duché of Luxembourg, didn't really know what kind of regime it can be considered as lol.


However, how can one say that UK is the last moarchy in the world or Europe?

I am uncertain about Diana's murder...however I don't think UK is made for anything else than monarchy.

do you want me to add the option for don't know about Diana's death?

Uganda has the youngest monarch in the world. And YES, Uganda is a republic, but it also has a monarch.
Swaziland (or Lesotho? I always get confused between both) is one of last absolute monarchies in the world. I suspect Bhutan is also another absolute monarchy but I'm not sure.

@Avenger, no, it would reset the poll if you added one option...

cool, sorry i didn't think of it in the first place

i would say its entirely debatable as to weither or not the royal family is responsible for generating tourism, id say it is more the buildings

i dont go to the tower of london or buckingham palance to see the queen etc

i go for the history, the architecture and the crown jewels etc

that's a very good point. personally, none of it interests me, to modern, i'm into ancient architecture/history.

There are many Monarchy's around the world, very few have any power, and those that do have power within their countries lead countries who have no real power internationally. Monarchs of developed countries are heads of state and national representatives who are non-political therefor they are accepted by all.

I would say that the British Monarchy are the most well know in the world, they are probably the only Monarchs who are the heads of state for more than just their own countries, and most countries consider a visit to or by British Monarchs to be very desirable, bringing huge amounts of prestige, good will and public acceptance.

even though it is usless, keep them. why not?