Yeah i dont get the line to the throne nonsense, hes currently 8th in line anyway

William

George

Charlotte

Louis

Harry

Archive

Lilibet

Andrew

Thats not even taking into consideration any of them having kids beforehand

So failing some humongous disaster Andrews getting nowhere near the crown regardless

They won't scrap the monarchy they are a tourist attraction sadly

Even if he won’t likely get there the fact he’s in line says it all.

Yeah but if we really start digging he might be the first royal arrested since the 1600s but he certainly isn't the first to do some sketchy stuff

1 hour ago, Steve201 said:

It works in nearly every other republic in the world just fine. Ireland attracts a huge amount of tourism and we don’t have a monarchy (thankfully)!

Huge??? It's not even top 10 in Europe for tourism.

Omg one of the royals literally being called ARCHIVE though

Edited Saturday at 22:323 days by Auld Lang Peen!

3 hours ago, Auld Lang Peen! said:

People visit France for art, the weather, and aute cuture. People visit the UK for its history and uniqueness. It would lose tourism, not gain it, and on a massive scale, if it lost the royal family.

Maybe a half measure of a 10 year vote on who should be king or queen, with all royals in the line of succession after a certain age appearing on thr ballot, would qork.

But I just don't see a president being cheaper or bringing any benefit. We'd invariably end up with populists as presidents too, President Farage, President Blojo, etc etc... Imagine...

"They are a tourist attraction" is a very strange way of deciding who should be Head of State. Not that I believe abolishing the monarchy will make a significant difference to the number of tourists who come here.

How would a president be more expensive? Look at the number of Windsors who are paid from the public purse. That wouldn't happen with a president's family. We wouldn't need to pay for multiple homes for them and their hangers-on.

3 hours ago, Auld Lang Peen! said:

Huge??? It's not even top 10 in Europe for tourism.

Omg one of the royals literally being called ARCHIVE though

For the size of the county we do just fine. At any rate it was one metric of looking at things. The principle remains to my mind that an unelected head of state is undemocratic and ridiculous in this age.

There is no sensible argument for keeping the Royal Family. The tourism stuff is bollocks, we’d be better off doing tours of their palaces castles for our tourism rather than letting those scroungers use them.

9 hours ago, Steve201 said:

For the size of the county we do just fine. At any rate it was one metric of looking at things. The principle remains to my mind that an unelected head of state is undemocratic and ridiculous in this age.

So ehat your suggesting is Starker should have even morr merit 😲

Yeah we dont need any politician getting more power they are all lying scumbags as it is 🤣

he says, as an erstwhile member of the Royal Family is arrested for duplicitous actions in his role as a representative of the British state

the Royal Family are politicians as it is, just ones we don't choose; also not all politicians are liars but I don't really care to debate that in a thread about the Royal Family

Im not arguing but every politician lies never seen an 100 percent honest one in my lifetime

16 hours ago, Auld Lang Peen! said:

People visit France for art, the weather, and aute cuture. People visit the UK for its history and uniqueness. It would lose tourism, not gain it, and on a massive scale, if it lost the royal family.

16 hours ago, Suedehead2 said:

One of France's biggest tourist attractions is the Palace of Versailles. The same could apply to the Windsors' various homes.

It's one of the most popular tourist attractions in the world. It's foolish to think tourism would suddenly dip without a current monarchy — history doesn't disappear. Buckingham Palace could print money year-round.

There is no logical or rational argument for them in 2026.

9 hours ago, 777666jason said:

Im not arguing but every politician lies never seen an 100 percent honest one in my lifetime

Do all human beings lie as well?

2 minutes ago, Steve201 said:

Do all human beings lie as well?

Yeah they do its a basic survival skill 😅

17 minutes ago, 777666jason said:

Yeah they do its a basic survival skill 😅

Exactly, so your view that it’s shocking human beings that are politicans shouldn’t lie probably means your expectation levels are too high.

8 minutes ago, Steve201 said:

Exactly, so your view that it’s shocking human beings that are politicans shouldn’t lie probably means your expectation levels are too high.

Or the last 4 plus governments have caused faith to be at an all time low

Faith is always at an all time low in politics throughout various eras apart from maybe the 1943-46 period following the war and hey the public chucked the victorious Prime Minister out during that joyous period (rightly so they remembered what he did the previous 30 years prior to his conduct in the war)!

People need to bring their expectation levels down from what they think can be done by an individual MP. It’s a complex things government which as Churchill said “democracy is the worst form of governance, apart from all the rest”

Edited Sunday at 23:012 days by Steve201

Meanwhile in the Louvre

18 hours ago, Steve201 said:

Faith is always at an all time low in politics throughout various eras apart from maybe the 1943-46 period following the war and hey the public chucked the victorious Prime Minister out during that joyous period (rightly so they remembered what he did the previous 30 years prior to his conduct in the war)!

People need to bring their expectation levels down from what they think can be done by an individual MP. It’s a complex things government which as Churchill said “democracy is the worst form of governance, apart from all the rest”

Quite, like, the depressing reality of 'all politicians are liars' being a common expression is well, what is the result of that expression? It's apathy and negative thinking, a grim acceptance that things can't be better. It also casts all politicians as the same whereas if you actually take the time to do research into what politicians are like, you'll find a wide variety that run the gamut from amoral lying charlatans to forthright and moral public servants looking to improve the world. Across whatever 'political spectrum' you may think of as well. In fact you'll probably find more working hard to put in progress for their government department or constituency than you'll find workshy layabouts, 'MP does honest job' isn't news unsurprisingly. It's why I also hate cliches like 'X party with hundreds of MPs has nobody good', there's likely talent there, you just haven't been exposed to it. Negative thinking that generalises the people who work as politicians depresses your ability to think and reason about politics and I really wish more people snapped out of it.

For similar reasons actually, the working royals are actually for the most part, a good set of public servants fulfilling ceremonial functions up and down the country and occasionally abroad. Princess Anne, Prince Edward, William and Kate, I don't think they should be 'royal', but they are good at performing their role. It's a shame you've then got the ones like Andrew, who quite clearly was unfit for such a career - of course it is completely unsensible that because your family is good at doing something, that you are necessarily good at it, but if we employed logic in the selection of our Head Of State, we wouldn't still have a king.

Just now, Steve201 said:

Faith is always at an all time low in politics throughout various eras apart from maybe the 1943-46 period following the war and hey the public chucked the victorious Prime Minister out during that joyous period (rightly so they remembered what he did the previous 30 years prior to his conduct in the war)!

7 hours ago, dandy* said:

Meanwhile in the Louvre

Whatever photographer for the press took this photo just must have seen it after taking it and went - right on the button 😅