The Queen no longer just getting by....

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Minnie

I don't think it's highly likely at this point, that the monarchy will be abolished, so it's a moot point. Pissing into the wind, as it were.

Sadly I reckon you are correct. Hopefully, though, Canada can become a republic.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Outrage!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Perceived.......right

Actually yes, completely perceived as there are plenty of people who see nothing wrong with maintaining the monarchy. Hell, there are plenty of people who are just as ridiculous as you on the opposite side.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually yes, completely perceived as there are plenty of people who see nothing wrong with maintaining the monarchy. Hell, there are plenty of people who are just as ridiculous as you on the opposite side.

How much does the monarchy cost?

Do you support keeping the monarchy?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

How much does the monarchy cost?

Do you support keeping the monarchy?

1. I have no idea. There are numerous ways you could calculate the positive and negative flows from the monarchy.

2. I don't care one bit. The presence, or lack thereof, of the monarchy impacts my life in absolutely no way. Whether it's a good idea or not to get rid of the monarchy depends on a variety of factors, not the least of which are the views of the British citizenry and the economic impacts of any change.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

1.I have no idea. There are numerous ways you could calculate the positive and negative flows from the monarchy.

2. I don't care one bit. The presence, or lack thereof, of the monarchy impacts my life in absolutely no way. Whether it's a good idea or not to get rid of the monarchy depends on a variety of factors, not the least of which are the views of the British citizenry and the economic impacts of any change.

1. So you have no idea the cost, but believe that is more than pays for it's self in tourism, informed.
2. Actually, it's them and 15 other countries, but hey whatever.

the monarchy impacts my life in absolutely no way.

Then why so worked up buttercup?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Are there facts for these two countries? I have spent alot of time in both Aus and NZ, and it appears their street-level support for the monarchy is definitely higher than Canada's. Even a quick search of poll results for monarchy support is still in the majority for Australia (although I think Will and Kate have something to do with it).

Seems like they have more of a connection with the British motherland than we do. Hell, even English people have special visa privileges in Aus and NZ that they definitely don't enjoy here.

plus they still both have the Union Jack on their flags. you'd think if there was such a strong anti-monarchy sentiment those would be the first things changed. i'm quite glad Canada decided to get it's own identity in the 60's

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

plus they still bot have the Union Jack on their flags. you'd think if there was such a strong anti-monarchy sentiment those would be the first things changed. i'm quite glad Canada decided to get it's own identity in the 60's

The numbers in Aussie bounce around, but but I think the poll last summer put the numbers around:

55ish for keeping the monarchy
35ish for being a republic

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Then why so worked up buttercup?

I don't think it's him that's worked up here.

And um, you started the thread - you basically invited responses to it. It's sort of how it works, buttercup.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The numbers in Aussie bounce around, but but I think the poll last summer put the numbers around:

55ish for keeping the monarchy
35ish for being a republic

higher favor-ability than Canada:

In May 2012, a poll by Canadian Press Harris-Decima found that 51% of Canadians support the country remaining a monarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...rchy_in_Canada

there was also a poll in 2010 that showed 69% of the country would like to see a Canadian serving as head of state

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I agree there is an argument there that the Royal Family pays for itself in reciprocal benefits. Its at least a reasonable conversation and not completely one-sided.

Given the popularity of William and Kate these days among the British public, there's no chance royalty is going to be abolished in that country anytime soon. Or in Canada. Maybe Australia or New Zealand.

Cowperson

I think they'll stay in for quite a while too. In some ways, Australia is more British than Canada.

What a lot of people don't realize is there are still a lot of other monarchies than just the British Monarchy. Norway has a king, for instance.

Here's a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...reign_monarchs

Not that I am on the side of defending monarchies, especially as the story is being presented in England right now. Just saying they're not as unusual as people might think.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Minnie

I don't think it's him that's worked up here.

And um, you started the thread - you basically invited responses to it. It's sort of how it works, buttercup.

Oh I am fine with response, and thanks for your.

But to come in, say the monarchy is worth the cost due to tourism, and not know much it costs is well "ridiculous".

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Oh I am fine with response, and thanks for your.

But to come in, say the monarchy is worth the cost due to tourism, and not know much it costs is well "ridiculous".

Could we have that in the Queen's English, please?


I'm kidding.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Could we have that in the Queen's English, please?


I'm kidding.

Nope I speak Canadian........

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

1. So you have no idea the cost, but believe that is more than pays for it's self in tourism, informed.
2. Actually, it's them and 15 other countries, but hey whatever.

Then why so worked up buttercup?

I have no idea of the cost, as stated, nor do I know the exact tourism revenues derived from the Monarchy. I know they are quite substantial, whether they outweigh the cost is something that people who study these things can look at. I've already stated twice that if there would be a net gain from removing the monarchy it would make sense to do so, at least economically.

And no, it's not 15 other countries. You're the OP so I would expect you would know what you posted, but I guess my expectations for you are too high. The article discusses payments by the British government to support the monarchy. If you wanted to discuss whether the monarchy should be abolished in Canada or Australia perhaps you should have posted something on that topic, as it involves a number of different issues.

And I'm not worked up at all, just once again finding you to have a massive inability to actually make a point or intelligently discuss a topic.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

I have no idea of the cost, as stated, nor do I know the exact tourism revenues derived from the Monarchy. I know they are quite substantial

Gold.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Oh I am fine with response, and thanks for your.

But to come in, say the monarchy is worth the cost due to tourism, and not know much it costs is well "ridiculous".

You want to go ahead and show me where I said that?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Gold.

Yet another brilliant response from you. Do you want to counter the point or is that above your head?

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well if the Queen had any actual power as head of state that would be a legitimate point, as it is she does not and is hardly to blame for the system of government.

Whether people would still see those sights without an active Royal Family is certainly debatable, but that's not the point I made. The point I made is that the Monarchy brings in a massive amount of tourism dollars. That is a fact. I'm not certain what impact the lack of an active Monarchy would have, but I can't imagine it would be a positive one in terms of tourism dollars. You'd have to balance any loss with decreases in spending to justify it, and that's just a small factor to be considered.

Well it is a legitimate point. Charles is well known for lobbying and interfering in the decisions of many Government Departments over his pet interests.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...to-legislation

And when he hasn't got his way, he has abused his 'power' to influence the decisions of foreign investors - recently delaying and scuppering a project that would have included much needed social housing in London.

And when FoI requests are made so that the extent of his attempts to influence policy and impact on decisions, they are rejected on the spurious grounds that they impinge on 'his preparations for kingship'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19959233

As for seeing the Royals, I walk past Charles' house every day on the way to work in Victoria from Green Park (the building works at Victoria station are a nightmare) and I reckon I've seen him once in five years - mind you, I don't go out of my way to look for him.

I'm not saying no one comes to the UK based upon the Royals or their periodic ceremonies - of course they do, but that does not negate the need for change or at least the consideration of it.

Quite frankly though, I lose far more sleep worrying about the Flames and whether Feaster is going to make something good of the next draft.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yet another brilliant response from you. Do you want to counter the point or is that above your head?

that's all your post was worth son.