Try the political quiz

0 Reply

 @9FYJM8H disagreed…6mos6MO

Top Disagreement

it's complete bull **** . take a look at France they abolished their monarch years ago and still have the most tourists in all of Britain. If the monarchy is abolished we should return all stolen artifacts (should do this regardless of whether we have a monarchy) Turn Buckingham palace into a museum and other places. London is still a major city it attracts tourists for so many other reasons we have tons of museums, the London eye.

 @9FYL9YXdisagreed…6mos6MO

Through study of foreign cases such as that of the Spanish transition, it is clear that the constitutional monarchy has an extensive democratising effect on the nation it resides in. It provides a clear focus of national unity and values, along with providing a strong appearance on the international stage. As of 2022, 3 of the worlds top 5 most democratic countries on earth, were constitutional monarchies.

 @9GN8BFN disagreed…5mos5MO

the vast majority of people from other countries find the monarchy to be a ridiculous stain left over from Britain's colonial past. They accomplish absolutely nothing and the idea that someone can be exempt from tax and the law due to their family lineage is severely outdated and moronic by today's standards

 @9GNLW5NGreenagreed…5mos5MO

Yes, some people argue that the monarchy brings in tourism, but the Palace of Versailles in France grosses more than Buckingham does, so clearly it's not the monarchy themselves that bring in the tourists.

 @9GNSQH9disagreed…5mos5MO

Most of the world loves our monarchy and travels to the U.K. to see their homes, property’s, possessions. They give the U.K. public something to cherish and look forward to in terms of ceremonies. They provide our British services and commonwealth with something to honour I could go on

 @9GNRC27Ulster Unionist disagreed…5mos5MO

National Unity, Cultural Significance, Economic Prosperity, Tourism Returns and International Relations. Anyway, who would want a President Blair, May, Johnston, Sunak, Corbyn or Starmer?

 @9GNKDP3agreed…5mos5MO

I completely agree as we should tax everyone based on income and I si. Ply don't think the monarchy should exist in any country

 @9F7PMPMfrom Izmir agreed…7mos7MO

Many world leaders have insisted that in order to come and visit the UK, they would need to be guaranteed a full state visit so that they can meet the monarch. This can be confirmed by Boris Johnson who organised these visits as Foreign Secretary as well as members of Trump and Reagan's team. The Prince's Trust founded by King Charles as Prince of Wales and the late DofE Award founded by the late Duke of Edinburgh have helped thousands of children from disadvantaged backgrounds to gain important life skills and helped them to make a living. The Duke of Edinburgh was patron to over 800 organisations at the time of his death and he also founded the WWF.

 @9FZP4H7Labourdisagreed…6mos6MO

They take too much from the tax payer, and have too much power for a random family that only get the right due to their bloodline.

 @9GLCC8Fdisagreed…5mos5MO

They don't do much to help the public and they have lots of money that could be better used for better purposes

 @9FY236RLabourdisagreed…6mos6MO

people don't come to see them they come for the history and buildings. that will still be there if it is abolished. France has the most tourism and doesn't have a monarchy

 @9G63C45disagreed…6mos6MO

They are a classist and anti-democratic institution. The inherent unfairness of there system counters any positives.

 @9GLRJ86Labourdisagreed…5mos5MO

They are a drain on our taxes, our taxes could be used on better things to help our country, not without mentioning Prince Andrew who is disgusting.

 @9G29HTJdisagreed…6mos6MO

France hasn't had a monarchy since the French revolution and yet their royal sites and historic royal families continue to attract international interest. Positive influences from the Windsors are not felt by the majority of Scotland.

 @9GK8GB9disagreed…5mos5MO

They take too much from the tax payer, and have too much power for a random family that only get the right due to their bloodline

 @9GX537Rdisagreed…5mos5MO

They cost the taxpayer far too much money, whilst themselves not liable to pay tax and furthermore no ambitions to give back the wealth they so cruelly amassed through years of colonialism, which certain countries still feel the effects from. Also let's not forget the nonce.

 @9G72TQ5disagreed…6mos6MO

The UK would still receive plenty of tourists without the monarchy. France abolished their monarchy and are still the most popular tourist destination in Europe.

 @9G47VGDdisagreed…6mos6MO

There are plenty of other cultural attributes about our country that, if advertised correctly, can contribute to tourism and international relations. What tourist is leering at The King through his bedroom window? Tourists come to this country to experience the legacy and history of the monarchy, not the monarchy itself. Let's start trying to sell Britain on what we are now, not on a lineage with a legacy of bloodshed.

 @9FWY7L7Liberal Democratdisagreed…6mos6MO

Expensive and irrelevant political pawns. Tax payers money should be spent on NHS and education not outdated pompous ceremonies and protection for privileged gentry.

 @9G5DQ7JRejoin EUdisagreed…6mos6MO

They cost more money than they bring in, they do not have any power so are therefore useless and we should have a democracy

 @9G3M5FJdisagreed…6mos6MO

They're just stupid people with a lot of money who no longer hold much power for the country but do to protect themselves.

 @9FZBCTZSNPdisagreed…6mos6MO

they can still exist and be a influence historically on british culture and the palace be available for visiting however their funding needs cut and they need to pay their own way from now on, they are all extremely wealthy anyway.

 @9H5CCD4from New Jersey disagreed…4mos4MO

The British monarchy had blood on their hands and are a waste of taxpayer money. They continue their colonial reign over the indapentent nations of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland and should be abolished as soon as possible.

 @9GZYRW2disagreed…4mos4MO

they basically represent britian as a rich country but the monarchy have never worked for what they earn and yet they live in luxury while the working class can barely afford rent and heating .

 @9GX86M9disagreed…5mos5MO

The current tax cost to keep a monarchy, that have no real say in the ruling of out country can be best spent on tackling issues or raising funding for public services such as the NHS.

 @9GDVJXLdisagreed…5mos5MO

It’s unfair to put any human beings in a position of authority and influence over the rest of us just because they were born into a particular family. France has positive international relations and an amazing tourism industry with no royal family at all.

 @9GYTBJZdisagreed…4mos4MO

Tourism numbers can be increased by opening the Royal palaces and houses up to the public as museums like France have done. The money saved from them not paying tax and claiming expenses can go to charity and other areas and the international relations could be improved by using beneficial trade deals to and from a wider selection of countries.

 @9FT8H27disagreed…6mos6MO

The U.K. has plenty of tourist regions which would increase after the Monarchy has been abolished. France’s economy is flourishing from unoccupied former royal estates.

 @9FSGZ9Gdisagreed…6mos6MO

The British Monarchy is a thing based on the assumption that one family or bloodline is superior to the rest of the British public. This is an outdated belief that should be abandoned #

 @9FSGWFJdisagreed…6mos6MO

The money they bring in through tourism does not take away from the fact that they take millions in tax payers money each year for nothing

 @9FS23FCdisagreed…6mos6MO

They are a waste of tax payers money that political power. The monarchy costs too much to fund when from the same bank account the government could improve public services.

 @9GK3G3Hdisagreed…5mos5MO

The Tourism would still be coming in as we don't need a Royal Family to attract visitors. Also we are able to stop paying the Royals through taxpayers money and we keep the gains from once crown lands with very little outgoings to a wealthy ceremonial Royal Family.

 @9G8TXNNdisagreed…5mos5MO

The most important thing is the choice of the people, the UK would still have high Tourism without the royal family since people visit for sites around London, (big Ben, London eye, Buckingham palace) Buckingham palace should remain a tourist attraction, but just abolish the monarchy itself

 @9G8RMWWdisagreed…5mos5MO

They have some nerve asking for a 45% pay rise, especially during the current cost of living crises, when they are worth billions

 @9FSN6B4SNPdisagreed…6mos6MO

they have millions if not billions of pounds that they dont use to help anyone they dont actually have any authority in the uk and they take money from the poor and keep it.

 @9FSH37Mdisagreed…6mos6MO

The are a racist and outdated organisation that’s based on one bloodline being superior to the rest of us. Which is ridiculous

 @9FC6ZHNagreed…6mos6MO

The Queen supported over 600 charities which provided valuable support to communties throughout the nation and commonwealth. The monarchy is the link between the commonwealth realms and the close relationship we have with these countries would not be as close without the monarchy. The oppulence and splendour of the monarchy has also charmed many foreign leaders such as Ronald Reagan which would boost international relations.

 @9GL5V37Sinn Féindisagreed…5mos5MO

This is complete hogwash. Tourists come for hundreds of other things, taking a picture outside Buckingham Palace can still be done if we take 90% of their wealth back and remove their constitutional role. There would be less need for charity if the state spent less on looking after billionaires and aristocrats and redistributed wealth. The British Empire has invaded most of the world and the Royals represent the excesses of that greed and exploitation. See movement in Jamaica, Barbados for move towards full republic and seeking reparations.

 @9GS567Vdisagreed…5mos5MO

You don't need the people for that, get rid of them, open the castles up as museums and charge people to walk around them keeps the tourism. If you can explain how people who haven't worked a day can influence the other two I would be shocked. Charles supports pedophiles, Andrew and Savile.

 @9G6SVBHfrom District of Columbia disagreed…6mos6MO

But the monarchy is kinda stupid and pointless at this point and we’re one of the only countries to still have one.

 @9FZJHBMdisagreed…6mos6MO

Frances monarchy has been a positive influence on their tourism for hundreds of years, despite being abolished hundreds of years ago. Their charitable contributions are mainly to keep them relevant, and the cost to UK tax payers to keep them doing these jobs is obscene. We can elect a president and pay them a fraction of the amount, and use the crown estate to help fund a myriad of other things that are fairer.

 @9FV2G5Qdisagreed…6mos6MO

They is little evidence they have a positive impact on tourism and even if they did removing any special legal power they have would not end this.

 @9KZCDD3disagreed…1wk1W

The monarchy is an immoral and imperial institution. There is no reason that being born into the 'right' family means you have the right to be the head of state. We should instead move towards a republic. Tourism and charity work equally aswell, if not better, in republics

 @9KZ3YVMLabour from Maine disagreed…1wk1W

This is simply not true, and even if it were true, is that really relevant when it comes to how we organise the constitution of the state?

 @9KXK9P3disagreed…2wks2W

The notion that the British Monarchy themselves bring in lots of money due to tourism is false. Buckingham Palace and the many other historical sites are the real things which bring in money and its not as if people will stop visiting them if the monarchy is abolished.

 @9KWBT6Ydisagreed…2wks2W

The work they do is no longer relevant. They are so far removed from the public. Why should a birth rate put a person is a position with no experience, education etc. it should be earnt. Keep them but not funded by the state.

 @9KVYF3QConservativedisagreed…2wks2W

Brutal history filled with imperialism and only perpetuates classist tyranny. Money spent on the family should be redirected on public goods for the people due to the invalidity of their claim. Maybe a few centures ago, they were needed to restore order but now only act as a tourist attraction.

 @9KSMQ56disagreed…2wks2W

Elisabeth is dead either way the rest of them is irrelevant. We can still sell stuff with her face on it even if the monarchy is abolished and all the royal tourist attractions can stay aswell I don't care too much.

 @9KHPWNTdisagreed…3wks3W

The incentive for tourism would exist regardless of the existence of an outdated institution that saps the money of the public to protect pedophiles.

 @9KCDMFHGreendisagreed…4wks4W

there is no evidence that the monarchy brings any money into tourism that would not come in if it was abolished, take for example buckingham palace. we could open this for tourists regardless of its occupancy. the windsor family should exist as private citizens they are a leach. as for charity, they can do this as private citizens

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...