b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » I don't understand the attraction » Post 545596 | Search
This is a question I don't understand the attraction

Smaug says: Ricky Gervais. Lesbian pr0n. Going into a crowded bar, purely because it's crowded. All these things seem to be popular with everybody else, but I just can't work out why. What leaves you cold just as much as it turns everyone else on?

(, Thu 15 Oct 2009, 14:54)
Pages: Latest, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

I don't think anybody's ''jealous of their wealth''
And that's maybe a very childish way of ending a pretty sound argument.
But i agree with the OP.
It's archaic,unnessesary and a waste of money. The last reminants of a better past.People argue it generates tourist dollars but i'm sure tourists would come anyways, i mean they don't just come in the hope of catching a glimpse of the Queen; Buck palace would still be there along with all the other landmarks etc.
Lastly - Head of a christian church? Whats that all about? All people created equal and all of that....
Also - because they're occasionally on the cover of ''hello'', as you pointed out, that does not count as an argument to keep the monarchy.

I'm Irish though so i'm biased.
(, Tue 20 Oct 2009, 15:04, 2 replies)
^ this

(, Tue 20 Oct 2009, 15:15, closed)
True enough
The "Hello" comment is just an anecdote to demonstrate that people outside of Britain have an genuine, popular interest in the affairs of our monarchy.

I agree it is archaic - but I believe that is its value, since its longevity suggests stability. I reckon (purely from hearing the opinion of others from far away places) that this is one of the few remaining attractions that our under-educated, overweight and over-aspirational country still has. As for being a waste of money, I really can't agree -- the money is peanuts, really. £35m a year isn't a lot of money for a nation (about £20m less than Simon Cowell's annual income). If redistributed it would be sponged up in a second as noise money.

And it's not about tourist revenue. That may be dented, but as you say, people would still come. It's about persuading other nations of the value and status of our country for commerce, diplomacy, investment, education, banking.

It's difficult to measure, unfortunately. But I just wonder what would be better if we had no monarchy?
(, Tue 20 Oct 2009, 15:27, closed)
I don't think
that 'commerce, investment, education, banking' is affected one tiny bit by the Monarchy. Maybe diplomacy alright. You're probably right in that not much would be really 'better' without them and they are, in effect, harmless BUT in keeping with the QOTW it pisses me right off and sometimes makes me genuinely furious if i think about it for too long.They're bastards in my eyes. And their manic, ultra-royalist followers are bigger bastards with their Diana plates and Queen Liz tea-towels.
(, Tue 20 Oct 2009, 16:06, closed)
You're wrong about commerce and tourism especially and the money it brings in
Which is fuckloads, primarily from commonwealth partners who would otherwise buy their machinery/chemicals/weaponry from the US or China. The Royals give them a link (and often possibly legitimacy).

To be honest I feel more sorry for them than anything. Born to HAVE to do anything is a fairly limiting existence and one that takes some guts.

Really, would you live a life pre-ordained for a few million quid (that isn't even yours)?

For me I would ban it, not because of the silver spoon aspect but because it's the human equivalent of a zoo.
(, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 9:35, closed)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, ... 1