I have had an enlightenment

[Australian]

I guess my question was mainly rhetorical. I know and agree with what you are all saying, its just that when you see the differences in class when its been smacked in your face for the first time, its just a big shock to the system. So I was just asking myself why there should be royalty when so many people are on the streets......it was just something i was thinking about while reflecting on my travels.

[Little_star]

Personally I do not see the connection between royalty and corruption in the developing world.

There are many countries that do not have a King or Queen which are just as corrupt. For example, many African nations are run by presidents who sihon of their country's welath for their own purposes, hence widespread poverty.

[Chimene]

Personally I do not see the connection between royalty and corruption in the developing world.

There are many countries that do not have a King or Queen which are just as corrupt. For example, many African nations are run by presidents who sihon of their country's welath for their own purposes, hence widespread poverty.

I afraid that's not entirely correct. Frankly, if we are talking about corruption and African nations taking advantage of their people, then let's not forgot that often times who puts the dictators in power, who supports them, who tolerates them. Furthermore, let's NOT forget the ROLE OF COLONIALISM which is DIRECTLY related to royalty and other forms of government.

Australian's question is coming from a very human place, and when people of good conscience (such as herself) see first hand the poverty that exist in the world, it makes them question things. I applaud your efforts and concerns! However, I agree with most of you that even if we no longer had the monarchy, the problem would still exist. It's very difficult to deal with distribution of wealth as greed (yes, CORRUPTION) almost always gets in the way.

[MARG]

I have to be honest. I don't see the relevency of this discussion. Some people feel the calling to go on a mission . . . . . . it's those that stay behind doing the daily grind to put their 10% in the plate to fund that mission.

Without a monarchy we still have politicians who, unfortunately keep getting caught with both their snouts and trotters in the trough. Both cost money but at least Royal Families practice faith of some sort or another, and devote both time and prayer to those less fortunate both at home and abroad.

So, without the glories of capitalism there is no 10% to enable those who can do the mission.

Therefore one can be a practicing person of faith as well as a supporter of the Monachies. They are not mutually exclusive ideals. Now to be a person of faith and go vote . . . . . . . well, that is in the hands of the gods.

[Hereditary Thane]

Sadly once again we have fallen into the partisan trap of this discussion; monarchy is just one form of government. Most monarchies like most republics are not role models for good governance, however there are degrees: constitutional monarchies work because the head of state has no power. This charity thing is a red herring. A good Christian, as does a good Islamicist makes acts of quiet charity; if you have to hob nob with royalty before you will part with your alms then pity you.

It is true royalty can give glamour and glitz to many people in countries where daily life is dull and drab. Most princely families put on a front, this solidarity is to be applauded, it is an example to us all. There is the historical dimension too. Royalty are human, they have failings. Many don't really live up to expectations. Simply royalty can be an extremely good thing, but it is only as good as the members within it.

[RoyalistRiley]

While it is sad that there is such a wide gap between First and Third World nations, I don't see how it relates to monarchies. History has taken its course and we have places with monarchies and some with republics. Some places are industrialised and some are in poverty. Getting rid of the gliz and glamour would not achieve anything in improving living standards - it would just take away what makes monarchy special.

[4Pam]

^^^ Well said... Monarchs are the face of their countries and as that face you are required to dress and behave a certain way otherwise the world might not think so highly of you. It's like a large business and they are @ top representing the company trying to convince why others should do business with them... If you don't advertise/market yourself properly you're not going to get anything. So no, I don't think the royals should give up their lifestyles.