I have had an enlightenment

[Australian]

Hi All

I have just got back from visiting many third world countries and it really opened my eyes. Why should countries be funding royal families when there are people living in poverty? I have been an avid royal watcher for some time now and all of a sudden I have had an enlightenment. Why should there be such things as royal houses these days? What makes royals better than commoners? Why should people fund crazy royal lifestyles? I know this is the way of the world. There will always be rich and poor people.

I just am questioning my royal interest now.

[Madame Royale]

They make up part of a nations cultural fabric. A connection with the past and a focus for the future. Figureheads that are, for the most part, trusted and thought of with much affection.

When talking of the money granted for maintaining the institution of monarchy, then it's all relative to the form of government. When you have some republican governments soaking up its countries wealth while it's inhabitants live in horrid poverty, then shouldn't the very same question be asked? That is a global question of ethics.

And you are right. People will always be wealthy, and people will always be less fortunate. But supporting a royal lifestyle is no different to suporting some presidential lifestyles.

At least royals give back with their patronage and maintain a hands on approach. Interacting with the masses every other day.

[Wisteria]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

At least royals give back with their patronage.

I am afraid that the fact they give their patronage doesn´t convince me.

[Madame Royale]

I've no interest to convince you. It's a simple fact that they undertake a good deal of charity works and interact with the community on a regular, if not nearly daily, basis. Moreso than any President.

[Australian]

The fact that some royals may do a lot of charity work is not a good enough reason to keep them...in my opinion...anyone can do charity work, celebrities do, and they work for their money.

[Wisteria]

It is not you I want to convince me, it is the royal family that I would like to convince me that they are really giving back more than they are taking. Presidents, depending of course on the powers they have, run their countries and this affects the lives of their people far more than someone giving patronage to charity.

[TheTruth]

Living in a country with a liking for decapitated monarchs and a strong republican ideology, I can assure you that it's not different here. We have poor people and yes, we pay taxes for the government and the president, no matter what they want to do with it: either a social plan or financing Mr. President's sunny visit to the Caribbean.
Republics, Monarchies and the likes will always be financed independently of the way they use the money.

[fearghas]

Originally Posted by Australian

Hi All

I have just got back from visiting many third world countries and it really opened my eyes. Why should countries be funding royal families when there are people living in poverty? I have been an avid royal watcher for some time now and all of a sudden I have had an enlightenment. Why should there be such things as royal houses these days? What makes royals better than commoners? Why should people fund crazy royal lifestyles? I know this is the way of the world. There will always be rich and poor people.

I just am questioning my royal interest now.

I understand where you are coming from but answer this question for me. You are an Australian and are therefore quite wealthy. What are you doing to help the poor in third world countries. Monarchies are a form of government which exist in a small number of countries. It really is up ot he citizens of those countries to decide if they are valuable or not. However getting rid of monarchies becaude they use money while people live in poverty is a false argument. If all the monarchies in the world suddenly became republics, the majority of the worlds poor are not suddenly going to get richer. If you feel that you cannot ethically support a monarchy because of this reason then become active in ridding your country of its monarch. join a republican group, convince your federal member to raise the issue in parliment, raise a petition and so on.

[Australian]

Originally Posted by fearghas

What are you doing to help the poor in third world countries.

Well I just got back from visiting third world countries and I went on a missionary program. I don't want to talk myself up...but you asked. I am going away for 6 months next year to work in African countries too.

[Madame Royale]

If all the monarchies in the world suddenly became republics, the majority of the worlds poor are not suddenly going to get richer

So true! This isn't an issue concerning the relevance of the monarchy, or how well they are funded. Its an ethical issue which all nations the world over are answerable for.

[MelinaB.]

Originally Posted by Australian

Hi All

I have just got back from visiting many third world countries and it really opened my eyes. Why should countries be funding royal families when there are people living in poverty? I have been an avid royal watcher for some time now and all of a sudden I have had an enlightenment. Why should there be such things as royal houses these days? What makes royals better than commoners? Why should people fund crazy royal lifestyles? I know this is the way of the world. There will always be rich and poor people.

I just am questioning my royal interest now.

I guess that's the same reason why we,in democratic countries,pay for huge public buildings,for governments that don't really govern,for our First Lady's awful outfits or for state employees that sit all day and don't really bother to work...C'est la vie

[LadyLeana]

Australian, I really don't think that monarchies are the problem here. A President is not cheaper than a King, and heads of state will always cost a lot of money.
There are problems in third world countries, definitely, but abolishing monarchies won't make a difference. In many (most?) of those countries, there are Presidents as Head of State, not Kings or Queens, and often these (democratically) elected presidents don't live all that poorly, while the average citizen in their country has difficulties earning their bread.

Of course this is an injustice people should do something about. But simply abolishing monarchies is not the solution. And lavishly as some royals may live, I'm rather sure there are many private citizens who live even more lavish, crazy lifestyles.

[Jacknch]

This is one of those philosophical questions that will never be fully and satisfactorily answered and will keep people talking and arguing forever! The basic question being asked is why should the taxpayer fund royal families when there are many people in the world living in poverty? The question could easily be expanded to ask why should the tax payer fund anything until worldwide poverty has been resolved. It could be expanded further by stating that all revenue from taxpayers should be given directly to people living in poverty. A further statement could be that all people who lived in poverty are now rich having had all the taxpayers money and all the taxpayers are now living in poverty....
So there is no answer except to say that the problem lies with the distribution of wealth throughout the world. If royal families were no longer funded by the taxpayer and the money is redistributed to people throughout the world living in poverty, I doubt there would be much of a difference to their lives.
All I can say, Australian, (after all the above) is that if you question your interest in royalty, then you must question your interest in all things in life where money is concerned - clothes, the arts (think how much money the tax payer has to pay for security for museums and art galleries), alcohol, Christmas presents, public buildings, your personal computer...! Many of us give money to aid charities to to help the poor (much more money than the 61p I give each year through tax to upkeep the royal family), few of us actually go out there to help poor people in a more practical way and so I think you are doing a great job on your travels. However, you can only do as much as you can as a human being and you should allow yourself some selfish habits such as an interest in royalty.

[auntie]

Very well said Jack! I agree, I even read somewhere that the , money the British economy makes from tourism due to the monarchy is more than the cost of upkeeping it!

[Wisteria]

Perhaps you are right Jack and I don´t want anyone to make a mistake and think I am anti-monarchy, quite the opposite, at least while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne, but I know that we are being told all the time how little the family costs each person each year and I feel that if you really think that is the correct amount well.......that is up to you, I don´t.
As to the point that the tourists only come to beautiful England because there is a Queen! I can´t agree with that argument, if it were true France would be empty in the tourist season......and many other countries as well.

[Odette]

Is the question about what would happen to a third world country if all monarchies are abolished? If so, I feel that nothing will be done. The lives of these people will
not improve one iota. There are glaring examples of corruption in countries where massive foreign aid is being received only to pad the pockets of the dictators and their cronies.
Help has to come from within each country to help it own, regardless of the form of
government that rules.
A lot of people leave their country go abroad, study, improve their lot but never
return to help their own people. Money is not always the only answer.

[auntie]

When I say tourism, I don't only mean coming to see changing of the gaurds at BPalace, also momentos and souveneirs, entrance fees to many places and so forth. The basic fact is that the 3rd world countries suffer has no connection to the amounts given to the royals all combined. It is many times due to politics and disfunctions in their own country by their corrupt government, how many times do we see upheavals and coups in those country with the deposed ruler in exile with a multi billion bank account in Switzerland? This money was aid money to feed hungry babies and vaccinate children. There are so many other causes, let our royals be!

[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.

[Jacknch]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

Perhaps you are right Jack and I don´t want anyone to make a mistake and think I am anti-monarchy, quite the opposite, at least while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne, but I know that we are being told all the time how little the family costs each person each year and I feel that if you really think that is the correct amount well.......that is up to you, I don´t.
As to the point that the tourists only come to beautiful England because there is a Queen! I can´t agree with that argument, if it were true France would be empty in the tourist season......and many other countries as well.

When the royal family's accounts are published each year, a number of newpapers calculate roughly how much having a monarchy costs each man, woman and child in the UK and I am sure the figure came to about 61p but you are quite right Wisteria, the figure could be totally different and I don't think the calculation takes into account security which is astronomical! I think the question of whether being a constitutional monarchy adds much to the UK's tourist revenue is a totally different subject. We'd have to to do a poll of people living abroad who visit the UK and ask them why they come!
But the original question still has me thinking and there are so many things that come to mind about why should the taxpayer pay for the upkeep of the royal family when there are people living in poverty. It occured to me that if the taxpayer did not have to pay for a constitutional monarchy, would poverty cease to exist or the problem be lessened significantly enough to warrant the abolishion of the monarchy? Is it the royal family's obligation to live frugally in order to save other people from living in poverty? Should all heads of state live in small houses and eek out an existence on very little money? Does living in a palace constitute a crazy lavish lifestyle? The list is endless!

[fearghas]

Originally Posted by Australian

Well I just got back from visiting third world countries and I went on a missionary program. I don't want to talk myself up...but you asked. I am going away for 6 months next year to work in African countries too.

Thank you for telling us and I don't think it is talking yourself up at all. I admire and respect greatly people who try to do something to help the situation of those less fortunate than themselves. What I have no time for are the people who moralise about a problem but then sit back and say 'they should do something about it'.