Is The Monarchy Worth Keeping?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

diamondBrg

Aristocracy
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
211
City
Dallas Fort Worth
Country
United States
I certainly could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the income that the Royal Family gets does NOT come from the government/taxpayers of the UK, but rather from income generated by Royal property that has been in the Royal Family for generations?

Why does some of the British public feel entitled to participate in the PERSONAL aspects of their life?

I can see IF their is some problem with their PUBLIC DUTIES, but their private life?

Since all real political power, for all practical purposes, is vested in the House of Commons in the UK, the Monarch is really nothing more than a figurehead, right? I know the Monarch is regarded as the "Head of State" but again, doesn't the British Prime Minister actually represent the UK in foreign relations and matters, at least as far as what will actually transpire with British participation?

Honestly, I see an evolution where younger members of the Royal family are more and more willing to tell the public to kiss off.
 
I certainly could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the income that the Royal Family gets does NOT come from the government/taxpayers of the UK, but rather from income generated by Royal property that has been in the Royal Family for generations?

Why does some of the British public feel entitled to participate in the PERSONAL aspects of their life?

I can see IF their is some problem with their PUBLIC DUTIES, but their private life?

Since all real political power, for all practical purposes, is vested in the House of Commons in the UK, the Monarch is really nothing more than a figurehead, right? I know the Monarch is regarded as the "Head of State" but again, doesn't the British Prime Minister actually represent the UK in foreign relations and matters, at least as far as what will actually transpire with British participation?

Honestly, I see an evolution where younger members of the Royal family are more and more willing to tell the public to kiss off.

Every tax payer pays 61/62p to support the monarchy. Therefore, every tax payer has the right to criticise as any employer has the right to criticise hired help. And if younger members of the Royal Family are going to tell us to kiss off, we'll happily pack their bags.
 
Every tax payer pays 61/62p to support the monarchy. Therefore, every tax payer has the right to criticise as any employer has the right to criticise hired help. And if younger members of the Royal Family are going to tell us to kiss off, we'll happily pack their bags.

If an employer told me who was acceptable to marry or who was not, I'd gladly pack my own.
 
Every tax payer pays 61/62p to support the monarchy. Therefore, every tax payer has the right to criticise as any employer has the right to criticise hired help. And if younger members of the Royal Family are going to tell us to kiss off, we'll happily pack their bags.

Well let's see here, TODAY, ONE BRITISH POUND EQUALS ROUGHLY TWO US DOLLARS AND FIVE CENTS. SO 62p WOULD EQUAL ONE DOLLAR AND 27 CENTS. So ONE British taxpayer pays what will buy you ONE KING SIZE CANDY BAR where I live per year and you think that gives you the right to tell those people how to live?

This must be a cultural difference that exists, here in the US, IF I chose to work for you, the only thing you would have a RIGHT to criticize me about is MY WORK PRODUCT, anything else would be totally NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That isn't necessarily the case any more; some businesses are beginning to dictate what their employees may or may not do outside work since the employer pays health care premiums.

However, obviously things are somewhat different from an employer-employee situation. Even so, monarchs have in the past been forced into abdication if they've made themselves unpopular enough, so the younger royals shouldn't imagine they can just do what they like and there won't be any consequences.
 
Well let's see here, TODAY, ONE BRITISH POUND EQUALS ROUGHLY TWO US DOLLARS AND FIVE CENTS. SO 62p WOULD EQUAL ONE DOLLAR AND 27 CENTS. So ONE British taxpayer pays what will buy you ONE KING SIZE CANDY BAR where I live per year and you think that gives you the right to tell those people how to live?

This must be a cultural difference that exists, here in the US, IF I chose to work for you, the only thing you would have a RIGHT to criticize me about is MY WORK PRODUCT, anything else would be totally NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

But these people aren't working in an office. They're representing me and therefore, if their conduct begins to affect that representation I feel that the British people, who employ the Royal Family and the Government come to that - have a right to call time.
 
Beatrix Fan is right on the money, so to speak. It has nothing to do with the amount, which I, personally, think comes out to a whole lot more than the figures bandied about, but who cares. If the British people expect certain things from the RF, that is what they should get. These people are basically window dressing. Sorry, IMHO. But, the people of Great Britain have a right to ask the RF for what the majority do expect. It is not an elected office where they have a job and after that what they do is their own business. It is the other business that is their "job".
 
Beatrixfan and Countess

The British public gets something out of the Royal Family and the Monarchy or else it would be eliminated. The British public still in it's majority wants a Monarchy. The British are not keeping the Royal Family out of the goodness of their hearts.

What both of you are proposing is nothing more than a form of slavery. The Royal Family does NOT owe you their entire life, 24/7, that is absurd. They certainly do not owe you a voice in whom they choose to marry.
 
When did I say they owed me their lives? They don't but they owe me their lifestyle. Now, who they marry actually affects their working lives which is the bit I pay for and am really quite keen that they do well. So if who they marry is likely to be a problem for us professionally speaking then I have a right to criticise and object to the marriage taking place. Which I didn't in Charles and Camilla's case but it doesn't mean I forfeit the right to ever criticise the Royals.
 
When did I say they owed me their lives? They don't but they owe me their lifestyle. Now, who they marry actually affects their working lives which is the bit I pay for and am really quite keen that they do well. So if who they marry is likely to be a problem for us professionally speaking then I have a right to criticise and object to the marriage taking place. Which I didn't in Charles and Camilla's case but it doesn't mean I forfeit the right to ever criticise the Royals.

How do you figure that they owe you their lifestyle? Do you really think that Candy bar you provide gives you the right to tell them what to do in their private life. You do realize, that even according to British LAW, the Royal Family PRIVATELY OWNS HUGE AMOUNTS of land and has vast capital of it's own, right? What IF they just decided to chuck it in, and leave? What do you suppose would happen then?
 
These people are basically window dressing. Sorry, IMHO.

Given the number of times that you have informed the members here that the royal family is unimportant and 'window dressing' as you call them, I rather think that you are NOT sorry for stating your opinion but rather you are pleased with the fact. Oh well, if you are happy talking about people you see as pure window dressing then that is your privilege but if I regard a person or institution as window dressing, they are usually not important enough for me to waste any of my time discussing them.

But, the people of Great Britain have a right to ask the RF for what the majority do expect. It is not an elected office where they have a job and after that what they do is their own business. It is the other business that is their "job".

An elected official is usually considered more accountable to the public because we put him (or her) in office. If the people vote someone into office, they usually hold them to a higher standard of accountability than they do a non-elected official, especially if the elected official holds power.
 
How do you figure that they owe you their lifestyle? Do you really think that Candy bar you provide gives you the right to tell them what to do in their private life. You do realize, that even according to British LAW, the Royal Family PRIVATELY OWNS HUGE AMOUNTS of land and has vast capital of it's own, right? What IF they just decided to chuck it in, and leave? What do you suppose would happen then?

The candy bar thing really doesn't work when you consider that that candy bar is actually several country estates, hoards of servants, numerous cars and helicopters not to mention the billion other luxuries that our money goes towards. Ok I pay a small amount but I still pay and they live off of public money, therefore if they happen to take advantage of that then the public has a right to criticise and hold to account. The private estates you mention were all bought with public money at some point.

If they did decide to chuck it in and leave I suppose Britain would have to become a modern country where equality and meritocracy were embraced. Tough one eh? Look, if the Royal Family want to do as they please and never be questioned then that's fine but give the public back it's money and make them stand for election like our politicians do. Politicians are held to account based on their lifestyle, life choices and the example they set - why shouldn't the Royal Family be held to the same standard, especially when we're paying for them to live a life of wealth and luxury?
 
What is paid via the Civil List is only a small portion of the Queen's income. The monies from the Duchy of Cornwall is certainly not paid for via British taxpayers nor is the Duchy of Lancaster the other money making entity of the British Crown. Perhaps if the British taxpayer has a right to claim ownership of the Royal Family's lifestyle they should claim the percentage of the lifestyle that is subsidized through their tax money which would not be the majority of the income that supports the Royal Family's lifestyle.
 
Well, Ysbel, you are right, I do find them "window dressing". But I shall not argue whether I have the right to discuss "window dressing" or not. Divergence of opinion, in my opinion, is good. First, as an American, I do not have the right to judge whether you have a RF or not. It is for you, if you are British. That I find them "entertaining" shall we say is why I bother to discuss them. I think Beatrix Fan has a good handle on the whole thing.
 
The candy bar thing really doesn't work when you consider that that candy bar is actually several country estates, hoards of servants, numerous cars and helicopters not to mention the billion other luxuries that our money goes towards. Ok I pay a small amount but I still pay and they live off of public money, therefore if they happen to take advantage of that then the public has a right to criticise and hold to account. The private estates you mention were all bought with public money at some point.

If they did decide to chuck it in and leave I suppose Britain would have to become a modern country where equality and meritocracy were embraced. Tough one eh? Look, if the Royal Family want to do as they please and never be questioned then that's fine but give the public back it's money and make them stand for election like our politicians do. Politicians are held to account based on their lifestyle, life choices and the example they set - why shouldn't the Royal Family be held to the same standard, especially when we're paying for them to live a life of wealth and luxury?

Because politicians CHOOSE to run for public office and hold REAL political power, the Royal Family does not. No one chooses to be born a member of the Royal Family, it is a happenstance of birth.

Again the British public is getting much, much more out of having a Monarchy than the Royal Family is receiving or else the Monarchy would simply be abolished. The UK is a democracy and to this point your elected government has not chosen to abolish the Monarchy, WHY? Because it knows it would be swept out of office in the next general election.

EDITED TO ADD: We are talking about LIVING, BREATHING, FALLIBLE HUMAN BEINGS WITH FEELINGS, EMOTIONS, NEEDS. The Royal Family are not "higher powers" they are flesh and blood just like us. They make mistakes just like we do. They want their personal freedom just like we do ours. They too only have ONE life to live, as far as any of us know and can prove, just like we do. I am would not TOLERATE being treated and disrespected by the media and public for a second the way that they do and ARE EXPECTED TO. The expected to is what just irritates me to no end.
 
Last edited:
Because politicians CHOOSE to run for public office and hold REAL political power, the Royal Family does not. No one chooses to be born a member of the Royal Family, it is a happenstance of birth.

They're quite welcome to do a Duke of Windsor and shuffle off to Buffalo.

Again the British public is getting much, much more out of having a Monarchy than the Royal Family is receiving or else the Monarchy would simply be abolished. The UK is a democracy and to this point your elected government has not chosen to abolish the Monarchy, WHY? Because it knows it would be swept out of office in the next general election.

Firstly, Britain is not a democracy and the question of abolishing the monarchy has not and will not come to front line politics due to the nature of the political scene in this country. And if it did, bear in mind that we have the House of Lords which would stand in the way of any real progress on the matter of a republic. Please don't be naive and believe that the UK is a democracy, we're far from it. Secondly, when people are worrying about how to afford feeding the kids they really couldn't care less whether a government introduces monarchy as a front line issue. The only time it'll ever be put to us would be after a big political event or national crisis such as a war or the rise of the extreme right or the extreme left. To suggest that a government would fall because it makes Britain more democratic and more equal is absurd.

EDITED TO ADD: We are talking about LIVING, BREATHING, FALLIBLE HUMAN BEINGS WITH FEELINGS, EMOTIONS, NEEDS. The Royal Family are not "higher powers" they are flesh and blood just like us. They make mistakes just like we do. They want their personal freedom just like we do ours. They too only have ONE life to live, as far as any of us know and can prove, just like we do. I am would not TOLERATE being treated and disrespected by the media and public for a second the way that they do and ARE EXPECTED TO. The expected to is what just irritates me to no end.

You really don't need the capitals, I haven't got glaucoma. Nor have I got sympathy for people who are born into luxury, are kept into luxury by the people and live for many years as a result of that fabulous treatment. Personal lives are personal I agree but if personal lives interfere with professional lives then as in any environment, the boss has the right to criticise and to demand that his workers meet the standard that's acceptable to both the workers and to the company. Yes the media are intrusive, yes some of the public disrespect them, yes they are expected to put up with it - but if they don't like then they can always go away. If they want personal freedom, they can go away. The days of paying Peter's Pence and not criticising the big wigs who spend it are gone. The country keeps the Royal Family afloat financially, we kept the Queen Mum in stockings and gin for years - in return, she played the game and opened fetes in silly hats. It's not brain surgery, it's a job anyone can do - and thats what the RF have to remember. Whilst we say we dont want them to marry this person or that person, they won't marry them because they're in our employ and they do what we expect. Not the other way around. And if they don't like that, they're always welcome to join their 'subjects' in the real world.
 
They're quite welcome to do a Duke of Windsor and shuffle off to Buffalo.



Firstly, Britain is not a democracy and the question of abolishing the monarchy has not and will not come to front line politics due to the nature of the political scene in this country. And if it did, bear in mind that we have the House of Lords which would stand in the way of any real progress on the matter of a republic. Please don't be naive and believe that the UK is a democracy, we're far from it. Secondly, when people are worrying about how to afford feeding the kids they really couldn't care less whether a government introduces monarchy as a front line issue. The only time it'll ever be put to us would be after a big political event or national crisis such as a war or the rise of the extreme right or the extreme left. To suggest that a government would fall because it makes Britain more democratic and more equal is absurd.



You really don't need the capitals, I haven't got glaucoma. Nor have I got sympathy for people who are born into luxury, are kept into luxury by the people and live for many years as a result of that fabulous treatment. Personal lives are personal I agree but if personal lives interfere with professional lives then as in any environment, the boss has the right to criticise and to demand that his workers meet the standard that's acceptable to both the workers and to the company. Yes the media are intrusive, yes some of the public disrespect them, yes they are expected to put up with it - but if they don't like then they can always go away. If they want personal freedom, they can go away. The days of paying Peter's Pence and not criticising the big wigs who spend it are gone. The country keeps the Royal Family afloat financially, we kept the Queen Mum in stockings and gin for years - in return, she played the game and opened fetes in silly hats. It's not brain surgery, it's a job anyone can do - and thats what the RF have to remember. Whilst we say we dont want them to marry this person or that person, they won't marry them because they're in our employ and they do what we expect. Not the other way around. And if they don't like that, they're always welcome to join their 'subjects' in the real world.

Or people who feel entitled to intrude into their private life and seek to become hitler like dictators can learn to mind their own business and live their own life. There are always options available.

The UK is most certainly a democracy. The House of Lords CANNOT block legislation and if the Monarch refused to assent to it and when was the last time that happened, btw, the House of Commons can simply abolish it.

The British public OVERWHELMINGLY WANTS the Monarchy because they get something out of it.
 
Last edited:
"Civic and charitable work now takes up much of the royal calendar. Moreover, royal patronage and fund-raising are worth between £100 and £200 million to the voluntary sector annually, which is three or four times what the royals receive from the state."

Oxford DNB theme: The monarchy and charity

Edited to add: Seems like a GREAT DEAL to me. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, stop it. Civic and charity work is carried out in our country by many who get nothing, they just give their time to charity and good works. No photos, no palaces, no nothing. You have no idea who they are. Beatrix Fan is on the money. Also, since Beatrix Fan lives in Britain, their opinion is far more valid than anyone who does not. Also, the royals have what they have, because of their status. For years they did not pay income taxes, so while the poor British schnook forked over whatever they had to, the RF kept everything for themselves. It grew exponetially. Also, the great lands and homes were a perq from their position, too. They were not earning a buck on street corners. They cut ribbons and opened meat markets. The queen has done a marvelous job holding the Commonwealth together. At her end, it will end. Yes, the monarchy benefits England, because those of us who live in reality, seem to find facination with people who ride in carriages and live in palaces and wear tiaras. It is an anachronism for the 21st century. But it is entertainment.
 
Also, since Beatrix Fan lives in Britain, their opinion is far more valid than anyone who does not.

I don't buy that. At all. I refuse to submit to the (wrong) notion that opinions are more valid or less valid based on geography.

The financial argument for the royal family is really pointless. Does anyone really think that the cost for a head of state would go down if that head of state were a President? Unless the palaces were all abandoned in such a case, they'd still have to be paid for as public monuments. 99.9% of the current costs would continue as costs of a president.
 
Last edited:
Oh, stop it. Civic and charity work is carried out in our country by many who get nothing, they just give their time to charity and good works. No photos, no palaces, no nothing. You have no idea who they are. Beatrix Fan is on the money. Also, since Beatrix Fan lives in Britain, their opinion is far more valid than anyone who does not. Also, the royals have what they have, because of their status. For years they did not pay income taxes, so while the poor British schnook forked over whatever they had to, the RF kept everything for themselves. It grew exponetially. Also, the great lands and homes were a perq from their position, too. They were not earning a buck on street corners. They cut ribbons and opened meat markets. The queen has done a marvelous job holding the Commonwealth together. At her end, it will end. Yes, the monarchy benefits England, because those of us who live in reality, seem to find facination with people who ride in carriages and live in palaces and wear tiaras. It is an anachronism for the 21st century. But it is entertainment.

I will be HAPPY to yield to BRITISH public opinion on this matter and at this point in time, they OVERWHELMINGLY in their numbers support the monarchy. :flowers:
 
It's not just a head of state, they have a prime minister who is runs the show, but is a bargain. It is the whole Hoo Ha that goes along with it. And lots of family members with fancy titles. And British citizens have more right to an opinion on their monarchy. And, yes, they want this monarchy now, with the present queen, but in the future it is their choice, no one elses.
 
It's not just a head of state, they have a prime minister who is runs the show, but is a bargain. It is the whole Hoo Ha that goes along with it. And lots of family members with fancy titles. And British citizens have more right to an opinion on their monarchy. And, yes, they want this monarchy now, with the present queen, but in the future it is their choice, no one elses.

YES, they do want it now and into the future;

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Voting online and on interactive television through BBCi opened five days before the programme was aired and telephone voting took place on the day of transmission.

The final results showed that 41% thought the monarchy was out of date with 57% saying it was not (2% not sure).

Forty-four per cent of voters thought the monarchy cost the taxpayer too much money with 54% saying they did not (2% not sure).

Nineteen per cent wanted to see an elected president, with 49% wishing to see Charles as the next King and 32% wanting to see Prince William as the next Head of State."

BBC - Press Office - Monarchy Poll
[/FONT]
 
That is today. And how many people did actually vote. 57% of how many people? Nice try and even then Charles does not get a majority. 49% is hardly a landslide and how many people does this 49% represent, 1,000,000,000 or 5,000 or 500. This was not a real vote. And, if the majority of the British wants this, bless them. It is their right.
 
Countess

Every five years or less General Elections are held to fill the seats of the UK House of Commons. Any time that the British public feels they no longer want the Monarchy, I am positive that their freely elected democratic members of Parliament can reflect their wishes.

49% for Charles and 32% for William equals 81% total.

57% is the overwhelming majority in a democracy.
 
Last edited:
Everybody here has a right to express an opinion as long as it's within the forum rules. People have a right to take the opinions of British citizens or British residents more seriously than the opinions of other posters if they wish to do so. Others have a right to take opinions more or less seriously on the basis of other criteria.

I've deleted the derail into US politics, btw.
 
Countess

Every five years or less General Elections are held to fill the seats of the UK House of Commons. Any time that the British public feels they no longer want the Monarchy, I am positive that their freely elected democratic members of Parliament can reflect their wishes.

49% for Charles and 32% for William equals 81% total.

57% is the overwhelming majority in a democracy.

Firstly, we don't vote on the monarchy in a general election. Look at every manifesto and you won't find the monarchy mentioned. Even the Liberal Democrats don't say they'd abolish it. So when we vote at general election, we're actually voting on everything but the monarchy. It might follow that those who vote Labour want to see an end to the hereditary priveledge and if that is the case then the Government would be in a position to introduce reforms to the monarchy at the very least. But I'm afraid that the British public doesn't get elections on demand, the political system works in a way that limits the impact of parties that might bring change on a big scale and I'd say to you that our representatives in the House of Commons are anything but elected democratically. I have to ask where your percentages come from too and how many people voted.

Does anyone really think that the cost for a head of state would go down if that head of state were a President?

The cost for a President could be the same but I can't see it being any higher. The point is, we'd be electing our Head of State rather than being ruled by a family. People seem to assume that a President has to be of the American model where the role is political - the fact is that in the Baltic states especially, Presidents have taken on a ceremonial role but they're elected. Ok so they're elected by the unicameral parliaments but when those bodies are elected by the people through the much preferable system of proportional representation, the peoples of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are benefitting from a much more effective and real form of democracy. Financially, we're led to believe that the monarchy is a good deal. This hinges on whether you believe the 61p figure and whether you accept that we should pay anything when the Queen is a billionairess anyway. According to Brian Hoey, it's her 'personal' fortune that pays for most of the ceremony we see. I doubt that very much and if Sandringham, Balmoral etc etc were all trimmed back to having Buckingham Palace as the Presidental Palace - I think we'd get a much better deal.

Or people who feel entitled to intrude into their private life and seek to become hitler like dictators can learn to mind their own business and live their own life. There are always options available.

The rise of the extreme left or the extreme right is inevitable in this country because it hasn't been allowed to happen before. Now that every political party aims for a centrist manifesto, it makes sense that far right and far left parties are seeing a boost in poll ratings and indeed, if we had a different system I'm sure we'd see many more 'fringe' parties in the House of Commons. I'm not sure whether you're suggesting I wish to become a Hitler-esque dictator but I think that that argument is quite weak considering that Britain is bound not only to the Treaty of Rome but also the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Nice and of course, the Lisbon Agreement which we've just signed to. Add to that our role in the UN as a leading nation and I think that you'd find it near impossible for a dictator to rise or for Britain to become North Korea or Nazi Germany. An elected Head of State doesn't equal an automatic dictator - rather, it gives Britain the democracy it has been denied for so many years. Even the names of our institutions are intended to keep the working man down - the House of Commons for one. It makes no sense in the 21st century for Britain to keep up the facade just to please tourists.

When tourists go to Buck House and Windsor Castle, the Queen isn't on the door in her housecoat giving a tour. Tourists go to America don't they? Tourists go to Germany too - being a monarchy doesn't attract tourists. And to be frank, it might be jolly dee for the tourists but for those of us who do live in Britain (and that doesn't make my opinion more valid) it's starting to become evident that something is wrong. Take a small example - my taxes upkeep the Crown Estate right? Yet I have to pay £15 to take a wander around the Tower of London. That property should belong to the people who pay for it and British citizens (not subjects) should be entitled to their heritage free of charge. If we had a President, the excess of monarchy would be exposed and I think people would see more tourists as they could actually see the real palaces etc and not just the bits the Queen lowers herself to show us.

The UK is most certainly a democracy. The House of Lords CANNOT block legislation and if the Monarch refused to assent to it and when was the last time that happened, btw, the House of Commons can simply abolish it.

I'm sorry but I find that incorrect. It's inherent in the British legislative system that democracy is denied. Through the use of the First Past the Post system, political parties are able to keep a grip on the electorate because smaller parties that most people would vote for, never get a chance to sit in the Commons. The House of Lords can and does block legislation and especially during the Blair premiership sent back numerous pieces of legislation which it found unacceptable and refused to pass. These are unelected men and women who are directly contradicting and refusing to give passage to, the legislation put together by the elected men and women of the so-called 'lower chamber'. Notice that the Lords were not so difficult during the Thatcher premiership. The monarch may not have refused assent but in reality, the House of Lords is full of people who do that on her behalf. The House of Commons cannot abolish the Lords - have you seen the outcry there was and still is over Lords reform? Ok it's mainly from the Lords themselves but politicians refuse to mention Lords reform for two reasons; one, it's a cushy number for them to retire to and two, it brings into question our entire constitution (you know the one we haven't got and aren't allowed?). Why have a House of Lords? Why have a monarchy? Why is it called the Commons? Britain is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination and it'll take a huge change on a revolutionary scale to make us one.

You say Britain's a democracy, I suppose you know of the coup that was planned by Lord Mountbatten and a gaggle of grey men because they didn't like Harold Wilson tampering with the way things were? It wasn't that he was a dictator or that the monarchy was under threat, they planned a coup because for once, the people might have had a chance for real democracy and that wouldn't have worked financially for them.

The British public OVERWHELMINGLY WANTS the Monarchy because they get something out of it.

Do they? When have they shown they overwhelmingly want it? And what do they get out of it? What do they get from a monarchy that they can't get from a President? The answer = there is nothing the Queen does that can't be done by a President. The political system in this country is geared to keep the establishment firmly in place because it's advantageous for everyone within that establishment to keep the people down and to keep things the way they are. Now if thats the way things are then fine but as someone who pays to upkeep that way, I think I have the right to call for something else.
 
What do they get from a monarchy that they can't get from a President? The answer = there is nothing the Queen does that can't be done by a President.

Well, France has a problem at the moment that britian would not have: the president just lost his "Première Dame" through divorce. Now France has got a problem with their diplomatic protocoll, while Britain had none when their Heir to the throne divorced his wife. Another Royal lady took over and that was that. But who can replace the wife of a elected president in terms of protocoll?
 
A relative of the President could. A mother, a sister, a daughter. Or, shock horror, the President could just be a single man for his time in office. Let's face it, a First Lady really is only to make things look pretty.
 
You say Britain's a democracy, I suppose you know of the coup that was planned by Lord Mountbatten and a gaggle of grey men because they didn't like Harold Wilson tampering with the way things were? It wasn't that he was a dictator or that the monarchy was under threat, they planned a coup because for once, the people might have had a chance for real democracy and that wouldn't have worked financially for them.

Which has never once been proven to be true. If you want to make claims about people, you should provide credible sources.

Oh, and if you think coups don't happen in "democracies" (under your standard, there are none in the world, since there's always a disparity between popular opinion and the governing structure), you're sadly mistaken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom