[RLacey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5123580.stm

Now, admittedly, I'm a conservative type and thus in favour of the monarchy, but I really do wonder about the arguments that the monarchy is a waste of money when the alternative - an elected president - would cost far more, and when we get an entire family for that amount...

I also wonder if this whole anti-Monarchy thing is only something that really occurs in Britain. It may just be the people I speak to, but most of the non-British people that I know seem to like the whole traditional-monarchy-being-kept-in-old-Britain thing.

I'm rambling. Ignore me if you wish.

[Phantom]

Like the monarchy? To be honest, I don't know anyone who likes monarchy over here in Belgium. Except to laugh at. And that's the way it's supposed to be. Monarchy is a joke, and an expensive one at that.

I also fail to see why the alternative to the royalty would be a president. Democracy could just as well continue without the queen, with no major differences (just some practical issues to be dealt with). The alternative to monarchy is no monarchy, and I prefer the latter.

[RLacey]

If you can name me a single country with a developed state in which neither a monarchy nor a president exists then you're doing better than me...

(I expect to hear about a dozen examples that have slipped my mind now.)

[Maquisard]

If the newly independent, formerly communist Serbia reinstates its monarchy, could we borrow some lands that are loyal to the Queen? Like Belize? It'd be great if Serbia could own Belize...

[Jatsie]

If you think about it, technically the monarchy are on the dole, now I can look down on them.

Get a job!!!

[Aj_]

An elected president would not cost more, because if we were to get rid of the monarchy, we could also take back all the things they stole, which is probably worth quite a bit by now. "Having" the entire family is not something I find favourable...

Anti-monarchy only occurs in Britain? Apart from our colonies, do you not know what happened in France and Russia? Of course Americans like our monarchy, because they don't have them or would want them, like a dog that's lovable but shits everywhere.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by RLacey

If you can name me a single country with a developed state in which neither a monarchy nor a president exists then you're doing better than me...

That has everything to do with history and traditions and nothing with practical applications. The prime minister could have all the responsibilities of a president (and in practice, already has), without the need of royalty.

[RLacey]

And at this point I bow out of the thread before being lynched .

[pinkgothic]

Monarchy is fun.


Not that I really care, either way, but I have a hunch that half of Britain's cynicism comes from them having a monarchy. Meaning my vote is "must keep - under all circumstances". Besides! Doesn't it help inspire ghost stories about castles? *seems to remember having heard that more people in Britain believe in ghosts than believe in god... but can't verify, so don't quote me*

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Well, have you ever heard of anyone being haunted by God in a castle?

[Spiwak]

Doesn't the monarchy basically do.....nothing?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yes. They've been quite ineffective for ages now. You could even say they take up very expensive space.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

*seems to remember having heard that more people in Britain believe in ghosts than believe in god... but can't verify, so don't quote me*

Too late. You have now been quoted.
That only makes sense. Lots of people see ghosts, but very few see God.
Tell people you've seen God and they'll start edging away from you very slowly without taking their eyes off you. Tell people you've seen a ghost and they'll lean in closer and say "Really? Where?".

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Trep: "I saw the Queen!"

Sagesie: "OMG!! Where? WHERE?!!"

[seebaruk]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

Doesn't the monarchy basically do.....nothing?

Pretty much. Charles has got that trust of his which raises money for charity, which is a good thing. He attends benefits, stuff like that. The queen seems to do feck all, they just roll her out of bed for the Christmas speech then fill her full of gin and put her back to hibernate for 364 days. The princes are doing army training at the moment I think, or at least William is, Harry's probably coked up to his eyeballs shagging some skank somewhere. The best thing about the royals is their comedy value, the tabloids love them. We don't get enough racist slurs from Philly boy these days sadly.

[pinkgothic]

*eyes seebaruk's ramblings*

...

See? What did I say?

[Jatsie]

What's the difference between Princess Diana and Thomas the Tank Engine?

Spoiler:

Thomas made it through the tunnel.

[pinkgothic]

OUCH!! ;

[seebaruk]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

*eyes seebaruk's ramblings*

...

See? What did I say?

Ahh, I ramble about everything. Anyway, I didn't say the royal family was a bad thing, they're just an odd bunch!

Originally Posted by Jat316sob

What's the difference between Princess Diana and Thomas the Tank Engine?

Spoiler:

Thomas made it through the tunnel.

Hehehe, oh dear, I feel the PC brigade sharpening their knives!

[Gordon Bennett]

Most of the complaints that I've heard (actually, come to think of it, all of them) come from the cost to the taxpayers. I can understand this, as it must be galling to see these people living in luxury, surrounded by wealth and waited on by legions of servants, knowing that they have done nothing to earn it aside from being born to the right parents, and being forced to pay for it all.

I don't agree with it, but I do understand. I think that there are advantages to having royals around.

They attract tourists, which does help the economy. They can serve as dignitaries to visit or receive visits from foreign dignitaries with no partisan political overtones. They can sponsor charities, hand out awards, and hopefully provide some degree of elegance and dignity.

At worst, I honestly think they're harmless enough. As far as expenditure goes, I do think they tend to be scapegoated because they are highly visible. I couldn't posssibly believe that there aren't many far more egregious incidences of taxpayer money being completely wasted that should be addressed first.