The Royal family - murdering scum filth or an asset the the country?

keekybreeks · February 28, 2015

So Prince harry is wondering what to do with his life and is considering leaving the army. Seesm like killing brown skinned people isnt as much fun as it used to be. poor lamb

His brother however is heavily involved with banging out successors to the line and travelling the world shakinhg hands with other rich royal scum with a long history of murder and enslavement.Just like his own lot really.

discuss

Extra points for bringing up

*tourists

*tourist money

*tradition

*Royals now paying tax

*the Queeen Mums role in WW2

*The sad death of mountbatten

*isnt his mrs pretty

*His mum would have been proud

keekybreeks · February 28, 2015

I have low expectations for this one, but I can only hope

Louisa · February 28, 2015

Pros

Pulls in yank tourists spending cash.

Looks good on TV.

Cons

Unelected and outdated.

Creates a sense of social class entitlement.

Louisa.

Blah Blah · February 28, 2015

The establishment would still exist without a monarchy. Every country that is a republic still has a class system, with public schools they can send their kids too (to shape the next leaders to keep the status quo) while everyone else scrambles in the state provision. Monetarism is the only ism that defines class and every system in the world operates under it.

The Queen is clearly an ambassador, especially to former colonies and the commonwealth. I don't know if that has any benefit in trade or public relations (I'm guessing it does), but politically no. And when a royal, like Charles, does get involved in controversial or political debate, it's frowned upon by even his own family. They may be heads of state but the Queen has never exercised the constitutional power she supposedly has. Puppets of the government come to mind. Definitely outdated but a nice tourist attraction all the same. They do own a heck of a lot of land though, and the armed forces swear an allegiance to them! So not so easy to get rid of either.

miga · February 28, 2015

hpsaucey · March 1, 2015

I'm absolutely not a monarchist - the Royal family strike me as being a bit like a very ill and old pet - extremely expensive to keep creakily going so that you wonder what the point is and euthanasia might seem a kindness. But it could be worse - we could have Putin...

goosey-goosey · March 1, 2015

Apart from the democracy angle, there's the financial argument. I forget how many millions HRH and her family cost us each year (I seem to remember an official figure of ?80M), but whatever it is Republic dispute this and claim a much higher figure. To me, the return on investment is dubious.

Blah Blah · March 1, 2015

The sovereign grant is around ?30million per year.

tetris · March 1, 2015

Also, the royal family is neccesary scapegoat for the government.

If there ever was massive dissent towards the government from the public, and people started clamoring for change - it would be the royal family they throw under the bus to settle us down.

They haven't had to yet, so maybe let's start lighting some fires?

Loz · March 1, 2015

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The sovereign grant is around ?30million per year.

Try replacing that with the full Presidential office and associated civil servants. I doubt you'd get much change and may even cost you more.

At the moment a meeting with the Queen equals and perhaps surpasses a meeting with the POTUS. Utterly invaluable for the UK. The UK President would be a comparative nobody on the world stage.

steveo · March 1, 2015

When you ask who is the president, people will say Barack Obama