Isn't the royal family just a little bit silly?

[Dis]

the history of Britain is only interesting because it was an empire (which it could have done under a dictator I'm sure). It owned so much of the known world. The sun never set on the British empire. etc. etc.

not to mention it's participation in most of the major wars and world wars in history.

[Frozzy]

But Britain has only seen two forms of government since 1066, a monarchy and a republic, and really, who knows any events that happened post-ECW and Charless II's coronation?

Those empires also probably wouldn't have started without a monarchy either. The Rise of Britain post-Tudors was all about monarchy (Spanish Armada, American Revolution, etc.).

[Atahualpa]

we need the royals, what else would fill the tabloids

[Dis]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
we need the royals, what else would fill the tabloids

]

Paris Hilton?

I'm sure you guys could come up with your version of Paris Hilton.

[Frozzy]

But Paris Hilton isn't good enough. She's boring.

A pot shot at the Royals is historically a fun thing to do.

[Dis]

well I admit they are fun to make fun of. Still seems like a waste of resources. They should find ways to make their own money. But I guess I can't complain, I'm not paying taxes there.

[notyoueither]

You'd have to pay whatever punters you replaced them with, and you'd have the added expense of running elections.

Additionally, the elected ***** could get ideas of actually having and using some power. Our parliaments may have some things that could be better, but grid-lock is not a condition we suffer from.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Dissident
]

Paris Hilton?

I'm sure you guys could come up with your version of Paris Hilton.

Oh come on. The royals are much better, they always try to pretend they have to show dignity and honor and such.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You'd have to pay whatever punters you replaced them with, and you'd have the added expense of running elections.

Additionally, the elected ***** could get ideas of actually having and using some power. Our parliaments may have some things that could be better, but grid-lock is not a condition we suffer from.

gridlock

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


Oh come on. The royals are much better, they always try to pretend they have to show dignity and honor and such.

You never seen It's a Royal Knockout!?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by notyoueither
and you'd have the added expense of running elections.

Hey, maybe the US President could say that his latest budget cutting plan is to abolish elections. No money wasted on holding them, no millions of dollars wasted on campaigns, no dividing the nation, and no problems with voter irregularities.

I do agree with the point you make though, so long as the Head of State has no real power.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Dissident
and who exactly pays the royal family expenses?

Mostly themselves, partly taxes. Which as mentioned, come back and then some in tourism, and much of their expenditure is for the upkeep of royal palaces, that would be kept by the state anyway.

Argue against them on grounds of political systems by all means, but the economics is generally in their favour. Not that a few million mean much to a government when the fundamental system it's run by is the other part of the argument.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Tourism Revenue?

I went to Britain to see the history there, to see the culture, to see the great museums. I didn't go there to see some Monarch, and I didn't have any interest in doing so. I really doubt anybody goes to Britain because of the Monarchy.

There is a correlation between increases in tourism to Britain and royal weddings. The Queen's Jubilee in 2002 also saw a marked increase in the level of tourism that year.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Dauphin


You never seen It's a Royal Knockout!?

n-o-

[Dis]

isn't this guy a little old to be a prince?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/26/rainier.hospital/index.html