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

[Drogue]

Originally posted by alva
Well, one could argue that when the money now spent on the royals could be spent somewhere else, which in turn would get an equal revenue to what it does now, with the added bonus of not having royals.

As already said, a lot of the money we spend on the royal family goes on things that would have to be done anyway, like the upkeep of the royal palaces. Having a Royal Family costs very little, and the money spent elsewhere would not be able to get anywhere near equal tourism revenue.

The Royal Family are very cheap, comparatively.

[Christmann]

Originally posted by Winston
Our Queen consistantly has >90% popular support in "polls", and I imagine that was also the case for her father and his father before him.

Nah, Christian X wasn't very popular until the occupation.

[Winston]

'Popular' myth often flung around, I'd say. His popularity did take a dive following the events of the spring of 1920, for sure, but his overall legacy is one of a very popular monarch. Granted, it could be argued that those were not exactly times where you'd seriously question the monarchy as a form of government.

[Dis]

oh great, more royal news occupying my local newscast.

[Zevico]

I'm not sure about this, but apparently Spain's monarch, as commander of the armed forces, ordered the army to enter parliament after some peoples stormed it and took its members hostage. So, symbolic as they may be, they might be of use sometimes.

[child of Thor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4396515.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/4400629.stm

Royals doing their thing

I feel sorry for these outdated people, they are treated a little like exotic zoo animals

My grandfathers old WWII rifle and bayonet are always ready to defend the crown (pretend its a crown ).