Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeg Head1
I'm English, although I now live in New Zealand, which unfortunately still has (the English) royal family.
For me the whole wedding felt medieval. Having a royal family is so archaic and a complete waste of funds. I've never understood the point in celebrating their most ostentatious display of privilege by birth right.
The most common argument in England for it to remain is..."If we get rid of the royal family, the tourism industry would take a massive hit."
I say try it and see. I'm sure it would survive.
|
Tourism-wise, it's not like a tourist gets to join the Queen for her morning muffin and have a convo with her. On the contrary, tourist can't go wherever the "royal" family currently are. People visit the pyramids just fine without having a current Pharaoh occupying the rooms.
If tourism more than covers the expense of the palace, then you might keep it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloof
Archaic, expensive..maybe...but the british people appear to love them. It unites them?
|
I love Ms Mary too. Doesn't mean anyone wants to continue a birthright monarchy, specially allowing the monarch to have veto power over Parliament. But I know what you're saying, it's up to the Britons, but what they choose effects us all.
Regarding unity, I'm all for it. Obviously people of other countries, and many other types of groups, that don't have a problem unifying without a monarch. That is to say, people unifying is a people problem, but a monarchy is no silver bullet. I don't see the appeal of being born a subject to some family. In America, before the Emancipation Proclamation you could be born a subject of a ruling family on a plantation, you know, their "realm". I don't see the appeal.