Royal family. Should they be banned?

[jw1701]

The Royal family is a distraction for most English people from the realities of how boring their lives really are (for many people). In America they have Hollywood and gossip magazines. In England they can look at pictures of the princes and Kate and so on in their magazines.

by comparison what do they do in france?

[chateau]

by comparison what do they do in france?

We got rid of them in general. THere are still some around who claim to decend from monarchs and so on, but really don't look up to or idolize any royal family.

[mid_gen]

The Crown estate returns a net profit to the treasury, so all the money arguments are bunk. The Queen has ceremonial powers, in reality the elected government would have to REALLY step out of line for her to exercise those powers. I for one am glad that safety net exists. (same reason I am pro hereditary peers, but that's another can of worms).

[Matematik]

Well you just won the absolute cock prize for being blind.

And compared to which country? Come on, spit it out.

The USA and France. Both fiercely republican nations who are widely regarded as patriotic and take great pride in their national history, ideology and ideals.

The Brits on the other hand only get the flags out when a Royal Wedding or Jubilee is on and seem completely indifferent to their country otherwise.

It is undeniable that British patriotism is based around celebrating the Royal Family.

[jaykay]

Hahahaha! USA and France! Now I get the joke.

[Mat]

Sent from my GT-I9210 using GeoClicks Mobile

[mrdollars]

I'm in favour of keeping them. When you watch the Jubilee Celebrations you realize how great having the monarchy really is. I think having such a well known and recognisable monarchy keeps Britain punching above its weight and that can't be bad.

Besides, the alternative - a president-type figure would be so bland and meaningless. Who wants to be like Ireland? No-one knows who their president is, and no-one would care either. (Sorry to pick on Ireland, you can substitute Iceland or any other island nation with a president).

[amitsingh_hk]

I'm in favour of keeping them. When you watch the Jubilee Celebrations you realize how great having the monarchy really is. I think having such a well known and recognisable monarchy keeps Britain punching above its weight and that can't be bad.

Besides, the alternative - a president-type figure would be so bland and meaningless. Who wants to be like Ireland? No-one knows who their president is, and no-one would care either. (Sorry to pick on Ireland, you can substitute Iceland or any other island nation with a president).

What was so great about having a family paraded and considered to be of a class higher than everybody else. What is so great, so beneficial in having them...?
Britain is not punching above its weight - Royal family can't and don't help.

Is your argument against a Republican system based on irrelevancy of the President...? Why not have a situation where the President is ceremonial, retain a parliamentary system where the PM does the work of running the government. One person is the ceremonial head and he is accountable to his mistakes unlike the Queen, and the continuous misgivings and gaffes by her family.

[mrdollars]

The Royal Wedding last year - an estimated 2 BILLION people tuned in to watch. That's BILLION. (sorry for the CAPS!)

If that doesn't add positively to Britain's global image and thereby allow us to punch above our weight then I don't know what else could. If the British Monarchy can pull in those kinds of figures, then they still are useful and relevant.

As for a president, I don't think anyone knows or cares about a meaningless figurehead with that title. For example: who is the president of Italy? Does anyone know? Who is the president of Greece? I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift.

[mrdollars]

BTW, it's just my opinion and I respect yours, too.