Royal family. Should they be banned?

[randy1]

It's wierd to me that a supposedly democratic country still confers special rights, powers and status on people who decent from the royal family. Is it not time this was ended?

[randy1]

Ha ha. How is it possIbly a good thing? How can one be happy being into a country like that where they are automatically a royal servant from birth?

[Dreadnought]

Could it be that the majority are proud of and support the monarchy?

[randy1]

What exactly is there to be proud of about being born into servitude to an elderly lady who lives in a big castle with corgie dogs?

[Blue88]

I am not a fan of the royal family but I can think of worse regimes or systems to be born into and live under.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using GeoClicks Mobile

[wtbhotia]

Long Live The Queen !!!!!!!

[Skyhook]

What exactly is there to be proud of about being born into servitude to an elderly lady who lives in a big castle with corgie dogs?

And what about the 100's of millions in tourist dollars/pounds/euros, that the British Monarchy brings, which like it or not Randell, is very much part of Britain's history and one of the few core foundational traditions that the English people have have left. An identity...

Take that away and what do you have ? Nothing much in my opinion. Had China retained it's Imperial Monarchy, had PuYi been allowed to steer China into the future via his curiosity/fascination of western technology and society, todays China might have been a vastly superior nation to the one we see now. Possibly far more advanced than the Japanese.

Food for thought....

[carang]

it is a sense of tradition. the brits are hardly 'servants' to the royal family for goodness sake. they are not serfs serving their overlords.

the constitutional monarchy in the uk and for many other countries (canada, australia, new zealand(i think?) is a branch of the government as well as the head of state.

without the queen/king, constitutionally, it would be impossible to form the government. it is the monarch's responsibility to request the majority leader to form the government. the monarch signs all bills into laws.

you cannot simply remove them from the picture, the entire form of government would have to be redrawn and redesigned.

they are now a symbolic head of state. monarchies are not the only symbolic heads of state. some republics have a president and a prime minister, one of which is almost entirely symbolic (please don't ask me to name one, as i can't think of one off the top of my head, but i do know that they are around).

britain's head of state has been a monarch for all but very brief periods of history....if it works for them, what's the problem with that?

[carang]

And what about the 100's of millions in tourist dollars/pounds/euros, that the British Monarchy brings, which like it or not Randell, is very much part of Britain's history and one of the few core foundational traditions that the English people have have left. An identity...

Take that away and what do you have ? Nothing much in my opinion. Had China retained it's Imperial Monarchy, had PuYi been allowed to steer China into the future via his curiosity/fascination of western technology and society, todays China might have been a vastly superior nation to the one we see now. Possibly far more advanced than the Japanese.

Food for thought....

well, the japanese tried to keep him... as a puppet head of manchukuo, but still...

[carang]

it is a sense of tradition. the brits are hardly 'servants' to the royal family for goodness sake. they are not serfs serving their overlords.

the constitutional monarchy in the uk and for many other countries (canada, australia, new zealand(i think?) is a branch of the government as well as the head of state.

without the queen/king, constitutionally, it would be impossible to form the government. it is the monarch's responsibility to request the majority leader to form the government. the monarch signs all bills into laws.

you cannot simply remove them from the picture, the entire form of government would have to be redrawn and redesigned.

they are now a symbolic head of state. monarchies are not the only symbolic heads of state. some republics have a president and a prime minister, one of which is almost entirely symbolic (please don't ask me to name one, as i can't think of one off the top of my head, but i do know that they are around).

britain's head of state has been a monarch for all but very brief periods of history....if it works for them, what's the problem with that?

sorry, just to clarify... the monarch no longer signs all bills into laws in canada. that is the perogative of her PERSONAL representative in canada, the governor-general. i am sure that new zealand/australia have their own ways of dealing with that aspect, too.