I understand the tradional point that the monarchy is a symbol for the United Kingdom, but they just seem to be useless celebrities used as a tourist attraction who are paid millions and millions of pounds every year by the tax payer, are they actually value for money?
Also is there any place for a monarchy in a democratic society, isn't having a monarchy contradictory to the democratic process? would it better to elect a king and queen like we do a prime minister?
2007-01-14 02:02:31 · 5 answers · asked by t2k4life 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
I would go for the middle ground. The royal family would be better if they were cut back to senior members only. I believe the Queen and those in direct line to the throne do benefit this country, yes largely by increasing tourism. But Princess Michael of Kent? No no no. She pays no rent to live in an apartment in Buck Palace and it's really wrong. She doesn't attend any engagements, does nothing for charity and is of no benefit whatsoever. So, I say keep the royal family but get rid of 90% of the hangers-on.
As for electing the royal family, I'd have to disagree. That would essentially be electing another political party, with election campaigns and manifestos. Is that really what you want? More politics?
2007-01-14 02:15:32 · answer #1 · answered by Katya-Zelen 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The tourist aspect of monarchy is always overstated. Only a minute number of tourists ever see the Queen and hardly more British citizens.
There are plenty of countries like the USA, France and Egypt that get more tourists without a monarchy. They would still come.
How can Britain invade Iraq to force them to elect their head of state when Britain doesn't do that?
2007-01-14 06:28:33 · answer #2 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm American...and I believe the Monarchy is necessary for PR, tourism, tradition, consistency, pomp, whatever. It's all very nice. However, they could do better on their expense accounts for their people and know they would not exist without them. Do they really need to have all those castles to inhabit?
Could they not be utilized better? Fergi seems to be the only one who brings home an income. The rest appear to be what my dad called "Star Borders" (those that don't pay their way or contribute to the household expenses). The Paparazzi are not following Princess Anne or many of the others around, not even Prince Charles really. I don't see why you all have to support a lot of them.
2007-01-14 02:37:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
once I visited the united kingdom i did no longer see any pageantry yet could be because it did no longer experience my schedule. I quite have seen Danish and Norwegian royalty and it wasn't extremely interesting. If I went decrease back to the united kingdom i does no longer strategies seeing Crown Jewels and Buckingham palace if it wasn't too outrageously high priced. Scottish jewels have been minimum value once I final visited. human beings return and forth for various motives to circulate to international places so that's in basic terms an attraction like Statue of Liberty. Royalty do form an identity in international places that have them and a few human beings like it and a few do no longer. that's as much as the human beings who stay their to make your strategies up on no rely if or no longer they want a royal kin or no longer
2016-12-12 11:06:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe a monarchy is contradicting democratic values but if the people want it...
2007-01-14 05:34:11 · answer #5 · answered by Sarah* 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋