and the fine example they set when it comes to fairness [wealth sharing] and how could the goverment carry on if charles is prevented from giving his sage advice on a daily basis. We don't want an elected president do we? It hasn't got the americans very far. No we subjects in this country are far better off being lead by these fine upstanding [camilla] people.
2007-05-06 04:55:32 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
They do nothing. We pay them £40 million to sit on their backsides. 40 mil could sort out the NHS, or reduce taxes. But no, it goes to an old lady who does nothing but complain about modern culture.
We'd be best with a President, but try not to say aloud "President Blair" or it may turn u off it...
How can we still have a hereditary position as head of state, when we know that idea is not true, in the world of democracy?
2007-05-06 07:06:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i'm not quite professional-Royal or Anti Royal, yet i'm getting fairly ill of human beings wining away approximately how the Royal family contributors fee the united kingdom a fotune in taxes, they are stable for not something layabouts who do not something and so on and so on. at first i'm valuable the Royal family contributors generate a minimum of as lots wealth as they spend, probable extra. they have publicly volunteered to leave if the usually used public prefer them to. How unhappy. the united kingdom is easily one among the few international locations that still has a Royal family contributors. they did not ask to be born Royal and that they have got very confusing lives. they are able to't do any of the flaws established human beings can do. The media consistently criticise them. And this depressing British habit of knocking something that is deemed to be 'extra perfect than what i've got have been given', is shallow, blinkered and ignorant at suitable. Its not innovations-blowing that British Society is in this form of mess. The Royals get my help, not purely simply by fact i think of they carry fee to the united kingdom, yet simply by fact I refuse to consider the growing to be bitterness and misdirected lack of expertise of one hundred's thousands of fairly frankly stupid Britains.
2016-10-14 22:19:20 · answer #2 · answered by virgin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great Britain would do fine without a royal family. The country could become a republic.
There would still be castles and palaces to visit . After all, France, Germany, and Austria all have castles and palaces for tourists to visit.
2007-05-06 16:10:24 · answer #3 · answered by Mark 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When all about them are losing their heads, the royals are on hand to offer the government a steady hand on the tiller.
So the royals might one day save the country from nuclear war if the Ruskies or Chinese get too frisky.
2007-05-06 13:22:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we should retain the Monarchy but it should descend through the female line we have always done better under a Queen as the men are always a bit eccentric.
2007-05-06 08:46:06 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If we didn't have The Royal Family, then who would bring all the extra money in from the tourists. ?
2007-05-06 08:41:05 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you left out their sterling characters & their shining examples of moral rectitude & honor
2007-05-06 07:36:36 · answer #7 · answered by wanda3s48 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Come the revolution they will be first against the wall....
2007-05-06 08:35:55 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
we should do what the Russians and French did with their royalty, inbreed lot that they are
2007-05-06 08:06:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
wisdom!what wisdom?
2007-05-06 08:51:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋