Pooh-Bah Location: Southampton Member Since: 3rd Aug 2004 Total posts: 1626
Posted:(I searched and didn't find anything... sorry if I missed an earlier thread though)
OK, I'm relativley undecided on this issue and I'd like you guys to help me clear it up. I can see both sides of the argument to some extent, and whilst earlier in my life I was strongly anti-royalist certain things that I have discovered about them recently have changed my mind somewhat.
So here's my opinions..
The royal family perform the same role that any heads of state do with the money they are given by taxpayers. Although it seems extravagant to give million pound parties to visiting dignitaries etc, the same happens in pretty much every nation. The money they are given is spent in this way, and as a figurehead there is no-one in the world who has as much cache as the queen. People respect her and the effect of an invitation to a royal party has won the UK many business deals etc that other heads of state couldn't match, regardless of funding.
The royals obtain most of their personal wealth from landowning, which is legal for anyone to do and I don't think they should be criticised for this.
The queen's powers over the commonwealth and everyone in the UK.. in living memory, the only time she's used her powers is to remove an evidentially corrupt politician from office in a move that is singularly undiplomatic, but was actually a great releif to the people who were fooled into voting for the person. But I'm really not sure of the details.
They are involved in many schemes that a lot of people never hear of. For example, I don't claim to know this in-depth but how many people have heard of Prince Charles' town? He has a keen interest in architecture and criticised modern towns for their uninspired and depressing formations. When challeneged to do better, he did. They built the town and it's a fully-working place, with one of the lowest crime-rates in the country. I'd say more about it but I'm not 100% on the details. Still, he's clearly not the idiot he's made out to be.
The royals seem to embody everything that is fundamentally British. Unfortunatley this also involves casual racism, hunting, and generally being a cultural anachronism. I'm not going into this too much as those who oppose the royals certainly will. Just a little fodder for this though - Prince Harry, Worst Royal Ever? If he's not doing cocaine or beating up photographers.. he's dressing up as a nazi at fancy dress parties. Nice one.
Not the world's best post but hopefully it'll stir up some debate!
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant. Thoreau
Still wiggling Location: Belfast Member Since: 22nd Oct 2002 Total posts: 5967
Posted:Mr Monkey, in my opinion, the work the royals have done for charity - and the extra money generated for any charity that has a royal name associated with it - is one of the strongest arguments for keeping them.
This is a solid positive reason, which in my mind, far outweighs the comparatively minor cost to keep them.