Do you even know how the Monarchy works in modern UK?
Even though they have very little in the way of official
powers, as that video (accurately) states, they still have influence
. Why should they be treated any differently to other citizens? Equality is supposed to be an ideal to which this country aspires. Bleh, forget I said anything, this guy said pretty much everything I wanted to, but did so more concisely since he didn't get carried away like I did:
Unnecessary and at this point are nothing but celebrities. It's stupid how highly we value these people for nothing, seriously. We worship them for being born into a life of privilege.
British and no.
Well put sir.
Fraser Greenfield said:
I can't speak for Great Britain, but here in Australia, the Crown's power to jump start a Royal Commission has been a godsend in fighting corruption and bureaucratic complacency. That and the Queen's veiled threats of dissolving parliament and sacking the PM; are very own 'Sword of Damocles' if you will, has proven instrumental in fighting corruption and preventing it from seeping into parliament in full form.
That and the idea that we could have a 'president' Gillard or similar character in the future with no higher executive power to answer to scares the shit out of me.
So if anything, I think highly of the monarchy. Not in the celebrity fashion, but rather as an institution of safeguarding the welfare of the populi.
But what gives the Queen (of England) the right to decide what's best for a supposedly democratic nation? If you have issues with corruption etc. then you need to excise it - not rely on an autocratic outside agency to save you. Depending on the Queen to do this might achieve the right end, but it's a poor means. Better to repair the system if it is truly broken.
Unrelated to last subject, to those who are so ready to applaud the "true cost of the royal family" video, it might be worth watching this:
Okay. this is going to be a long one, but that video me laugh so I feel I need to correct it.
The following is corrected in chronological order of the video.
TEXT WALL ENGAGED:
Firstly. Britain had already had a civil war by the time of King George III and the land in question was given to him as part of the deal that ended the war and installed what would slowly become our democratic system. So that video is false, the land is legitimately and legally owned by the Royal family.
Yes. The deal didn't include all the land, but the income figures also don't include all land, just what was included. And yes it did include the £200mil of debt, but the profit made on the land has long paid that off.
The no tax thing. They're the royal family. They've never paid any tax and that's not going to change. They fact remains that they provide more income than expenditure.
Ah. The equasion.
Let's list what's wrong with it.
Side-note: what's all the crap about Darwin? It nicely shows the extremity of the vid-makers view.
1) He assumes they'd pay the full tax rate when nobody with that much money pay's the full tax rate. The UK government would see maybe 2% of that as the cash was routed through offshore banks and tax loopholes the same as large companies. Plus ?That we pay so the royal falimy don't have too? What? No. even if they did pay tax it wouldn't effect the average citizens tax-bill because it would be seen as more state income rather than a reason to reduce other taxes
2) He's counted 'land-use inefficiency' as a cost when it's already represented in the land revenue figure. Somebody can't do math.
3) The debt, yes. That's a legitimate problem. But a tiny amount compared to the other cost's and incomes involved.
Let's really compare now.
Visitor limited by numbers due to security.
Palace of versailles:
No limits on visitors.
Focus of a lot of tourism advertisement.
Has limits on numbers due to security.
Has a WORLD FAMOUS art exhibition.
Football? Huh? Football does bring in tourist cash yes, but to suggest that bring's in as much/more tourism when most international tourists visit only London. And to suggest that the tax payer doesn't support football would be stupid too. The cost of police security on all matches is staggering and most games do not attract an international crowd.
And now we get to the real problem. I'll break this down bit biy bit.
1) Personal attack.
2) Deletion of first video's ending.
3) ?Seperating church and state, Church makes decisions?
Yeah, tell me how that worked for them blocking gay marriage or pushes for gender and racial equality in church ministers recently.
4) comparison to Iran
Yeah, tell me exactly how we're like Iran while the Royal family has no real power or allegiance.
5) The halted investment
Okay. But a lot of local people also fought that, I could equally argue he was doing what the people wanted. The issue of that development is controversial to be used here either way. And ?provide extra housing? it was a development of multi-million pound homes. Who would it provide for exactly? The people who would have bought a second home in the city to shorten their commute from the county homes they already have most likely?
6) ?All men are created equal?
As a young white male I can confirm this is not true. The government says I?m better than everyone else and can't remind them of it too much or face jail.
7) The right of any Briton to aspire to become the head of state.?
And when exactly was the last PM to come from a normal, working-class home? That dream is already over.
And that's me done.
Yeah. I'm British and I like the Monarchy.