What about poor Prince Andrew ? He's had it rough. Having to persuade the British taxpayer to house him, his ex wife and kids each in massive mansions in acres of land, free of charge. That must have been a tough call.
That's one interpretation that you may personally choose to adopt, but it doesn't change the FACT that the model was absolutely based on subserviency. Our ruler. Their servants. Their subjects. We are above you and you bow before us. As the decades have passed, in practical terms, the power of their rule has diminished but the foundation of the model remains. I'm not anti-royalty as such; I just increasingly think the model no longer fits, and I see big problems ahead once the Queen is gone, as it will likely be increasingly difficult for the masses to even respect the position (as you say) given who will be filling them, and what the rest of the more immediate family are doing.
That 'model' applies to many other areas of life too, that's just how things work, and will continue to work the world over, possibly even more so in Republics. I think you over egg what is in reality, simply a ceremonial position. They barely have any influence, never mind authority, yet are very good for businesses to follow round at the after tour trade events, as it opens up many income streams to the Country as a whole. It also leaves some grand buildings, with associated history for people to enjoy. I'm very content with my own life, and certainly wouldn't want to have to cope with living in the goldfish bowl and putting up with the intrusions and limitations of theirs, and I very much doubt many other people would no matter what the other perceived 'benefits' may be.
I hear young Wllie is determined to slim it down substantially and get rid of the hangers on. The former Liberal MP Norman Baker wrote a book called 'What Do You Do?' which exposed the RFs extravagant use of public money for personal wealth and gain. Well worth getting a copy from the library.
Good post. Several other countries have elected Heads of State ie Presidents, who are purely in the post has a ceremonial role, not political. Republic of Ireland is an example. Seems to work okay. Imho...The problem here, if its perceived as a problem, is that nobody voted them in, and that's undemocratic.
I certainly would hate to be in that constant shop window they are in it is nowhere near a normal life .
I read somewhere that the cost of the Royals to the public purse is around £300m pa, and that they generate around £3bn pa to the British economy. Good deal if true.
A few years ago when we were all being encouraged to drink litres of water daily to stay well I saw some research claiming drinking tea was just the same as drinking water. Research carried out by The Tea Council...
They get about £70m a year (republican websites bump it to over £300m by including all security cost, trooping of the colour, budgeting for a wedding every ten years and the like) and they contributed £3b in the past ten years (that's actually revenue generated, nothing to do with the benefits from tourism, international trade etc).
The state of the country is nothing to do with the Royal family and the country won't get any better by doing away with them.
I always smile at those posters in Fish and Chip shops telling you that haddock and chips in the healthiest take away comparing it to pizza and kebabs. Posters made by the Seafish Industry Authority!
Haven't they all had jobs? I'll grant you they've never done a day down pit, but neither have I. They're obviously not working class heroes, but credit where it's due, they've done jobs when they haven't needed to.
I've read the book mentioned above "And what do you do?" By Norman Baker and it is enlightening. Not all of it is predictably republican, but a lot is, as that's his thing. I learned a fair bit from it One of my favourite quotes is "it is worth noting that the European royal palace that attracts the most visitors is actually to be found in Versailles, and the French abolished their monarchy in 1848." Useful as a rejoinder when people tell you that UK tourism depends upon the Royals' very existence.
I can think of a few better rejoinders than that if I ever heard such a silly claim. The nearest I've come to hearing it is from those trying to make a case for a republic.
