Diamond Jubilee Concert.
- Thread starter Slavik
- Start date
Was just about to say the same.
Wonderful music and display, with the Royal Grenadiers standing noble throughout.
Indeed, a shame Phillip was unable to attend, though you can tell he was there in spirit.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Never understood the British fascination with and tolerance of Royals. You pay hundreds of millions for your national mascots simply by accident of birth. They are simply what you turn them into. And your goal families have more blood on their collective hands than any US wartime president. Why do you tolerate it, bad hats manners and the lot?
akia
Well-known member
Because we like our royals, and they don't cost us millions, no moren than having a president style head of state would. If they were such a bad thing then why did so many countrys around the world opt to keep them when they got independence.
Also your missing the benefit of having a head of state that isn't elected who knows the goings on of the last 60 years of government, who isn't chasing votes, her experience and advice is invaluable to any prime minister. In fact all the prime ministers have said how important the weekly meetings are to them, being able to discuss matters and know they are not going to be leaked to the press, or that she's not going to try to score political points out of it etc etc
Also your missing the benefit of having a head of state that isn't elected who knows the goings on of the last 60 years of government, who isn't chasing votes, her experience and advice is invaluable to any prime minister. In fact all the prime ministers have said how important the weekly meetings are to them, being able to discuss matters and know they are not going to be leaked to the press, or that she's not going to try to score political points out of it etc etc
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family#Estimates_of_costs_and_wealth
£36 million per year
US President - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Compensation
$596,000
Not even close.
Maybe its an American viewpoint, but the idea of an unelected, hereditary head of state is abhorrent. We aren't subjects and we aren't ruled. We are governed by our consent, not ruled by divine right. I think if you had Hollywood, you wouldn't need royals. We'd be willing to make a deal. Most of them want European socialism anyway. Win/win.
a legacy reborn
Well-known member
I will just comment on the bolded text. It seems that countries that change governmental systems when they had a monarch tend to keep them for the purpose of having a symbolic figure that really does nothing, because the people are used to it. Also, if you want to make that statement then you might also want to add that when people decide to keep their monarch they also tend to form a government similar to that of the U.S. It is not that they think the monarch is particularly good at anything it is just that they don't want to change something that the people have grown up with. If there is ever some drastic change people cling to whatever brings a sense of normalcy, in this case, monarchs.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18479724
And you get stuck with this nut bar and his pseudo-science for life. I think the queen is doing her best to outlive him for all your sake.
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
