To rephrase an old Tom Paine argument a Monarch who interferes with government is a despot a monarch who doesn't interfere with government is a useless expense

i feel like they don't do enough
i want to see queen elizabeth riding into battle on a horse and stuff

Sure. They don't really do anything and I imagine it brings in a fair amount of tourism.

GLORY HOLE!

Does the monarchy have any real power over European countries these days anyway? The way I have seen it, the parliaments decide everything and the only duty that the monarchs do there is visiting the opening ceremonies of the new seasons, as somewhat important historical families.

Politically I don't think it would make much difference. But for the sake of tourism it could stay the way it is.

remember the alternative - President Cameron?

On Friday 6/1/12 - 2:20:15 PM glennh70 wrote: remember the alternative - President Cameron?

Honestly, I'd prefer that. At least Cameron can be gotten rid of.

I honestly do not understand the 'tourism' argument. The idea that people come to the UK JUST to see the monarch is BS. People come here for its history, its culture etc etc etc not in the hopes of catching a glimpse of some old woman.

King Charles v President Cameron, well the people deserve President Cameron if that's what they're voting for. Then Scotland can get independence and I can go live there hooray!

Also why don't we make it fun? No expenses and a national vote to coincide with the GE, make concurrent terms illegal and bar people who've held public office. Then we get President Fry....... Or even President Cheryl Cole if the people so wish..... Or we just get a bottle of Heinz Tomato Ketchup to be our dear leader. Indeed as Paine says it's an office a child of a fool can fill.... therefore why can't an illegitimate object fill it?

On Friday 6/1/12 - 6:48:40 PM 3 mehs wrote: I honestly do not understand the 'tourism' argument. The idea that people come to the UK JUST to see the monarch is BS. People come here for its history, its culture etc etc etc not in the hopes of catching a glimpse of some old woman.

Isn't the monarchy a lot of the history and culture people enjoy? I know I've visited Hampton Court and Buckingham Palace multiple times.

On Friday 6/1/12 - 6:48:40 PM 3 mehs wrote: I honestly do not understand the 'tourism' argument. The idea that people come to the UK JUST to see the monarch is BS. People come here for its history, its culture etc etc etc not in the hopes of catching a glimpse of some old woman.

Sorry, wrong. I've been to the UK several times and really couldn't give a fig as to whether or not you've currently got a monarch (I believe that's the point you're on). HOWEVER, every time I've gone, that's the first question I get asked when I get back: did you see the queen? And many people ask for me to bring stuff back on your current queen. They want current stuff, not stuff on past monarchs.

You and all the people you know don't add up to a large sample size. Anecdotal.

Long live the Queen!

On Friday 6/1/12 - 8:11:37 PM dazajane wrote: You and all the people you know don't add up to a large sample size. Anecdotal.

I wasn't aware we were doing a thorough survey here.

On Friday 6/1/12 - 8:11:37 PM dazajane wrote: You and all the people you know don't add up to a large sample size. Anecdotal.

I'm not claiming a majority, meh stated that people do not come to the UK for that purpose. That would mean no people do. Some people do, and I can testify to that. I'm aware my individual statement is anecdotal, as is his opinion, and yours.

On Friday 6/1/12 - 8:11:37 PM dazajane wrote: You and all the people you know don't add up to a large sample size. Anecdotal.

You've mistaken this site for www.adequatesamplethinks.com.

ok one. The queen has no more real power. She is a figurehead. All she has the power to do is spend a poo load of british tax dollars on ceremonies such as knighting musicians. Britan truthfully can't even qualify as a constitutional monarchy since that would imply that the monarch would wield some governmental power. At least in Spain the monarchs were already rich(As in the family uses their own funds not public funds) when they put the monarchy back.( Though they also are really just figureheads). Though the british people somewhat seem to support the royal family. Oh and fun fact: Denmark has the only full monarchy left in europe.

Are British tax dollars like Disney fun bux?

It's not only in Britain, don't they have kings and queens in Scandinavia as well? Probably cheaper than electing a figurehead president at regular intervals.

On Friday 6/1/12 - 8:11:37 PM dazajane wrote: You and all the people you know don't add up to a large sample size. Anecdotal.

On Friday 6/1/12 - 10:37:31 PM dacash wrote: I'm not claiming a majority, meh stated that people do not come to the UK for that purpose. That would mean no people do. Some people do, and I can testify to that. I'm aware my individual statement is anecdotal, as is his opinion, and yours.

Then you can't really claim he is wrong then. You could both be right.

Mmmm sure.

Isn't she the commander-in-chief?

"Isn't the monarchy a lot of the history and culture people enjoy? I know I've visited Hampton Court and Buckingham Palace multiple times."
Yes my point exactly, they come to see a place because is has been occupied by a queen, not to see the queen herself. It's as if people would stop going to the Palace of Versailles simply because a monarch doesn't physically live there anymore!

it's a reasonably unique selling point having a connection with the present day - it wouldn't help the UK if everyone says well they're all the same now so let's go to the Palace of Versailles

"HOWEVER, every time I've gone, that's the first question I get asked when I get back: did you see the queen? And many people ask for me to bring stuff back on your current queen. They want current stuff, not stuff on past monarchs."
There's obviously exceptions to any rule.
However, just because Americans associate our country with a monarch doesn't mean they only come to look at her, indeed if this was true I'd be all up for keeping a monarch, as long as they lived in a zoo pen where all can come and see it whenever they please, hell 'they work for us'.
A small economy based around plates with a monarchs face printed on it isn't a way to legitimate a despotic institution.

Just think of your revulsion to being ruled by Bush or Obama. Now imagine you're unable to get rid of them and some weird cult of personality develops around them... Welcome to monarchies!