| Product: |
The Golden Jubilee |
| Date: |
04/02/02 (24 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: None
Disadvantages: Too many
String them up, every one of them, leave no trace of the Royal Family and their numerous flunkys and hangers on...
OK, that's enough of the baiting. To be honest why do we need to retain the monarchy? What function do they deserve, and why should we shell out more of our hard earned cash to celebrate their pointless existence? As far as I'm concerned the only royal celebration I look forward to is on the day of the abolition.
The Queen, for all her fifty years of service, is the head of state, and as such she rubber-stamps the decisions of the prime minister and parliament. Why do we need that rubber stamp? If this is a democracy then why can't decisions be made in the name of the people rather than in the name of her and her family?
She has presided over 50 years of conflict and turmoil. People have been killed in her name in Ireland, the Falklands, Cyprus, Africa and countless other places. Even today her air force regularly bomb the people of Iraq. Her governments have supported the Khmer Rouge and countless other fascist regimes.
Do we need her? No. She and her family represent all that is rotten in this country. For Christ's sake, this is the 21st century, a royal family is an anachronism we could we do without. After all, she and her kind won't starve, will they? As one of the world's richest women, and her family as the largest landowner in this country, they should be taxed into extinction.
I hated the silver jubilee. I hated the wedding of Chrales and Di. I hated Di's funeral. I'll hate this too.
Let's not just ignore this clecbration, let's actively show how irrelevant they are...
There. Rant over.
Summary:
|
Last comments:
 |
- 13/02/02 Pan - Cost is an interesting point. I agree that the civil list expenditure (ie what it actually costs the taxpayer) should be confined to just the Queen.At the moment is also covers Phil the Greek, the Queen Mother and Charles.
This would make the real cost not dissimilar to maintaining any head of state.
If you then look at the regular costs of electing a President (who would have a political agenda) then you are getting to the same figures.
Then you look at the hidden costs with political sponsorship, and the jerrymandering which we see in U.S, French, and most other presidential elections and you have the true costs in terms of corruption, patronage, and undue political influence. Enron is a great example.
The tourism point is often made and debated, with France being held up as an example of tourists without royalty.
The fact is that there is a huge interest in the British Royal family particularly from the U.S,Japan, and the commonwealth and they do generate tourist euros.
People visit Paris for the architecture and the atmosphere, which is fabulous. This is partly because Paris was never bombed in the last war (it was an open city) and so the great architecture has not only survived but has not been blighted by the kind of building which we see in London. It is quite frankly a much more beautiful place, and that generates visitors.
My only final point is that personally I'm not really that interested in the royals. I certainly don't look up to them or deify them.
I just believe that we have a reasonable political system where we elect a government to make our decisions and govern the country, and we have a seperate (and powerless)head of state which is related to pageantry, colour and our heritage as a nation.
One is grey and businesslike and pretty depressing but neeeded. The other is frivolous, colourful and provides many people with escapism from the crap of real life.It also doesnt get in the way of the political process.
Do we really want to have two shades of grey and another layer of political decision making?
|
 |
- 13/02/02 Markw-d: So, why keep an expensive royal family if we can get away with a president? I agree, it'll make no difference to arms sales and the like, but at least it won't cost as much... |
 |
- 12/02/02 Pan - Don't you think that a President would do just as much in terms of international trade visits, including arms?
In any case the actual selling is done by trade missions, not the actual head of state themselves. These will continue under any head of state.
The French sell a darned sight more to dodgy governments than we do.
You are right about the hunting horror, but again there are more than a few presidents who enjoy shooting the odd rare species. All we need to do is to ban hunting like the government promised.
The international arms trade and hunting have nothing to do with the merits or downside of having a royal family. |
View all
12
comments
|
Deutschland 
España 
Italia 
France - 
