Monarchy - Yay or nay?

[SidFwuff]

How can anyone hate little Queen Lizzie. She looks like a daffodil.



Sure it costs a fair bit but she does wonders for the country, not as much any more (and frankly I have rather limited hope for the future royals, definitely not Harry) but she's been possibly the best diplomatic tool we've had in a long time. Money well spent, long may it continue, whatever power she has is limited and would never be used and if there are any laws she can get away with breaking, I don't see them doing it.

I'm not sure how it is in the U.K, the Royal Family doesn't cost much for Canada (though many seem to think otherwise). I think they actually give to the country rather than take because a small amount of "Crown Land" is actually owned by the Royals and the proceeds from the land goes to the country rather than them (though they do receive a small amount of the proceeds).

Most of the Royal visits are actually spent on the local economy too- most of the 'expense' of the Queen's last visit was actually spent on medals and recognizing Canadians rather than the visit itself.

And the country gave a pair of Canada Goose Jackets to Prince William and Duchess Kate for their wedding. They're not that expensive. Seriously, I bought a brand new one a couple years back for myself.

I'm a 'monarchist' for the simple fact that while I'm not a 'tin foil hat conspirator' I'm not a fan of any of our political leaders at the moment (Conservative, Liberal or NDP). Hell, we can't even figure out what to do with the Senate which money we funnel into annually dwarfs the Royals significantly.

And if we were to lose the Royals, the Governor General would replace the Queen... so we'd have a General appointed by the Prime Minister who...appoints the Prime Minister at best. At worst, we end up getting an election every few years... which is an even larger waste of tax dollars.

[Deleted]

Republican. Monarchys have no place in a democratic society. Bunch of tax evading, rich parasites living off the state. Kick them out of the castles & open them up fully to the public for longer hours, watch tourism money flood in. With the added bonus of not having to fork out millions when a hanger-on decides they want to redecorate / have a baby.

[Mystrome]

Republican. Monarchys have no place in a democratic society. Bunch of tax evading, rich parasites living off the state. Kick them out of the castles & open them up fully to the public for longer hours, watch tourism money flood in. With the added bonus of not having to fork out millions when a hanger-on decides they want to redecorate / having a baby.

Which country are you talking about? Because what you describe is in most countries with a monarchy certainly not the case.

[Deleted]

Which country are you talking about? Because what you describe is in most countries with a monarchy certainly not the case.

UK.

/10chars

[Deleted]

I'm an American and I say - Yes. A new form of monarchy, though, with a smaller council (not a House or Senate) to advise the king and in rare circumstances, overturn him or repeal his laws. And we needs lots of kingdoms - not a single giant one, but several smaller ones, and ones below that.

So essentially dukes? Yeah, that'd be funny to see in the USA... Imagine someone holding the title "Duke of Wyoming" or "Duchess of Michigan".

[Jackmoves]

Constitutional Monarchy.

It's cost effective. Finlands Presidential elections and the running costs for the president and his administration costs far more then Swedish monarchy just to compare to a neighbouring country. Plus tradition.

[Venziir]

Republican. Monarchys have no place in a democratic society. Bunch of tax evading, rich parasites living off the state. Kick them out of the castles & open them up fully to the public for longer hours, watch tourism money flood in. With the added bonus of not having to fork out millions when a hanger-on decides they want to redecorate / having a baby.

That's funny, sounds like you described the entire Republican Party... Also, that's rubbish. The UK and Denmark and most likely other countries with a monarchy depends on the royal houses for tourism. Oh and by the way, it's not like monarchies have any say when it comes to ruling or governing, thus they have no impact towards the democratic rule.

- - - Updated - - -

UK.

/10chars

In that case; I suggest you go back a bit and read Endus' post, because he is absolutely right. Or are you just, by chance, related to Queen Mary and still upset that Lizzie beat ya to the throne?

[Deleted]

That's funny, sounds like you described the entire Republican Party... Also, that's rubbish. The UK and Denmark and most likely other countries with a monarchy depends on the royal houses for tourism. Oh and by the way, it's not like monarchies have any say when it comes to ruling or governing, thus they have no impact towards the democratic rule.

As I stated on the previous page, tourist bureaus, if it's even called that, say that other factors are more important than the royal family in attracting tourists to the capital here in Sweden. Outside of events like the royal wedding it's unlikely there's any gain from them since other factors are more important.

[Venziir]

As I stated on the previous page, tourist bureaus, if it's even called that, say that other factors are more important than the royal family in attracting tourists to the capital here in Sweden. Outside of events like the royal wedding it's unlikely there's any gain from them since other factors are more important.

In the case of Sweden perhaps, but well... That's what you get for being far away, cold and having a silly language and a lack of booze damnit! Now stay out of Tivoli or we'll conquer Malmö within the hour!

[Deleted]

That's funny, sounds like you described the entire Republican Party... Also, that's rubbish. The UK and Denmark and most likely other countries with a monarchy depends on the royal houses for tourism. Oh and by the way, it's not like monarchies have any say when it comes to ruling or governing, thus they have no impact towards the democratic rule.

- - - Updated - - -



In that case; I suggest you go back a bit and read Endus' post, because he is absolutely right. Or are you just, by chance, related to Queen Mary and still upset that Lizzie beat ya to the throne?

Versailles says hi. Monarchy =/= tourism. They actually hamper it. It is an afront to democracy because the taxpayer has to pay for an unelected family, not to mention they get special tax exemptions no one else gets & are basically above the law.

Edit: You do realise republican =/= Republican party in the US.

[Kalis]

England has a monarchy. France doesn't.

Roast beef versus frog's legs = no contest.

Game, set and match for retaining the monarchy.

[Deleted]

As I stated on the previous page, tourist bureaus, if it's even called that, say that other factors are more important than the royal family in attracting tourists to the capital here in Sweden. Outside of events like the royal wedding it's unlikely there's any gain from them since other factors are more important.

I'd like to see where you got that from.

[MerinPally]

Oh of course not, all she does is wear silly hats too and refuse to die,- which is good, Charles is an oaf. And major props to her being able to withstand the absurd (yet hilarious) madness that is Philip!

Oi fuck you those hats are fabulous!

Philip is amazing he keeps coming out with racism and general intolerance and it's hilarious because I find it hard to believe it's done in malice, rather a relic of a bygone time. Charles is an idiot though. Will and Harry aren't even royal, wonder who the real father is. However I have some hope for Will, not so much for Harry but maybe that'll change. I see Will and Kate being decent. Not Charles.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...cringe-3667124

On marriage in 1997: “You can take it from me the Queen has the quality of tolerance in abundance.”

To a British student in China, 1986: “If you stay here much longer, you’ll go home with slitty eyes"

[Deleted]

The British system works.

[Jackmoves]

Outside of events like the royal wedding it's unlikely there's any gain from them since other factors are more important.

Well thats just plain wrong.

here is a recent example...

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/vi...en_3829150.svd

[Deleted]

It is an afront to democracy

Is it really if a majority of the people support monarchy?

[Deleted]

I'd like to see where you got that from.

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/sva...vet-gor-nytta/

[Masark]

I prefer our constitutional monarchy here, as

a. getting rid of it would be an expensive and divisive clusterfuck. It would be require a unanimity amendment, which means (by convention) that you'd need a nationwide referendum and that majorities in each province would need to approve it.

b. If you actually managed to get the thing passed, basically nothing meaningful would be changed.

[Deleted]

Well thats just plain wrong.

here is a recent example...

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/vi...en_3829150.svd

I'm not sure that's something to be proud over.

[Jackmoves]

I'm not sure that's something to be proud over.

We are talking about the value of the royal family. That deal was worth 4,5 billion SEK.