[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by UserSince2005

I think that we should cut them out of the state.

No funding from government or anything.

I would still like their lives to be documented and them able to make money as celebrities.

They do make money as celebrities. How else do you think they make such huge profits? (which in turn are paid back into the country).

[arista]

Cut back their funding
Yes , as their OWN cash can take over

[arista]

Originally Posted by Calderyon

It was the paparazzi´s and bad driving from the driver that killed Diana her boyfriend etc., not Charles.

yes thats one account

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by arista

Cut back their funding
Yes , as their OWN cash can take over

They pay back more than they take so cut them off and the country also loses an absolute fortune.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

They pay back more than they take so cut them off and the country also loses an absolute fortune.

Did you not read the stats? They don't bring in as much as you think they do and without them people would still come and pay to tour Buckingham Palace.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Riley.

Did you not read the stats? They don't bring in as much as you think they do and without them people would still come and pay to tour Buckingham Palace.

I'm talking about their own fortunes and what they pay back to government?

I'm not talking about general tourism, I'm talking about the wealth they contribute to the country.

[Withano]

I have little opinion on this, I could take them or leave them.. considering theyre already there, might as well keep them.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I'm talking about their own fortunes and what they pay back to government?

I'm not talking about general tourism, I'm talking about the wealth they contribute to the country.

But they don't pay back to the government? The government funds them which is funded by the taxpayer. And it's estimated that they cost millions more than what is declared to be true.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Riley.

But they don't pay back to the government? The government funds them which is funded by the taxpayer. And it's estimated that they cost millions more than what is declared to be true.

Yes, they do. Research it.

You think the Royals simply live off tax payers? Ok.

[T*]

There's no need for a monarchy but there's also no need to get rid of them either. It's quite cute and being good for the tourism or not they're still an iconic piece of our country

[user104658]

Why wait until she dies? Do it tomorrow.

What monarchy represents, unquestionably, is that some people are "better by blood". That you can simply be born as superior to others. You only need to look at the tabloids to know that this idea absolutely *does* still trickle down into the public mindset.

It needs to go. It needs to be something that we simply refuse to believe.

[Marsh.]

I don't think many believe they're "better" just richer.

The majority of them are a laughing stock, especially in recent years.

It's only the Queen who garners any respect, as she's been there so long.

Once she's gone, I doubt many would have time for Charles and Camilla.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I don't think many believe they're "better" just richer.

The majority of them are a laughing stock, especially in recent years.

It's only the Queen who garners any respect, as she's been there so long.

Once she's gone, I doubt many would have time for Charles and Camilla.

Based on the way people have fawned over "precious little George" since the moment he flopped out, I simply can't agree. And worse than that; it's the people furthest down the "chain", the furthest from Royalty, who believe in it the most. The entire concept is rotten to the core and always has been; Monarchy should be a slightly-shameful historical relic, not something we still pretend is relevant today.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Based on the way people have fawned over "precious little George" since the moment he flopped out, I simply can't agree. And worse than that; it's the people furthest down the "chain", the furthest from Royalty, who believe in it the most. The entire concept is rotten to the core and always has been; Monarchy should be a slightly-shameful historical relic, not something we still pretend is relevant today.

Oh I just see that as people fawning over a celeb baby, the same they would one of Angelina Jolie's sprogs.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Oh I just see that as people fawning over a celeb baby, the same they would one of Angelina Jolie's sprogs.

Without googling it - name Jolie's sprogs.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Without googling it - name Jolie's sprogs.

Excuse you, I'm not a celeb maniac.

How dare you compare me to the likes of the stay at home mums and their OK magazine subscription.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Excuse you, I'm not a celeb maniac.

How dare you compare me to the likes of the stay at home mums and their OK magazine subscription.

Exactly!

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Exactly!

I can't name the second baby they had after George, so it doesn't prove anything.

I'm not a baby person. Much less for fawning after celeb kids.

It doesn't prove the people fawning over George aren't the same with "celeb babies" there's a huge market for them in the glossy mags.

[James]

I'd keep the monarchy - I don't get all these current demands for different kinds of radical change to the constitution in the country - it is simpler keeping things as they are. I quite like the royals anyway.

Another thing that is overlooked, and even sneered upon, by anti-monarchists is that a lot of people do like reading celebrity stuff, and the royals are the ultimate celebrities. And if we didn't have the royal family, we get some sort of famous-for-being-famous celebrity replacement, like how America has the Kardashians.

When President Obama visited a year or two back, the only part of the visit that got major coverage in the mainstream US media was meeting the royals and Prince George.

Inherited wealth and status isn't going away either, as the public support it - to a certain extent.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by James

I'd keep the monarchy - I don't get all these current demands for different kinds of radical change to the constitution in the country - it is simpler keeping things as they are. I quite like the royals anyway.

Another thing that is overlooked, and even sneered upon, by anti-monarchists is that a lot of people do like reading celebrity stuff, and the royals are the ultimate celebrities. And if we didn't have the royal family, we get some sort of famous-for-being-famous celebrity replacement, like how America has the Kardashians.

When President Obama visited a year or two back, the only part of the visit that got major coverage in the mainstream US media was meeting the royals and Prince George.

But we have those anyway...

Inherited wealth and status isn't going away either, as the public support it - to a certain extent.

Yes, and we legitimize, support and encourage that mindset by maintaining an active monarchy.

[James]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes, and we legitimize, support and encourage that mindset by maintaining an active monarchy.

It's not just the monarchy that does that though - look at the coverage celebrity kids like, say, Brooklyn Beckham gets in the celebrity press. And also I'm always amazed at the number of TV presenters and media people, who have famous presenters.

[MTVN]

I don't think the monarchy has much impact on social attitudes to equality, privilege etc. either way tbh. Some of the most unequal and corrupt countries in the world are Republics while some of the most progressive and liberal democracies are Monarchies (Holland, Denmark, Sweden etc.). There are much bigger battles that could be fought in the struggle for greater equality - most people realise that hence there is such little appetite for republicanism in this country.

[Ross.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Excuse you, I'm not a celeb maniac.

How dare you compare me to the likes of the stay at home mums and their OK magazine subscription.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Without googling it - name Jolie's sprogs.

However i bet everyone can name probably two and definitely one of the Beckhams kids.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by James

It's not just the monarchy that does that though - look at the coverage celebrity kids like, say, Brooklyn Beckham gets in the celebrity press. And also I'm always amazed at the number of TV presenters and media people, who have famous presenters.

Oh.You beat me