Should we abolish the Royal family?

[Gandalf]

Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.



From your article :

The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.

So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.

Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!

The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.

She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.

The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.

It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.

They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.

I have plenty of historical perspective and am well aware of the history concerning the Royal family. These were the very same people that originally tried to justify their draconian grip on the nation by claiming to be the earthly representatives of god. And all this time later here we have people trying to claim that they provide stability to the nation.

I find your idea that the Royal family see themselves as some kind of guardians of the British people somewhat absurd, especially considering that their wealth and cronyism has always come at the expense of the rest of the population.

The government has commited a number of treasonous acts since it became elected. Where was the Queens voice concerning the illegality of the Iraq war? Where was her voice regarding the bankrupt banks and how they have ripped off her faithful subjects? For someone that cares so much and apparently has the power refuse signing off on government proposals, she is remarkably silent about a lot of important things that are affecting British people very badly.

I think she is irrelevant and voiceless, and thus no longer serves any significant purpose.