Soldato
It doesn't. It's by far a net contributor to the treasury.
That's what I thought, even more good news
It doesn't. It's by far a net contributor to the treasury.
If we're going solely off the posts in this thread, then I rest my case.You ould be wrong, just look at the responses in this thread.
Perhaps they do, but it isn't because it's a superior system of governance.Or maybe people just like the Monarchy? I for one do, and it's not because I'm afraid to speak out about it.
I would wager that nobody (or almost nobody) that actually advocates for a monarchy has spent even a minute seriously contemplating its alternatives.
I can settle this easily:[sarcasm] Yes, let's go for something based upon the French Presidential system instead. Then we could replace the Queen with someone like Chirac or Sarkozy . Now there's a happy thought [/sarcasm].
Yeah well.Wow. Check out Mr. Pretentious.
I can settle this easily:
Carla Bruni > Prince Phillip
If we're going solely off the posts in this thread, then I rest my case.
Perhaps they do, but it isn't because it's a superior system of governance.
I can settle this easily:
Carla Bruni > Prince Phillip
Perhaps they do, but it isn't because it's a superior system of governance.
Ok, so it wasn't you who said this but...I can settle this easily:
Carla Bruni > Prince Phillip
the monarchy costs more than the measly couple million they bring in tourism income. The stupid royal wedding security budget did that in one day
Yes, but who would you rather look at? That's how we choose leaders now, isn't it?
People who want to get rid of the monarchy seem to think it will save the country a lot of money. It is my understanding that the Queen is one of the more cost effective heads of state.
I'm struggling to find even a half decent reason to keep a monarch in that post.I would also bear in mind that the monarchy are patrons of a great number of charities and trusts, as well as spending a lot of time promoting british interests abroad, something that many of our republican neighbours do not. Without the monarchy, many of the institutions that we hold dear would be left without a figurehead.
Having a monarchy is something that makes us different, different like Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Litchenstein, Luxembourg, Monacco, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden.
And what about Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu? All of which are commonwealth countries under our monarchy, what do we tell them? Sorry chaps, queens off..
Not to mention the Church of England, who will be in charge of that if not the monarch?
I believe it has been said before, but the royal family don't just sit around putting their feet up, they are extremely hard working, and losing them would be a great blow to the nation, and the commonwealth as a whole.