Focusing on negative things.

[2099net]

@ 2099net & Flanger-Hanger: I've never seen so many non-arguments grouped together, just to defend something that clearly has only sentimental value to you. If not, you would have come up with better arguments.

Whatever. Your main argument is that they cost us money and do nothing. Which has been debunked.

For instance, we can't elect the head of state because the 'Commonwealth' is too big for all those people to vote?

Well yes. As I said, nobody has solved the problem about electing a president for the EU. We have revolving 6-month presidencies which are ordered by schedule, not by elections, and a President of the European Commission who is appointed (i.e. elected not by the citizens, but by members of the EU institution) and despite having 5 year terms. Now considering how important the EU is, and how much influence it has on all of its member states, can you even name the current President of the European Commission? (I had to look it up)

Anywhere where you have internal elections outside that of the main citizenship the elected official is supposed to serve, you are open for abuses of the system; cronyism, private deals, bribary, internal bickering and squabbling. It's not really democratic. And in large, pan-national organisations it can and does lead to resentment.

It's not that the Commonweath is too big for people to vote, its just that there will be so many candidates for a head of the commonweath, combined with so many people able to vote, that the winner would probably get in with a small percentage of the popular vote - given that Western Governments and/or Presidents can easily attain power with less than say 40% of the common vote, I'm sure the head of a cross-national organisation up against another 7-10 candidates could be voted in with around 25% of the popular vote (perhaps less). And that includes first-past-the-post voting or alternative voting or any other preferential/knock-out voting system (because let's face it, when anyone votes, they aim for their first choice to be the winner). It's hardly a popular endorsed mandate is it?

At least with an hereditary Head of State everybody knows where they stand. They know what's going to happen in the future. There are rules if the unexpected happens (the next in line to the position dying etc.). It may seem petty, but having such rigid succession removes a lot of potential doubt, squabbling and conspiracy theories.

Also it should be mentioned in the British Royal Family's case, we're not talking about rulers, simply figureheads. As I stated before, ever since the English Civil War, the power of the Royals has been reduced (and still is). The Royal Family are basically goodwill ambassadors. But that's not to belittle their role - its very important. You may doubt it, but you only need to see how many people turn up for Royal visits either at home in the UK or abroad to see how important their role is.

I do think that the fact the Queen is simply a figurehead does help to hide who is actually running the Commonwealth, but being as its more of a co-operative rather than a law-setting organisation, it probably doesn't matter.

Well, the 'Commonwealth' is an outdated notion as well. Do away with it and let all countries elect their own heads of state.

Why is it outdated? We're not talking about the British Empire here, steamrolling itself across the globe, thinking it knew what was best for everyone. It's a co-operative more than anything else, and shares and redistributes wealth for (amongst other things) education, law, culture and literature, sport, free trade and human rights/gender equality. The Commonwealth does not dictate law or rules to any member, its not an authoritarian organisation.

Of course its flawed - any large organisation is. There reaction to the atrocities in Zimbabwe has frankly been embarrassing. But as I said, the Commonwealth has no real authority.

Despite that, I dispute that its outdated. If you say that, you may as well say Save the Children or any other charity is outdated because the Commonwealth does a lot of good for a lot of people (and that includes the British).

Another non-argument: "I think organized religion, too" and "complain about the banks receiving taxpayer funding". As if complaining about one thing (royal family) therefore means one approves the other things that go wrong (religion & banks). Can't we agree that all of those things are bad? The other two were simply not topic of discussion here.

And then the 'argument' that the royal family pays it out of their own pockets. Wow, that is *still* taxpayers money! They're making themselves look good with money they didn't earn. And yeah, the amount of money they take from taxpayers may not look big if you bring it down to an individual level, but if you combine all of it, they take in millions --and that's each year.

Well it depends on how you look at it. The Royal Family is independently wealthy. They pay in more than they take out. That's a fact. So therefore it doesn't cost us millions - its more like a rebate on what they pay in (thus we can say for example they cost each taxpayer in the UK around 69 pence per year).

And you can't really compare their other costs. They get some money for example for the upkeep of their various residencies. But let's face it - I think its safe to say Buckingham Palace/Balmoral Castle/whatever are grade 1 listed buildings (most likely grade 0 should it exist!). My aunt lived in a minor listed building for about twenty years, and she got a government grant to help maintain the building. So the fact is, taxpayers would be paying to maintain the buildings regardless of who/what/anybody would be living in the buildings.

The Civil list - as discussed before - goes on official staff (which is overwhelmingly administrative) and official engagements. Again, its likely should the Royal Family not exists, the proportion of that money would be spent on additional diplomatic formal events (although I do agree without the Royal Family there would be no need for as many diplomatic events each year). And regardless of if you believe it or not, those Royal formal events to make Britain more attractive to the rest of the world.

So the main cost of the Royals probably comes down to their protection - and yes, the Royal Family is extended so it won't be the same as protecting a President and his/her close family.

As for the Royal Family's wealth - remember most accounts of the Royal Family's wealth include state owned assets. The family's main wealth comes from private investments. Yes, you could say that the initial money for these investments came from taxing the British citizens in the distant past. But plenty of large businesses today were started by various aristocrats in the dim and distant past. Are you suggesting the nation claims these for itself on similar grounds?

I would much rather pay for someone who was duly elected. I guess I don't understand why you two seem to take it so personally. (Or am I reading you wrong?)

Anyway, this is all off-topic.

But what is "duly" elected? How much "choice" do you actually have? Do you have choice, or just an illusion of choice to keep you happy?

This country has a Prime Minister so I'll use that as an example.

Just look at the conniving and back-room deals with the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown Prime Ministerships. Who was going to be the leader of the Labour party, and thus, the Prime Minister was pretty much decided between two people - Blair and Brown.

Yes, we could "vote out" Labour as the majority Government if we wanted too, and this "vote out" Blair or Brown, but doing so would mean the Conservatives got into power and we may not have wanted that. If you political leanings were to the left, it would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Its the same for Presidents. Each party ultimately only presents one Presidential option. The initial options are only presented based on internal elections/appointments within the party (again leading to possibilities of cronyism, back-room deals and bribery).

At the end of the day, the ability to unelect a President/Prime Minister isn't as simple as kicking somebody incompetent out - because the alternative choices we are offered are not selected by the people, but pre-selected for us, and removing one often means compromising on our political beliefs.

If you were American and for what ever reason didn't like President Obama, would you (noted anti-Republican) have voted for McCain? The answer (I'm pretty sure) is no. So really, what choice would you have, apart from not voting?

[Sotiris]

As for the Royal Family's wealth - remember most accounts of the Royal Family's wealth include state owned assets. The family's main wealth comes from private investments. Yes, you could say that the initial money for these investments came from taxing the British citizens in the distant past.

Their fortune was made by the shameful exploitation of the British people and of the countless of countries the British Empire conquered, abused, and destroyed. Those are blood money. They definitely did not earn that wealth in any way. They should distribute that fortune to their people and to the countries they ravaged.

Again, its likely should the Royal Family not exists, the proportion of that money would be spent on additional diplomatic formal events (although I do agree without the Royal Family there would be no need for as many diplomatic events each year).

You just debunked your own argument.

And regardless of if you believe it or not, those Royal formal events make Britain more attractive to the rest of the world.

You are saying that Royal formal events improve Britain's "image" to the rest of the world or that Britain gets more tourism because of that? I find that very hard to believe. Do you have any proof that supports this claim?

So the main cost of the Royals probably comes down to their protection - and yes, the Royal Family is extended so it won't be the same as protecting a President and his/her close family.

But the Present or the Prime Minister is a public official elected by the people so using the taxpayers money for their protection is more justified than for the Royal Family who are an imposed "tradition".

But what is "duly" elected? How much "choice" do you actually have? Do you have choice, or just an illusion of choice to keep you happy?

At the end of the day, the ability to elect a President/Prime Minister isn't as simple as kicking somebody incompetent out - because the alternative choices we are offered are not selected by the people, but pre-selected for us, and removing one often means compromising on our political beliefs.

What you're saying here is irrelevant. Sure, the democratic system is problematic, politicians are corrupted etc but two wrongs don't make a right.

If you were American and for what ever reason didn't like President Obama, would you (noted anti-Republican) have voted for McCain? The answer (I'm pretty sure) is no. So really, what choice would you have, apart from not voting?

You could cast a protest/blank vote. In many countries it has real power.

[2099net]

As for the Royal Family's wealth - remember most accounts of the Royal Family's wealth include state owned assets. The family's main wealth comes from private investments. Yes, you could say that the initial money for these investments came from taxing the British citizens in the distant past.

Their fortune was made by the shameful exploitation of the British people and of the countless of countries the British Empire conquered, abused, and destroyed. Those are blood money. They definitely did not earn that wealth in any way. They should distribute that fortune to their people and to the countries they ravaged.

How are you doing at distributing "your" fortune and "your" land to the Native Americans? There still seems to be a few issues of equality outstanding there. It not always as simple as wishing away the past.

Again, its likely should the Royal Family not exists, the proportion of that money would be spent on additional diplomatic formal events (although I do agree without the Royal Family there would be no need for as many diplomatic events each year).

You just debunked your own argument.

Not really. It depends on if you think such diplomatic events have any benefits or not. If something has a benefit, especially an economic benefit, you tend to do more of them. That's why Disney makes sequels to films. So although holding more may cost more money, holding more diplomatic events may also bring in more money.

You should also remember, Britain is somewhat unique in that is had strong relationships with the countries in the Commonwealth - the Queen for example is depicted on various currencies as well as the British Pound. The Queen (and other Royals) often have to take part in formal State events for such countries.

It stands to reason that when you have such an arrangement, its going to involve more diplomacy - and perhaps more people to do it.

And regardless of if you believe it or not, those Royal formal events make Britain more attractive to the rest of the world.

You are saying that Royal formal events improve Britain's "image" to the rest of the world or that Britain gets more tourism because of that? I find that very hard to believe. Do you have any proof that supports this claim?

Well, the recent Royal Wedding seems to be such an event. I know you're going to say such events only happen once or twice per generation, but there constant "proof" - you only have to see how many people turn out for official visits to see the Royals are popular. Were the Royal Family "movie stars" I doubt you would say that they didn't bring money to box office openings.

Look, Britain isn't exactly known for its good weather. What it has is history - plenty of history; castles, palaces, theatres, museums etc. Most of which have a strong royal connection. But what's important about British history is that lots of these locations still have a strong Royal connection, because we still have a Royal Family. Thousands of people flock outside Buckingham Palace everyday - part of the attraction is the chance (no matter how slim) that they may see a Royal - but I'd wager the main reason is because they still have official, working, actual guards - same for the Tower of London, part of the attraction is knowing that the Beefeaters, while ceremonial, are "real" rather then being some dressed up Disneyland "cast" member.

Lots of historical buildings and locations are recognisable and known in the UK because we still have a working Royal Family which has (through their working engagements and events) a presence not only in Britain, but globally. Just like the Queen is much more recognisable and known than our Prime Minster. (One of the reasons is she's not democratically elected so isn't replaced every 4-10 years - she benefits from a continuity of presence).

It's hard to quantify the money the Royal Family brings in because even I doubt many people come to Britain just on the off-chance of seeing the Queen or any other member of the Royal Family. But I don't doubt the Queens worldwide presence over the last 49 years doesn't help sell our country and our history to the rest of the world.

This video is somewhat tounge in cheek, but it explains it better than I could:
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bhyYgnhhKFw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So the main cost of the Royals probably comes down to their protection - and yes, the Royal Family is extended so it won't be the same as protecting a President and his/her close family.

But the Present or the Prime Minister is a public official elected by the people so using the taxpayers money for their protection is more justified than for the Royal Family who are an imposed "tradition".

Diplomats & ambassadors often have money spent on them for protection. Neither of these are elected.

But what is "duly" elected? How much "choice" do you actually have? Do you have choice, or just an illusion of choice to keep you happy?

At the end of the day, the ability to elect a President/Prime Minister isn't as simple as kicking somebody incompetent out - because the alternative choices we are offered are not selected by the people, but pre-selected for us, and removing one often means compromising on our political beliefs.

What you're saying here is irrelevant. Sure, the democratic system is problematic, politicians are corrupted etc but two wrongs don't make a right.

If you were American and for what ever reason didn't like President Obama, would you (noted anti-Republican) have voted for McCain? The answer (I'm pretty sure) is no. So really, what choice would you have, apart from not voting?

You could cast a protest/blank vote. In many countries it has real power.

[/quote]

I don't see why it is irrelevant. The main argument against the Royal Family seems to be that if "we" don't like them we can't "kick them out". - I don't understand why its seen as a benefit to chop-and-change. There's no doubt we as a nation benefit from having constant, non-changing representatives known to the world.

Remember, the Royal Family has next to no political power - they are not the same as a President - they are for all extents and purposes figureheads. For that we have our Prime Minister and our elected Members of Parliament.

[ajmrowland]

The world can be very depressing sometimes. Try walking a mile as a progressionist.

That's why I thank Goliath for giving us that wonderful Monty Python moment.

There was a 6-part documentary made on him that I'll have to watch once I get a few more movies and shows in.

Him? I hope you mean "them"?

Anyway, that six-part documentary is definitely required for any Monty Python fan. The fact that they're all recent interviews (apart from Graham Chapman, obviously) is that they all seem honest, but not bitter at all. The "Story of Brian" documentary on the Life of Brian Blu-ray is also fascinating.

Well, mostly him. "Monty Python's Almost the Truth"

[Sotiris]

How are you doing at distributing "your" fortune and "your" land to the Native Americans? There still seems to be a few issues of equality outstanding there. It not always as simple as wishing away the past.

No one here is denying America's own shameful past. That in no way though excuses the past of the British Empire and of the "Royals". I will never understand this type of reasoning. It's a non-argument.

You should also remember, Britain is somewhat unique in that is had strong relationships with the countries in the Commonwealth - the Queen for example is depicted on various currencies as well as the British Pound. The Queen (and other Royals) often have to take part in formal State events for such countries.

Yes, but that's just a residue of British colonialism and imperialism. All but two countries of the Commonwealth have formerly been part of the British Empire. It's more like Stockholm syndrome rather than an authentic and sincere relationship. Besides, her role in the Commonwealth could be easily replaced by any British public official. You don't have to be the Queen or a royal to perform those functions (which are not so important anyway--holding events, and galas, and visiting other countries etc).

What it has is history - plenty of history; castles, palaces, theatres, museums etc. Most of which have a strong royal connection. But what's important about British history is that lots of these locations still have a strong Royal connection, because we still have a Royal Family. Thousands of people flock outside Buckingham Palace everyday - part of the attraction is the chance (no matter how slim) that they may see a Royal - but I'd wager the main reason is because they still have official, working, actual guards - same for the Tower of London, part of the attraction is knowing that the Beefeaters, while ceremonial, are "real" rather then being some dressed up Disneyland "cast" member.

I'm not buying that. People would still flock to see Buckingham Palace, monuments, historical and cultural sites etc even if there wasn't a Royal Family anymore like what's happening in other countries that used to have a monarchy.

Diplomats & ambassadors often have money spent on them for protection. Neither of these are elected.

Yes, but they serve a function and they are appointed in the sphere of a democratic system. They're not born with a hereditary right; they "earn" their position which is a job unlike the Royals.

Remember, the Royal Family has next to no political power - they are not the same as a President - they are for all extents and purposes figureheads. For that we have our Prime Minister and our elected Members of Parliament.

Next to nothing is not enough. You are forgetting that the Queen is the head of state of the British overseas territories. The Queen appoints a representative in each territory to exercise her executive power. To me that sounds like political power.

[2099net]

No one here is denying America's own shameful past. That in no way though excuses the past of the British Empire and of the "Royals". I will never understand this type of reasoning. It's a non-argument.

It's not a non-argument. It's just pointing out that actions in the past can't easily be "undone" today. There is no precedent. How far does one go? Strip the whole lot? Is that fair? For how many generations do the sins of the father weigh on the "innocent" children?

Let's face it, the current Royal Family are more German than British, their "responsibility" to actions of British Kings and Queens hundreds of years ago is slight. The Royal Family tree is somewhat convoluted, even though there's generally a direct line of succession its been watered down over several generations.

If you lived in a inherited house, and it was found out your father of great grandfather bought the house with proceeds from theft, would anyone have the right to evict you from your house? Would it be fair to do so?

What if you were an British or American trading company who benefited from the slave trade or slavery in general? Many tobacco, tea and sugar companies did. It's just hard to say to what extent it relates to current companies as mergers, acquisitions and partnerships muddy the waters. (Much like the Royal family tree has become muddied by marriage).

But should - say - British American Tobacco which has ties via mergers and acquisitions to companies in the 1700's make recompense?

What about BMW which has admitted using 30,000 slave labourers/POWs for cheap labour? They weren't the only ones either. Should all of those companies have assets stripped from them? Should they award shares to the families of those workers? Pay compensation? Or something else?

http://www.theawfultruth.com/salbmw/

You should also remember, Britain is somewhat unique in that is had strong relationships with the countries in the Commonwealth - the Queen for example is depicted on various currencies as well as the British Pound. The Queen (and other Royals) often have to take part in formal State events for such countries.

Yes, but that's just a residue of British colonialism and imperialism. All but two countries of the Commonwealth have formerly been part of the British Empire. It's more like Stockholm syndrome rather than an authentic and sincere relationship. Besides, her role in the Commonwealth could be easily replaced by any British public official. You don't have to be the Queen or a royal to perform those functions (which are not so important anyway--holding events, and galas, and visiting other countries etc).

Yes, the British Empire was bad. It had positives too, but the negatives outweighed the positives. However, at least Britain maintained "good" relations with the majority of the nations involved.

As for now, as I pointed out earlier the Commonwealth actually does a lot of good. I see no reason for anyone to be embarrassed or ashamed of the Commonwealth today.

Yes, any British public official could perform those functions. But costs would be involved regardless of who did them. As for importance, again its hard to judge "value for money" from such events - but on the whole I would say that they have some inherent importance, or else we wouldn't do them - or at least as many.

What it has is history - plenty of history; castles, palaces, theatres, museums etc. Most of which have a strong royal connection. But what's important about British history is that lots of these locations still have a strong Royal connection, because we still have a Royal Family. Thousands of people flock outside Buckingham Palace everyday - part of the attraction is the chance (no matter how slim) that they may see a Royal - but I'd wager the main reason is because they still have official, working, actual guards - same for the Tower of London, part of the attraction is knowing that the Beefeaters, while ceremonial, are "real" rather then being some dressed up Disneyland "cast" member.

I'm not buying that. People would still flock to see Buckingham Palace, monuments, historical and cultural sites etc even if there wasn't a Royal Family anymore like what's happening in other countries that used to have a monarchy.

But do people go to France or Italy or similar to see the sights? Most people will probably single out the weather as the primarily reason. Have you ever bumped into somebody with an unfulfilled desire to visit Versailles for example? Or Caserta? How many people actually know there's a Palace of Caserta in Italy?

Yet its easy to hear non-British people express a desire to see Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London or other such buildings.

Diplomats & ambassadors often have money spent on them for protection. Neither of these are elected.

Yes, but they serve a function and they are appointed in the sphere of a democratic system. They're not born with a hereditary right; they "earn" their position which is a job unlike the Royals.

I tend to think most diplomats and ambassadors are appointed based on who they know, or what they have done for the Prime Minister/President/Political Party in question. It may be within a democratic system, but I doubt many (especially those posted to friendly nations) do much to justify their job before they begin it.

At least with the Royal Family there is no hidden (or not so hidden in some cases) political agenda.

Remember, the Royal Family has next to no political power - they are not the same as a President - they are for all extents and purposes figureheads. For that we have our Prime Minister and our elected Members of Parliament.

Next to nothing is not enough. You are forgetting that the Queen is the head of state of the British overseas territories. The Queen appoints a representative in each territory to exercise her executive power. To me that sounds like political power.

Has the Queen ever exercised her political power though? In theory she can overrule decisions relating to the British armed forces, can dissolve a parliament... probably do other things. But does she?

If such a person was democratically elected, wouldn't they have greater incentive to take political actions or make political speeches? Especially when they were approaching re-election? There is an advantage to having a non-political head of state.

[Sotiris]

Let's face it, the current Royal Family are more German than British, their "responsibility" to actions of British Kings and Queens hundreds of years ago is slight.

Hundreds of years ago? Hardly. We are talking about very recent events. Under Elizabeth II's rule, hundreds of thousands people had died in they quest for freedom. Between 1956 and 1992, half her realms became republics. Some of them were the product of a string of revolutions in these countries against the British rule and their victory over the British and others were granted independence because maintaining them became too expensive (especially with the continuous revolts at those regions).

Yes, the British Empire was bad. It had positives too.

That statement is so ridiculous, I'm not going to even bother.

But do people go to France or Italy or similar to see the sights? Most people will probably single out the weather as the primarily reason. Have you ever bumped into somebody with an unfulfilled desire to visit Versailles for example?

Yes, actually.

Italy's most popular tourist attractions are the Colosseum (4 million tourists per year) and the ruins at Pompeii (2.5 million visitors). Italy is home to the greatest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites (45) to date and has, overall, an estimated 100,000 monuments of any sort (museums, palaces, buildings, statues, churches, art galleries, villas, fountains, historic houses and archaeological remains).

As for France:

The most popular tourist sites include: Eiffel Tower (6.2 million), Louvre Museum (5.7 million), Palace of Versailles (2.8 million), Musée d'Orsay (2.1 million), Arc de Triomphe (1.2 million), Centre Pompidou (1.2 million), Mont-Saint-Michel (1 million), Château de Chambord (711,000), Sainte-Chapelle (683,000), Château du Haut-Kœnigsbourg (549,000), Puy de Dôme (500,000), Musée Picasso (441,000), Carcassonne (362,000).

Most people don't go to these countries just for the weather. They go for the sight-seeing. If they wanted just good weather and beaches they'd go to the Caribbean, Hawaii etc.

Has the Queen ever exercised her political power though? In theory she can overrule decisions relating to the British armed forces, can dissolve a parliament... probably do other things. But does she?

That doesn't matter. She should not have that power to begin with.

[2099net]

Let's face it, the current Royal Family are more German than British, their "responsibility" to actions of British Kings and Queens hundreds of years ago is slight.

Hundreds of years ago? Hardly. We are talking about very recent events. Under Elizabeth II's rule, hundreds of thousands people had died in they quest for freedom. Between 1956 and 1992, half her realms became republics. Some of them were the product of a string of revolutions in these countries against the British rule and their victory over the British and others were granted independence because maintaining them became too expensive (especially with the continuous revolts at those regions).

But that's not the Royal Family's fault per say. If Britain had a President since the 1800's I'm pretty sure history would walk a similar path. After all, the people and the Prime Minsters were behind the founding and maintenance of the Empire. If anything it was the fall of the French empire and British commerce, not Royal decree, that led to the founding of the Empire (all that stuff in Pirates of the Caribbean about the East Indian Tea Company is pretty much true). Business was keen to control and profit from the countries of the Empire.

In capitalist societies, capitalism tends to be the strongest social and political force regardless of anything else.

Yes, the British Empire was bad. It had positives too.

That statement is so ridiculous, I'm not going to even bother.

Well, the negatives outweighed the positives many times over, but its wrong to say nothing good came out of the British Empire. Education, medicine, law... And today the legacy of the Empire (mainly the use of English as a second or first language) helps those countries compete economically with other Western nations.

But do people go to France or Italy or similar to see the sights? Most people will probably single out the weather as the primarily reason. Have you ever bumped into somebody with an unfulfilled desire to visit Versailles for example?

Yes, actually.

Italy's most popular tourist attractions are the Colosseum (4 million tourists per year) and the ruins at Pompeii (2.5 million visitors). Italy is home to the greatest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites (45) to date and has, overall, an estimated 100,000 monuments of any sort (museums, palaces, buildings, statues, churches, art galleries, villas, fountains, historic houses and archaeological remains).

As for France:

The most popular tourist sites include: Eiffel Tower (6.2 million), Louvre Museum (5.7 million), Palace of Versailles (2.8 million), Musée d'Orsay (2.1 million), Arc de Triomphe (1.2 million), Centre Pompidou (1.2 million), Mont-Saint-Michel (1 million), Château de Chambord (711,000), Sainte-Chapelle (683,000), Château du Haut-Kœnigsbourg (549,000), Puy de Dôme (500,000), Musée Picasso (441,000), Carcassonne (362,000).

Most people don't go to these countries just for the weather. They go for the sight-seeing. If they wanted just good weather and beaches they'd go to the Caribbean, Hawaii etc.

Agreed. I doubt anyone visits another country just for one singular purpose and obviously once in another country people do visit the sights - unless you really do want a simple relaxing holiday it would be remiss not to. And yes, if people did only want a relaxing holiday with the sun, they would go to a place you mentioned. Also I suspect Europeans are more likely to visit another European country for the sites and landmarks than say somebody from the US.

It may be crude stereotyping, but in US popular culture "Europe" tends to be mixed into one ubiquitous whole, and when its not places tend to be picked out using their own stereotyping: Paris/France for fashion and shopping for example, not so much the sights; Rome/Italy is often associated with romance and London/England is often used in conjunction with castles, palaces and royalty.

Yes I know that's painting the whole world with broad brush strokes, but there must be some truth to apparent views of US popular culture - that's how it becomes popular culture in the first place.

I said before its hard to estimate how much the Royal Family contributes to UK Tourism - because they are one of a few reasons people choose to visit. But you can't deny that they have a strong global presence and recognition. And that recognition must do something - that's the whole principle behind advertising - and lots of companies pay lots of money to advertise.

[Goliath]

@ 2099net: I'm not going to argue you any further on the Royal family issue, for four reasons:

1. It's wildly off-topic; this thread is about 'focusing on the negative'
2. Sotiris has already been debating you and has done a good job
3. I'm not in the mood to wade through those essays (read: I'm lazy)
4. Even if all your arguments were correct, that wouldn't remove the one principal argument I have against the monarchy: they're unelected head of states, which undemocratic and shouldn't have a place in the 21st centruy

[Goliath]

Okay, not replying to 2099net would be rude, since he obviously has put a lot of time and thought in his reply. So here it is: my answer.

Whatever. Your main argument is that they cost us money and do nothing. Which has been debunked.

Wow, that's oversimplifying things. Taxpayers do pay to maintain the Royal Family, that's a fact. And one could argue that they don't really do anything, besides being, as you called it, "goodwill ambassadors". So, are they just expensive, filthy rich mascots? If they don't hold any political power, as you say, and all they do is entertain foreign heads of state (to oversimplify matters myself), then why do you still have them?

Well yes. As I said, nobody has solved the problem about electing a president for the EU. We have revolving 6-month presidencies which are ordered by schedule, not by elections, and a President of the European Commission who is appointed (i.e. elected not by the citizens, but by members of the EU institution) and despite having 5 year terms. Now considering how important the EU is, and how much influence it has on all of its member states, can you even name the current President of the European Commission? (I had to look it up) [...]

The current President of the European Commission is Herman van Rompuy, the former prime-minister of Belgium. (And I swear I didn't look it up.) What you seem to say, is: 'other systems are not good either, so therefore we don't have to change ours'. But you can't justify an ineffective, outdated system by pointing to other ineffectual systems. You should argue both systems then need to be revised. The 'President' of the European Commission is not a 'president' in the true sense of the word, by the way. He's just a person who heads the Commission; he doesn't have the powers a title like 'President' would suggest. They used to have someone for that post, but they just changed the title. So I don't think it's a valid comparison with Queen Elisabeth, who's head of state.

At least with an hereditary Head of State everybody knows where they stand. They know what's going to happen in the future. There are rules if the unexpected happens (the next in line to the position dying etc.). It may seem petty, but having such rigid succession removes a lot of potential doubt, squabbling and conspiracy theories.

But what if this system produces a very incompetent heir? No offense, but Charles doesn't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. No wonder Elisabeth clings to the throne like she does. (I sometimes feel pity for Charles: he's 62 and still not king. It's pathetic.) And look at the Belgian royal family: both first-in-line prince Philip and his brother prince Laurent are notorious for their incompetence and lack of intellect. Nobody takes them seriously anymore. If you have an elected head of state, you can at least vote him/her out after several years. (And some countries, like Venezuela, even have a 'recall' option, where halfway through a president's term, he/she can be voted out of power by the people.) But there's no voting off a royal head of state.

I don't care at all for the folkloristic aspects of the royal family. The costumes, the protocols etc. I think they're ridiculous. Now lots of people seem to love it, like tourists, but you don't need a royal family to make your country appealing. France doesn't have a royal family and they're luring in loads of tourists (and investers) each year. Ultimately, the royal family is very replacable.

[...] Why is it outdated? We're not talking about the British Empire here, steamrolling itself across the globe, thinking it knew what was best for everyone. It's a co-operative more than anything else, and shares and redistributes wealth for (amongst other things) education, law, culture and literature, sport, free trade and human rights/gender equality. The Commonwealth does not dictate law or rules to any member, its not an authoritarian organisation. [...]

But surely you don't need the 'Commonwealth' for that? You have sovereign nations, don't you? Does this 'redistribution of wealth' means British taxpayers pay for other countries in the 'Commonwealth'? How is this justified? Why not just do away with it and let the different countries take care of their own businesses? If britain as a country still wants to help other countries, fine, then give development aid, like we do. You don't need a queen for that.

Well it depends on how you look at it. The Royal Family is independently wealthy. They pay in more than they take out. That's a fact. [...]

Well, if you say so... I don't know that's true. I know from our own Dutch royal family that there's lots of 'hidden costs' --some of which even parliament has just been finding out about lately, and they still don't know all the costs. Everybody seem to count in different things when doing the math on the royal family's costs. A pro-monarchy person would leave out things like maintenance of their estates, boats etc., while an anti-monarchy person would count every single thing.

I left out some of your points to prevent repeating myself or to avoid overlap with other answers.

As for the Royal Family's wealth - remember most accounts of the Royal Family's wealth include state owned assets. The family's main wealth comes from private investments. Yes, you could say that the initial money for these investments came from taxing the British citizens in the distant past. But plenty of large businesses today were started by various aristocrats in the dim and distant past. Are you suggesting the nation claims these for itself on similar grounds?

Well, I'm in strong favor of nationalizing some parts of the market. For example, I believe industries like oil and gas should be in the hands of the state. They're too important to leave them to the market.

But what is "duly" elected? How much "choice" do you actually have? Do you have choice, or just an illusion of choice to keep you happy? [...]

Yes, we could "vote out" Labour as the majority Government if we wanted too, and this "vote out" Blair or Brown, but doing so would mean the Conservatives got into power and we may not have wanted that. If you political leanings were to the left, it would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Its the same for Presidents. Each party ultimately only presents one Presidential option. The initial options are only presented based on internal elections/appointments within the party (again leading to possibilities of cronyism, back-room deals and bribery). [...]

You're partially right, but not entirely. You forget that in most systems, the members of political parties can vote for the presidential candidate/party leader --that's ordinary people who can become members. Of course, this process can be manipulated, like the US primaries in which the media deliberately and systematically shut out candidates who question the status quo; candidates who can't get far in the race because they can't earn as much in big donations as the other candidates do. But that's a fault of the system in that particular context; not a fault of the system of electing a candidate/leader in itself. Take the system in The Netherlands: party leaders get elected by the members, but since we have public funding of elections and a whole other system than the primaries in the US, corporate money isn't an influence, so everybody has an equal change of winning the nomination.

The other problem you identify, is inherent in the de facto two party system in the US and UK. I understand a huge majority of the British people voted against changing the electoral system, which would have allowed small parties more seats in parliament. I thought it was a good initiative of the Lib-Dems, so was stupified to see it defeated. But again, this is not a fault of having the opportunity to directly elect your leaders, but of having a flawed system. There are many flaws in the Dutch system, for instance. After each election, the party leaders all go for a formal visit to the queen to discuss the results with her and to advise her whom to appoint 'informateur' (the man/woman informing which parties want to form a cabinet and leading the negotiations). Formally speaking, the queen is powered to ignore all that advice and appoint whomever she likes. It's not even required by law to give this large a role to the queen, it's just a custom we keep repeating.

A lot of people don't think it's fair an unelected head of state has that much (theoretical) influence over the shaping of a new cabinet. I'm one of them.

EDIT: this was a reply you gave to Sotiris, but I want to chime in:

But do people go to France or Italy or similar to see the sights? Most people will probably single out the weather as the primarily reason. Have you ever bumped into somebody with an unfulfilled desire to visit Versailles for example? Or Caserta?

Hell YES!!! Look, this defense is silly. Lots and lots of people go to France to see the Eiffel tower, Notre Dame, Arc de Triomph, Musee d' Orsay, the Louvre etc. Same goes for Italy and Greece, which both harbor millenia-old historic treasures. To say those are irrelevant (people go for the weather), but your country's monuments are actually important because of the royal connection, makes your argument seem very contrived and not given in by rational thinking, but patriotism instead.

Has the Queen ever exercised her political power though? In theory she can overrule decisions relating to the British armed forces, can dissolve a parliament... probably do other things. But does she?

That's completely besides the point. There is always the possibility that she can do all of that, and that's not desirable. You're right that an elected official can also gain undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional powers --just look at Bush and Obama.

[Sotiris]

Sure, the royals have no political power.

Ministers have been forced to seek permission from Prince Charles to pass at least a dozen government bills, according to a Guardian investigation into a secretive constitutional loophole that gives him the right to veto legislation that might impact his private interests.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/3 ... egislation

[ajmrowland]

Some seemingly dark people have been classified as optimists.

Plus, remember that Disney is something that is usually ingrained in people during their childhood. How many children are pessimists? (Let it go on the record that: no, I don't know when people develop either as an outlook.)

The true twist being, as we all know, that especially Walt's movies were pretty dark, while they're mostly regarded as kiddie fare these days. I mean, if Dumbo or Bambi were released now, I don't know if the reactions would be so positive. I mean that a lot of folks would probably deem it unfit for children.

one of the bad things in the world is parents being like that.

i already know the modern world's problems. who's gonna listen?