I noticed that there is currently no topic on here for DM Land's views of the monarchy. Was interested to see this article in today's issue: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029914/Cost-Queen-taxpayer-hits-40million-royal-family-hit-credit-crunch.html

For some readers their normal visceral objections to paying tax suddenly disappear in a tearful cloud of reverent monarchism, and the noise of forelocks being tugged is deafening:







Gahh, where's my sickbag? But other readers are less deferential.





I'm a bit surprised by the negative remarks. Maybe it's just that the DM would prefer a less formal sort of head of state, like a short Austrian with a funny moustache, for example.

Why would The Mail want a Kraut-lite Austrian when they have a Queen with a Rhine-load of German blood flowing through her veins and married to a kissin' cousin whose Aryan antecedents would make a Nazi cream in his jodhpurs.

Yuk!

Actually, any realistic assessment shows that the Royals, as should be obvious, are no more wise, prudent, intelligent or caring than the average family.

And they are not the bloody rulers!

Idiot.

Approx 12x that is spent buying the Daily Mail each year.

I'd rather have 12 royal families. At least they do something good for the country (tourism and the like)

Is this person serious? The government was elected, the Queen wasn't.

Granted 60-odd p a year per person doesn't sound a lot, but £40million to keep one family in the style to which they're accustomed does. And why do people assume if the monarchy was to go we'd suddenly lose all our tourism industry? The palaces, castles, etc will still be there and people will still visit.

I agree, there was a topic on how much the monarchy costs. I argue with pro-monarchists that if tourists really did go to Buck Palace to see her, like a cuckoo clock who appears everyday at 12:00pm, then they would be very disappointed. It's hard for them to get out of that one.

I also argue that if another family who depended on benefits, were of equal size in number to the Royals, and they cost us each as much, would they still sing the same tune about being happy to pay? That argument then leads back to the previous one, and they cannot spot these two arguments existing simultaneously.

I could never figure this one out either. iirc, the most visited country in Europe is France, whose citizens had the sense to kick their royalty out a long time ago.

The other monarchist argument I could never understand goes "well if you got rid of the queen then Tony Blair(/Gordon Brown/whichever tosser is PM at the time) would be head of state." Like that was the only alternative there could be.

But the tourism that they bring in isn't from people expecting to see them brought out on cue every day, but it's people wanting to see the things that go with the monarchy. The changing of the guard, things like that.

Sure, we could scrap the monarchy and keep all the stuff that people want to see, but I think it would become far less appealing if it was openly done for the tourists. On the surface it would be identical, but it would take away one of the things that tourists like about this country. It's fairly illogical, sure. But that's what people are.

Ideally what we should do is scrap the monarchy but not telly anyone. That means everyone thinks they're still there and people get the same "magic", but we save £40m.

And don't forget it's not just the obvious Royals who get this money, it's all the ones we don't see in the news but do a lot of public duties. It's not just Liz, Phil, Charles, Anne, Edward, Andrew and their children who get this money. The Queen also does a lot for our international standing, the dinners and banquets for various foreign dignitaries etc. The Commonwealth too helps us massively, and it gives us a nice say world politics plus a little club of allies. If we dissolved our monarchy, what would happen? Would the Queen go to live in Canada, where she also Head of State? Our little Royal family is the Head of State in about 16 countries, from Antigua to Papua New Guinea, which is pretty good if you ask me.

I'm a fan of the monarchy (as you might have guessed), I think it gives us a good identity, and I do not think the tourism would be the same if they were all disposed of. Look at stately home visitor numbers - Charles II may have lived there, but he doesn't anymore, so it's not as interesting. With Buckingham Palace the Queen actually lives there, and it's like your in her home. It's so much more interesting. And for 66p a year, I'm very happy to keep Liz and her relatives in the manner to which they are accustomed.

Switching to a presidential system would probably cost as much, if not more, so we may as well keep the bastards is my line of thinking on the matter. It's not like having the rubber stamp law signer elected will advance the cause of democracy much more than if we let them have the job because their mummy or daddy did it.

Indeed, having a president instead of a monarch doesn't make for more democracy or openness, and it's not as if the queen has a great deal of practical power. My main problem with the monarchy is that it brings out the worst servility in people. You can see it in those postings I quoted from the Mail, even more from any HYS forums that concern the monarchy (endless postings from people offerring melodramatically to lay their lives down for the queen, and accusing anti-monarchists of being traitors who should be silenced. Feh).

I don't see how we can be responsible citizens when we're expected to grovel around on our knees whenever a member of the royal family hoves into view. We've pretty much given up kneeling for God, we shouldn't kneel for human beings either.

I should have put this in the Serious Discussion bit.

I once met Lizzie von Vindsor's sister at a children's charity bash in a theatre. At the end of the show she walked unsteadily amongst The Great and The Good and randomly mumbled 'Eoooh, hellooo' to all gathered there before shooting off in her Roller.

You can't blame her for getting pissed, she had just sat through Orville wishing he could fly, which he insisted he couldn't although it was pointed out by a man with his hand up the bird's arse that if he really tried he might be able to soar up into the sky.

General observation. If instead of paying a lot of money for the ticket and the wives hadn't insisted on buying a new frock (because they simply didn't have the right dress for the occassion, plus shoes, plus handbag, plus hairdo) and, instead, we all sent this money saved to the charidee then they would have made far, far more.

BTW, Margaret was tiny. I couldn't see her feet but I reckon she could have made a good Hobbit.

I agree with that. But I can't really think of any times where you are forced to grovel to the Royal Family. Other than funding, they're a fairly "opt in or opt out" kind of deal. If they're doing things (opening hospitals, Royal Variety shows etc.) if you don't approve of them then you just don't go to/watch things.

And you hardly have to grovel, just speak and act respectfully. And not call her Liz.

Whan Margaret was younger she was quite a MILF.