4 ms·
Yea, I agree with you on this. It just sucks when the options available involve trying to guess which candidates are the 'lesser evil' rather than the 'greater
by jarym 3y ago
Yea, I agree with you on this. It just sucks when the options available involve trying to guess which candidates are the 'lesser evil' rather than the 'greater good'.
But to dig down into the point, if it is to avoid 'bad' people, then the reasoning is questionable as far as the monarchy go. They have very limited powers as things stand and their economic impact from things like tourism has been greater than the cost of maintaining them. I doubt very much anyone will want to visit the UK to see an elected monarch.
- mytailorisrich 3y agoRegarding tourism, what would change without the Monarchy? Frankly, I suspect nothing. People would still be able to visit Windsor Castle, perhaps even more of it. People would still be able to see Buckingham Palace, and may even be able to visit it. The parades, Changing of the Guard, etc could remain or be adapted. Does it really make a difference whether you see where the King lives vs. where the King used to live? Especially since in the latter case you may actually be able to see inside, as mentioned. So to me tourism is a weak argument.