5 ms·

I think the royal family actually works out as a net positive economically when you factor in the tourism income they generate. It's also quite nice having som

by corford 13y ago

I think the royal family actually works out as a net positive economically when you factor in the tourism income they generate. It's also quite nice having someone connected with government that has been around longer than one or two political terms and thus has a wealth of experience to draw from and can an act in a way that's above short term popularism. If you ask even the most die hard anti-monarchists in the UK, I believe most of them would agree that the Queen has done a very good job. They're more concerned with her offspring and what happens when she dies. Edit: forgot to mention too that the Queen, Charles, Harry, William, Kate and other immediate family members spend an enormous amount of their time directly involved in charity work.

harrytuttle 13y ago
Yes look at these great charities they support! http://www.arc-trust.org/about/ http://www.arc-trust.org/about/ http://www.rspcareptilerescue.co.uk/ http://www.rspcareptilerescue.co.uk/ http://www.herpconstrust.org.uk/ http://www.herpconstrust.org.uk/ (sorry thinly veiled joke about the Royals and Alex Jones) (no I don't believe any of it but it's funny)
- alan_cx 13y ago
  I respect that such small charities are bigged up by royals. Who else would? They are important in a small way. Big celebs and politicians go for the big charities, knowing they will get great PR, and they do great.... Both the charities and the celebs. That's cool, but here are our royals looking out for the little guys. Well, frogs... This is exactly one of the reasons I approve of them. Again, no bias, no selfish PR reason, they can just help out.
  - twic 13y ago
    The whooshing sound you may have heard just above your head was a low-flying David Icke reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke#Reptoid_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke#Reptoid_hypothesis
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    twic, for some reason I cant see a reply link, so... I knew it was some sort of joke, didn't realize it was about Icke. Oh, lizards!!!! Of course. I really should have seen that!!! Oh well. Even so, I wanted to , er, "approve" of royals supporting other wise neglected charities.
youngtaff 13y ago
We'd get the tourism anyway - people got to Stratford Upon Avon and Shakespeare has been dead for years. What we get from monarchy is an ever expanding line of spongers and hangers on who we're expected to support. Someone will no doubt be along in a minute to say we don't support them financially as they are the crown and generate wealth that way but I'd argue that was all stolen from the common man anyway (plus there's lots of hidden costs such as policing and security that don't come out of the royal budget) The French had it right with Louis XVI. We need a non-political president like the Irish, German and Israeli's have.
- untog 13y ago
  people got to Stratford Upon Avon and Shakespeare has been dead for years. There was only ever one Shakespeare. There have been hundreds of royal families- the British one is notable because it still exists today. Take that away and they're just one of many, and tourists would be far, far less interested. Then what do we promote? The Lake District?
  - youngtaff 13y ago
    Oh and people have stopped visiting palaces like Versailles because the French no longer have a monarchy?

by corford 13y ago

harrytuttle 13y ago

Yes look at these great charities they support! http://www.arc-trust.org/about/ http://www.arc-trust.org/about/ http://www.rspcareptilerescue.co.uk/ http://www.rspcareptilerescue.co.uk/ http://www.herpconstrust.org.uk/ http://www.herpconstrust.org.uk/ (sorry thinly veiled joke about the Royals and Alex Jones) (no I don't believe any of it but it's funny)

alan_cx 13y ago
I respect that such small charities are bigged up by royals. Who else would? They are important in a small way. Big celebs and politicians go for the big charities, knowing they will get great PR, and they do great.... Both the charities and the celebs. That's cool, but here are our royals looking out for the little guys. Well, frogs... This is exactly one of the reasons I approve of them. Again, no bias, no selfish PR reason, they can just help out.
- twic 13y ago
  The whooshing sound you may have heard just above your head was a low-flying David Icke reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke#Reptoid_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke#Reptoid_hypothesis
- alan_cx 13y ago
  twic, for some reason I cant see a reply link, so... I knew it was some sort of joke, didn't realize it was about Icke. Oh, lizards!!!! Of course. I really should have seen that!!! Oh well. Even so, I wanted to , er, "approve" of royals supporting other wise neglected charities.

youngtaff 13y ago

We'd get the tourism anyway - people got to Stratford Upon Avon and Shakespeare has been dead for years. What we get from monarchy is an ever expanding line of spongers and hangers on who we're expected to support. Someone will no doubt be along in a minute to say we don't support them financially as they are the crown and generate wealth that way but I'd argue that was all stolen from the common man anyway (plus there's lots of hidden costs such as policing and security that don't come out of the royal budget) The French had it right with Louis XVI. We need a non-political president like the Irish, German and Israeli's have.

untog 13y ago
people got to Stratford Upon Avon and Shakespeare has been dead for years. There was only ever one Shakespeare. There have been hundreds of royal families- the British one is notable because it still exists today. Take that away and they're just one of many, and tourists would be far, far less interested. Then what do we promote? The Lake District?
- youngtaff 13y ago
  Oh and people have stopped visiting palaces like Versailles because the French no longer have a monarchy?