The Queen no longer just getting by....

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

I have no problem with England (or UK-whatever) having THEIR Queen, I do however protest to her status in OUR country.

I don't support OUR taxes going to her trips (or "improvements for her visits) nor the taxes spent on her representatives in OUR country--all money better spent else where. She has no real power in our country, yet she enjoys trips here on our dime, and has far too many representatives (one per province and territories- 10 lieutenant governors, and 3 commissioners, plus the Governor General) all with only ceremonial duties, all which could be done (and are to some degree) by the elected Prime Minister and Premiers! We see no tourism dollars by being associated with the British Monarchy.....

It costs us a pittance, literally pennies and nickels. As for tourism associated with the royal family, other than the flock of people who come to see the Queen when she sets foot in the country, likely not. But honestly, it is the smallest expenditure that people get up in arms about.

[GirlySports]

I think centuries ago the monarchy had much more influence in our lives so this is a small amount.

I mean a king could steal your girlfriend and send you to war (or just kill you)!

[Magnum PEI]

I'm sure apartheid cost a 'pittance' to maintain, but Canada and other nations pressured South Africa into scrapping it because it was the right thing to do, even though South Africa could potentially be worse off.
Skin colour is hereditary, just like the Windsor surname. Who cares if the Royals make a profit or not, it should be abolished because it's the right thing to do.

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Britain does have a Legoland. As the father of an 8 year old son, I am a regular patron.

Didn't know that. It looks pretty cool.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I'm sure apartheid cost a 'pittance' to maintain, but Canada and other nations pressured South Africa into scrapping it because it was the right thing to do, even though South Africa could potentially be worse off.
Skin colour is hereditary, just like the Windsor surname. Who cares if the Royals make a profit or not, it should be abolished because it's the right thing to do.

How is the surname hereditary?

And that is kind of a stretch comparing apartheid to the monarchy. Are we going to be comparing apples to oranges next?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I'm sure apartheid cost a 'pittance' to maintain, but Canada and other nations pressured South Africa into scrapping it because it was the right thing to do, even though South Africa could potentially be worse off.
Skin colour is hereditary, just like the Windsor surname. Who cares if the Royals make a profit or not, it should be abolished because it's the right thing to do.

The Germans got rid of their Royal Family and eventually they had the Nazis, so maybe the Royal Family should be kept at all costs!

[transplant99]

I heard on the radio a while back there are over 40 countries that still maintain monarchy...i say 'who cares"?

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Skin colour is hereditary, just like the Windsor surname.

Yes, goes back centuries, doesn't it?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think centuries ago the monarchy had much more influence in our lives so this is a small amount.

I mean a king could steal your girlfriend and send you to war (or just kill you)!

Otherwise known inside "The Firm" as "The Salad Days."

Cowperson

[Minnie]

Wonder what they called it in King David's time, LOL.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I'm sure apartheid cost a 'pittance' to maintain, but Canada and other nations pressured South Africa into scrapping it because it was the right thing to do, even though South Africa could potentially be worse off.
Skin colour is hereditary, just like the Windsor surname. Who cares if the Royals make a profit or not, it should be abolished because it's the right thing to do.

If you can find me a single living person who has been personally harmed by a member of the royal family I will be gob-smacked. Also while I am not exactly a scholar of British history didn't the non-regal reign of Oliver Cromwell coincide with some pretty major atrocities?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Yes, goes back centuries, doesn't it?

No, just to the First World War, not even a century yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor

The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of his family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I.

[Minnie]

I know.

[peter12]

Constitutional monarchies are much more benign than most democratic regimes. At the height of the British Empire, government expenditures never rose above 10%.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

If you can find me a single living person who has been personally harmed by a member of the royal family I will be gob-smacked. Also while I am not exactly a scholar of British history didn't the non-regal reign of Oliver Cromwell coincide with some pretty major atrocities?

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

How is the surname hereditary?

And that is kind of a stretch comparing apartheid to the monarchy. Are we going to be comparing apples to oranges next?

How is it not?

I guess only one extended family gets special privilages instead of 5 million whites out of nation of 50 million, but it's still an inequality.

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

If you can find me a single living person who has been personally harmed by a member of the royal family I will be gob-smacked.

Great, they haven't harmed anybody. I haven't harmed anybody since junior high. Where's my castle and palace?

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Also while I am not exactly a scholar of British history didn't the non-regal reign of Oliver Cromwell coincide with some pretty major atrocities?

That was 400 years ago, and the UK and Canada are democracies now anyways.

Originally Posted by peter12

Constitutional monarchies are much more benign than most democratic regimes. At the height of the British Empire, government expenditures never rose above 10%.

Most constitutional monarchies nowadays are either microstates in the Lesser Antilles or western democracies. The republic democracies that fit those categories are equally benign.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I'm sure apartheid cost a 'pittance' to maintain, but Canada and other nations pressured South Africa into scrapping it because it was the right thing to do, even though South Africa could potentially be worse off.
Skin colour is hereditary, just like the Windsor surname. Who cares if the Royals make a profit or not, it should be abolished because it's the right thing to do.

Are you seriously equating the presence of the monarchy to apartheid? Seriously?

Why is it the "right thing to do"? Just saying that isn't an argument.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by valo403

Are you seriously equating the presence of the monarchy to apartheid?

I applied to be King and they sent me back to my slum with a beating. Seems legit.

[WesternCanadaKing]

I can't believe people think the monarchy is going anywhere. How many people watched Kate and Williams wedding last year? Wherever the royals go there are crowds to see them, hell even Charles and Camilla get people out to see them. The royal family represents the UK far more than any other of their institutions.

And why not, the Queen performs an excellent diplomatic function for them; she is a very well recognized figure who also happens to be apolitical. William and Kate are showing very promising signs of continuing this well into the future. To call the royal family totally irrelevant today betrays your ignorance a little bit.

Maybe they're totally irrelevant for Canada, but it doesn't really cost us anything to stick with them... but we will probably cut the cord someday. It is definitely in the UK's interest to keep them around though.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Bit of a stretch, she loved the media and that along with a drunk driver is what killed her.