What makes Paris Hilton, as the daughter of a billionaire and more deserving of anything than the royal family, as the children of royalty? The royalty originally got into power for various reasons, just as the Hilton family did, the only real difference is that it happened a long time ago. But in a sense, each person who had fame and fortune arbitrarily decides what they do with it and it determines if their family will still have it for future generations. Regardless though, people are nosy and they like gossip, and if it’s not about royalty, it’s about other celebrities like politicians, actors, athletes, and musicians.
I’m American, but I’m not really sure how much time it would save to not have to consult with the queen. Is spending an hour or whatever having tea with the queen THAT big of a deal? We don’t have royalty and our politicians still find plenty of reasons to not get stuff done.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about the British Royal Family, but I can understand how it could be an important part of British history and culture and why people wouldn’t want to just get rid of them. They probably could do more to streamline the processes involved and maybe make them mostly or entirely self-sufficient from appearances and tourism and all of that, but it seems to me like the issues are probably exaggerated a bit because of the amount of visibility. It’s like when here they make a big deal about a few million that got wasted on some government program, forgetting just how tiny a portion of the budget we’re talking about.
With regard to OP’s mention of the royals ‘thinking that they’re more important than everyone else’ with their labels of ‘Her Majesty’s Government’ or ‘Her Majesty’s Ship’. OP kind of misses the point: the people like those labels as being a bit historic and more interesting than simply ‘The British Government’ which it implies anyway. Also beware of the inevitable result of any government that calls itself the ‘People’s Popular Democratic Republic’: often it fails to be any of them.
Also Buckingham Palace wouldn’t become a museum: any president we create to replace the monarchy would set up shack there, almost certainly.
The Kardashian wedding, which was broadcast in US primetime*, drew a global TV audience of 10.5 million. The royal wedding was broadcast at 4am in the US and drew a global TV audience of 300 million, with perhaps that many again streaming it online.
*About 285 million of the world’s ~1.5 billion TVs are in the US.
I still say the royals are the only thing making the rest of the world forget that England is no bigger than Rhode Island, and the entire UK is barely larger than Michigan (which is not in the top ten biggest US States. . .)
But I thought their primary role was in heading up the church, rather than the political structure? Didn’t Victoria sort of re-define them as the head of morals and values? and isn’t that why everyone is so disappointed in Charles? (who really seems more the Henry VIII type.)
I thought the PMs meetings with the Queen were to show respect for Chruch, morals, traditional Values, rather than an homage to her DNA?
anyhoo, it’s a ridiculous waste of money for sure. Imagine any comparatively small US area trying to support the same expenditure? It’s ludicrous! compare to say, the New York State Governor’s mansion which is really the grandest one I could find.
I’m also interested in these “Gilded toys” belonging to the President. Are you referring to the USA? Because I’ve seen AF1 and it’s nice, but the least corporate jet is better appointed. And have you ever toured the White House? really, it’s a bit embarassing if you ask me. It’s living in comfort and all, but it’s not even on a scale with some B&Bs I’ve stayed in.
It might be the fact that that isn’t true that makes people forget. At ~50,000 square miles, England is about 40 times bigger than Rhode Island. The entire UK is actually slightly smaller than Michigan.
In any event, the population of the UK is more than one fifth that of the US, making comparisons based on land area kind of meaningless.
I don’t know what kind of “ridiculous expenditure” you’re talking about. The royals’ living expenses are paid by the Civil List, and their incomes are considerably lower than they would be if they simply lived off their land and other holdings.
I agree with this, but I think the current federal government, by its actions (adding “Royal” to the names of the branches of the Canadian Forces, removing Alfred Pellan’s paintings of Canada from the foreign ministry’s building to replace them with a portrait of the Queen, reserving government funding to organizations that wish to celebrate the Queen’s jubilee – and the War of 1812 for some reason) is making the monarchy into a political issue. I thought most Canadians were completely apathetic about the whole subject, but now we’re being forced into the roles of “those who love Our Queen” and “those who hate Our Queen”. This causes divisions among Canadians, and I also think that it’s unfair to the Queen herself. She’s not a political puppet and shouldn’t be used as one.
When Elizabeth II passes, Charles (after a suitable mourning period) will be crowned; and then, despite the expense, all the UK and Canada and all the world will be all gaga over the medieval pageantry of the Coronation – how could something so ancient and unique be allowed to pass out of the world? – and talk of doing away with it all will fade. For a while.
I’m not even sure that American political leaders of today - who are elected via televised homecoming-court contests, funded by corporate lobbyists - are any better at making decisions than a king or queen.
It’s not exactly either of those things. Everything the British government does is ostensibly done in the name of the monarch (well, The Crown, really). So it would seem courteous for the PM to keep her up to date.
I think the scandals of the 90s kind of did away with any remaining notions that the royals are a moral compass for the nation
Charles is less popular for two reasons - first, his messy divorce with Diana, and second, his perceived willingness to interfere in government. I think they’re overblown myself.
The discussions can be about whatever they both want to talk about. But the Queen’s long since ceased giving the PM orders, and the PM’s long ceased kissing her hand, even ceremonially.
I dunno, I think it ends up being broadly the same as what a president would cost us.
I haven’t, and I’d love to go but then the White House isn’t really just the president’s home, is it? It’s an office block-cum-operations centre-cum-conference-centre.
I’ve watched the 1953 do on YouTube and the Brits seemed pretty enthusiastic. Of course, it wasn’t just the Coronation, they also got a grand military parade at the end, with troops from all over the Empire/Commonwealth. (In the U.S., we have slightly different ideas about what belongs in a parade.)
Because last year, the Royals did seem to do rather well in terms of publicity and popular support, with some fairly blatant marketing coups such as the wedding. If anything, I’d say the support for Liz et al. is at a bit of a high. Obviously the figures will vary from poll to poll, but to give one example:
So please, how about some sort of supporting statement for your claim?
Well Geddy’s not wrong; there were (typically republicans) who criticised the celebrations as a drain on taxpayers’ money.
When it was pointed out that the ceremony was funded by the Duchies (part of the royal financing system, and therefore not from public funds), they claimed the drain was the cost of the massive police presence.
Not terribly convincing seeing that it stands to reason every public assembly is an ‘unnecessary drain on taxpayers’ money’ by that logic.
but then the White House isn’t really just the president’s home, is it? It’s an office block-cum-operations centre-cum-conference-centre.