I'm not criticizing the UK exactly, but I don't understand why they hold on to their royal family. It must cost the citizens a fortune in upkeep. Plus, King Charles has no real political authority, so what's the point of the monarchy? What are your thoughts?
-
-
If the royal family had to use their own money instead of public fund, how would you feel? I agree with you that it rubs me the wrong way to see people hold certain positions but are not involved in matters related to those positions. I have nothing against preserving the culture and tradition, but it would mean much more to do things that bring more positive impact to the citizens. -
Nice to see you here, wanderer. PM for any help.Comment
-
I think the U.K. hierarchy enjoys having Kings, Queens, Princes, Princesses, Dukes, and Duchesses and the like. It's the only 1st world country I can think of that still like to live in the fairy-tale surroundings. I don't mean that in a disparaging way, but all those titles are used in fairy tales where the ruling class lives lavishly. It looks good, and it's the history of the country.Comment
-
I'd compare it to the electoral college in the United States. It might seem outdated to some people, but it's baked into our political tradition, and it's written in our Constitution, which wouldn't be simple to change. The royal family is part of their tradition, and the monarchy is part of their law.Comment
Comment