Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator
Yes, Elenos, but it's proportional - America is much larger than the UK (really?) and naturally, their GDP is larger than ours - the monarchy costs a huge amount of money (about 80p per British citizen per annum) to maintain, and for no purpose. Please look at this site - it'll clear up the delusion for you- http://www.republic.org.uk/
...And also, please, can nobody here use the pathetic excuse that "it helps tourism" because statistically, it doesn't and that's usually what monarchists use when they have not got a good hand left (they were never dealt anything much in the first place!). The truth is, many monarchists that I know are reluctant to discuss it because they haven't got a shread of evidence to suggest a valid reason why they should exist. This blatant, blind pride in an institution that serves no reason to divide our people, take a large proportion of our wealth, keep a remnant of the British empire alive and kicking, lays ridiculous claims, insults military heroism, devalues meritocracy in our society and has screwed up (yes, I can see it from their point of view, the monarchs are not "happy" in their position and many of them are screwed up and have various issues) a succession of innocent human beings by the intense public pressure that is offloaded onto them. Also, did you know that offically, we Britons are offically known as "subjects" and not "citizens"? Did you also know that the monarchy break the UN declaration of human rights?
...Despite any other arguments that people have to the contrary, nepotism is awful and fundamentally, you shouldn't be given that amount of prestige and be made the head of state because of the WOMB THAT YOU CAME FROM!
Also, just another feather in a republican's hat-
TOURISM
The argument that the monarchy brings in tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, it is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.
The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today.
Professor Philip Hall
|
So please, before you say anything else, people, don't even attempt an argument with Anti-monarchists - I respect the rights of people to question (you can see this from various posts in this forum), but with Anti-monarchists, it's a little bit futile. |