Am I the only one that thinks the Royal Family is outdated.

[Funtatlaguy]

Why are they still honored above all others?
They are merely ceremonial and decorative.
What other purpose do they serve other than to cost a lot of money.

Of course, our own President fashions himself as a King 🤴, so I guess we Americans have no high ground to claim over a country that actually does have royalty.

[malaise]

1. There can be no democracy in the presence of monarchies

All they do is promote class divisions and entitlements. Fuck them all - everywhere.
Tear up Cinderella and give our girls good books to read. There is no prince and no fairy godmother.

[Hortensis]

18. Tell that to the UK. Come on. Democracy's a

real thing, not a theoretical symbol that can be erased by another symbol.

This is a silly OP anyway. Could as profoundly ask if serfdom and guilds were obsolete.

As for the wedding, I've decided race mixing in Britain's royal family is a rather special symbolic marker in the end of a very dark era in western history, so I'm going to turn it on tomorrow morning at 7, or at least record and watch part.

Otherwise, to me, this very unique subset of billionaires in its royal family is strictly a traditional, sentimental frivolity for the people of the UK to maintain or discard.

[whathehell]

105. The UK already knows it, and no, the OP isn't "silly" at all

It's a legitimate question -- Clearly, you didn't know there's been anti-monarchist sentiments there for ages. Your comparables don't work either since, unlike the monarchy, guilds and serfdom no longer exist.

[Hortensis]

114. It's okay. Lots of other topics worth getting

worked up over. Quarreling over what constitutes "obsolete" and "monarchy" aren't among them.

[whathehell]

115. Lol.

[Hortensis]

122. :)

[whathehell]

123. Back at ya.

[19catsandcounting]

118. Side question

When wasn’t it a dark era in western history?

[DFW]

135. They don't have to be mutually exclusive

And talking about democracy, whose is in better shape right now, ours or Britain's?

If the Royals bring in a fortune in tourist money, AND they are role models, which the younger ones seem to be, then I have no objections.

[Sherman A1]

2. I don't believe that it makes much difference as to what we Americans

Think on the Royal Family. What the British citizens believe is what counts.

I will say that the little girl next door with all sorts of learning and physical disabilities is all wrapped up in the coming nuptials and enjoying the pageantry and news of it. So I believe that it’s a wonderful thing for her to enjoy the fairytale wedding and it costs none of us anything for that to be so. In that sense the Royals are performing a service to a little girl they will never know or meet so I’m good with it all.

[JI7]

4. yup, it's like santa clause and the easter bunny

it doesn't mean people are religious fundies or anything. it's just something people do for fun which may have connection and history to religion but not for most people in how they enjoy it.

and it doesn't hurt anyone.

[whathehell]

107. "It doesn't hurt anyone"?

That's actually a matter of dispute -- Ask how much it costs the British tax payer to support them.

[brush]

126. It's all about priorities. Think of all the taxpayer money we spend on the MIC.

[whathehell]

130. At least that has some practical use..

but it's not my country, so to each his own.

[brush]

131. But look how we use it. Not for good that for sure.

[whathehell]

133. Look at how they used theirs..

Before WWII, the Brits were the big miliary dog of the world.
Along with countries like France and Spain, they have a long history of war and exploitation.

[brush]

136. Whataboutism doesn't justify our imperialism around the world now.

[whathehell]

139. A new buzzword doesn't justify ignoring history

Context counts. :

[brush]

141. Right. Context does count. And in the context of today's...

militarism/imperialism the US military is today's big dog.

[Miles Archer]

27. That's similar to what I was going to post

As an American, it means nothing to me, other than recognizing it as a key element of someone else's culture.

I believe we can appreciate and respect all of the many nuances of other cultures. But there is a fine line between appreciation and personal enjoyment. I appreciate and respect the fact that the royal wedding is a cultural event, and think it's great that so many people are following it and feeling a part of it. For me, personally, I don't care. That doesn't mean that I think it's outdated or have any negative feelings about it. It's something that is there for people to enjoy if they are inclined to do so, and for people like me, my attention is elsewhere.

[JI7]

3. it's about tourism and they aren't honored above others . look at how the media treats them

they have no real power.

[hunter]

57. They're like the historical actors you might see in a place like Colonial Williamsburg.

The monarchy represents a past that never really existed.

https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.com/

The actual past was a lot dirtier.

It's like my great-great-grandfather's 19th century house in San Francisco.

The house has been carefully "restored" by its 21st century multi-millionaires owners and now looks better than it ever did when my ancestors owned it. Yes, it was a big house when my great grandmother sold it, upper middle class certainly, but it was no gilded painted lady.

[jberryhill]

61. Ah, I should have read the thread...

Yup.

[Bucky]

98. Oh my God, what if they're crisis actors??!

Haha, actually that's a really good analogy. Except of course they're a lot better paid then the people working at Williamsburg

[whathehell]

108. "Look at how the media treats them", lol?

They treat them like Roya!ty.

[Laffy Kat]

5. No, you are not.

I don't usually opine about it because I don't want to be a killjoy, yet I find the incessant prattle about the weddings, babies, etc. intolerable. The amount of money that goes into the pomp is obscene but the British seem proud of their royalty. Americans do the exact same thing with our celebrities, so so be it.

[Funtatlaguy]

8. Thanks

My feelings exactly.

[whathehell]

113. No, America has celebrities..The UK has a Monarchy AND celebrities

and the Monarchy is tax payer supported -- The Kardashians are not. In addition, the Queen still has some governmental power -- Celebrities do not.

[brush]

127. We also spend many more billions on our military. It's all about priorities.

[TimeSnowDemos]

6. No you're not...

In some places it's basically a tourist trap as all authority had been removed though.

In other places they play a roll in the government, but even then it can be essentially as a runner stamp.

In some systems people believe that having unelected - and therefore the theory goes, apolitical - representatives, mixed with elected ones, is the best way to protect democracy.

So, in the UK the House of Lords serves this function. And indeed has stopped crazy government overreach in the past.

As a side note, as lousy as other systems can seem, always remember that the US system is a joke internationally - and hardly. democratic, as it's produced such lousy results and is so corruot. I doubt that's due to Kings and Lords, but still.. Glass houses, etc.

[Freddie]

40. The US is not a "democracy"

As I've been reminded by a RWNJ "friend" - we are a Republic- which allows atrocities like the EC to give us a "leader" while losing the popular vote. (Does any other country do this?) I'd rather have a Queen and Parliament.

[TimeSnowDemos]

41. That's not quite right

The whole "The US is a Republic therefore..." line is as old as the hills and doesn't really ever stand a lot of scrutiny. (And yes, a LOT of RWNJs love to use it to explain whatever conspiracy they currently believe.)

Republic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

As for popular vote, etc., systems around the world are littered with things that seem undemocratic... Google how the Netherlands voting system works if you want your head to spin.

I personally think the issues aren't things like the electoral college, but vast voter suppression, disenfranchisement and apathy. The first two certainly make American democracy a joke, and the third casts a pall of illegitimacy on whomever wins.

On top of that, as studies have shown, the people that REALLY decide policy aren't voters or governments, but corporations and monied interests, none of whom are elected.

[whathehell]

111. Um, yes we are -- A representative democracy

We're also a Republic. The two aren't mutually exclusive -- You're Right Wing friend doesn't know that, but we should.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

7. Silly scam

like lotsa stuff.

[janterry]

9. It's complete garbage

I avoid it at all costs.

IMO, the Kardashians and the royal family are two sides to the same coin. One side might look trashier (yes, you win, Kimie), but it's all about looks and pretense. The royal family has a few photo opportunities, some 'charity' work -

and tons of vacations. I have no respect for either.

[Funtatlaguy]

10. I change the channel when "news outlets"

Have their royal coverage.
It should be covered as celebrity entertainment. It’s not real news.

[LuvNewcastle]

30. Yes, it is celebrity entertainment.

And in America, we have royalty and aristocracy as well. All you have to do is make a lot of money or be pretty and the public will hang on your every word. Having admiration for the people who have accumulated the most stuff is no better than admiring people who are born into the right families.

[MountCleaners]

11. I don't care for the sentimentality of it

Being of Irish descent, I think it's silly and yes, outdated.

[Blue_Adept]

12. Considering how many of us in our ancestral past emigrated from England...

some of us like to acknowledge our history.

[Dalida]

13. Yes, you're the ONLY one!

Seriously, how can you think that you are?

The only time I would ever care to watch any royals is if they were put in guillotines. That's a fate every last one of 'em should have met long ago. And for Americans, who I assumed were 100% republican, to fawn over the inbreds of the British royal family is mindnumbingly stupid.

[Funtatlaguy]

14. It was Rhetorical

Sarcasm dripping should have been added.

[RobinA]

68. Nice

liberal outlook ya got there!

[Dalida]

72. What's that supposed to mean?

I'm not sorry that's how we took care of them in France. You can't claim to be on the left unless you rise up against the aristocracy. And it's really bizarre to see Americans, whose nation was founded on rebellion against a king, now fawning over members of the same throne.

[Exotica]

140. You do realise that Napoleon III ruled until 1870 as the Emperor of France?

He capitulated after France lost the Franco-Prussian war, was held captive by the Germans until he was released in 1871, and died in exile in England in 1873. No guillotine involved.

The French Revolution did not end their enthrallment with monarchy.

[dembotoz]

15. It glorifies history and tradition which is not all bad

In times of crisis it provides a point to rally around.

In the us we rally around the likes of Franklin Graham and the old fart on the700 club....think their system has advantages that way.

[Fla Dem]

95. Agree, the British monarchy goes back centuries.

While not all their history is to be cheered, nation building, indigenous people extinction, Northern Ireland repression, etc. there have been years of good and productive accomplishments. The monarchy is their history and it has endured. It is now one mostly of celebrity, supporting national and international good causes and frankly a money making enterprise for Great Britain.

[brooklynite]

16. I would have to care about the issue to agree or disagree

If the British population wanted to become a Republic, they could do so.

[BlueJac]

17. Our country has more than enough problems...

it is not my country to judge! Dictators are a bigger problem.

[hlthe2b]

19. If I were British, I'd undoubtedly agree, but being American, it is not for me to say

[whathehell]

116. Oh, sure it is.

They do, after all, have plenty to say about us.

[no_hypocrisy]

20. If the Monarchy were disenfranchised, legislated out of existence,

would the system of aristocracy be outlawed as well? No more estates. No more titles and statuses like lords, barons, dukes, etc.?

[WePurrsevere]

32. Americans may not use titles & such but...

we certainly have our own type of 'aristocracy' and 'privileged'. One just has to look at what's going on right now in DC to see some examples of this.

It seems to me that Americans should deal with our own, truly harmful, issues before we criticise the English for their choice of holding on to some of their traditions of still having titles and a monarchy, albeit a rather neutered one now.

[EffieBlack]

77. Agree completely

The British people like it. That works for me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. Getting rid of a monarchy doesn't get rid of estates, apart from the 2 connected to the monarchy

The monarch is "Duke of Lancaster", and that Duchy has large land holdings, as does the Duchy of Cornwall that the eldest son of the monarch gets (now that its 'eldest child' for the crown, I expect that will be 'eldest child' for the Duchy too, if it lasts long enough for George to succeed to the throne and have kids).

All the rest of the aristocracy inherit land, or don't, the same as everyone. The titles might go, I suppose, but they wouldn't have to. But estates go with money, not titles.

[bluecollar2]

21. Being English

I favour the Royals and the traditions.

It's difficult to explain why and I'm sure it must be very frustrating to many Americans that on occasion the press becomes absorbed in events surrounding the family.

I suppose it's about tradition and identity.

The British have faced many challenges throughout their history
The Royal family has played a key unifying role in that history.

[Locrian]

22. outdated...

but I did enjoy watching "Crown" on Netflix!

https://quartzy.qz.com/1183870/the-crown-is-the-perfect-show-for-the-fake-news-era/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. Their country, their monarchs.

They seem to like them. Not our circus, not our monkeys.

[HipChick]

24. Foot reporting...I'm over in the UK right now

We spent the morning walking outside Buckingham Palace..union jacks are up all over and everything...what makes this very special, is what it means to Black Britons...a black pastor is also going to be taking part and a black choir..It's a coming together for all people..

[appalachiablue]

49. Have a great time, sounds like fun. I didn't know about the pastor

and choir, that's excellent. Lately I've had pangs about revisiting England but no can do, yet.

It's for the British people to decide their form of government, NOMB. Besides, the services and businesses generated by the royals and tourism must be critical to the economy.

[HipChick]

70. I would not say it's critical..

[appalachiablue]

71. Not highly significant- 10% of UK jobs, 10% of UK GDP. Interesting.

https://www.visitbritain.org/visitor-economy-facts

Britain's visitor economy facts:

Since 2010 tourism has been the fastest growing sector in the UK in employment terms. Britain is forecast to have a tourism industry worth over £257 billion by 2025.

The big picture - the tourism economy: delivering jobs and growth:




https://www.visitbritain.org/visitor-economy-facts

[leftynyc]

25. That's for the British to decide

When they're tired of of it, they'll do something. Until then, they don't effect me as an American.

[ExciteBike66]

26. I have no idea what they cost for upkeep,

but as I always tell my royal-loving wife: "didn't we fight a war to be free of this crap?"

[WePurrsevere]

34. I'm pretty sure that the war was over Americans having no representation...

back in England and being unfairly taxed, property and such being seized without due process, etc. Tensions rose until shots were exchanged at Lexington and Concord and the revolution truly began.

I don't think Americans ever completely gave up on "this crap", we just re-branded it.

We obviously don't have a monarch (not that Trump isn't trying ) but I think we have equivalents to 'royalty' as well as a 'privileged' class plus most Americans still love their pomp and ceremonies. We just call them inaugurations, galas, parades, Oscars, etc.

[ExciteBike66]

35. Oh I understand, we had the Kennedys after all.

I just like to kid my wife because she is so into the whole royal wedding thing.

[Kyblue1]

28. Celebrities are American aristocracy

I too am sick of the news? media obsessing over everything "Royal" and shoving it down our throats, but we are not much different in how we obsess over movie and TV "stars", athletes and no- talent celebrities. We tolerate these celebrities being paid obscene amounts while more and more of our society struggle to provide for the basics. If I were British I would suggest that the Royal family be divested of their wealth and be placed on salaries and continue to play the roles of monarchs much like Disney characters

[Ferrets are Cool]

110. Yes, but our tax dollars don't support Celebrities...

unless you are counting the fake president we have now.

[tazkcmo]

29. Yes

Alone on a planet of billions.

[dlk]

31. The Brits Get to Make That Decision

We have enough serious problems to address in this country without disparaging another country's choice of leader. This smells like sexism.

[lisby]

33. Sorry. But they are not.

Unless you are living under a constitutional monarchy you just can't get it.

[jalan48]

36. They are now reality TV stars. Lots of folks love this kind of fantasy.

[IluvPitties]

37. It is.

[GulfCoast66]

38. Being an American I have no real use for the whole Royal thing...

But seriously, I might be willing to trade our system for a Parliamentary system even if it came with a silly royal head of state.

I have become cynical that our constitution can ever be changed to reflect a truly democratic nation. After all it was expressly written to limit democracy.

[alarimer]

39. No, they are parasites on that nation.

Their lifestyle is entirely paid for by the people and they give nothing in return, yet folks are supposed to suck up to them.

[BritVic]

66. Agreed, they have been called the biggest benefit (welfare) scroungers in the country. n/t

[crazycatlady]

42. It is a form of escapism for people

And say what you want about the family, but the younger generation of Royals all seem like decent people. And William and Kate make adorable children.

[handmade34]

106. can't wait

to see Harry and Meghan's kids!

[NurseJackie]

43. I like them. If one looks at it as a PR "business" to promote the UK and tourism...

... and the sale of all sorts of tacky tchotchke with the visages of various members of the Royal Family, then that may help. They really do bring in and generate more revenue than they cost. Besides, they're aware that times have changed and they are making strides in changing with the times as well.

Just look at all this fun stuff that you, too, can own https://www.google.com/search?q=royal+family+souvenirs

[sarisataka]

44. Not my circus,

Not my monkeys.


Now if you want my opinion of our celebrity/pro-athlete aristocracy...

[lunamagica]

45. Do you have any idea of the amount of money this wedding is generating for England?

Sure, the royal family costs a lot of money, but in tourism they bring much more, especially when events such as these happen. Getting rid of them would have a huge impact on tourism.

Royalty is a good business

[marlakay]

46. That's what I read

Long time ago that people were pushing to get rid of it and they found out it would kill the tourist industry. That the country makes more money from that than they give out to them.

[BritVic]

67. Disagree completely. The buildings and treasures they own would generate just the same income if...

they were all open to the public and we didn't have to pay for the upkeep for this bunch of parasites and the hundreds of hangers-on.

[cemaphonic]

69. My understanding is that that the monarchy is a financial benefit to the UK

Even outside of tourism and such. Basically, the Crown owns a ton of really valuable real estate, and the income from it is granted to the state, with a portion retained to maintain their lifestyle, and to keep their castles and other historically-significant-but-expensive-to-maintain properties in good condition.

Essentially, they have an income tax upwards of 75%. You could certainly ask questions about how they acquired all of that land, or if it is healthy in a democracy to have such concentrated wealth in the first place, but that's obviously a problem here (and in pretty much any other society) as well.

[MountCleaners]

47. Republics are hard-won, and very dear

I suggest that not everyone on this forum is of English descent, and many of us have ancestors whose land was taken from them by the British. Not so cute, sentimental and charming.

While we're elsewhere trying to be more racially sensitive, you might want to consider that we're not all of the same ethnicity, and some of us aren't so easily charmed by monarchy. It implies that some people are naturally more fit to rule than others.

[MaryMagdaline]

128. My ancestors are Irish and very anti-British

But we were absolutely destroyed under Cromwell and there were many parliaments that were as cruel as the royals, if not more so. It was British colonialism at its harshest, whether crown or parliament.

The British have a strong democracy. If they want to keep a monarchy, I'm ok with it. As an Irish American I am split. The Brits actually treated the colonies here better than Ireland, Africa and India. Holding up against the NAZIs has won them my love and support

[nolabear]

48. It's history and identity and security. People enjoy it.

They’re symbols of a long continuity and heritage. And they’re archetypes. They are a benign (mostly) archetype of being special and slightly holy. Since they no longer have power and if the people of Great Britain like it who am I to disagree?

[MountCleaners]

53. History and identity isn't always so pretty

Empires aren't cute "heritage".

[nolabear]

58. It's a fantasy. ALL of it is fantasy.

History is a nightmare but we have to have some reason to go on. It’s a fantasy based on the appreciation of pomp and circumstance. I don’t begrudge that. It’s television.

[BannonsLiver]

50. I'm a hopeless anglophile so probably the wrong person to ask

I find extreme viewpoints on this subject, pro or con, to be a bit silly, frankly. As if America's celebrity worship of twits like the Kardashians is any better.

I will say this, nobody does pomp like the brits. Our inaugurations are laughable in comparison to their weddings, coronations and funerals. Rank amateurs we are.

[Retrograde]

51. Which royal family?

There are more than just the British one, and many of them are a lot cooler. The queen of Denmark is a translator, artist, and set designer on the side, the king of the Netherlands used to moonlight as a pilot, the king of Norway is happy to have you picnic on his palace grounds (as long as you don't barbecue). The British ones seem dull by comparison.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

52. Monarchy is outdated. Let them continue to be tourist attraction & charity draw, but not much else.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

104. In Britain that's really all they are. The Queen has no constitutional power;

she is merely consulted, and Parliament doesn't answer to her. Their function is ceremonial, as in most other European monarchies. Since they don't have any governmental duties they do a lot of charitable work. For example, Charles promotes environmental causes and Prince Harry founded an AIDS charity in Africa. In that respect I'd say they're a lot more useful than some of our wealthy celebrities.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

54. Long live the Queen.

[catbyte]

56. I'm trying to figure out what the big deal is about Meghan Markle's "historic" mixed race

heritage. After all, Queen Sophie Charlotte was of mixed race and she was Queen of England from 1761-1818.

Tue, 05.19.1744
England’s first Black Queen, Sophie Charlotte born

*Princess Sophie Charlotte was born on this date in 1744. She was the first Black Queen of England.

Charlotte was the eighth child of the Prince of Mirow, Germany, Charles Louis Frederick, and his wife, Elisabeth Albertina of Saxe-Hildburghausen. In 1752, when she was eight years old, Sophie Charlotte's father died. As princess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Sophie Charlotte was descended directly from an African branch of the Portuguese Royal House, Margarita de Castro y Sousa. Six different lines can be traced from Princess Sophie Charlotte back to Margarita de Castro y Sousa. She married George III of England on September 8, 1761, at the Chapel Royal in St James’s Palace, London, at the age of 17 years of age becoming the Queen of England and Ireland.

The conditions of the marriage contract were, ‘The young princess, join the Anglican church and be married according to Anglican rites, and never ever involve herself in politics’. Although the Queen had an interest in what was happening in the world, especially the war in America, she fulfilled her marital agreement. The Royal couple had fifteen children, thirteen of whom survived to adulthood. Their fourth eldest son was Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent, later fathered Queen Victoria.

Queen Charlotte made many contributions to Britain as it is today, though the evidence is not obvious or well publicized. Her African bloodline in the British royal family is not common knowledge. Portraits of the Queen had been reduced to fiction of the Black Magi, until two art historians suggested that the definite African features of the paintings derived from actual subjects, not the minds of painters.

In Queen Charlotte’s era slavery was prevalent and the anti-slavery campaign was growing. Portrait painters of the royal family were expected to play down or soften Queen Charlotte's African features. Painters such as Sir Thomas Lawrence, who painted, Queen Charlotte in the autumn of 1789 had their paintings rejected by the royal couple who were not happy with the representations of the likeness of the Queen. These portraits are amongst those that are available to view now, which could be seen as continuing the political interests of those that disapprove of a multi-racial royal family for Britain. Sir Allan Ramsey produced the most African representations of the Queen and was responsible for the majority of the paintings of the Queen. Ramsey’s inclination to paint truer versions of the Queen could be seen to have come from being ‘an anti-slavery intellectual of his day. The Coronation painting by Ramsey, of the Queen was sent out to the colonies/commonwealth and played a subtle political role in the anti-slavery movement. Johann Zoffany also frequently painted the Royal family in informal family scenes.

.....snip

https://aaregistry.org/story/englands-first-black-queen-sophie-charlotte-born/

[T_i_B]

86. It's a big deal to internet keyboard colonels.

But strangely enough, you don't see such people spouting off in real life about this for some reason.

[BritVic]

59. Apart from the news channels going overboard the TV coverage here in Britain...

...tomorrow is surprisingly restrained (9 a.m. - 2 p.m. on the BBC). Having the wedding on the same day as the FA Cup Final (England's most prestigious football cup competition) has probably reined in any excess coverage as the BBC is showing both live events. The death of the Queen Mother was the turning point for coverage of significant Royal events (TV stations kept to their scheduled programmes)

Quite a bit of sycophantic build-up on the BBC, but they did report a survey yesterday by a republican group stating that 2/3 of the country is not interested in the wedding and will be doing something else (like myself). Basically I think churches and other historic buildings look fab on an HD TV, but I have no interest in the event itself.

The main opposing TV channel, ITV, got into a frenzy when the Labour opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, revealed that he would not be watching the wedding live - anything to paint the left in a bad light !

[jberryhill]

60. Is Colonial Williamsburg outdated?

It brings in the tourist dollars, though.

[MicaelS]

62. You are one of the few.

Why do you care about some other countries culture, to lecture them about it?

A country who is our closest ally, and from whose culture America was birthed. The UK is doing just fine, they have a better and more just culture, more inclusiveness, and sure have a better Social Welfare system than we do. All that, and still maintain the Royal Family. Beam, meet Mote.

[BritVic]

63. Actor Emma Thompson's reaction to an Autralian reporter asking her about the wedding made me laugh

Link to tweet

[Blue_true]

64. I like the concept.

When they manage their affairs right, they are an icon for a nation (not ours because of our traditions).

[UTUSN]

65. Furthermore, why such exaltation @ *Democratic*U, which is NOT "RoyalUnderground"?!1

[LeftInTX]

73. They have very little power...

The monarchy exists as a fail stop if parliament dissolves.

The rest is pageantry.
I think it is interesting and fun to watch.

[greyl]

74. Monty Python has your answer!

https://amzn.to/2wWyHAq

[Alethia Merritt]

75. It's ok by me to have a titular head of state that requires and displays a modicum of dignity

grace, style, royalty, tradition, class, manners, and fantasy. Would it were that Presidents would be required to do the same. sigh.
We had one once upon a lonnnnnnng long time ago from 2008 to 2017. He was royal, human, respectful, classy....too bad we have what we have now.

Since the King or Queen has no real tyrannical power it sets a certain unifying tone at the top.

[MountCleaners]

76. Yes, some people unfortunately need examples of good manners

The Obamas filled that role nicely here in the States. I'm not crazy about the monarchs but at least they set some standards and sadly some people need that, especially when I go abroad and hear America-bashing. To me, that's rich as most of my family are still in Ireland. Don't care to be condescended to. The Royals would never do that.

[Dalida]

79. Not ok by me. Actually, for the royal to be just a figurehead makes it even worse

So you remove the whole reason for a monarch by stripping then of their power and making them a figurehead. At least a monarchist can make an argument for monarchical power, stupid as it may be. But there are NO serious arguments for why taxpayers should setup a family of inbreds for life with free housing, millions in welfare payments every year and any benefit under the sun - just to cut ribbons! That is seriously fucking offensive. The only thing you hear put forth as an argument is that they are "unifying" and they bring tourists. Bullshit. I'd like to see a study on levels of societal cohesion between republics and monarchies - I'm sure having an unelected dolt at the top does jack shit to promote cohesion. And as for tourism - give the money spent on a nation's royals to the tourism board instead, and I'm sure they could increase tourism way beyond the very few whose reason for traveling to a country is to look at inbreds waving from the balcony of their public housing.

[Funtatlaguy]

84. An argument can be made that it sets the example

that some people are just “better than others” simply as a result of their birth into a particular family.
The fact that Ones “station in life” in the year 2018 is still decided and celebrated in such a way bothers some people. Justifiably.

[Dalida]

94. Well yes!

It's not just an argument, but a fact!

[Bucky]

100. I teach government in high school. That could never work

Every time I explain to the students that we had a "titular" head of state, the boys would start giggling incessantly

[Tipperary]

78. Well, the Brits are having a blast. I have friends there, and they are loving it.

Maybe just find something else to do? The royal family has been around for centuries- they are not going anywhere soon.

Cheers.

[BritVic]

81. Actually the majority of us aren't, according to a poll this week.

Two thirds asked said they had no interest in the wedding at all. A couple of days ago, police removed all homeless people from the streets of Windsor and made them pack up their sleeping bags...so they could be replaced with tourists in sleeping bags who were camping on the streets for three days in order to get a view for a few seconds of the Royal coach going past.

It's costing taxpayers £32 million - a lot of people are unhappy about this when local councils are unable to fund adequate protective cladding for tower blocks such as Grenfell Tower, in which at least 71 people died in the recent fire.

[T_i_B]

87. As always, there are many different views.

Some people are taking a very keen interest, and some in some of the more conservative places in England you may even find a street party to mark the royal wedding!

Some people like myself have zero interest in the whole thing, and others are downright hostile, usually due to dislike of the Monarchy as an institution. https://www.democraticunderground.com/108814555

[Bucky]

102. Well, maybe local councils need to get their own Royals

Then every time a local council Prince or Princess got married, you could have a big rush of tourists dollars coming in and you'd solve your economic problems, and possibly finally be able to do something about that Jack the Ripper menace or build a proper Titanic, you silly English-type person

[T_i_B]

117. Local councils already have a ceremonial figurehead.

It's called the mayor. A ceremonial position held by a councillor for a year in which they wear a big gold claim and perform various civic and charity functions.

[Bucky]

125. Sorry, but...

no one's gonna go gaga over a gorgeous c-list celeb marrying the Lu'd Mayor of Lower Snubblesworth-on-Frumpton. If you want the big tourist bucks, you need more princes and princesses. I wish 'twere t'otherwise, ol' bloke, but I don't make the rules.

[T_i_B]

132. The Lower Snubblesworth Bugle will go nuts over that

That's exactly the sort of story that local papers love.

[Sophia4]

80. Pretty dresses!

[grantcart]

82. It never ceases me the never ending capacity of Americans

To tell other countries how they should conduct themselves when we are the country that started the Iraq War, elected a man who openly brags about grabbing women's pussies and allies it's children to be massacred by the dozens.

No one in the UK could care one tuppence what Americans think.

When they gave up the Imperial standard for metric but the US couldn't follow because It was "too hard" every educated country perceived us as the self absorbed wankers that we are.

[Cha]

88. Point taken.

[DFW]

83. It's THEIR country, THEIR tradition and THEIR decision.

I'm sure most Brits think that cops shooting down unarmed innocents all around our country is also somewhat outdated.

Which of the two is the more benign tradition?

[MountCleaners]

89. Let's not forget...

That stealing land from Native Peoples is also their "tradition".

Dismayed to see defense of "heritage" and "tradition" on a "liberal" message board.

Wasn't too long ago that these people colonized half the planet.

[DFW]

90. Wasn't too long ago that we had legal slavery either.

Some nations evolve faster than others. Currently our traditions seem a little more violent and perilous to our citizens than pompous weddings seem to theirs.

[T_i_B]

85. That's basically the Republican argument

(note that Republican in this context is very different from what Republican means in US politics)

Personally, I'm not too fussed about such things, and I would pay more attention to the republican cause if they moved from being negative about the institution to discussing what sort of constitution they would want in place of the Monarchy, because we do still need a lot more checks and balances in UK politics and to abolish the Monarchy without addressing this would be a colossal waste.

[Midwestern Democrat]

91. Obviously, the British can do what they want, but yes, I'm glad we don't have this nonsense.

And if I were a prominent Brit (like a famous actor), I would definitely be one of those who politely declined a Knighthood - I would be embarrassed beyond belief to see myself suddenly called Sir My Name in print and in person.

[Funtatlaguy]

92. It's silly wretched excess. But, I was French in a previous life.

I was told that during a past life regression.
Makes sense. I love croissants and hate scones.
Maybe that’s why I think the English are a joke.

[onenote]

93. Anyone who asks "am I the only one" knows they aren't

but also knows that most people feel differently than they do.

[aikoaiko]

96. Sometimes traditions serve the function of promoting cultural identity

Its how we know who we are.

[Bucky]

97. I would probably be opposed to rounding them all up for a guillotine

But the royal family survives as an institution because they're nice people who support charitable causes. I mean, there's going to be rich people on top of society anyway. You might as well have people up there who have an incentive to behave themselves and not oppress the working class

[GoCubsGo]

99. I honestly don't care.

If the Brits, Swedes, Spaniards, Jordanians, Japanese, etc., etc., etc., want to have monarchies, that is up to them. As long as they remain these countries' monarchies, and not ours, I don't give a shit. Why Americans are so smitten with the British family is beyond me. And, why they only get fixated on them, and not, say, the royal family of Thailand, is also beyond me. I'm just glad our taxpayer dollars don't have to go to support them. It's bad enough we're having to foot the bill for the Trump crime syndicate, as it is.

[SidDithers]

101. What does it matter to you?...

It's not your country. It's not your monarchy.



Sid

[Bucky]

103. (pssst, this is an Intranet discussion board...

We talk about what we see in the news on here. A lot.)

[Ferrets are Cool]

109. Oh come on....

what's so wrong with spending tax dollars to support an already RICH family just so they can be held as better than all others??

[Hoyt]

112. Clearly outdated, but a money making machine for England.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

119. And yet Britain somehow affords health care for all its citizens.

A royal family with all its baubles seems a small price.

[mvd]

120. Yes, it is..

but I still enjoy the escape of a Royal wedding. Too much serious stuff going on in the world.

[EllieBC]

121. What's outdated and dull

is the constant whining over the royals/sports/musicians/actors/anyone.

Not everyone wants to be miserable and angry 24/7. Some of us enjoy things still and will continue to do so no matter how much we are told we shouldn't and should instead navel gaze all day.

The wedding was enjoyable, the new prince is adorable, the Stanley of Cup playoffs are entertaining, and baseball and BBQ season is upon us.

[T_i_B]

124. Even the people who like a royal wedding....

...can easily find things to nitpick and complain about.

The bride's dress, Camilla Parker-Bowles hat, the sermon, the gospel choir, Prince Harry's beard etc etc.

You name it, somebody has moaned about it. Some might say that's not really any different to anyone else's wedding!

Sadly, I don't think that human beings finding reasons to complain and disagree will ever become outdated.

[whathehell]

134. Lol..I guess it doesn't occur to some that a lot of us

are just more or less indifferent to them. It's one day, and it's "oh, that's nice, that's pretty", ho hum..now what?

It likely has something to do with age, too, since lots of us remember Charles & Diana's wedding, which means It's not, you might say, our first rodeo.

[irisblue]

138. well Camilla Parker-Bowles hat was something unusual.👒

[Raine]

129. EXACTLY

and I'm not going to let anyone bring me down. Life is short I'm going to find pleasure and joy in what I have left of it.

[Orsino]

137. They represent continuity.

The UK government's antics come and go, but the presence of the royals tacitly reassures the citizenry that all will be well.

If you're gonna have monarchy at all, this is the way to do it. Powerless except for the power to set an example and to shame, if not in so many words, the actual government out of its worst excesses.

Monarchy is stupid, but there is something in the human psyche that wants it, so best to keep it on a short leash if you can't abolish it.