Originally Posted by
heights good
Having been the largest recipient of welfare benefits in the history of the UK, HM can most definitely be faulted.
It is an archaic, pointless and eye-wateringly expensive endeavour to keep the royal family going.
To remind those of the history of the monarchy, going back centuries the person on the throne, that the Queen is decemded from, was basically the most brutal murderer who kept the populace in check and killed rivals.
Why in a modern era do we keep such nonsense going is beyond me.
The royals are totally symbolic and provide nothing in the big (or small) scheme of things.
Having met a few Royals over the decades, some are 1,000% 'me' centric and care not a jot about anyone but themselves and what they can get from the system.
The very definition of a protection racket!
And to be clear, I am in no way advocating an overthrow or anything of that nature.
I am merely voicing confusion at why we end up in arms about 16 year old Tiffany getting a free council house for her 2 kids, yes we praise and glorify the expense and absurdity of the royals?
Intellectual inconsistency.
As for a solution, a lack of royal family will change zero in how the country is run.
HMQ actually does nothing and is merely a symbolic figurehead.
I think having something similar to the (original) US Constitution would be an excellent start and would codify in law the limits of government.
It could be a document used to hold all politicians to a higher standard than the sorry bunch of criminals, fraudsters and puppets we have now.
So you are trying to compare the current UK Head of State with the US Head of State??? Looking at the previous POTUS, can you actually prefer the US system (the election of whom cost way way more than the Cost of the Monarchy to the UK)? Oh dear.