rss search

next page next page close

Monarchs – What are They Good For?

I’ve often wondered about the purpose of having a monarch, particularly when they don’t do anything and just cost lots of money. But, given the tourism value of our monarchy, I’ve always thought it was wise to let them be. They earn their keep, even if they are an embarrassing anachronism.

Today I read that Prince Harry has been filmed using racist language, and I wonder why we persist with an institution that is essentially a bizarre family, running rampant, funded by taxpayers who increasingly can’t afford it.

So here’s a little debate on the monarchy.

For:

Tourists love the British royal family (allegedly). Tourism is good for the economy; ergo, royal family is good for Britain. (In reality, only one royal residence makes the top 20 list of tourist attractions [according to Republic] and the town of Windsor’s favourite attraction is Legoland, not Windsor Castle.)

Against:

The royal family cost £150m £40m a year – money that could pay for a 8792 a few new nurses or 15 half a schools.

Our monarch serves no real purpose, other than to attract tourists, a job she’s not very good at.

The royal family are frequently the source of international embarrassment. Whether it’s Diana’s jet-set philandering, Harry’s racist remarks, Charles’ chatting to plants, Fergie being herself or Prince Philip’s racist remarks, the royals don’t improve Britain’s reputation.

The royal family are an anachronism. We didn’t stick to beheading just because it was traditional.

Summary

It’s time to sack the royal family.

(Picture of the Royle Family courtesy of the Guardian)


Monarchs – What are They Good For?

I’ve often wondered about the purpose of having a...
article post