That's probably true. I was thinking more in terms of how much the US president costs each taxpayer and they have far, far more of them than we do.
Now that I think about it, it is a daft comparison anyway. The US president is hardly the equivalent of our Monarch. He runs the country. She waves at people. We have to pay for her family and those that actually run the country.
BTW the German President gets just euro213,000 salary a year (albeit for life) and they have somehow managed to devise an electoral college system that does not involve reality TV stars getting the job.
BTW the German President gets just euro213,000 salary a year (albeit for life) and they have somehow managed to devise an electoral college system that does not involve reality TV stars getting the job.
That can't be true. Some monarchists keep insisting that Katie Price or Cheryl Cole are bound to get the job.
I'd rather have the people choose who they want as head of state whether it is David Cameron, Ed Milliband or Kerry flaming Katona than by happening to emerge from the divine vagina.
The whole "Divine Right of Kings" makes no sense in this day and age. If some other country believed that God chose who should reign over them, we'd mock them and rightfully so. Actually, I do mock people that think like that.
It didn't make sense when Charles I got beheaded for believing in it. That's when it was abandoned.
However the British did choose a monachy when they restored Charles II.
So I suggest you attack a country that does believe that God chose the monach rather than the UK, when we have already made the choice for ourselves.
Hating the royals was really trendy over here a few hundred years ago. Actually, the royal family are somewhat popular here, though not necessarily more than other celebrities.
I think it's always popular, especially for students, to be against establishments, especially hereditary ones. There may be a lot to like about the royal family (depending on who you ask), but there's also a lot to not like about them.
I think a lot of people also feel that they mistreated Diana and she was a victim. Granted, she wasn't perfect either, but it seems that most of the fault for their marriage collapsing was Charles' and her death was caused by many factors, including a drunk chauffeur and a paparazzi chase.
The Royal Family is easy to hate for the same reasons they are well liked. They cause a lot of drama, which some like and some don't. They are born into their position, which causes people to either feel romance or anger. They can certainly have an air of arrogance about them, especially Charles. People probably have difficulty identifying with a family that was born into privilege like that. Some may admire them, but many others do not.
I can't speak for Britain, though. These are just my perceptions from people over here and the news and media. My perceptions could be wrong.
Of course I can't speak for everyone, but as a nation I think it describes them well enough. I've lived here long enough to get some feeling for the national psyche, and it's odd. They hate each other too. Being in a Republic has made them think that no-one is above them, and in fact each person seems to think themselves above everyone else. It makes for a very angry, rude and intolerant and insular society. You can see their faces behind the wheels of their cars, knuckles white as they grip the steering wheel in a state of total rage. It's quite frightening.
I've never been to France, but I can't imagine that all democracies are that way. Sure some Americans are bitter and hate each other, but most Americans I've met are overall nice people. Of course, as an American I may be biased, but I don't think democracy necessarily makes people unhappy. Probably the opposite. All nations have their share of angry people, and all people of all nations get angry sometimes, even if they are generally happy.
It's hard to generalize about an entire nation. It's also hard to accurately state that a nation's emotional state is directly related to their governmental system.
I think it became trendy around the time of the American revolution. Thomas Paine was quite dismissive of them. Declaring them a strange and funny bunch.
Too right Can you just imagine if we'd had President Tony & the First Lady Cherie :eek::eek:
We've had a monarchy for centuries why change
People seem to forget they are all human beings with the same flaws & weakness's as the rest of us
Here the President is not all-powerful. I don't know all the details of what powers the Prime Minister has, but the President has rules to follow as well. Any legislation he wants to pass has to go through both houses. That is very difficult, as we saw with Obama trying to pass healthcare. Passing laws here is difficult, as it should be.
As far as "why should we change?" that depends on each person's opinion. But to do things "just because that's the way it's always been done" seems a bit uninspired. Why not have reasons to keep the monarchy? To me the royal family seems kind of pointless.
I think that phrase "We've had a monarchy for centuries why change" would make Thomas Paine and his comrades roll over in their graves.
Yes, the royal family are human. That's no reason to keep them around or make them the leaders. They should not be expected to be perfect, but at the same time they are not elected, so there is no inherent reason for them to be leaders, even ceremonial ones. They can't live this life of privilege (even if they didn't choose it) and then play the victim. Their privilege comes with responsibility as well as lots of criticism.
As far as, as some others have said, democracy not being fair, nothing is totally fair. In a capitalistic society (which I think is best, though we have some forms of socialism like Social Security), not all people will be economically equal. That's the way life is. But the monarchy probably just summarizes all there is to hate about privilege. They're an easy example of the establishment and privilege.
Do you really think that an elected president would be from a poor humble background and be able to pay out what the Queen has to pay.
The Queen is respected all over the world ( except in Australia:o)
A leader is not without honor except in their own country
Barack Obama, from my understanding, grew up in an average situation, but he then wrote his books and got into politics and made a lot of money. Most other presidents do come from money. Some were self-made and some were not. I think that's different than having the same family throughout the generations, thuogh.
The Queen is somewhat respected here, but not that much. Her family is more like celebrity than royalty. Prince Charles definitely is not respected here.
The Republicans on here have yet to come up with a single convincing reason other than some abstract guff about equality and fairness.
That "abstract guff" has led countries to declare revolutions in the past. Whosever side you would be on in those wars, to act like the ideals of equality and fairness are insignificant is foolish. Those ideals have spurred people to actions which have shaped the way our world is today.
Not all things modern are better. I don't want a Head of State selected by some Simon Cowell devised popularity contest. I don't want the Queen forced to be trendy any more than I'd want to see my own Grannie rapping along to Jay-Z. Some things just aren't dignified.
You don't have much faith in your fellow Brits do you? Even over here, where the "stupid Americans" live, we don't elect just anyone as President. They've all been involved in politics and most legitimate candidates have a solid platform of some kind. Could a celebrity become President? Possibly. But they would have to have a good platform and some semblence of competence. Not just anyone can become President. I would venture to guess the same for Prime Minister.
I think it's funny how some of you seem to be so terrified (or try to terrify others) by the image of a celebrity becoming President. That doesn't happen. Politicians may become celebrities, but mostly they are politicians, not that that's much better. You have to be very politically savvy to become President. A lot of people didn't like G.W. Bush. That's fine, of course, it's a democracy for a reason, but he wasn't an airheaded celebrity off the street. He had the knowledge, I think, even though he wasn't the smooth talker that Obama is.
Scaring people out of a presidency because of the idea of a celebrity president is silly. It's not logical, nor is it likely. Britain is probably just as likely to have another tyrannical monarch, because they've had a few of those in the past. Of course the monarchs of today have little power. The President is still subject to the Constitution and the Congress as well.
I do think a lot of countries are jealous of our Royals. America, for example, would love them as would some who binned theres off years ago. I think its good to have figureheads who kind of preside over everyone.
Funny, but no. The novelty would wear off really quickly. We may like to read about them in the tabloids, but we separated for a reason. Americans in general don't like the idea of inherited power, even ceremonial power.
I'm pretty sure the South would secede again if we got a monarchy. Most Americans would probably not like a monarchy, but the South, even today, seems to get rather annoyed at somewhat telling them what to do.
I think the difference between monarchy and democracy (though Britain has both) is that both monarchs and politicians are sometimes very embarrassing. But you can get rid of a politician after a few years. A royal you're stuck with, for better or worse.
Democracy and politics are sort of like dating, at least in modern society. You try a politician on. If you like them, they stick around (though terms are limited). If you don't like them, you get rid of them. Whereas a monarchy is sort of like an arranged marriage. You're stuck with who you get until they die. But in this monarchy there is no real power, whereas in a monarchy the President or Prime Minister has power, but not absolute power.
A democratic system may offer less stability sometimes, but it also offers more choice and more fluidity, which it should when electing lawmakers. The monarchy gives almost no choice coupled with long term commitment, but the leader has very little power.
I think democracy is more like modern society, where people are more likely to explore and less likely to commit longterm, though they still do sometimes.
Good point. After all, class warfare and inequality don't exist in republics...
I don't think anyone is arguing that republics are all equal. Any society will have economic and social inequalities. That's just the way it is. But I think people see an inherited monarchy as a reminder that they will always be below somebody else on the totem pole. It doesn't make society any less equal, most likely, it's just a visual reminder of it.
Personally, the royal coverage of the engagement over here in the states wasn't that extensive, but it was annoying.
If you don't like the Royal family as head of state. Why don't you move to the country of your choice with the constitutional make up you prefer?
Stop knocking the one I am very proud to live in.
Yeah! Who needs free speech and democracy?
I have heard people argue that it's a burden to be a member of the royal family, so they should be respected. But if, as it appears here, many are unhappy with the royal family, then why is there still a royal family? If both sides are unhappy, then why is this institution continued? Is it each side's sense of loyalty to the other?
An entire family in power in the US? What, like the Bushes and Clintons?
Except that they're elected. And they're only in the White House a short time. It's not the same at all. Before the Presidency they generally have more normal lives. Even after, they go back to their own lives, though they are more famous then.
Its entirely the same, but the US president is more expensive.
You really don't understand the concept of elections do you? Presidents may cost more (I don't know for sure), but people are more likely to agree to pay for something they actually have a say in. Even in a democracy the guy you vote for may not win, but at least you had a choice.
Plus, Presidents have a purpose legislatively, unlike the royal family. The presidents and their families are also not in the tabloids as often.
Imagine the uproar here if the Queen had a 747 (plus a backup) at their personal beck and call.
Why would she need one? Air Force one is used to get the President from one appointment to another, for the most part. He also has to fly in a private plane for security reasons, because his position is powerful.
The President is hired to work for the country. If you hire a person to work for the country, you should provide them with what they need to do their jobs. I think most Americans would agree with that.
The royal family probably doesn't need a 747 because they are not hired to do anything. Sure the Queen does a lot, but that doesn't mean that she is necessary.
Actually even so I suspect the US President costs far more than the £110m-£180m that the RF costs because of the huge amount of security they employ and the 'world leadership' role of the US President etc.
A more valid comparison would be with Germany where I believe the Head of State costs less than £30m a year. The French President of course is quite mad so he does not count.
And how many of our presidents have been assassinated or attacked? There's a reason for that security. It's needed. The President is powerful and he/she needs to be protected from those who would kidnap or hurt them, for the sake of the security of the country.
You aren't far wrong at that. Still, he has the use of it for 8 years max and then he's on his own, bar the cost of Secret Service security. I'd rather prefer to pay for that than some ceremonial person who in reality, does nothing but open new buildings, make appearances and give a speech once a year.
That trip to India cost a packet sure, but he was on a working trip. I think that Americans can accept it to a degree because it's part of his job to do so and we have some say in how long he gets the perks of the job. Most top jobs have perks, let's be honest, and the biggest jobs have the best perks.
The president also has to release his or her tax return to the public every year.
The Presidency is expensive, but it's necessary. Also, as of a 1997 law, presidents after 1997 (currently Bush and Obama) only get security for ten years after they leave office, not their entire lives.
They're hard to compare because the president is necessary, whereas the royal family (arguably) is not. They may be cheaper, but I think Britain could get by without them.
It's kind of a case of you get what you pay for. You pay less for the royal family, but they're kind of pointless.
President Barack Obama is being slammed by conservatives' unsubstantiated claims—which the White House insists are bogus—that the president's 10-day Asia trip, which Obama kicks off Friday, will cost hundreds of millions of dollars a day.
Then there are the rumors that he'll be guarded by a vast armada of 34 U.S. warships. And that he'll rent 870 rooms in one hotel. And that he'll take thousands of people along with him.
Many of the claims originated from unnamed Indian officials in the Indian press. They were then perpetuated by conservatives.
But as the Taj Mahal Palace's website points out, there are only 560 rooms at the hotel. And Snopes.com, a site devoted to busting myths, called the claims "questionable," and said even if the Indian press had accurately reported the size of the president's group of 3,000, it would mean spending $66,000 per person per day, "a figure that stretches credulity to the breaking point."
Factcheck.org notes the entire war in Afghanistan costs the U.S. $190 million a day.
But Bachmann wasn't alone in repeating the claims. Fox News' Glenn Beck went as far to say that the trip will cost $2 billion for Obama to see "the festival of lights." Rush Limbaugh, Doug Powers and Sean Hannity also repeated some of the rumors.
The trip does not cost $200 million a day. Rather the Republicans are trying to find something to criticize the president about. That's all that claim is. It is simply impossible that the trip would cost that much. I trust Snopes and FactChecker over Beck and Limbaugh.
The tax payer is funding their lavish lifestyle when the majority of us are having to tighten our belts.
Neither this government or the Royal family have got a clue at how the average person on the street has to live or should I say exist on low wages.
Ok they bring in some tourism, but I think the days of the Royal family are long gone, why should we have to support their lavish, greedy lifestyle it is now out of date and totally wrong that they should continue to live like they do when people are struggling more and more.
It is so wrong that they are still living the lifestyle of years ago, this country can no longer afford it. The whole of the Royal family should now be made to cut their cloth as well as everyone else.
The tax payer is funding their lavish lifestyle when the majority of us are having to tighten our belts.
Neither this government or the Royal family have got a clue at how the average person on the street has to live or should I say exist on low wages.
Ok they bring in some tourism, but I think the days of the Royal family are long gone, why should we have to support their lavish, greedy lifestyle it is now out of date and totally wrong that they should continue to live like they do when people are struggling more and more.
It is so wrong that they are still living the lifestyle of years ago, this country can no longer afford it. The whole of the Royal family should now be made to cut their cloth as well as everyone else.
The biggest "living off the state", benefit cheats in the country!
It's not so much the Royal Family I take issue with, but rather living in a legal Monarchy - it seems redundant.
Sorry for the long post. As an American the royal family doesn't directly affect me, but I wanted to reply. Choose to read or not.
You really don't understand the concept of elections do you? Presidents may cost more (I don't know for sure), but people are more likely to agree to pay for something they actually have a say in. Even in a democracy the guy you vote for may not win, but at least you had a choice.
Plus, Presidents have a purpose legislatively, unlike the royal family. The presidents and their families are also not in the tabloids as often.
.
I understand i great deal about elections thanks, not sure why you think i dont, you provide no clue as to why you concluded otherwise.
I also undestand that Americans are the most mind controlled people in the world... if you believe all that you wrote, and I'm sure you do.... that in itself is evidence beyond reproach.
IMO The American democratic system is amongst the most corrupt and because of the great impact of USA policy worldwide... the most distructive.
See ya'll
Comments
BTW the German President gets just euro213,000 salary a year (albeit for life) and they have somehow managed to devise an electoral college system that does not involve reality TV stars getting the job.
Maybe they'd give us a national holiday for state funerals too.
Or "President Blair"... that's usually the monarchists' argument to end all arguments
I'll stick with my utter indifference towards them.
The royals once ruled these islands with an iron fist (a gauntlet
Good for nothing.
It didn't make sense when Charles I got beheaded for believing in it. That's when it was abandoned.
However the British did choose a monachy when they restored Charles II.
So I suggest you attack a country that does believe that God chose the monach rather than the UK, when we have already made the choice for ourselves.
I haven't had a choice. Have you?
Effectively we live in a dictatorship
I think it's always popular, especially for students, to be against establishments, especially hereditary ones. There may be a lot to like about the royal family (depending on who you ask), but there's also a lot to not like about them.
I think a lot of people also feel that they mistreated Diana and she was a victim. Granted, she wasn't perfect either, but it seems that most of the fault for their marriage collapsing was Charles' and her death was caused by many factors, including a drunk chauffeur and a paparazzi chase.
The Royal Family is easy to hate for the same reasons they are well liked. They cause a lot of drama, which some like and some don't. They are born into their position, which causes people to either feel romance or anger. They can certainly have an air of arrogance about them, especially Charles. People probably have difficulty identifying with a family that was born into privilege like that. Some may admire them, but many others do not.
I can't speak for Britain, though. These are just my perceptions from people over here and the news and media. My perceptions could be wrong.
I've never been to France, but I can't imagine that all democracies are that way. Sure some Americans are bitter and hate each other, but most Americans I've met are overall nice people. Of course, as an American I may be biased, but I don't think democracy necessarily makes people unhappy. Probably the opposite. All nations have their share of angry people, and all people of all nations get angry sometimes, even if they are generally happy.
It's hard to generalize about an entire nation. It's also hard to accurately state that a nation's emotional state is directly related to their governmental system.
Here the President is not all-powerful. I don't know all the details of what powers the Prime Minister has, but the President has rules to follow as well. Any legislation he wants to pass has to go through both houses. That is very difficult, as we saw with Obama trying to pass healthcare. Passing laws here is difficult, as it should be.
As far as "why should we change?" that depends on each person's opinion. But to do things "just because that's the way it's always been done" seems a bit uninspired. Why not have reasons to keep the monarchy? To me the royal family seems kind of pointless.
I think that phrase "We've had a monarchy for centuries why change" would make Thomas Paine and his comrades roll over in their graves.
Yes, the royal family are human. That's no reason to keep them around or make them the leaders. They should not be expected to be perfect, but at the same time they are not elected, so there is no inherent reason for them to be leaders, even ceremonial ones. They can't live this life of privilege (even if they didn't choose it) and then play the victim. Their privilege comes with responsibility as well as lots of criticism.
As far as, as some others have said, democracy not being fair, nothing is totally fair. In a capitalistic society (which I think is best, though we have some forms of socialism like Social Security), not all people will be economically equal. That's the way life is. But the monarchy probably just summarizes all there is to hate about privilege. They're an easy example of the establishment and privilege.
Barack Obama, from my understanding, grew up in an average situation, but he then wrote his books and got into politics and made a lot of money. Most other presidents do come from money. Some were self-made and some were not. I think that's different than having the same family throughout the generations, thuogh.
The Queen is somewhat respected here, but not that much. Her family is more like celebrity than royalty. Prince Charles definitely is not respected here.
That "abstract guff" has led countries to declare revolutions in the past. Whosever side you would be on in those wars, to act like the ideals of equality and fairness are insignificant is foolish. Those ideals have spurred people to actions which have shaped the way our world is today.
You don't have much faith in your fellow Brits do you? Even over here, where the "stupid Americans" live, we don't elect just anyone as President. They've all been involved in politics and most legitimate candidates have a solid platform of some kind. Could a celebrity become President? Possibly. But they would have to have a good platform and some semblence of competence. Not just anyone can become President. I would venture to guess the same for Prime Minister.
I think it's funny how some of you seem to be so terrified (or try to terrify others) by the image of a celebrity becoming President. That doesn't happen. Politicians may become celebrities, but mostly they are politicians, not that that's much better. You have to be very politically savvy to become President. A lot of people didn't like G.W. Bush. That's fine, of course, it's a democracy for a reason, but he wasn't an airheaded celebrity off the street. He had the knowledge, I think, even though he wasn't the smooth talker that Obama is.
Scaring people out of a presidency because of the idea of a celebrity president is silly. It's not logical, nor is it likely. Britain is probably just as likely to have another tyrannical monarch, because they've had a few of those in the past. Of course the monarchs of today have little power. The President is still subject to the Constitution and the Congress as well.
Funny, but no. The novelty would wear off really quickly. We may like to read about them in the tabloids, but we separated for a reason. Americans in general don't like the idea of inherited power, even ceremonial power.
I'm pretty sure the South would secede again if we got a monarchy. Most Americans would probably not like a monarchy, but the South, even today, seems to get rather annoyed at somewhat telling them what to do.
I think the difference between monarchy and democracy (though Britain has both) is that both monarchs and politicians are sometimes very embarrassing. But you can get rid of a politician after a few years. A royal you're stuck with, for better or worse.
Democracy and politics are sort of like dating, at least in modern society. You try a politician on. If you like them, they stick around (though terms are limited). If you don't like them, you get rid of them. Whereas a monarchy is sort of like an arranged marriage. You're stuck with who you get until they die. But in this monarchy there is no real power, whereas in a monarchy the President or Prime Minister has power, but not absolute power.
A democratic system may offer less stability sometimes, but it also offers more choice and more fluidity, which it should when electing lawmakers. The monarchy gives almost no choice coupled with long term commitment, but the leader has very little power.
I think democracy is more like modern society, where people are more likely to explore and less likely to commit longterm, though they still do sometimes.
I don't think anyone is arguing that republics are all equal. Any society will have economic and social inequalities. That's just the way it is. But I think people see an inherited monarchy as a reminder that they will always be below somebody else on the totem pole. It doesn't make society any less equal, most likely, it's just a visual reminder of it.
Personally, the royal coverage of the engagement over here in the states wasn't that extensive, but it was annoying.
Yeah! Who needs free speech and democracy?
I have heard people argue that it's a burden to be a member of the royal family, so they should be respected. But if, as it appears here, many are unhappy with the royal family, then why is there still a royal family? If both sides are unhappy, then why is this institution continued? Is it each side's sense of loyalty to the other?
Except that they're elected. And they're only in the White House a short time. It's not the same at all. Before the Presidency they generally have more normal lives. Even after, they go back to their own lives, though they are more famous then.
You really don't understand the concept of elections do you? Presidents may cost more (I don't know for sure), but people are more likely to agree to pay for something they actually have a say in. Even in a democracy the guy you vote for may not win, but at least you had a choice.
Plus, Presidents have a purpose legislatively, unlike the royal family. The presidents and their families are also not in the tabloids as often.
Why would she need one? Air Force one is used to get the President from one appointment to another, for the most part. He also has to fly in a private plane for security reasons, because his position is powerful.
The President is hired to work for the country. If you hire a person to work for the country, you should provide them with what they need to do their jobs. I think most Americans would agree with that.
The royal family probably doesn't need a 747 because they are not hired to do anything. Sure the Queen does a lot, but that doesn't mean that she is necessary.
And how many of our presidents have been assassinated or attacked? There's a reason for that security. It's needed. The President is powerful and he/she needs to be protected from those who would kidnap or hurt them, for the sake of the security of the country.
The Presidency is expensive, but it's necessary. Also, as of a 1997 law, presidents after 1997 (currently Bush and Obama) only get security for ten years after they leave office, not their entire lives.
They're hard to compare because the president is necessary, whereas the royal family (arguably) is not. They may be cheaper, but I think Britain could get by without them.
It's kind of a case of you get what you pay for. You pay less for the royal family, but they're kind of pointless.
Did you read the article you referenced?
The trip does not cost $200 million a day. Rather the Republicans are trying to find something to criticize the president about. That's all that claim is. It is simply impossible that the trip would cost that much. I trust Snopes and FactChecker over Beck and Limbaugh.
To me they are nobodies and I like them as much as the next celeb
I have never met
Neither this government or the Royal family have got a clue at how the average person on the street has to live or should I say exist on low wages.
Ok they bring in some tourism, but I think the days of the Royal family are long gone, why should we have to support their lavish, greedy lifestyle it is now out of date and totally wrong that they should continue to live like they do when people are struggling more and more.
It is so wrong that they are still living the lifestyle of years ago, this country can no longer afford it. The whole of the Royal family should now be made to cut their cloth as well as everyone else.
The biggest "living off the state", benefit cheats in the country!
It's not so much the Royal Family I take issue with, but rather living in a legal Monarchy - it seems redundant.
I understand i great deal about elections thanks, not sure why you think i dont, you provide no clue as to why you concluded otherwise.
I also undestand that Americans are the most mind controlled people in the world... if you believe all that you wrote, and I'm sure you do.... that in itself is evidence beyond reproach.
IMO The American democratic system is amongst the most corrupt and because of the great impact of USA policy worldwide... the most distructive.
See ya'll