Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm tempted to reply with an example of a well-known jurisdiction in which referenda haven't worked very well. However, that would be leading us further into a tangent. I'm willing to bow out now; I just disagree with the way the question/issue in the OP is framed conceptually.
Not sure what sort of tourist revenues they produce. However, id cut them down to King/Queen and their direct children. There seem to be hundreds of hangers-on to the royal payroll.
Id also shut Prince Charles up with all his environmental and architectural preaching.
OK, I'm back in -- Charles has been way ahead of the curve in the recognition of global environmental disaster as well as leading the way in developing a recognition of the need for sustainable agriculture. He has done a lot of good work through the Prince's Trust and the Prince's Charities, including The Rain Forest Project. Charles may not have the most charismatic personality style, but he's a serious individual who has tried to make a difference to his country and in the world.
OK, I'm back in -- Charles has been way ahead of the curve in the recognition of global environmental disaster as well as leading the way in developing a recognition of the need for sustainable agriculture. He has done a lot of good work through the Prince's Trust and the Prince's Charities, including The Rain Forest Project. Charles may not have the most charismatic personality style, but he's a serious individual who has tried to make a difference to his country and in the world.
That's comparing apples to oranges. Anyway, I don't believe the former wife of Prince Andrew is any longer on the civil list nor has she been since their divorce. She's really proved quite resilient in earning a living, indeed in the USA to a great extent, even if this has involved a high degree of self-promotion. Don't worry, over the next 40 years or so I think you'll see a far more Scandanavian and BeNeLux style to the British monarchy.
OK, I'm back in -- Charles has been way ahead of the curve in the recognition of global environmental disaster as well as leading the way in developing a recognition of the need for sustainable agriculture. He has done a lot of good work through the Prince's Trust and the Prince's Charities, including The Rain Forest Project. Charles may not have the most charismatic personality style, but he's a serious individual who has tried to make a difference to his country and in the world.
Charles's position stems from one thing and one thing only: he emerged from Elizabeth Windsor's womb 60 years ago. That's it. Every time he has been put into a competitive situation where he is judged according to objective criteria, he has been a disaster - and to add to this list the ‘Duchy Originals’ brand was also facing financial ruin before its takeover by Waitrose.
He scorns modern science, attacking it for its "lack of soul" and for "playing God". So he uses his position to attack qualified life-saving professionals who earned their position, like the General Medical Council. He demands that the NHS pay for "spiritual, alternative medicine", and has been a key player in ensuring that it now spends £200m a year on it. But there is no such thing as "alternative" medicine. If a treatment works in clinical trials, it ceases to be "alternative": it is classified as medicine and prescribed by doctors. So "alternative medicine" is -- by definition -- medicine that doesn't work in clinical trials. It is not medicine at all.
His claims to be opposed to global warming would be more persuasive if he were not one of the worst personal polluters in Britain, using a private jet for the most trivial of trips. His claims to be concerned for the poor would be more persuasive if he did not claim more than £300m of public land that should be used to pay for schools and hospitals to fund his own shocking decadence.
Charles is a symbol for the irrationality in logic used to justify the monarchy.
Charles's position stems from one thing and one thing only: he emerged from Elizabeth Windsor's womb 60 years ago. That's it. Every time he has been put into a competitive situation where he is judged according to objective criteria, he has been a disaster - and to add to this list the ‘Duchy Originals’ brand was also facing financial ruin before its takeover by Waitrose.
He scorns modern science, attacking it for its "lack of soul" and for "playing God". So he uses his position to attack qualified life-saving professionals who earned their position, like the General Medical Council. He demands that the NHS pay for "spiritual, alternative medicine", and has been a key player in ensuring that it now spends £200m a year on it. But there is no such thing as "alternative" medicine. If a treatment works in clinical trials, it ceases to be "alternative": it is classified as medicine and prescribed by doctors. So "alternative medicine" is -- by definition -- medicine that doesn't work in clinical trials. It is not medicine at all.
His claims to be opposed to global warming would be more persuasive if he were not one of the worst personal polluters in Britain, using a private jet for the most trivial of trips. His claims to be concerned for the poor would be more persuasive if he did not claim more than £300m of public land that should be used to pay for schools and hospitals to fund his own shocking decadence.
Charles is a symbol for the irrationality in logic used to justify the monarchy.
Never mind, if and when he accedes to the throne, he will be old enough that his reign will probably not be a long one.
11 voters are too few,but even so, it is disappointiong to see so many Brits liking an unelected official...
Part of that is tradition but part of it is the alternative. I'm not sure that many want a Maggie Thatcher or a Tony Blair as head of state. At least with the monarchy you feel that there is someone who is independent of the politicians and they can provide an important counterweight in the eyes of public opinion.
Put simply, I trust the Queen. I wouldn't trust Gordon Brown or any other politician.
Prince Charles couldent even handle commanding a Royal Navy minesweeper on coastal patrol duties. Is their any way he could be skipped over in favor of one of his sons?
That being said, I would take a monarchy over Dubya and Odumbo anyday of the week. Want to trade?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
