The anti-royals always trot out the same things, and they are boring like a stuck record.
They are rich.
Well they are, but not THAT rich.
All their assets were siezed off us peasants.
Yes again, many were. Then again, can those criticising really trace their ancestry back that far? then look at places like Sandringham - bought by a monarch.
They cost us millions.
Yes they sure do. They also bring in revenue, tourism and the assets they own are self proficient and earn money for the state.
Ahh but those assets they own, if we had a revolution they would be owned by the state.
Yes, right again. Would they be as well run? Maybe.
They aren't democratic, the head of state should be elected by us like.
Yes, the idea of having an elected head of state is great. Or it could be argued that having the royals is MORE democratic. This is because in this case, the head of state represents everyone - as opposed to a president who you can be absolutely sure, would be tory or labour or some other party toady.
Yes but they aren't one of uz lot innit.
Well would you prefer the head of state to be Shaz from Che Guavara estate in Peckham? Well it just wouldn't happen, firstly because the head of state would be some career politician whose never known what it's like to be part of reality and working for a living, and secondly because it just wouldn't work. Imagine Shaz trying to give the Christmas speech? She'd be out of her head by then on bacardi breezers.
But what have the royals ever done for us.
Sigh - try google. Is preventing wars for years good enough? Try looking up Edward VII peacemaking
But come on, have they ever given a rousing speech? The only thing the current one is remembered for is that annus horribulus one.
Well fine - name a famous prime ministers speech in recent years.
Yes but abolish the royals and you save money
Erm, and exactly how much would an elected president cost again?
But they absolutely annoy the hell out of the right-ons.
Yes, and that is a bloody good reason to keep them
