I fully agree that modern society has its priorities mixed up, true to a lesser or greater extent all over the planet.
There are strong arguments either way about inherited wealth and inherited office. But the monarchy is not very expensive - the royal estates generate a lot of income and the Privvy purse paid out to the monarch is a vanishingly small proportion of UK Government spending. And that's before you add up the cash flow generated by tourism or attempt to value the soft power Britain has benefited from during Elizabeth's reign.
But however arbitrary and unfair the inherited office of monarch, I think we would need to think long and hard about replacing it - what with? If a new UK constitution was written by politicians, then it would benefit the political class, not the people. We would likely end up with a furious scrap for power every few years which would lead to deep divisions across society, as in other leading democracies. And as has been the experience in Scotland where we have had two very divisive referendums in the past decade. And whatever alternative was concocted by politicians, the expense would certainly be far higher.
I am sure the perspective must be very different from other Commonwealth countries.
There has always been a very small and
not very vocal minority here in Canada that favours a republic over the monarchy but it never seems to get much traction - unless one of the royal kids does something idiotic (...and I mean, how often does
that happen?
). If Charles can keep his "inner twit" reigned-in, he should be fine I think. In my view, the money spent on the royals, as pointed out by Raymond, while annoying in tough economic times, is actually microscopic compared to the value of the tourism they generate for Great Britain and the Commonwealth (
ya gotta love those red tunics on the Mounties and the GGFG marching around Parliament Hill in Ottawa every summer, etc.).
Besides, every country needs a head of state to moderate the occasional loonie dipwad who is elected by the bootless and unhorsed who make up the general population (as folks in the UK can undoubtedly understand these days...). Actually combining the head of state role with that of head of government (as, I think is the case in the US) can also result in some....fairly complex times.
Here in Canada we just ditched a Governor General (former astronut, the Rt. Hon. Julie Payette) who was a raging hag to everyone around her for years. As was well-known to anyone who could read, she had been fired from every job she's ever had since the 1990's for egregious employee abuse before our present brainiac PM appointed her GG (
Julie Payette - humanitarian ). Can you imagine having someone like her as head of state
AND head of government?
Also, as, I think Skull pointed out, the monarchy would be likely replaced by some lumpy politically-driven structure that would undoubtedly cost even more - and could generate some serious problems should an unworthy head of state be named (like say, some sleezy reality TV wanker
or some political hack who donated big bucks to the governing party or some unworthy fruitcake who had a big name and a small brain).
Anyhow, that's my $0.02 CAD (which is about $0.014 USD at the present rate of exchange).
Long live the King (as long as he follows the rules).
Pete
