I just finished reading Kitty Kelly's "The Royals" for the umpteenth time. Even though it was written about 10 years ago (and is mostly tabloid fodder), it touches on the fact of dismantling the monarchy, separating church and state, and electing a new head of state.

So what I want to know is what the Brits think of the Monarchy. Are they relevant anymore? Do you care what happens to them? I'll also welcome any opinions or observations (or smartassed comments) about them. :)

*edited to add: I'd also like comments from people who belong to the Commonwealth...wait, does that even exist anymore?*

I'm not British, but I can relate.  The Brits need to dismantle the monarchy as much as we need to dismantle the Electoral College.

In both cases, the popular vote should determine leadership, not tradition.

Yes, the Commonwealth still exists. In principal I can live and work in Canada or Australia with minimal legal wrangling, in practice however, that's not always the case.

The Monarchy itself is great.. by that I mean King/Queen and their immediate family. Dumb rednecks and snap happy japanese tourists love to see them and that generates hundreds of millions of pounds in tourist revenue. However, the royal family is enormous and a drain on the country, the 9th duke of curmgurggle will live off the taxpayers sweat for the most part and never work a day in his life.

Put 'em up against the wall and shoot 'em.

One of the reasons I'm firmly monarchist (that is, in the spirit of the sort of monarchy we have now rather than the historical despot type) is that I think it's a healthy thing to separate the trappings and pomp that go with being a head of state from the business of actually wielding power.  The Queen gets all the ceremony, marching bands and mind-numbingly tedious stuff, while the PM can get on with running things.  When you have a head of state who is actually in a position of power, it very frequently ends in him (or very occasionally her) behaving like royalty & thinking themselves superior to everyone else (names that spring to mind are pretty much every recent French president, more than half the elected African leaders, Putin... I would add Bush to that list, but IMO he was like that even before he became president).

Ireland seems to do it fairly well: they have an elected president who doesn't have political power - maybe that would be an appropriate compromise.  They even seem to vote for sensible candidates (with the possible exception of Dana ;)).

Looking at the population of Britain, however, I don't believe there is anybody who would be elected who could do anything like as good a job as head of state as the Queen does - I'm not saying she's perfect, but compared to the sort of person who'd be standing... seriously, would anybody prefer the thought of President Thatcher, President Blair or (<shudder>) President Beckham?


However, the royal family is enormous and a drain on the country, the 9th duke of curmgurggle will live off the taxpayers sweat for the most part and never work a day in his life.
Oh, twaddle - there ain't that many hangers-on in the civil list.

My opinion as a Canadian, a Commonwealth citizen, and a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, is that I am 100% against the dismantling of the Monarchy. And whether or not the United Kingdom dismantles it, in a Canadian context, I am firmly opposed to abolishing the Monarchy and establishing a republic (ick!). Republicans, americanisers, anti-Canadians and uber-multiculturalists have done quite enough to gut the Canadian people of their cultural traditions and heritage. Dropping the Queen would be the final blow to finish us off and turn Canada into some DIY country, or a light version of the U.S. (already more than what a lot of superficial people falsely consider it) instead of respecting it for what it is: the only North American extension of what was the greatest Empire the world has ever known and what is now the Commonwealth of Nations, itself a trove of shared culture and tradition. And what do all the great Commonwealth nations all have in common? Loyalty to the Crown.

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/special/reine-queen/images/preview.jpg 

Also, I agree with Philbo and have expressed the same things in the past. The head of state cannot both be a proper leader of a country AND have to go around cutting ribbons all day. Only one of those jobs can be done well. The Queen, and more directly her Governor General in Canada, represents the whole Canadian people on a permanent basis. The Prime Minister is our elected leader, but he cannot pretend to represent the entire Canadian people because only a certain portion of the Canadian people will have voted for his party.

Also, as far as I know, only the Queen is salaried by the U.K. Everyone else is independently wealthy. Heirs of money older than the hills. As far as I'm concerned, the nobility should have no role in government. Protect their titles, fine. That costs nothing.

By the way, the Commonwealth Realms and the UK are not the only democratic countries with a monarchy. Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Japan, Spain and many others. These are all great countries, committed to human rights and democratic principles, but who recognise the value of a uniting symbol of national heritage such as an apolitical Monarch.

Oh, twaddle - there ain't that many hangers-on in the civil list.


Yeah, I thought the Queen took everyone off of there except herself, her husband, and her mother (who is now dead).

Thanks guys. This is really informative. Like I said, the book is about 10 years old and the author made it sound like they were getting ready to lead the Royal Family out to the guillotine or something. I guess it was just the sentiment at the time.

And just as an observation, why do many citizens of republics tend to react so smugly and condescendingly to the idea of Monarchy? As though they knew something that citizens of constitutional monarchies didn't know. Like we've never heard of the idea of a republic and we're a bunch of oppressed idiots who don't know any better. I have encountered this in other online discussions of this topic, and in my personal life.

One of my housemates is a Frenchman (from France, not Canadian) who is constantly making fun of the fact that Canada has a queen (and god forbid, one who lives in another country). Of course, he doesn't even show an accurate understanding of what the monarchy really is, and what it has meant to Canada in the past. He naturally assumed that we pay the Queen money (we don't, the UK does and they get more than paid back for it), like Canadians were a bunch of idiots who would throw money away like that. My other housemates are much the same way. They come from former French colonies in Africa which are now republics. They too treat the monarchy as some kind of hilarious joke. I don't appreciate it, they know that, but I can tell they sort of feel that there's something that poor McDonald just doesn't understand. That's an even bigger insult. But I don't hold it against them, they are all great people and I learn much from them in other arenas.

But considering that France is on like it's 5th republic so far and considering yet another, Italy is notoriously unstable. African republics fall to coups d'état like twice a year. Not a very good track record for republics now is it? Whereas the UK, the Commonwealth Realms, and many other Constitutional Monarchies across the world have enjoyed the world's most stable form of government with NO coups, for hundreds of years. Both forms of government are suitable for democratic countries, but there just seems to be so many benefits of a uniting, apolitical monarch. So, republics of the world, thank you for the invitation, but I'm afraid we must pass, once again.

And just as an observation, why do many citizens of republics tend to react so smugly and condescendingly to the idea of Monarchy? As though they knew something that citizens of constitutional monarchies didn't know. Like we've never heard of the idea of a republic and we're a bunch of oppressed idiots who don't know any better. I have encountered this in other online discussions of this topic, and in my personal life.

One of my housemates is a Frenchman (from France, not Canadian) who is constantly making fun of the fact that Canada has a queen (and god forbid, one who lives in another country). Of course, he doesn't even show an accurate understanding of what the monarchy really is, and what it has meant to Canada in the past. He naturally assumed that we pay the Queen money (we don't, the UK does and they get more than paid back for it), like Canadians were a bunch of idiots who would throw money away like that. My other housemates are much the same way. They come from former French colonies in Africa which are now republics. They too treat the monarchy as some kind of hilarious joke. I don't appreciate it, they know that, but I can tell they sort of feel that there's something that poor McDonald just doesn't understand. That's an even bigger insult. But I don't hold it against them, they are all great people and I learn much from them in other arenas.

But considering that France is on like it's 5th republic so far and considering yet another, Italy is notoriously unstable. African republics fall to coups d'état like twice a year. Not a very good track record for republics now is it? Whereas the UK, the Commonwealth Realms, and many other Constitutional Monarchies across the world have enjoyed the world's most stable form of government with NO coups, for hundreds of years. Both forms of government are suitable for democratic countries, but there just seems to be so many benefits of a uniting, apolitical monarch. So, republics of the world, thank you for the invitation, but I'm afraid we must pass, once again.


Well, you know how our country is, so you're not going to hear any crap from me. ;)

Well, you know how our country is, so you're not going to hear any crap from me. ;)

As in the joke (he says, shortening it rather) that a monarchy is ruled by a monarch, a principality by a prince... so your country is ruled by...  George Bush ;)

As in the joke (he says, shortening it rather) that a monarchy is ruled by a monarch, a principality by a prince... so your country is ruled by...  George Bush ;)


;D

Yes, the Commonwealth still exists. In principal I can live and work in Canada or Australia with minimal legal wrangling, in practice however, that's not always the case.

The Monarchy itself is great.. by that I mean King/Queen and their immediate family. Dumb rednecks and snap happy japanese tourists love to see them and that generates hundreds of millions of pounds in tourist revenue. However, the royal family is enormous and a drain on the country, the 9th duke of curmgurggle will live off the taxpayers sweat for the most part and never work a day in his life.

Put 'em up against the wall and shoot 'em.
Well,we have royalty in ther unted states too.They're called welfare queens! :D ;Dand they're just as much of a drainas,if not more,than the royal family!

Well,we have royalty in ther unted states too.They're called welfare queens! :D ;Dand they're just as much of a drainas,if not more,than the royal family!




http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o283/Nerdprincess1980/wtf.jpg

Oh, twaddle - there ain't that many hangers-on in the civil list.





Yeah, I thought the Queen took everyone off of there except herself, her husband, and her mother (who is now dead).





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list


Her Majesty is a very smart lady. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list


Interesting. I wasn't aware of that.

Thanks for setting me straight there Karen and Phil.

I do however maintain a disdain for the royal family simply because of the pointless existence of the hangers on, get a proper job and contribute to society you inbred blue-blooded hemophiliacs!

Well, as an Aussie currently living in the UK, I think it's time to throw my two cents in. Australia has been on the brink of becoming a republic for well over a decade now, but every referendum on the matter has favoured sticking with the Commonwealth. Why? Australia has long cut most of its economic ties to Britain, and as it becomes more multicultural, the percentage of Aussies that have an ancestral link to Old Blighty is decreasing. What's the point?

The point is the Monarchy represents something far more profound than what it actually achieves in real terms: tradition, solidity, history. Some may say the Royal Family is an anachronism in the 21st century, but without such anachronisms it would be all too easy to forget about the values of perseverence, respect and duty inherent in its existence. Yes, the individual monarchs may be great or pathetic, but that's beside the point. I'm happier to pay for Liz and Phil than the masses of benefits scroungers that bleed the UK dry year after year.

So, a message for my fellow Aussies back in the lucky country...if it ain't broke, don't fix it

I think that it is alright for the Brits to retain the monarchy, but they should make it so that if the heir or heiress(now that the have finally decided to let females in line) disgraces him or herself, they can be made to step aside by the will of the people, not the whim of the ruler who is passing on the crown.

I think that it is alright for the Brits to retain the monarchy, but they should make it so that if the heir or heiress(now that the have finally decided to let females in line) disgraces him or herself, they can be made to step aside by the will of the people, not the whim of the ruler who is passing on the crown.

Sorry, I don't have your faith in "the people": you'd be handing power to the tabloid editors who'd take it as carte blanche to get rid of any royals they didn't like (or more likely who didn't like them).  Charles has been misrepresented by tabloids for years, decades even.


I do however maintain a disdain for the royal family simply because of the pointless existence of the hangers on, get a proper job and contribute to society you inbred blue-blooded hemophiliacs!

Thing is, when you look at how hard Liz, Phil and Chaz work - they've put in more hours than all but the most workaholic types.  It gets very hard to maintain disdain if you actually looked at what they do.  Sure, it's a very privileged life, but with those privileges come responsibilities, and they honour those.. well, honourably, I guess.

Sorry, I don't have your faith in "the people": you'd be handing power to the tabloid editors who'd take it as carte blanche to get rid of any royals they didn't like (or more likely who didn't like them).  Charles has been misrepresented by tabloids for years, decades even.
Thing is, when you look at how hard Liz, Phil and Chaz work - they've put in more hours than all but the most workaholic types.  It gets very hard to maintain disdain if you actually looked at what they do.  Sure, it's a very privileged life, but with those privileges come responsibilities, and they honour those.. well, honourably, I guess.


I think the argument can be made for Prince Charles charity work, he clearly does a lot with his position of influence, but as far as I see, all the Queen does is ponce around meeting people and essentially putting on one great big etiquette lesson.

Sorry, I don't have your faith in "the people": you'd be handing power to the tabloid editors who'd take it as carte blanche to get rid of any royals they didn't like (or more likely who didn't like them).  Charles has been misrepresented by tabloids for years, decades even.
Thing is, when you look at how hard Liz, Phil and Chaz work - they've put in more hours than all but the most workaholic types.  It gets very hard to maintain disdain if you actually looked at what they do.  Sure, it's a very privileged life, but with those privileges come responsibilities, and they honour those.. well, honourably, I guess.


I guess this is representative of the general differences in thinking across the Atlantic.  In America, we have fabulously wealthy heirs and heiresses, but they get their funds from previous generations that earned their money.  The idea of a family living luxuriously off of public money would infuriate the vast majority of Americans.  We even get infuriated at poor people barely living off of welfare.

Yet, our traditions are more based around religion and the Constitution, rather than any feudalistic lineage.  I suppose it is rather difficult for a culture to give up some of its oldest traditions, but the ones that have usually benefit greatly from it.  For example, Germany and France got rid of their monarchies and saved a good bit of money from it.

I guess this is representative of the general differences in thinking across the Atlantic.  In America, we have fabulously wealthy heirs and heiresses, but they get their funds from previous generations that earned their money.  The idea of a family living luxuriously off of public money would infuriate the vast majority of Americans.  We even get infuriated at poor people barely living off of welfare.

Yet, our traditions are more based around religion and the Constitution, rather than any feudalistic lineage.  I suppose it is rather difficult for a culture to give up some of its oldest traditions, but the ones that have usually benefit greatly from it.  For example, Germany and France got rid of their monarchies and saved a good bit of money from it.


Calling balls here.

I'm not sure you caught the article linked to here, but it's been made pretty clear that the Royal Family is paid almost nothing. The Queen and her Consort are paid a relatively small annual salary for their services, and that is pretty much it. All other expenses are paid from personal sources of income. It may seem strange, but the Royal Family is extremely wealthy independently.

A monarchy is no more expensive than the alternative. Both of your examples, France and Germany, replaced the monarch figure with an equally ceremonial role costing as much if not more. France has a Prime Minister instead of a king, all while it's the president who runs the country. While Germany has a President instead of an emperor, who occupies the ceremonial post while the Chancellor actually governs.
The most fabulously wealthy, influential families in the US are nothing but the descendants of slave owners, who operated on a system even more barbaric than feudalism.

And as for the benfits of republic... I have yet to see incontrovertible evidence that a republic is better than a constitutional monarchy. Like I've already pointed out, France is on republic #5, going on #6, Italy goes after one government after another, Germany's democracy has changed very little since before the War, and still hold onto the same system that allowed Hitler to come to power. Spain tried a republic, and afterwards, the king was asked to return to rule in Spain as a figurehead. And as I have also pointed out that the British, Westminster=style government (Constitutional Monarchy, Parliamentary democracy) has proved itself to be the world's most stable. No coups here. Unlike in many of the world's republics.

Calling balls here.

I'm not sure you caught the article linked to here, but it's been made pretty clear that the Royal Family is paid almost nothing. The Queen and her Consort are paid a relatively small annual salary for their services, and that is pretty much it. All other expenses are paid from personal sources of income. It may seem strange, but the Royal Family is extremely wealthy independently.

Much of that wealth is ultimately sourced from generations of "tribute."  Only a few hundred years ago, royalty gained wealth through the work of others to a much greater extent than they currently do.  That wealth has accumulated over the years, mostly through things like land.

A monarchy is no more expensive than the alternative. Both of your examples, France and Germany, replaced the monarch figure with an equally ceremonial role costing as much if not more. France has a Prime Minister instead of a king, all while it's the president who runs the country. While Germany has a President instead of an emperor, who occupies the ceremonial post while the Chancellor actually governs.
The most fabulously wealthy, influential families in the US are nothing but the descendants of slave owners, who operated on a system even more barbaric than feudalism.

In the South, yes.  In the North, the most wealthy families gained their wealth through industry.  Granted, factory workers of the Industrial Revolution were virtually slaves in their own right, but that was as true here as it was in Europe.  Wealth gained through oppression is certainly not unique to America.  The argument I'm making is that, at least, industry has more benefits for society than tradition.  Industry advances technology and the standard of living.  Tradition doesn't accomplish much at all.

And as for the benfits of republic... I have yet to see incontrovertible evidence that a republic is better than a constitutional monarchy. Like I've already pointed out, France is on republic #5, going on #6, Italy goes after one government after another, Germany's democracy has changed very little since before the War, and still hold onto the same system that allowed Hitler to come to power. Spain tried a republic, and afterwards, the king was asked to return to rule in Spain as a figurehead. And as I have also pointed out that the British, Westminster=style government (Constitutional Monarchy, Parliamentary democracy) has proved itself to be the world's most stable. No coups here. Unlike in many of the world's republics.


I'll admit that I like Parliamentary systems, but I see no logical reason to continue a monarchy (figurehead or not).  It is merely a useless vestige of the past.  A truly rational government would be free of any ceremony.  Granted, we need to end our ceremonies here as well.  We also need to get rid of the Electoral College.

Much of that wealth is ultimately sourced from generations of "tribute."  Only a few hundred years ago, royalty gained wealth through the work of others to a much greater extent than they currently do.  That wealth has accumulated over the years, mostly through things like land.

Such tributes were that era's form of taxation. We do the exact same thing today in our modern democratic states. We pay money to the state in exchange for protection, the only difference is that today's state is democratically elected.

Today, most former private properties associated with the monarchy have become public property as a part of the Crown Estate. Balmoral Castle would be a notable exception, but this was purchased (on two occasions) by members of the Royal Family with private funds, and has been passed down the same way land is passed down in every country in any family.

In a Canadian context, all royal/official residences are public property. Rideau Hall, the Queen's official Canadian residence (occupied of course by the GG) is administrated by the National Capital Commission, a federal Crown corporation (which means it's publicly owned), as are all the other official residences such as 24 Sussex Dr. (residence of the PM), Stornoway (residence of the leader of the opposition) etc...

The argument I'm making is that, at least, industry has more benefits for society than tradition.  Industry advances technology and the standard of living. Tradition doesn't accomplish much at all.

I'll admit that I like Parliamentary systems, but I see no logical reason to continue a monarchy (figurehead or not).  It is merely a useless vestige of the past.  A truly rational government would be free of any ceremony.

Proper nations lack neither industry nor tradition. Traditions are part of the national identity of a country. That is not to say that one should cling to tradition for tradition's own sake, but one should never throw the baby out with the bathwater either. In Canada and other constitutional monarchies, the Crown is the apolitical symbol of the people, the nation. This is something republics lack, I'm not criticising that but criticism is all countries like ours seem to get from republicans in other countries when it's a question of our monarchist traditions.

For Canada in particular, the Monarchy is more than just another tradition. If you study Canadian history, you will see quickly what an important role the Crown and Empire have played, and how in many periods of our history, it was the only reason we continued to exist as a country. Ceremony is an entirely rational practice. Things like national anthems, the raising of flags, fireworks on national holidays etc... these are traditions and ceremonies too, and I don't see anyone questioning them. These things encourage nationhood, and national loyalty, without which you wouldn't be able to run a government because people would feel no reason to respect its laws, feeling no sense of duty or loyalty or allegiance to the nation/society in question... nothing that binds them to one another the way nationhood and citizenship binds me to my neighbours and fellow countrymen.

Such tributes were that era's form of taxation. We do the exact same thing today in our modern democratic states. We pay money to the state in exchange for protection, the only difference is that today's state is democratically elected.

Surely you believe that this "difference" is quintessential to freedom and personal rights.

Proper nations lack neither industry nor tradition. Traditions are part of the national identity of a country. That is not to say that one should cling to tradition for tradition's own sake, but one should never throw the baby out with the bathwater either. In Canada and other constitutional monarchies, the Crown is the apolitical symbol of the people, the nation. This is something republics lack, I'm not criticising that but criticism is all countries like ours seem to get from republicans in other countries when it's a question of our monarchist traditions.

For Canada in particular, the Monarchy is more than just another tradition. If you study Canadian history, you will see quickly what an important role the Crown and Empire have played, and how in many periods of our history, it was the only reason we continued to exist as a country. Ceremony is an entirely rational practice. Things like national anthems, the raising of flags, fireworks on national holidays etc... these are traditions and ceremonies too, and I don't see anyone questioning them. These things encourage nationhood, and national loyalty, without which you wouldn't be able to run a government because people would feel no reason to respect its laws, feeling no sense of duty or loyalty or allegiance to the nation/society in question... nothing that binds them to one another the way nationhood and citizenship binds me to my neighbours and fellow countrymen.


...Unless of course, people of a given nation chose to follow laws out of practicality and logic.  One thing that is definitely a challenge for republics is this tradition sense.  While I deeply appreciate things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I am definitely NOT a patriotic person.  I have loyalty to principles, not countries or governments.  If a nation betrays principles I believe in, it no longer has my loyalty -- including America.  This is why I feel very little loyalty to our current government and its lack of consistency with our Constitution.

You are correct that tradition binds people together and helps ensure loyalty, and you make a good point that people in this country feel a strong connection to the flag.  Personally, I find such sentimentality foolish, whether it's a monarchy or a flag.  These are merely symbols which have no practical worth, if one has no protection of rights.

People should be loyal to principles and the institutions that protect them, not traditions, flags, and monarchies.  Once loyalty becomes less attached to principles and more to governments, it becomes patriotism.

...and when it comes to patriotism, Guy de Maupassant put it best: "Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched."

Surely you believe that this "difference" is quintessential to freedom and personal rights.

...Unless of course, people of a given nation chose to follow laws out of practicality and logic.  One thing that is definitely a challenge for republics is this tradition sense.  While I deeply appreciate things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I am definitely NOT a patriotic person.  I have loyalty to principles, not countries or governments.  If a nation betrays principles I believe in, it no longer has my loyalty -- including America.  This is why I feel very little loyalty to our current government and its lack of consistency with our Constitution.

You are correct that tradition binds people together and helps ensure loyalty, and you make a good point that people in this country feel a strong connection to the flag.  Personally, I find such sentimentality foolish, whether it's a monarchy or a flag.  These are merely symbols which have no practical worth, if one has no protection of rights.

People should be loyal to principles and the institutions that protect them, not traditions, flags, and monarchies.  Once loyalty becomes less attached to principles and more to governments, it becomes patriotism.

...and when it comes to patriotism, Guy de Maupassant put it best: "Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched."



Respecting fully all your views on this, I still feel I must point a few more things out. These flags and songs and monarchies are the symbols of those very institutions you speak of. Holding onto them with pride is a symbolic gesture of loyalty to those principles and institutions which have protected them. I think we agree on this idea on the whole, but only differ opinions on the semantics.

The rights of Commonwealth Citizens, of the Dutch, the Swedes, and every other great, western constitutional monarchy are well protected, and what people seem to overlook or not understand is in these countries, the monarch serves the nation, not the other way around. If it were the other way around, we in Canada for example would have voted to drop the monarchy long ago. We're not stupid, and we enjoy the same rights and freedoms (if not more) as any citizen of any republic. I'd even venture to say that each of our countries is quite more respected for our level of personal freedom and commitments to human rights and democracy than many of the world's great republics have been. Our system of government has served us very well over the years, and there is no need at this point to change it in my opinion.

Of course, as always, the position of the Monarchy is not assured forever. We'll probably see another great debate on the issue, here in Canada  at least, after the Queen passes on. And Canadians will be given another chance to decide whether or not to take steps to abolish the monarchy. I don't think it will ever come to that. Like I said, I see no need for it. But it will be very strange, after more than 50 years of Elizabeth II, to see someone else's face on the coins, especially old floppy ears'. So you never know.

Surely you believe that this "difference" is quintessential to freedom and personal rights.

There have been plenty of examples of absolute, even "despotic" monarchs giving more freedom and personal rights than (for example) the Patriot Act allows; there are also plenty of examples of people voting for candidates whose position is to remove those freedoms and rights (remember that Hitler was elected, Putin is not the world's most liberal leader and still has overwhelming support, etc. ad infinitum).  Democracy is only as good as the people voting, and the majority of times the people who vote don't really think about it first.

Democracy is not the panacea you seem to think it is; nor is monarchy all bad.

There have been plenty of examples of absolute, even "despotic" monarchs giving more freedom and personal rights than (for example) the Patriot Act allows; there are also plenty of examples of people voting for candidates whose position is to remove those freedoms and rights (remember that Hitler was elected, Putin is not the world's most liberal leader and still has overwhelming support, etc. ad infinitum).  Democracy is only as good as the people voting, and the majority of times the people who vote don't really think about it first.

Democracy is not the panacea you seem to think it is; nor is monarchy all bad.


Good points from both you and McDonald....

Let's just say that my cynicism toward human nature does not allow me to refute the point you just made about how people often vote for abusive or idiotic leaders -- mostly because we currently have one here.