Haha true most people don't care. But thanks for answering..
I think the fact the poll was created, and a number of people responded, suggests that people DO actually care. But these days it's trendy on social media for people to be negative/derogatory/political about most things. The irony being it usually just highlights their own lack of cultural awareness. For example, some people commenting on this very thread have announced they come from America and therefore do not like "hype". Yeah... ok. lol
"Because this is not the Middle Ages anymore, and monarchies/royal families have no meaning anymore."…except in current monarchies that still grant significant power to their kings, like the ราชอาณาจักรไทย ("Ratcha-anachak Thai"; 「Kingdom of Thailand」) and المملكة العربية السعودية ("al-Mamlakah al-ʿĀrabīyah as-Saʿūdīyah";「Kingdom of Saudi Arabia」). I' not exactly too concerned about their royals, either, but I'm sure their citizens are, since the line of succession has significant implications on their country's national policies and, consequently, their own individual lives.
@N192K001 I live in Thailand. In reality, the royal family is highly symbolic here. They are not running the country.If they disappeared tomorrow; it wouldn't change anything. by the way you are talking about countries who haven't advanced as much yet as westernized countries that are beginning to see the light and are voicing their opinion, hence the question.
@jarrich Oh… Nice! It’s good to learn something new. (Thanks for the lesson!) I only experienced Saudi and heard that Thailand was still a monarchy from Philippine & U. S. news around the time their King Bhumibol died and was replaced with… an apparently less-popular Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn.U. S. media painted a less-than-flattering image of the (then) crown-prince, but both countries’ media indicated the Thai really loved King Bhumibol and truly grieved his passing. Are the Thai really that attached to their symbolic monarchy? Or were did the just not want King Vajiralongkorn? Or something else?
@N192K001 You are correct.Thailand is still a monarchy, and the Thais really look up to their king, especially the late Bhumibol Adulyadey. Many Thais consider him the "father" of the Thai people. It is also true however that the current king is much less popular; but there are strict laws in place that prevents people from discussing the monarchy, the democracy or the royal family. Because of that, Thailand is not considered to be a free country.
This deserves MHO lol.
Well he is 100% right.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
True enough. Social media is just where happiness goes to die. lol
... because the Royal Family is a massive tourist attraction for the UK, and costs the tax payer £0.50p a year. Any Royal family member getting married or having a baby is an instant huge revenue generator for cottage-industries selling marriage/baby-related items. There are a lot of countries around the world who will trade with the UK solely because of the royal connection and current/former commonwealth relationships. Any charity which has a royal representing it will be massively successful. There's a few answers to your question, off the top of my head.
All of which can be challenged or debated! Actually the Royal Family is less of a tourist attraction than people think. Many museums pull more tourists than the Royal Family and that's without taking into consideration the people who are visiting Royal sites solely for the building e. g. Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. The Royal Weddings and Royal Babies provide income to almost solely London-based businesses. They also cost money to run and involves pulling police forces away from actual work in order to provide extra security and traffic control. I would love to see evidence of any trade arrangement that would cease to exist were the Royal Family to be abolished.
Allow me to add some points of my own. Let's start with the Crown Estate: this is land throughout the UK that the Royal Family has claimed throughout its history. Much of it was acquired through war, some through oppression or abuse of power. The fact that we pay the Royal Family to use land that they stole in the first place is absolutely disgusting. I mean you may very well be a Royalist but most people in mu country want rid of the Royal Family and I'm glad the Scottish government is making moves to disconnect ourselves from them!
The Royal Family are nothing more than the UKs version of the Kardashians. They are a sad distraction from real world issues and he fact that anyone wastes time or money on their private affairs is not only astounding to me, its depressing.
I'm not a Royalist. I just answered your question, factually. Whether you like it or not is obviously your choice, but in the current economic climate any revenue-generation is crucial. As for the claiming of land throughout the royal family's history... seriously? Live in the now! Everyone has nicked someone else's land at some point, depending how far in history you want to go back. The Romans, the Normans, the Celts, probably the friggin cavemen as well. lol
You can't really discuss the crucial nature of revenue when you're paying a family upwards of £100 million a year! Especially when the money they are bringing in is only really benefiting one city. Shrugging the land ownership off is silly. We pay them an absolute fortune for land that they don't use and that was stolen in the first place. If you can't see why that's immoral then I guess there isn't anything else to say. I mean who cares, right? Everyone stole land at some point. That land could not only be put to use but it could bring in more money than the Royal Family. That's one of the reasons I brought it up.
She was born in 1981.