For Brits: click Republican? on the Guardian front page to hide royal news

That's comparing Apples and Cactuses and doesn't strike me as equivalent at all.

It was also a mild dig against the Democratic party, implying that their support of slavery stood against republican ideals.

On balance, the monarchy does actually provide the UK with an unquanitifiable mystique that you don't really appreciate until you've lived abroad for a while (I've been away since 1998 and I'm just beginning to appreciate the seductive power available to top UK businesses through Royal connections).

I think that if you are a visiting dignitary / trade envoy to the UK and your host swings you an invite from "The Queen of England" to Buckingham Palace for dinner, you've been beaten.

So, despite the seeming overt display of opulence at tax payers expense, they probably do pay their way.

That would deny republicans the satisfaction of clicking on the button as they shout "FUCK YOUUUU QUEEN!" inside their heads.

Like almost everything to do with the british state, this is 90% ceremony, which ultimately serves to prevent us cutting down the royals in the street like dogs in the manner of the continentals.

The British system of government is far less costly than that of the US.

It's also quite nice having someone connected with government that has been around longer than one or two political terms and thus has a wealth of experience to draw from and can an act in a way that's above short term popularism. If you ask even the most die hard anti-monarchists in the UK, I believe most of them would agree that the Queen has done a very good job. They're more concerned with her offspring and what happens when she dies.

Edit: forgot to mention too that the Queen, Charles, Harry, William, Kate and other immediate family members spend an enormous amount of their time directly involved in charity work.

I've been living in the US for the last five years and have come to appreciate the Royal Family more than when I was in the UK- their apolitical nature means that they are more internationally appreciated than most other world figures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&list=SPqs5ohhass...

Next, if the monarch asked something of the country as a whole, most people would take their word for it, because there would be no political motive or bias. If a PM did so, it becomes partisan and a debate. We had Blair take us to war twice on his say so. As such, most of the country opposed it and saw it was willy waving or macho-ness, or sucking up to the Americans, and so on. Had the Queen believed in it and come out and said something like, "Look, Im sorry, but with 60 odd years of experience, we have no choice", I think the country would have backed her, if only reluctantly. But the Brits would have thought, "bloody hell, she speaks, and well, OK". And that would be because of the huge constitutional risk doing so would have caused.

Finally, we could in the UK vote in something like a Nazi party. We could then take to the streets and have a violent revolution and kill the nazi's. After all that, the Monarch would still be there as a shield of stability for both us internally, an as an external sort of front. Having won our revolution, Queenie would still be there, and ask the winner, "Ok, now what?"

I prefer all this to every other presidential system, most notable the insane US presidential race. I don't want out head of state to be in that cesspit. I like that it just sits there, all nice and stable.

I care not for all the pomp and ceremony. I hate all the silly gossip. I dont think they need so many homes and hangers on. All that can be up for grabs, no problem. But at it core, I personally, prefer our monarch to any other alternative.

Sorry, but I do not believe that a vote is a universally good thing. Mostly, yes. But not an absolute. Here in the UK I firmly relive we have the two almost perfectly balanced. Democracy can do anything it likes, under a safe shield of our monarchy. If it ever got real nasty and extreme, the monarch can shut it down. We would have a crisis in that case, but we would not go Nazi, or something. I believe that externally other countries and cultures can see we are a thriving powerful democracy, but we also have depth and stability supplied by our monarch head of state.

UK! UK! UK! :)

We don't directly finance the royal family although various members get paid very well for various public engagements.

Tax avoidance implies breaking the law. The tax arrangements with the royal family reflect the unique position as de facto holders of much UK "public" property. This is being sorted out with the separation of Crown Property and the various family member's private property and the definition of state / private events. As this is resolved, the royal family take on a greater tax burden. The Queen has been paying income tax for decades.

People seem to separate the Royal Family from other rich and powerful people in the country. They all got there the same way, playing the game of capitalism (in which inheritance / nepotism is inherent)) better than us. If the UK dropped its monarchy, these people wouldn't just disappear. They would still be massively rich. They would still, fortunately, act as a tourist magnet (although probably to a lesser degree). They would still be plastered all over the papers.

And we'd probably end up replacing them with some voted in leader to the 2nd house. Cue more politicians and even worse media frenzy. Woot!