Why exactly do we have a Royal Family...

Haha, no you didn't understand me! I understand you don't want to disband the monarchy. What I was pointing out is that they don't spend a lot of the Government's money! Where have you got this impression that they unnecessarily spend money? (Would you mind sending me the link please?)

I actually never mentioned Government Money. Just money in general.

Regardless where the money came from, as someone had pointed out earlier that the Jubilee Boat for example was Privately funded, does not make it less wasteful.

From my understanding of basic British History, we went quite a while without a monarch system during which we were doing "fine" to some extent.
And then we adopted the monarch system back on, only that this time the Royal family would have far less jurisdiction than it did - Leaving most of the power to the elected members of the people. I.e. the democratic system that we live in today.

So to reiterate what I said in my other two posts, and you still have not answered - do you have any evidence for your claims? No.... You don't at all.

I don't think you quite got the message; the evidence is all around.

He got the message, but your reply is not evidence; it's an assertion, nothing more, and therefore dismissable.

By your logic I could say that the people of American are 'brainwashed' into republicanism by the powers that be to prevent them from seeing the light and adopting monarchy.

Know why I don't argue this? Because it's a nonsense. But even more than that - I have about as much 'evidence' for it as you do.

What have I wrote that is an assertion? Please point one out and we'll see if we can resolve it.

Claiming that the royal family suppressing the people and keeping them under control as 'self-evident'. That is an assertion.

I did not mention the word 'suppress'. I did not even use the words 'under control'. What I wrote (to the effect) was that the Royal Family together with the media, and the institutions, etc, do what they do to maintain the status quo, and that part of this effort involves a certain degree of cohersion and propaganda.

Gives the image of the UK false prestige when viewed by other countries around the world. Also helps maintain current relations with countries like Canada, new zealand and Australia who still consider the queen as their monarch.

i believe thats done by the commonwealth, the queen as there head of state is relatively irrelevant .. plus Australia for one, possibly canada i cant quite remember, are planning on trying to ditch her soon..

Australia had a referendum in 1999 - the monarchists won comfortably from a position of monetary and media disadvantage.



What examples are these? If you're referring to Gough/Whitlam, the Governor-General acted constitutionally, and any president worth his salt would have acted in the same manner.

that may be, doesnt mean theyre not planning another vote on the matter though..

well canada there are 3 examples in the last few years and australia i believe was in 1975. oh yes i dont dispute that i think it was more point of principle that irked them, consider it like Mr Obama dissolving the British parliament even if it was acting in a quesitonable manner people wouldnt be amused with a foreign chap intereferring in their politics would they? by no means is this the unilateral view though but it is held by a fair few auzzies, cant speak so much for the canadians though.

But it wasn't the Queen dismissing the Australian PM - it was the Australian Governor-General - who was Australian too. Moreover, the people of Australia endorsed his move in the ensuing general election.

I'm curious as to what Canadian examples you are referring to?

Australia had a referendum in 1999 - the monarchists won comfortably from a position of monetary and media disadvantage.