The British Crown is a useless anachronism.

The British Crown is a useless anachronism.

Your t.v. stations wouldn't be showing all that royal programming if it didn't get good ratings. People like celebrity of all sorts. Turn off your t.v. and stop hanging with people who talk about the royals.

izzythepush wrote:

what Joe doesn't seem to understand is the sheer indifference most people feel towards the Royal Family.

indifference may be the case in Britain (I'll trust you on that - unless I get a yen to look up the stats ) but it is a big reason people go to Britain as tourists - people just love castles, esp. when they're still in use, however occasional

First, you were the one who came up with that horseshit about an American penchant for exaggeration, with large automobiles being a symptom thereof--and i dismissed it by pointing out that circumstance favored big steel and big auto selling large cars to expand their markets. It had nothing to do with a penchant for exaggeration, nor a lack of royalty (one of the most hilarious bits of bullshit from you i've ever read).

no, you talked about big cars economic commercial viability, not about cars aesthetic preferences less alone a psychoanalysis of it...

Second, i listed the various uses to which monarchy is put, and that's no tautology.

You didn't establish your pathetic and hilarious claim for a psychological basis for a preference for large automobiles. Whether or not you had, i was under no obligation to address notional claims such as that. I pointed out that the rise of large automobiles derived from a marketing campaign--i didn't need to do any more than that.

I have already pointed out that there is a penchant for exaggeration and cults of celebrity in other nations. Your only response is to say that you've not denied it--in effect, you beggar your own argument. Why should i bother to analyze an argument you are unwilling to support if it's challenged? As for what's obvious, it appears the author of this thread needed to have the obvious pointed out to him, given that he asks the question at all.

Discuss.

I can't, for the life of me, think of a single reason for the Royal Family to have any presence in the British government. I think they could continue to exist as a sort of curiosity, an attraction for the tourists, the same as any other pop idols, (Lord knows, there's plenty of Americans who can't get enough of gazing at that bunch of stiffs on a balcony.) but, they shouldn't receive a pound's worth of taxpayer money for any purpose. They can pay for their own security and mow their own lawns.

Anyway, let's talk.
Convince me that the Royals have some beneficial utility.

Joe(I'll pour some tea.)Nation

At the end of the day it's just too much hassle to get rid of them

So, apparently, given your original rationale, you now claim that this "chronicle example" (god, you crack me up) is not unique. So are you saying that everyone around the world suffers from a lack of monarchy and are therefore lead to seek out the "noble stamp?" How then do you account for exaggerated cultural artefacts in countries which do have monarchies? You are your own worst enemy when it comes to these silly arguments you are advancing. There is no such thing as "Darwinian ethnic engagement" other than in your fevered imagination.