Yes most political groups and public workers are corrupt, and its not like we have a specific police group to make sure the powers that be don't take bribes from lobbyists. I honestly think if you'd walk into Congress you'd find plenty of white collar crooks
Did you know the Portuguese president costs more money (16 millions) than, say, the King of Spain (8 millions)? Or that Sarkozy, when he was the French president, wasted much more money (112 millions) than Queen Elizabeth (46 millions)?
Also, if you think that by removing the monarchy the state will get its hands on that "lot of money", you're wrong. Most, if not all of the money, is theirs. You must understand the difference between state property and the royal family's property. It's not all the same. If the royal family is deposed, they'll loose their crown, but they'll keep their estates and properties.
For instance: Portugal is a republic since 1910. However, the royal family (the Braganza), which holds no political power, still owns lots of real estate and properties and palaces and stuff all over the country. They're filthy rich.
You're right when you say they didn't do a thing to earn all that stuff; but the same goes to all the rich people which are rich just because they inherited big corporations founded by their grand-grand-grand-fathers. Those are monarchies too, and they worry me much more than the actual kingdoms.
Saving money is not an argument if you want to support republicanism; it's actually the other way around: monarchies can be cheaper than republics, as royal families can sustain themselves with their own properties while presidents live off tax payers' money.
Either way, monarchy or republic, that doesn't matter. It's a shallow discussion, as the guy holding the real power is the prime minister. The president or the king is just an idiot doing the speeches. If I were British, I'd be much more worried with the electoral system, for example.
Saying that if it were a republic things would be better is pure demagoguery. In 1910, the Portuguese deposed their king under the notion that just by changing the head of state, their bankrupcy would magically go away. Obviously it didn't. Actually, looking at the list of modern-day monarchies, most of them are rich countries - UK, Japan, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Sweden... being monarchies is not the cause of their success; it's a symptom.
Wealthy nations are wealthy because their people are hard-working and politically moderate; they don't fall for demagogue promises - "there's a crisis, but it's not our fault, it's, it's, it's... the king's, yeah, so let's depose him and everything will be great. Oh, it didn't work, but it's not our fault for sure, it's it's it's... the jews'! Or the black people's! Or the rich people's! Or the trade unions'!" - wealthy nations don't think like that, they don't make excuses, they think "there's something we've been doing wrong, let's find out what it is and solve the crisis by having everyone working hard, together! ". That's why many wealthy nations keep their monarchies or why they never fell into a dictatorship.
It's a simple question: what costs more, a state with a prime minister and a monarch, or a state with just a prime minister?
I don't know how it works where you are from, but over here they receive millions in tax money. Money they haven't earned or deserved, paid for by the people in exchange for no practical function at all. That's what I mean.
That rich people didn't earn their money isn't an excuse for continuing an undemocratic tradition stemming from a dictatorial age.
I think it does matter. We're supposed to live in an era of enlightenment; keeping an expensive institution with a dictatorial origin, with no practical function is wrong, both ethically and practically.
And that's why the office of King/Queen should be an elected one. I have no qualms with the title of Kingship, but it should be based on merit and the will of the people over hereditary birthright.
That way we make the nation more democratic yet retain the semblance of monarchy that is interlinked with our national identity.
But at the moment I honestly don't believe the Royal Family will remain in power after the Queens demise. She has only weathered the years due to being a woman and being very quiet and nondescript. Her son is a buffoon, her son is not well liked and people won't support him. Especially not when the numerous economic catastrophies force his subjects into poverty.
Nations have tried Elective monarchies for centuries...it always ended up crashing and burning, because one family will always get it in the end...its how most monarchial families got their thrones (if you go back to when they were elective)
Fingers crossed for your prediction to be true. Although I can't see the British letting go of the Royal Family just because Charles is not as "cute" as the Elizabeth. As you said, you fellas believe having a royal family somehow informs you about your national identity.
We're all going through an identity crisis since the end of the empires...
It's not about being cute, per se. But here's the thing, even if the criticisms levelled against the Queen are accurate and logical, her detractors will always be seen as attacking a fragile old woman.
Her gender and her age make her almost immune from criticism, as does her (public) persona of being very restrained and modest.
Charles will meddle, he can't do much legally, but he can - and most likely will - comment on big issues. Which could be very harmful to his reputation. I also doubt that he will be as scaled-down as the Queen, the image of him with all his military regalia and medals won't play well with those wary of state power. It simply looks too fascistic, too reminiscent of an arrogant dictator of some banana republic.
His very nature may not immediately bring about the demise of the monarchy, but it will finally legitimise questions about its relevance. National identity is a big hang-up for my compatriots, but just watch how meaningless it becomes when all the cuts and recessions begin to bite.
That Jubilee was nothing but the last gasp of a dying beast, I truly believe that.