You're really making 'debating points', not points of substance.
The Americans mentioned have done far more to harm the US, funding political agendas, than the royals have in recent decades.[/quote]
That's nice, but irrelevant. Plus, you have no proof, however horrible those people may be.
The Royals did $10 billion of damage to the UK economy in a single day and caused the GDP growth to decrease by 0.25%. And that is their government recognized birthright.
Are these families that you've mentioned given official government titles that are strictly for their bloodlines? Of course not.
They don't need to monopolize swans, when they monopolize so much money, the largest companies in the country, etc. Which affects society more?
Companies come and go. Let me know when the US government gives these families titles and forces the rest of the country to recognize these titles, forces some citizens to take pledges to these families, etc.
How many taxes do each actually pay?
I don't know, but at least their taxes are not optional simply because of their bloodline.
How much tourist revenue do those Americans bring in?
Neither one of them bring any tourist revenue.
However, how many of these families are on public owned lands or buildings? Only the British royal family.
I don't need to compare the White House to the royals - but to 10 Downing.
No, you do need to compare it to the White House, because it would be as if one of these families were on an American tourist spot and living there, closing it to most of the public.
If you have any doubt that US tycoons own vast amounts of private art, cut off from the public - much of it illegal...
As does the British museum, except at least it's available to the public.
Wow, did the people pay for these families' private art collections? Nope.
But the Royal Art Collection is actually owned by the people. Moreover, only 2% of it is actually available to the public. You have no idea what you're even talking about.
It would be similar to if only one family was allowed to control the entire Smithsonian.
As for a religious order, the religion of the royal family has a lot less effect on Britain than the fact that whatever it says on paper, anyone who wants to be President has to basically be a Christian, and the pandering to one faction of one religion here; we have one Muslim and one Atheist in the 535 members of Congress.
That's nice, but it's not forced upon the people. For example, JFK was Catholic - that wouldn't even be allowed to be the British head of state just due to that one fact.
You seem to be unable of seeing the difference between private action and thought and government mandated religious and gender discrimination.
It's all a bunch of nonsense; as I said, getting rid of the royal system would basically replace it with the 'private royals' of the rich being even less public-oriented.
They already have their own 'private royals' in addition to their 'public royals.' But at least they're private royals and not government forced and mandated royals.
Quick, tell me what the Walton family, the richest in the world, has done lately for the public, while the Royals do constant public activities such as charity work.
So, we make it 'Branson Palace', owned and shut off by Sir Richard, and filled with the same crap, and cut off from the public, with louder parties. Big improvement.
Let me know when you can finally get on point. Right now you seem to be fine with discriminating against women and religious minorities. Keep up trying to justify your bigotry.
Answer these questions: Are you fine with the government having its head of state position based upon a gender and religious discriminatory practice? Are you fine with the government forcing the people to pay for one bloodline's extravagant lifestyle?
Cool!
Facebook
Twitter