Even if the Brits abolished the monarchy. Charles would still be a king

[Kaleva]

As he is the recognized king of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several other nations.

[JT45242]

1. Not gonna happen...

Even ignoring the tourist revenues to see the castles and all the other royal things, the monarchy is a net positive income for the British government.

The rents from all the royal lands go into their equivalent of the general fund for the government because of some treaty a broke monarch signed. Then the government spends a relatively small portion of that money on the royals and the rest is used to pay the British budget...it would require large budget cuts to get rid of the monarchy.

Some people may hate the monarchy, but not enough to defund the health service, education, public transportation, etc.

The damage to the tourist industry would be huge...no reason to see castles that are just mostly empty buildings.

[Kaleva]

2. I don't think they will either

But I think some here don't realize our next door neighbor , Canada, is a monarchy.

[Doc Sportello]

4. The opposite is true

Actually the formerly royal tourist destinations in France bring in much, much more money than those in England for just one example. Why? Because they are open year-round due to the fact no royals live there. To say the Palace at Versaille is just an "empty building" ignores the fact it brings in 10 million visitors a year compared to less than a million for every British royal house except for Windsor (at 1.5M). It also ignores many of the other empty buildings tourist in other countries spend billions on to visit. This trope about the tourist dollars the royals bring in is silly to anyone who has ever visited them. No one goes to the estates in Britain expecting to seek a queen or prince. Just as in other countries they go to see the architecture, rare items and learn history, and you can do that more easily without royals there.

A story the other day told how Charlie is dodging 3/4 of a billion pounds in taxes on an estate the queen left him. The net savings and extra tourist dollars from abolishing the vestigial institution would help the government services.

[jimfields33]

12. Charles isn't dodging. He's following the law.

Are you dodging when you take money out of your Roth?

[Doc Sportello]

14. A law passed for this occasion by supporters of the royals

Are you a supporter of the tax breaks for the rich donald dump had passed?

[jimfields33]

29. I like my tax break on personal deductions from 6K to 12K

Yep I took it too.

[Mysterian]

16. Tourist revenue would be more if the castles were turned into museums

with full access throughout the buildings.

Monarchy is an abhorrent concept and should be abolished in all of its forms.

[JI7]

3. The commonwealth games are also very popular for some reason in many of those countries

and unlike the olympics countries that are less wealthy have been able to host them and make money from it .

[Doc Sportello]

5. Yeah if Britain abolished the monarchy the other countries would quickly follow suit

Sheesh. Really reaching with this one.

[Kaleva]

7. And you know this how?

[Doc Sportello]

8. Because I have a greater understanding of these countries

So how do you know they would keep a money-losing vestigial institution? You made the original claim - based on what?

[Kaleva]

9. So you are just guessing

If you have some links to reputable sources that back up your claim, If love to see them.

If you want links from reputable sources backing up my statement Charles is King of several nations besides the UK, I'll provide them.

[Doc Sportello]

10. You made the original claim and no your moving the goalposts won't work

Of course what I said was they "would quickly follow suit" in getting rid of the monarchy. Not whether he would be king right then. Those countries you mentioned wouldn't continue with this useless institution if Britain did away with it. That's obvious to anyone who knows anything about them. If you can't discuss what someone actually wrote, then your point has no credibility. Again, just reaching.

[Kaleva]

17. Where is your evidence to support your claim?

That the other nations would quickly follow suit? If you can't provide any sources, then just admit you are expressing an opinion and nothing more then that. Had you qualified your original statement by saying you were expressing an opinion that the other nations would quickly abolish the monarchy, then there'd be no argument. But you tried to pass it off as a fact and are still trying to.

If, as you claim, everyone who knows anything about these countries knows what you claim to be a fact, then it ought to be easy to provide links to articles supporting that.

[Doc Sportello]

18. Aww that old trick

Claiming someone did something you did in order to deflect. Won't work. You made a claim which was that other countries would keep the monarchy. That is a claim backed up by ... nothing. You are trying to pass that off as fact. I said it was faulty because the other countries would follow suit. Then you try to deflect and change the goalposts. Won't work.

[Kaleva]

19. It's not a trick to ask you to provide sources for your claim.

I asked you a simple question and you verified my suspicion that you were expressing an opinion and not a fact by you being unable to provide sources.

[Doc Sportello]

23. It is a trick when you are asking others to do what yo are unable to

Provide one source that says those countries would keep the monarchy after Britain dissolved it. Just one. Did Australia or Canada take a vote proclaiming to keep the monarchy in the event Britain abolished it? If they did, you can link to it. They didn't so your original claim is backed up by nothing. In other words you are stating an opinion as fact, and then saying I am doing the same. Unless you can provide sources. Just as I expected, more deflection and goal post moving since you are unable to provide sources, or anything else to back up your original claim. It's as simple as that.

[Kaleva]

24. Here is your claim, which I asked you to support.

Post number 5

"Yeah if Britain abolished the monarchy the other countries would quickly follow suit"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17151388

You've been unable to do so.

[Doc Sportello]

26. Here is your orginal claim which you have failed to support

"Even if the Brits abolished the monarchy. Charles would still be a king"

What, for a day? No you think they would keep him which if any proof of that claim was available you would post it. You have failed to back up your claim in any way.

It is really perplexing why one on a Democratic site would go to such lengths as yo have to defend an institution that is the antithesis of what this country stands for. It's why we fought a war with Britain. Yet some on here are so beholden to that institution they go to absurd lengths promulgate a point of view they declare as fact.

[obamanut2012]

11. They actually are profit-creating

[Doc Sportello]

13. No they are not

[Fullduplexxx]

6. Charles should change his name to Kong

[samnsara]

15. every time i hear 'King Charles', first thing I think of are those cavalier spaniels :)

[Celerity]

20. This literally make no sense, as there would no longer be a monarch to be the Commonwealth

Nations' head of state. The Commonwealth all flows from the British Crown.

[Kaleva]

22. Only a few members of the Commonwealth recognize Charles III as head of state

[Celerity]

27. That is beside the point, if we (I am a British citizen) abolish the Monarchy, Charles is no longer

king, nor the head of any of the 14 Commonwealth nations he currently is the head of state of:

Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, New Zealand, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

He ceases to be a monarch/king at all.

I cannot wait until we Brits (and my other nation with a monarchy, Sweden) end it all. Rule via birthright is abhorrent to the core of my inner being.

[usonian]

25. And whose image would be on their many currencies?

Commoners like Einstein, Hawking, Gandhi, King Jr., Salk, Mozart, Casals, Monet?

Hear, hear, no rabble!

[treestar]

28. the trouble with abolishing it is

that the world will always know who it is (would have been).

The others may know, but they abolished long ago, and nobody would pay attention to them at this point.

[Zeitghost]

30. If the British Monarchy falls

The commonwealth nations will all follow suit immediately.