As royalists and media tycoons cooed at the birth of the royal baby, Facebook critics take it upon themselves to harsh the vibe.
"It's a 'royal' baby, it denotes that the baby is special by virtue of blood," says one Facebook user. Another continues, "I just thought that seeing as we're supposed to be enlightened people we would have moved past this by now."
A fair point, one that seemed to accumulate quite a few 'likes'. But the royalists countered back, "but tradition?!", incredulous at how anyone could be so pessimistic at such a glorious birth.
Well, money.
Republic, a campaign base against the monarchy, found that the royal family costs Britain roughly £202.4 million a year, £7.9 of that coming from public funds (i.e. taxpayers money) to "support the exercise of her duties as head of state".
But is abolishing the monarchy worth the price of the roughly 1200 people the royal family employ? A small number in the long run, but in these financially difficult times any number is significant.
Or the price that would come with changing the branding of the "royal" mail, or bank? Who would grace pound notes? And Buckingham Palace?
It is as if abolishing the royal family would be done simply because it could be.
"Being the royal family now means almost nothing. They are not the kings and queens of old. It's like their keeping the tradition for traditions sake and nothing more".
Another fair point; but consider: if royalty was so unnecessary, why hasn't it been abolished already?
No comments:
Post a Comment