Why do the Brits tolerate the monarchy?

[ASUG8]

I was reading that the British taxpayers paid $51MM to support the royal family in 2012, which is pretty ridiculous for a group of people that were never elected but rather simply members of the lucky sperm club. The Queen gives an occasional speech, the kids have very expensive public weddings then go on taxpayer funded royal junkets, all while having no real power in the government. They do some charity work, which is great since they have no jobs to attend to but aside from that I struggle to see why there isn't more of an uproar among the Brits. Seems to me that the argument that they increase tourism would actually be increased if you vacated them from their residences and opened them to the public as museums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... residences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[grizzaholic]

I was reading that the British taxpayers paid $51MM to support the royal family in 2012, which is pretty ridiculous for a group of people that were never elected but rather simply members of the lucky sperm club. The Queen gives an occasional speech, the kids have very expensive public weddings then go on taxpayer funded royal junkets, all while having no real power in the government. They do some charity work, which is great since they have no jobs to attend to but aside from that I struggle to see why there isn't more of an uproar among the Brits. Seems to me that the argument that they increase tourism would actually be increased if you vacated them from their residences and opened them to the public as museums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... residences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

51 million?? Seems like a bargain compared to Obama.

[ASUG8]

I was reading that the British taxpayers paid $51MM to support the royal family in 2012, which is pretty ridiculous for a group of people that were never elected but rather simply members of the lucky sperm club. The Queen gives an occasional speech, the kids have very expensive public weddings then go on taxpayer funded royal junkets, all while having no real power in the government. They do some charity work, which is great since they have no jobs to attend to but aside from that I struggle to see why there isn't more of an uproar among the Brits. Seems to me that the argument that they increase tourism would actually be increased if you vacated them from their residences and opened them to the public as museums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... residences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

51 million?? Seems like a bargain compared to Obama.

True. He's more a $100MM/week kind of guy.

[Ibanez]

I don't know but they love the monarchs.

[∞∞∞]

I'm pretty sure it's 'cause the monarchs bring in more money through tourism than is spent on them, and I don't think removing them will bring in more tourism as argued. While other celebrities come and go, the royal family have been celebrities for centuries; they're arguably the most famous family in the world. People love a good drama and you've basically got the longest continuing one with the British monarchy.

Additionally, while I don't think Brits will admit this, I believe they see them as the last connection to a time where that little island was a world power in the truest sense. Britain is undoubtedly changing, for better or worst, and the monarchy provides a sense of continuity despite the passage of time.

[YoUDeeMan]

I was reading that the British taxpayers paid $51MM to support the royal family in 2012, which is pretty ridiculous for a group of people that were never elected but rather simply members of the lucky sperm club. The Queen gives an occasional speech, the kids have very expensive public weddings then go on taxpayer funded royal junkets, all while having no real power in the government. They do some charity work, which is great since they have no jobs to attend to but aside from that I struggle to see why there isn't more of an uproar among the Brits. Seems to me that the argument that they increase tourism would actually be increased if you vacated them from their residences and opened them to the public as museums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... residences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

51 million?? Seems like a bargain compared to Obama.

[YoUDeeMan]

I was reading that the British taxpayers paid $51MM to support the royal family in 2012, which is pretty ridiculous for a group of people that were never elected but rather simply members of the lucky sperm club. The Queen gives an occasional speech, the kids have very expensive public weddings then go on taxpayer funded royal junkets, all while having no real power in the government. They do some charity work, which is great since they have no jobs to attend to but aside from that I struggle to see why there isn't more of an uproar among the Brits. Seems to me that the argument that they increase tourism would actually be increased if you vacated them from their residences and opened them to the public as museums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... residences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most weak people need some sort of out-of-reach idols to which they are subordinate so that they can dream about someone else besides themselves doing something great. Yet, at the same time, they have passive aggressive tendencies towards modern successful people because, in direct stark comparison, it is understood that the weak-minded person is really to blame for their own misery.

Take UNHWildcat...he loves the Royal family wasting money, but rants about Bush and any conservatives whose families accumulate wealth and not giving more to society's losers. If Bush wore some silly costume and was handed his money directly from the government, UNH would suck and swallow everything Bush put forth.

Some people are just born to take it in the azz from their superiors in one way or another.

[AZGrizFan]

I was reading that the British taxpayers paid $51MM to support the royal family in 2012, which is pretty ridiculous for a group of people that were never elected but rather simply members of the lucky sperm club. The Queen gives an occasional speech, the kids have very expensive public weddings then go on taxpayer funded royal junkets, all while having no real power in the government. They do some charity work, which is great since they have no jobs to attend to but aside from that I struggle to see why there isn't more of an uproar among the Brits. Seems to me that the argument that they increase tourism would actually be increased if you vacated them from their residences and opened them to the public as museums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... residences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most weak people need some sort of out-of-reach idols to which they are subordinate so that they can dream about someone else besides themselves doing something great. Yet, at the same time, they have passive aggressive tendencies towards modern successful people because, in direct stark comparison, it is understood that the weak-minded person is really to blame for their own misery.

Take UNHWildcat...he loves the Royal family wasting money, but rants about Bush and any conservatives whose families accumulate wealth and not giving more to society's losers. If Bush wore some silly costume and was handed his money directly from the government, UNH would suck and swallow everything Bush put forth.

Some people are just born to take it in the azz from their superiors in one way or another.

A(nother) rock solid post from one of my favorite posters.