Colin Firth has just really gone up in my estimation. Rare that you hear them answer honestly like that. I have always found that people who think are against the royal family on principle. It just isn't egalitarian enough to still have 'special' all expenses paid for families.
'I think they seem very nice' damn thats such an obvious obfuscation of the question and a nice way of saying 'of course I hate the monarchy I'm a british actor born after 1960 how in the world could I ever be a monarchist?'.
The royal family works hard, ?????? Abolish the monarchy and give the 180 MILLION pounds a year and thensome they are GIVEN out of hard working brits (slaves) give this money back its stealing, and let the people spend THIER money on THEIR children not prince williams kids.
Kings and queens to me mounted horses in armor and went out to battle, not taking away what they have brought into the uk but kings and queens so old fasioned
@@lea-rw5cb Basically, correct. Our constitution is such as we could wrestle from successive Warlords if you look up royal prerogative you can see exactly how much we need to trust the Sovereign YES kings and queens are for the last but one millennium
@Hamilton7776 republicanism in the UK isn't necessarily about left wing vs right wing, even though most who support it tend to lean leftwards. its about living as a citizen or a subject, and personally i believe our society is unfair enough without it still being hugely influenced by a small group of otherwise ordinary people who are lucky enough to be born into publicly funded lives of wealth, luxury and power.
The whole charade of the monarchy is absurd but the UK is a conservative country with a small c and I suspect it will take many more years possibly centuries for the monarchy to fade away.
Stability, continuity, order, pattern, guiding politicians, leadership for politicians and the people, etc., etc. probably doesn't tell you anything. The republic is one big chaos and charade. -_- The republic is in no way more better, or more effective than the monarchy (on the contrary). Is it better just because the head of state is elected? That's so stupid ... that's where the most mistakes are made,
The Royal family sum up why we'll always have a class system in the U.K despite politicians and the press telling us otherwise. How can a family so obscenely rich want (or care) about the rest of us? Example Prince Andrew an obnoxious playboy who hangs around with dubious characters and flies around the world at taxpayers expense as a so called ambassador.
Yes it is. The Crown Estate is owned by the nation, and managed by the 'Windsors'. In return, they get a massive slice of its profits. Hence they receive money that would otherwise go to the national exchequer. Tax payers' money. No need for insults.
But the Crown gives all of the profits of her estate to the government provided that they pay her expenses, and more goes into the government than what the Queen uses.
Aaron Brown No the estate belongs to the Monarch through inheritance, you can't just take it of her because she owns it. Do you have a source for the figure?
Aaron Brown Why would it belong to the people? She has it through right of inheritance from her ancestors, her land is not a monolithic entity, it is a patchwork over Britain and the colonies that have been aquired in different ways, I don't think we can say she acquired it in one way. We are subjects not citizens.
I will absolutely not accept that it is what makes us unique. I am British and patriotic. I am proud that Britain has always been at the forefront of democracy and progression with the exception of the blemish of the royal family. For me, the financial side of it is irrelevant and the choosing of the head of state, however ceremonial, should be in the hands of the British public. I don't believe it is morally acceptable that we should support any form of divine right to hierarchy in our society.
bloody well said.... and the only reason they possess the power and privilege they have is not because they're divine, or superior, or entrepreneurial, or great contributors... but because their ancestors were more brutal, bloodthirsty and ruthless than everyone else's. Quite simply, if you believe all human beings are equal, you cannot believe in the continuation of a hereditary monarchy.
Because people make shitty choices when voting, not saying they should have no say, but having a monarch as a stabilizing figure is better than becoming a fully fledged republic, especially because the tyranny of the masses is a thing.
@chinese bot So I'll say it like this, the monarch is a stabilizing figure because they are a person the country can look up to despite their politics, because monarchs do not have any affiliation to a party, they don't have to cater to 51% of the population to stay in power, like politicians do in pure democracies or republics. That, and tyranny of the masses is 100% a thing, and so is tyranny of personality, yes, which is why I despise republicanism, but also absolutism, I think that while a monarch is a better head of state than a president or a PM, the people do need a way of dealing with or reining in a monarch, I'm a semi constitutionalist, which is a way of saying I support a monarchy where the monarch has power, but is balanced out by an elected body and a constitution. In my eyes that is the best way to get the best of both worlds, as you're able to keep both the will of the masses in check, while also keeping the monarch in check.
@chinese bot You misunderstand me, the point in having the elected body is to keep a monarch in check, the monarchy can still be hereditary without compromising the right of the people to have their say in government. That and technically no, monarchies do not have to be hereditary, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Holy Roman Empire, and quite a few others had elected monarchs, granted the people didn't elect these monarchs but hereditary rule is not a requirement. As for the whole commonwealth thing, that is not my forte, I'm american, I'm speaking in support of monarchy as a whole rather than the specifics of the commonwealth, however I still think there is a cultural aspect that helps, I meas as far as I know the commonwealth nations don't exactly pay anything aside from homage to the Queen, why not have her as a symbolic head of state when there's little to be gained from separating yourself from HM? My main reason for supporting monarchy is that if a monarch has power, but not absolute power, they are more readily able to guide their country through tumultuous times, and make the country more stable as a whole, I mean half the U.S.A right now is on fire and the republican government (This isn't 100% mr fake tan's fault) has done little to stop it. As for the whole point of the monarch if there's an elected body, why not? The elected body can make sure the monarch doesn't get too out of hand, and the monarch is able to make sure the elected body gets shit done in a bipartisan manner.
I don't agree with the concept of monarchy either, but it's total hypocrisy to accept a title or award from the Queen if your anti monarchy. He should give it back.
He doesn’t seem to be staunchly anti-monarchist like I am, so it seems he has some issues with them but is too polite to publicly say that he opposes them with any force and would rather accept the title than reject it for any reason that may be deemed rude.
True, though as someone who has just got engaged, I certainly don't regard it as a 'free' decision. If someone told me I could either marry my fiancee or keep my job, I wouldn't regard that as a 'choice' at all. I love my fiancee and have an existential NEED to marry her. As much as I dislike the Duke of Windsor, there can be no doubt he was genuinely in love with Mrs Simpson. But I'm probably just being sentimental.
@popandlockify It IS the Personal Property of the Monarch which is why it is restored to the Monarch at the beginning of every reign. The revenue from the Crown Estate goes straight to the government. The Civil List was negotiated in exchange for the profits from the Crown Estates. It is a well known fact. If you have time, look it up.
There's nothing stopping them, per se, but the fact that they are 'here-today-gone-tomorrow' elected politicians, who are often middle-aged or elderly by the time they acquire the top job, tends to mean their impact is comparatively minor. Compare that to the Queen, who has been at this game for 60 years. The Prince founded the Prince's Trust when he was 28. Their longevity in office means that they have more time to establish lasting legacies.
I don't why this is in my suggested video but this is very interesting. I'm not a monarchist nor against it. But if I can choose which form of government I want to have in my country I'd choose to have what Switzerland has. Most people say Monarchy is better it's what most rich countries have as a form of government. But for me the Swiss system of government is the closest thing to real democracy.
@Hamilton7776 first off, there IS a connection with party politics. there are still many tory MPs and senior party figures who are connected to the royals and cameron himself is known to have got his first job at the party HQ because of a phone call from the palace. secondly he has a direct line to ministers, something ordinary people and many lobby groups even lack, and they have been forced to seek his permission for 12 government bills since 2005.
@bobzilla211 and yes he does have a direct line and its just as well since the Lobby groups where not about to stand up for the villagers who where about to lose there homes. But he did. and the Labor Backbencher who represented those villagers was glad he did.
I think a constitutional monarchy is a good deal for most if not all. There is a monarch mostly as a symbol of the people and country, while day to day politics are made by an elected government. The majority of European countries are parliamentary republics, where there is a president of the republic for the very same job of a constitutional monarch. The most important difference is cleary the interest of tourists
The most important difference is cleary continuity, stability, unity, dignified representation (=monarchy) and no expenses but revenues (unlike republics).
Can the British Monarch not step down for the role in other words retire. We are not in the middle ages were the royalty were in complete control and the position was as much about the ability of force as Hereditary right.
I live in a presidentialist Rebublic and the main real difference is that you have a representative monarch which, at least, unites the people a little, and a parlamentary govermenment, and we divides our country in half every four years to practically elect a King and his courts for the next four.
As before, you are preaching to the choir as far as Edward VIII's dereliction of duty is concerned. The Prince expresses his opinions but not his political views (though the difference is sometimes subtle). Of course, it's important to stress that, as Heir, HRH is bound be a less strict covenant than the Queen. When he becomes King, he will have to become more circumspect and I think that is accepted.
I think Britain have still have monarchy and be completely democratic by reducing public spending to zero for the royal family, getting Rid of their titles such as head of state, head of the military, ability to dissolve parliament, ability to sign legislation, head of the Church of England, but allow them to still have buckingham palace and allow them to keep of royal titles to generate tourist money.
The Queen doesn't decide who gets them. In any nation there are awards and honours to be given out, but ours is done so 'through' the Queen as a result of the monarchical structure, it most certainly isn't in the name of the Queen or due to support from the Queen.
@bobzilla211 Want some other Arguments! OK (1) Safeguards to Freedom Too often the business of politics is a great pretense or game, a chance to strut and posture on parade for a while before retiring to directorships and lecture tours, while a monarch is for life and dedicates himself solely to his country.
@bobzilla211 (2) The fact that a hereditary sovereign lives above party politics, internal disputes and petty allegiances to those who put him into office, puts him into a position to see the big picture rather than be short-sighted or blinded by misguided loyalties. By occupying such high ground, a monarch can deny assess to more sinister forces and thus protect his people.
Everything is, at some basic level, inherently political but the monarchy, as an institution, not 'party political' and that is the important distinction. Nobody could point to the Queen and say "She's a Tory" or "She's Labour". The Sovereign operates within a sphere that is entirely outside such partisan labels.
Well, I think you take a bit of a historical liberty there. I'm by no means a fan of Edward VIII. He was totally self-involved. True - like a lot of people then - he admired Hitler and was basically pro-German but that's a far cry from saying he "conspired" with Hitler. Bear in mind, he was an idiot: He didn't know what Nazism was about. Also, though the Nazis talked about restoring him after a German invasion, I doubt - for all his faults -he'd have allowed himself to be used in that way.
@@andrewschrader3723 Well first of all I'm probably telling you it's become public knowledge that you're manifestly quite incorrect, so your first move would probably be to Google Edward the 8th was a Nazi and find that out. And yet you didn't do that
So why don't we give you another chance to do that and then you can come back to us. You could very easily just watch the episode that's about it on the second season of the crown, if you're afraid of getting bored or something. But as one should be able to tell from what I'm saying, you guessed it (everyone else who isn't afraid of where the truth may lead at least), there's also a number of docs that go into it
@@alexae1367 Sorry, I posted that 9 years ago, so had to remind myself what I said in the first place. I don't think you're right. The Duke of Windsor was many things and, in many ways, deeply unpleasant. He was certainly racist! But I don't think he was an ideological Nazi. He simply would've lacked the sophistication to know what that really meant.
john smith Wouldn't it be better for tourism, if they left? Think about how much money, all those castles, and palaces would make, if they were open all year round. All those priceless artworks and antiques, could be sold off, or put in a museum for everyone to see. The best way for tourism, is to get rid of them.
If I had my way the queen would be the last ever monarch to reign in the UK. I have a problem with inherited wealth and privilege especially when there are decent people living in squalor struggling to put food on the table for their families in this country. All I ever see prince William do is go on holiday, or pretend to hold down a job as an air ambulance pilot. It really baffles me why people fawn over them so much. The younger monarchy is outdated and doesn't deserve such respect. I have respect for the Queen and the way she conducts herself, but the Queen should be the last IMHO.
most people have a need to be subserviant, we are mammals. Give people a title (prince, queen, etc) to someone and most people bow down because it make them feel inferior. Not only is a royal system wrong to the people, its unfair to the family, who can never be unknown and live a free life. Religion is about to eliminate royality.
Do you respect the queen when her and Phillip are out shooting grouse and she gets do her favorite thing in the world and beat the shit out of the one's that wasn't killed instantly with her favorite beating stick. I say get the lot of them out now and put them in a council house and give em a job picking up litter. And that would be too good for them.
What makes you think removing the Royal family will decrease the number of people in porverty and not increased it? Many people see USA and believe Republic to be the way, but they forgot that in Germany, Nazi came after Monarchy, in Italy, Moussoulini came after Monarchy, in Spain Franco came after Monarchy, in France the reign of terror and Napoleon came after Monarchy, in England, Oliver Cromwell came after Monarchy. In Greece Military Juanta came after Monarchy. In Russia, Communism came after Monarchy. In Portugal, Military Dictatorship came after Monarchy. In Iran, Theological Dictatorship came after Monarchy. So yeahZ
People in the UK moaning about the monarchy being privileged seem jealous and hypocritical. Would you be willing to sacrifice most of your wealth to go to starving people, in countries such as Somalia, Liberia etc? No of course not, and that's understandable. Inequality will ALWAYS exist, and if that's the one downside to having a constitutional monarchy, the most successful governmental system in the world, then I really don't mind
@Hamilton7776 excusing his interference because 'the people of a small town wanted him to' is making a joke of the whole democratic process. the fact that these people only have a small amount of power relative to the prime minister does not excuse the fact that they have it. they are all far more powerful than the majority of MPs. britain's 'constitution' has slowly evolved from a time when these safeguards were necessary and the influence of the royals today is an undemocratic remnant.
The probably is you almost certainly wouldn't have the option. Part of the natural order of things is where you have elections, you have politicians. Even the current Irish President, who is generally well-liked, is a former Labour politician. The reality is that a British presidency would mean a politicised HoS - it would mean a 'President Major' or, God help us, a 'President Blair'. The British President would be some old party warhorse.
Too many people confuse 'impartiality' with being an automaton without a thought in one's head. HRH is entirely free to express his views to ministers (though I doubt he does so 'daily'). What he can't do is express them publicly or be seen to take sides. Equally, the Queen acts as a sounding board and honest broker for politicians. Their discussions are, therefore, confidential. All this stuff about marriage is up to the Church. Has nothing to do with HRH's ability to be King.
I dare say but, alas, most are politicians and I think there's much to be said for keeping the office of HoS out of the hands of politicians. Also disagree with your last comment: the Queen may not have trained precisely 'from birth' but She was 10 yrs old when Her father became King and was his understudy for 15 yrs. Also, given the Duke and Duchess of Windsor died childless, seems likely She'd have succeeded eventually even if the Duke hadn't abdicated in 1936.
Australia has been going through a republican phase since 1975! They had a vote on it over 10 years before this(2011) and voted too remain a Commonwealth realm. Big deal! It is up too them.
@bobzilla211 The Italian Monarchy had Mussolini arrested, only for Mussolini to declare a Republic with help from Hitler. Did Republican Spain prevent Franco from gaining Power? But just look what happened some years back when the same threat of Right-Wing Army Revolution threatened Spanish Democracy? Then it was the Restored King who put a stop to it, by calling on the Patriotic loyalty of the Army. Just as Elizabeth II could in an Emergency.
When Colin Firth does this, he’s more level headed and respectful. When it’s Alex O’Connor(who is younger and more articulate than him), he begins to crack and throw mean insults, instead of debating.
It's not true that Edward VIII abdicated voluntarily. He was determined to make Mrs Simpson his queen. It was only because Stanley Baldwin told him the Gov't would not agree that the King was ultimately forced to abdicate. A republic would not work as well as the monarchy because instead of an apolitical monarch at the head of colourful national ceremonial, we'd just have another dull politician in a grey suit.
Funnily enough, most Americans would entirely agree with this. The UK without the monarchy is like Luna without craters. On the other hand, the idea that historically the British monarchy is 'unique' is a problematic statement. There have been several "constitutional", in the sense of limited, checked, non-absolutist monarchies of various degrees of power throughout history. Look at the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 16th century, for a contrasting European example.
@popandlockify Did you vote for your doctor, want to vote for the dentist or would you rather have a popularity contest which is all that voting is about. Monarchy offers experience. we have enough elected representatives as it is, and the monarchy is supported by more people than any political party is. I'd rather have someone who was taught the job from childhood for my head of state than a self-serving Politician who has risen due to special interests (Bankers, Media, Etc).
I'm not sure why it should be an issue for anyone. We already elect Parliament and it is Parliament that produces the Executive and Parliament also scrutinises the work of the Royal Household, so there is democratic accountability there. Ultimately, a constitutional monarch operates within the parameters of ministerial advice - ie, the responsible minister, an elected politician with democratic accountability.
As I say, I don't disagree he was a bad king but the system dealt with it, didn't it? Mrs Simpson was a convenient pretext but, given his inherent unsuitability for the job, I've no doubt that if his inappropriate marriage hadn't forced him to abdicate, something else would have. Even his father, King George V, confidently predicted (with eerie precision) that, "After I'm dead, the boy will ruin himself in twelve months". By and large, however, the system works. If it 'ain't broke, why fix it?
Colin just went up quite a few notches in my book. Oh and our Oz friend there reminds me that technically if we play along with this monarchy nonsense the righful king of England is a normal bloke who lives in Australia.
I'm glad that Mr Firth had some nice things to say about HRH The Prince of Wales. I love voting, it's also one of my favourite things. I've even stood for election myself a couple of times. The one office I do not aspire to, however, is that of the Head of State, which I am quite happy to see in the hands of an independent non-politician, who has trained for the role from birth.
@bobzilla211 The point is that they had no voice and it was there lives that was being affected. Its not democratic to be forcefully removed from your home because a greedy architect wants you to be. and Prince Charles did nothing more than to ask the sponsor if he knew what was being done in his name. The architect was lying and got caught out.
@bobzilla211 (4) In other words, the existence of a monarch with such powers is a guarantee of continuity. It is a mainstay of peace and security in a country. A former editor of The Times, Roger Stott MP in The Independent on September 7, 1997 summed it up very well when he wrote, “I ampersonally . . . convinced that there are safeguards in the constitutional monarchy that an elected head of state just would not possess.”
UK republicans have to remember the Commonwealth Realm. As an Australian the Queen of England is still the head of state, in my country and others. If they ask for the UK to become a republic they would put that on other countries, without their say. They also have to take this into account, which they never do. They only ever see it as a UK debate
That’s why we need the Queen to watch over her subjects and take control if government gets out of control. And that goes to the all crown dependencies, Commonwealth realms and BOT.
Would electing transitory presidents outweigh the benefits of an apolitical, colourful, ceremonial monarchy? Would we be measurably better off electing another grey-suited politician every four years than we've been with the Queen for the last 61? I doubt it. We elect Parl't but people show little enthusiasm for that! Turnout plummets. Who wants to elect another tier of gov't? The monarchy is probably the only tier of gov't where most people think the occupant is currently doing a good job!
Like most Americans, the whole concept of monarchy, its history and being "anointed by God" fascinates me (I wrote that before I heard Geoffrey Rush say that in the video)... Not because I think it's good. I think it's archaic and a relic of human history. It's like watching a torture scene in a movie- you can't just look away. Even Asian royalty (and the Mandate of Heaven) and Middle Eastern royalty fascinates me.
nah the monarchy is great. people need to stop being misery guts and just enjoy it. They bring in more money through tourism and the royal estates than they spend, theyre a bit of fun and pomp every now and again and they make us unique. look at all the hype in America about the royal wedding earlier in the year. its going to be a case of you dont know what youve got till its gone, if it ever gets abolished....which im pretty sure it wont for a good few decades at least.
People always say the monarchy is an undemocratic system which destroys any chance of equality. Look up the most democratic and equal countries in the world and you will find 7 out of the top 10 are monarchies with Norway being number one (and a monarchy). People think it is unfair that the monarchy get to live in a Palace off the tax payer's money but presidents in most republics live in palaces with their families, they live off the tax payer's money and you have to spend extra money on elections. The monarchy also is a historical and cultural beacon that gives a great image of the country on the international stage. All in all the monarchy is a cheaper and a more stable system.
monarchy wasting tax payers money is the worst argument ever. the royal family makes most of its money from their owned estates and through inheritance from which the government also greatly benefits. the US 'wastes' (as they would call it) more money on their presidents than the uk does on the royal family (tax payer money that is). you don't want to imagine how much security for the president costs. Also there were until recently 5 former presidents alive (who mind you also get expensive security) who get a 200k dollar salary per year for basically having been president for once. that's one million tax payer dollars spent for nothing. and those 200k dollars aren't even everything the government spends on former presidents. saying the monarchy is a waste of money is simply not true and not even if you compare it with other countries and saying that monarchy is is anti democratic is also not true because the whole purpose of a modern constitutional monarchy is to ensure a democratic government. the queen practically has no more powers over anything anyway. I rather wish we go backwards and give the monarchy more of its power back
Your kidding me we still have to pay for an elected prime Minister and his family to live in a house we just pay double AND the are elections too that need to be paid for 🤷 I don't understand you at all
to be honest i wouldnt mind monarchies like the uk and sweden (as a republican myself) i just hated how many people now just straight up becoming absolute monarchists which is basically a dictatorship but with some fancy leaders . also dont forhet the fact that 7 of all the monarchies that made it to the list are constitutional monarch and the royals doesnt really have nay power so theyre basically a republic
Colin Firth when asked if he supports the Monarchy, he says "I like voting". The Queen doesn't make laws, so that shouldn't interfere with voting for a Prime Minister.
@bobzilla211 Royals are not supposed to be above politics, they are above PARTY-POLITICS. and it was Prince Albert who made that decision, its not a law passed by Parliament. the press love to spout on about how prince Charles interferes. The last time he interfered it was because the people of a small town wanted him to. The left Wing MP wanted him to. Why, because an architect sponsored by NEW Labor wanted to turf the locals out of there homes so that he could get the job of building new ones.
The British monarchy, and its few remaining European counterparts, are not about superiority or privilege. They're about stability and continuity. They're history in the flesh. They remind us of our past. Without knowledge of our past we can't understand our present. If we can't understand our present, we can't possibly plan properly for our future.
I think that when the current monarch dies it will be a turning point for the United Kingdom. If Prince Charles becomes King then I think it will only be for a short time, as he is currently the oldest heir to the throne in history. When William becomes King, I do think there will come a time for change. Personally I would have a referendum on whether we have the monarchy or an elected head of state. I, like Colin, like voting. I think the fair way is to have a referendum on this and see the public mood out there. If we all believe in democracy, if those who believe in an elected head of state, then surely they would have no objection to a referendum and see what the UK public say instead of just abolishing it with no vote at all. If the monarchy remains, then I would have a slimmed down version and cut back on the money spent on it. If the UK voted for an elected head of state, then something similar to the Republic of Ireland's President would be good, keeping some elements of tradition.
John King I can't imagine us becoming a republic overnight.. It would likely be reduced to more of a 'first citizen' model, more of a Holland/Norway model.. Canada/Australia ect.. Will almost certainly become republics when the queen dies
The Crown Estate is property of the state, not of the 'Windsor' family. They manage it, and in return receive a huge proportion of the profit. Give me the Crown Estate to manage. I'll do it for just £25 million per year. Or does privatisation not apply to the Crown Estate for some reason..?
People become bad at self-governing when they are A.) Uneducated B.) Careless for policy and effects This is the situation in USA. Monarchy is not for the elite. A monarch is a qualified, representative symbol of the people. Monarchs are trained their whole lives to rule their countries, where as politicians train for a few years, serve for a while, then retire. This short span dictates that the president/minister/premier must rule for their own interests and lobbying for money, and having special interests. Politicians serve their parties, monarchs are apolitical and serve the people.
all people want to become a leader, chaos Will happen, thats why 1 leader is enough, a king is enough, especially when the king was used to be a prince, the royal family Will teach the prince how to help their own people, democracy is full of lies
The monarchy dose tremendous amount for the Country. People simply don't realize how much they contribute because the monarchy doesn't turn everything they do into a type publicity stunt like politician always do.
'Do you BELIEVE in the royal family?' That has to be the most absurd question. What does that even mean? Believe? Is the royal family an ideology? Is it some sort of theological or philosophical doctrine? Everything about Piers as a human being is just detestable.
I'm not willing to enter a never-ending argument, but I will say that all the evidence points towards the Monarchy benefiting us, financially as well as other things, and there is no good reason to get rid of it apart from "it's unelected". Myself and the huge majority of the UK do not want us to be a clone of the USA. And republics aren't any more modern than monarchies. Many cases show monarchies replacing republics. It's our heritage, tradition and generally it's what makes us unique.
Maybe, but a hereditary monarch does it better; with more colourful ceremonial and without need for expensive periodic elections. Also, a monarch is apolitical where presidents are invariably old party has-beens. We know from various tabloid exposés that, with Her Tupperware and three-bar heaters and walking around Her palaces switching off the lights, the Queen's lifestyle is comfortable but frugal, rather than "lavish". The monarchy is comparatively cheap compared to most presidencies!
But those lying politicians can be criticised problem free with no flatterers brown nosers or bullyboys like the scum monarchy. Have you ever heard of the sex pistols production of god save the queen?
Nonsens, of course royals can be criticised, I criticize them when they deserve it! Nothing stops you from doing the same! But I fail to see why you want to give corrupt lying politicians even MORE power than they have today by placing on of them as a head of state?
