swipe right wrote:DiamondGooner wrote:swipe right wrote:You can’t call yourself a free, modern country and go around curtsying to people based on birthright.
Of course you can.
........... because your free not to "curtsy".
You should study up on what "modern" countries look like when they get rid of the royal family.
Name me a country with no Royal family which has a good non-corrupt system?
You'll struggle.
So you’re suggesting the royal family is keeping Great Britain from being corrupt? I can literally name you a dozen instances of major corruption from Barings bank to BP.
I don't know what you edited but feel free to say what you want cause I'll just turn you over like the clown you are regardless.
As to the subject, historically, the Royal Family has acted as a counter weight to Parliament the same way Parliament became the counter weight to the Royals.
I'm not saying it eradicates corruption, I'm saying there are limits to how corrupt Parliament or a Prime Minister can become because the threat of side lining Parliament and re-installing the Royal family is reality.
In America political parties are lobbied and funded to the hilt by private companies, that's illegal in the UK.
There are certain constitutional rules that were established between Parliament and the Royal's when it was agreed that we would become a constitutional monarchy.
This is not a game of opinions, mine or your's, that is a fact.