Now, what do republicans say that 70% of youngsters back royal family?

Question

Nearly 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds would keep the Royals and overall only 16% of people would vote for a republic.

http://monarchist-league.com.au/index.php?topic=381.0

Answer 1

republican FTW WOOT

i read its more dangerous voting republican then taking ecstasy

Answer 2

The Royal Family are essential for the UK, its not just about the money they generate with tourism etc but they are a part of the UK just as the bad weather and over priced beer, anyone who says 'get rid of them because they cost to much' is a fool and reads The Sun.

Answer 3

In my country we had a referendum, and if it wasn't for the split about the form of republic (elected versus appointed President), it was estimated that 75% of the population would have voted the royals out of existence...as it was, 51% kept them in. Not because they were wanted, but because we were not happy with the model for the republic...which wqas originally to have been formulated by a separate plebiscite, but our Prime Minister at the time, when he saw how popular republicanism was at the Consitutional Comvention, changed the rules. He also did a double-referendum, with a separet question he knew was unpopular abd would get a No...and never have we ever had a referendum where one question was passed with a Yes when another had a no response.

Where did I get the 75% figure? people were allowed to WRITE what they thought on their ballots without invalidating them...and it's from the Australian Bureau of Statistics analysis of the voting ballots comments.

Even Elizabeth II said at the time, they will always go when we ask them to: she knows no royal tour gets the crowds any more, and our current monarch will; not be visiting us again in this lifetime. And no one turns up for Charles.

You are not posting a question, you are posting an Australian Monarchists League report about the Royals in Britain, based on a pay TV channel survey poll!...and you failed to say that the nearly 70% refers to support for William as the next monarch, not Charles.

I don't care what England does with the Royals - the fact remains that in THIS country they are a foreign dynasty, a foreign nationality, and they reside on the other side of the planet. They are an anachronism. The Governor-General is NOT a head of State, he is the next step down on the world stage, he is the equivalent of a Viceroy: a representative of an absent Head of State.

We are a large country with 21 million people. We should have our own Head of State, who is one of our own citizens...not some fiction like making Elizabeth II 'Queen of Australia" as done in 1973.

So, what WAS your question?

Answer 4

Why?

The Monarchy is based on a Medieval society. I think we are a bit more advanced now(I am in the UK). Their ancestors raped pillaged and stole their land and yet we all look up to them as if they are superior.(60% of UK land is still owned by the Aristoracy, forcing the rest of us to live in pokey expensive housing)

Free speech and democracy are the only contributors to a stable and successful country, nothing, as millions of brainwashed Brits believe, to do with a Monarchy.

Monarchies promote class structure and divide, they are undemocratic and immoral. Why should anybody have to swear allegiance to an unelected official!?!?

The sooner they disappear the better off we all will be.

Answer 5

In Africa monarchy is not unusual.

Always freakery before and after such a system.

Long range history proves that.