How do you feel about monarchy?

[Young Drachma]

Not specifically the royal wedding (though feel free to chime in.) Just wondering what folks think of this bridge between the old world and a modern, globalised world.

Consider the trout option, "other"

[Young Drachma]

Prince William and Kate Middleton's new titles revealed - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8482573/Prince-William-and-Kate-Middletons-new-titles-revealed.html)

Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales.
"His titles will be Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
"Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge and Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge."

[Super Ugly]

I tug my forelock before the trout option.

An American colleague told me that the media coverage has been pretty intense these past couple of weeks - is that so? It's been sickeningly awful over here in the UK. I briefly considered leaving the country for the duration, but it doesn't look as though there's any escape.

[Icy]

None of those options fits my opinion as i'm non American, else the second option would be it.

I live in Spain where we have a monarchy, and while it's way more humble and less public than the British, i still find it totally outdated and a waste of money and resources.

Some people here say that they do a good public relationships work, but that is why we have also ambassadors and politics, and at least we chose those though elections.

[JPhillips]

I prefer an open monarchy rather than the pretend aristocracy we have in the U.S.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I went with the old but valuable option but that's mostly as a closest-answer deal. I mean, there are places where it's old but could go & almost certainly some others who don't have a history but would be better off with one.

[SteveMax58]

Had to go with the 2nd option. I watched part of the wedding & coverage while I was getting ready this morning and couldnt help but think...despite these 2 people being very likable, and even being happy to see 2 people in such a surreal setting, I couldnt help but wonder what either of them really did to warrant such admiration or attention.

I guess I'm just too simple to understand such things.

[Ksyrup]

I have the same feeling about the monarchy that I have for the olympics.

[King of New York]

Like Tom Paine said, making someone your leader just because that person is biologically related to your previous leader, without any consideration of talent or merit, is stupid. So is making someone a leader for life--if the person turns out to be incompetent, you cannot get rid of them except through violence. And the purely ceremonial monarchies are expensive wastes of resources.

On the other hand, many people seem to have an instinctive preference for monarchy, if only because it relieves people of the responsibility for how things turn out.

[Logan]

Since the opportunity to slightly threadjack is allowed...do other countries fawn over the British royal family like we do, or is it just because of our close ties? This is something I honestly have no clue about.

[stevew]

I prefer an open monarchy rather than the pretend aristocracy we have in the U.S.

yeah, at least the British aren't secretive about protecting the interest of their royals.

[JediKooter]

There should be an option for : "I could care less, just please please stop bombarding us with stupid wedding crap!!!"

[digamma]

I prefer a good Grand Duchy any day of the week.

[Marc Vaughan]

I like the monachy myself - can't stand Royal Wedding though :D

I think the Royal family work quite nicely as an 'unofficial' system for political influence in places where its not acceptable for the Prime Minister to pop-up at times and I think the work they do for charity is quite good, top that up with them being good for tourism and they have to be a plus imho.

(plus to be quite frank they're absolutely minted - if they turned around and decided not to act as a 'monachy' and instead just rich private citizens then England as a country would be far worse off - if they wanted they could suddenly charge competitive rents for the properties owned by the 'crown' and suchlike while sodding off into tax exile without a thought for anyone else ... heck tbh I don't know why they don't really, can't be a very nice life being under the public spotlight 24/7)

[Coffee Warlord]

I prefer a good Grand Duchy any day of the week.

I think we need to bring back the title of Holy Roman Emperor.

[molson]

I wish that we had the lesser nobility titles, I would have liked to have become a Baron once I became a land owner. That would have been a nice perk.

[lungs]

I wish that we had the lesser nobility titles, I would have liked to have become a Baron once I became a land owner. That would have been a nice perk.

I suppose you think a house on a small lot would make you a Baron?

I'd require ownership of tillable land in order to hold a title.

[molson]

I suppose you think a house on a small lot would make you a Baron?

I'd require ownership of tillable land in order to hold a title.

Crap. I don't think any of my land is tillable. I have a swingset though.

[lungs]

Crap. I don't think any of my land is tillable. I have a swingset though.

Maybe a wooded area that can be hunted or logged would be acceptable.

[DaddyTorgo]

I like the monachy myself - can't stand Royal Wedding though :D

I think the Royal family work quite nicely as an 'unofficial' system for political influence in places where its not acceptable for the Prime Minister to pop-up at times and I think the work they do for charity is quite good, top that up with them being good for tourism and they have to be a plus imho.

(plus to be quite frank they're absolutely minted - if they turned around and decided not to act as a 'monachy' and instead just rich private citizens then England as a country would be far worse off - if they wanted they could suddenly charge competitive rents for the properties owned by the 'crown' and suchlike while sodding off into tax exile without a thought for anyone else ... heck tbh I don't know why they don't really, can't be a very nice life being under the public spotlight 24/7)

I would think that if England, or any coutnry decided to abolish the monarchy they would as part of that abolishment nationalize all of the crown property and take back a large % of the $$ that the crown made through its position.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Since the opportunity to slightly threadjack is allowed...do other countries fawn over the British royal family like we do, or is it just because of our close ties? This is something I honestly have no clue about.

I'd say it's a fairly big event almost everywhere, although I'm sure it varies by a few degrees. According to this article (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/royal-wedding-broadcast-expected-break-183365?page=2), the live coverage aired globally, with networks doing booth level coverage ranging from China to France to Al Jazeera English, NDTV in India, and every major network in America. Elsewhere I saw it noted that the major networks in Russia & Japan both stayed with their regular programming.

[JediKooter]

Elsewhere I saw it noted that the major networks in Russia & Japan both stayed with their regular programming.

My hat goes off to Russia and Japan's media.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Incidentally, I see some references to the NHK decision being connected to the earthquake problems & a decision that it was simply too soon to shift gears to something celebratory. They did however air the wedding in its entirety on a secondary feed.

[Ksyrup]

Since the opportunity to slightly threadjack is allowed...do other countries fawn over the British royal family like we do, or is it just because of our close ties? This is something I honestly have no clue about.

Given the nature of our relationship with them, I would think the reaction would be just the opposite.

But maybe my hundreds of hours of playing Colonization have influenced me.

[gstelmack]

Like Tom Paine said, making someone your leader just because that person is biologically related to your previous leader, without any consideration of talent or merit, is stupid.

Not completely. The counter-argument is that with hereditary rule rulers tend to take a longer view of things and not just make short-term gain decisions that have major long-term consequences. Something we've been dealing with here in the US for a few decades ;)

As for the talent or merit part, all we've got here in our representative republic is folks good at PR ruling us, not people good at ruling, so I don't see how we're any better off, except that for the most part they don't run around bumping people off for fun.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Given the nature of our relationship with them, I would think the reaction would be just the opposite.

Nope, the interest in/popularity of the Brit royals in particular are consistently highest (outside the U.K. of course) in the former Commonwealth nations, along with the former colonies, territories, and other members of the Empire. I've seen that noted more than once lately. And then you get the kind of random surges in interest, such as this latest wedding becoming quite the rage in Brazil from what I read this morning.

[Izulde]

I'm not sure which option allows for monarchy to be revived as a legitimate system of government. Probably none of them, so I'll go with the first one as a closest to, I suppose.

Democracy is the single most over-rated form of government there is, at least without term limits.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Democracy is the single most over-rated form of government there is, at least without term limits.

I'd generally agree, but on the basis of "at least without significant limitations on suffrage".

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'd generally agree, but on the basis of "at least without significant limitations on suffrage".
Mark your calendars, folks. This is about as political as you're ever going to see me get on FOFC...

+1

[King of New York]

Genuinely open question: if the US decided to move away from the "one citizen, one vote" model, where should the limits be put? Property requirements? Income requirements? Educational requirements? Some sort of national test that you had to pass before being allowed to vote?

[gstelmack]

Genuinely open question: if the US decided to move away from the "one citizen, one vote" model, where should the limits be put? Property requirements? Income requirements? Educational requirements? Some sort of national test that you had to pass before being allowed to vote?

I favor a model along the lines of (not exactly like, I haven't poked into details) Heinlein's Citizen / Taxpayer model. Essentially, Citizens are your welfare recipients that the government provides everything for but they wield no power. Taxpayers fund the government and get a say. One requirement for Taxpayer status is a term of public service, with things like military, teaching public school, etc being examples. Basically show an investment in your fellow man, you get to vote and contribute to society, or you can live off the dole but get no say.

Something along those lines to avoid the whole "bread and circuses" mentality of the folks in power creating more and more "citizens" from my example that keep them in power as long as they keep up the handouts.

A simple way to start would be to remove the vote from those who pay zero income taxes. However, that doesn't acknowledge their contribution through sales tax, FICA, and the like, so not a GOOD way to start. Simple, but not right.

But something along those lines.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Genuinely open question: if the US decided to move away from the "one citizen, one vote" model, where should the limits be put? Property requirements? Income requirements? Educational requirements? Some sort of national test that you had to pass before being allowed to vote?

All of the above have merit. I'd also add literacy to the list, as well as English-language proficiency.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I would say that you should be allowed to vote if you're not a fucking idiot. I'm fine with only allowing roughly 3% of American adults and 26% of American children to vote.

[Young Drachma]

Well this shit got interesting quick.

[Young Drachma]

Dola

I totally dig the titles. I think all of that stuff is sort of fascinating, but...save for the pomp and circumstance I found it all to be anachronistic and a bit...overly indulgent. But the system is their system and it's largely worked for them. And there are certainly easier ways to be rich in this world, so at least they theoretically have to work for theirs.

As for America's plutocracy, we were founded as a country of folks who didn't want to pay taxes, so...I guess what we're seeing now isn't all that surprising. ;)

[bob]

Hey, I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule.

[fantom1979]

... and bob is officially the first person not allowed to vote under Pumpy's system. :)

[SteveMax58]

http://www.mrbreakfast.com/cereal/mascot_65.jpg

[bob]

... and bob is officially the first person not allowed to vote under Pumpy's system. :)

No love for Clerks?

[Buccaneer]

Fucking waste of time and resources for a stupid system.


I prefer an open monarchy rather than the pretend aristocracy we have in the U.S.

Yeah, I can see how you would favor established familial-based wealth over more risky merit-based wealth.

[Mac Howard]

Incidentally, I see some references to the NHK decision being connected to the earthquake problems & a decision that it was simply too soon to shift gears to something celebratory. They did however air the wedding in its entirety on a secondary feed.

Of course they did. It was the biggest show since Diana's funeral (or maybe the FIFA World Cup Final :eek: ). It's estimated that 2 billion people worldwide watched it. No media organisation worth its salt could avoid it.

But they're wrong about the timing. In times of almost unrelenting doom - tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, recessions, debt and unemployment - then that is the very time you need a party. And that's what this was - not an attempt by Brits to relive old glories as some have sourly suggested but an excuse for a humdinger of a party. Today Britain is back to the weak economic recovery, paying off debt and looking for elusive jobs of two days ago. But yesterday was a brief relief from these celebrated by the whole country with the world looking on.

Now, though I'm a Brit, it took an American - my father in law - to tell me weeks ago that the two princes were named William and Harry. That's how much interest I, and many other Brits, have about the royal family. But my approach to the royal family is one of disinterest not of antagonism.

And a lot of nonsense is talked about the institution.

It doesn't cost the British taxpayer a fortune - the royal family even pays taxes. But tourists don't go to Britain for the sun, or the golden beaches or even the theme parks. They go because of the history and pageantry. Tourism is a big earner and without the royal family sustaining the historical connections tourism would be a feeble thing. Whatever cost there is for the tax payers is recovered many times over in dollars, Deutsche marks, yen, yuan etc.

Even this wedding was payed for by foreign journalists and media - one photographer complained of being charged 1000 pounds for a suitable view for his pictures. What foreign media had to pay for broadcasting the event is eye-watering. We learn quickly from the masters across the pond :)

Tom Paine may well have been right in his own time but his comments are irrelevant today. There is no "leader" here. There is no political, commercial or industrial power. Societal influence maybe, but of the sort that royal patronage will increase the effectiveness and credibility of a charity. What other influence comes because individuals will grant it them through respect or loyalty (though some may be excessively obsequious) not by demands.

Indeed much of the respect that exists from the British population comes about precisely because the royal family is apolitical and, today, they have little or no responsibility for anything that affects us.

But they do throw/inspire a good party.

------------------------------------------------------

I have some sympathy with the arguments for limited voting rights - have often thought there should be some test of political knowledge for that right. However, when I think that some of the crassest political nonsense is spoken by academics of both right and left then I realise that education cannot be the criteria. Ideology always overwhelms knowledge, intelligence and objectivity. But if not education then what? Listening to Donald Trump then financial success clearly doesn't cut it.

Churchill probably had it right - the strongest argument against democracy is to spend an hour with the average voter but, though democracy is indeed a lousy form of government, every other system is worse.

[Marc Vaughan]

I would think that if England, or any coutnry decided to abolish the monarchy they would as part of that abolishment nationalize all of the crown property and take back a large % of the $$ that the crown made through its position.

So equally you think it'd be 'quite all right' if America took away all of Bill Gates property and wealth for no reason? .... just wondering, after all its legally theirs.

[Buccaneer]

So equally you think it'd be 'quite all right' if America took away all of Bill Gates property and wealth for no reason? .... just wondering, after all its legally theirs.

Especially when all the laws were originally established by the crown to protect themselves and their wealth.

America set up a system of laws by the people (not a family) that theoretically gave any citizens (eventually) the ability to acheive or to lose wealth.

[DaddyTorgo]

So equally you think it'd be 'quite all right' if America took away all of Bill Gates property and wealth for no reason? .... just wondering, after all its legally theirs.

Wasn't saying I personally supported that idea by the way - just that I would assume that that is what would occur.

[MikeVic]

http://i.imgur.com/qaOHh.png

[RainMaker]

So equally you think it'd be 'quite all right' if America took away all of Bill Gates property and wealth for no reason? .... just wondering, after all its legally theirs.
I think the difference is that Bill Gates earned his money. The royal family was just born. I think the difference is in how each person acquired their wealth. Was it through their own innovation or through wielding power over others?

[lungs]

I think the difference is that Bill Gates earned his money. The royal family was just born. I think the difference is in how each person acquired their wealth. Was it through their own innovation or through wielding power over others?

Originally, the Royal Family innovated the wielding of power over others.

[MIJB#19]

There's no answer in this poll that I can select as being how I truly feel.
Well, just basically because options 2 and 3 are out of my realm of options.

[MIJB#19]

The way it works overhere, monarchy splits the workload for the head of the country in ceremonial stuff and the political workload. I don't think it wasn't originally that way by design, but it works out like that these days afterall. It keeps the political leader of our contry focused on his job, while an experienced well-respected and easier to recognize figure can do all the PR work.

[Autumn]

I think the difference is that Bill Gates earned his money. The royal family was just born. I think the difference is in how each person acquired their wealth. Was it through their own innovation or through wielding power over others?

There's plenty of examples of rich Americans who did nothing but get born to rich parents though.

[Ksyrup]

There's plenty of examples of rich Americans who did nothing but get born to rich parents though.

...who originally earned their money by doing something to contributed to the productivity of our society.

[Buccaneer]

...and could potentially lose their wealth. There have been many rich families throughout US History that have eventually lost their wealth (for many reasons). That would be nearly impossible for the House of Windsor.

[SteveMax58]

...and could potentially lose their wealth. There have been many rich families throughout US History that have eventually lost their wealth (for many reasons). That would be nearly impossible for the House of Windsor.

And to complete the trifecta of this thought...the loss (or squandering) of such wealth is actually productive to the rest of society as it puts money into the hands of those of merit.

[Autumn]

...and could potentially lose their wealth. There have been many rich families throughout US History that have eventually lost their wealth (for many reasons). That would be nearly impossible for the House of Windsor.

Yeah, I've never heard of a royal family losing their wealth. Or their heads.

Just kidding, obviously that's not really an issue any longer for the British family, just funny to think that that's a stable position given how history has worked.

And for the record, I was responding to the particular sentence I quoted, not suggesting royal families and rich Americans were somehow equivalent.

[MIJB#19]

...and could potentially lose their wealth. There have been many rich families throughout US History that have eventually lost their wealth (for many reasons). That would be nearly impossible for the House of Windsor.I have no idea how the laws and politics work on the British isles on this matter.

Overhere the royals have lost most of their money over time because they gave up their political power in trade for state support and are confronted with having a decreasing support from the political parties to support them, which meant that most 'royals' have to make a living for their own nowadays and still have the ceremonial and social pseudo-volunteered commitments to society to be there for country's population in good health and sickness.
Yes, a handful of people are 'rich' because of their inheritance, but they have social obligations 24/7 and have no guarantee to maintain their wealth. In that regard it's much easier to be, say, Paris Hilton.

[Young Drachma]

The Crown of England is certainly rich, but they aren't half billionaires by any stretch. The Crown of the Netherlands are even richer since at one time they owned as much as 25% in Royal Dutch Shell.

But they're no better than any other rich family with a long legacy that did something "right" with the rules that were in place at the time that their family began playing the game.

Shrug. Not a fan of monarchy, but...they're just beneficiaries of being in a family that did something right a long time ago.

[MIJB#19]

Well, yeah. I mean, our royals are still rich, but it's mostly their own money, the taxes support gets trimmed down every other year or so.

[Buccaneer]

Shrug. Not a fan of monarchy, but...they're just beneficiaries of being in a family that did something right a long time ago.

I was thinking more along the lines of "treasures of the state" that belongs only to the crown (as oppose to private investments). I'm not sure, but national treasures in the US (like the Statue of Liberty) belong to the people and maintained by the federal Dept of Interior on behalf of the people. I would imagine some treasures in UK from long ago were likewise funded by tax subsidies but the crown (ruling family) kept the goods.

[Young Drachma]

I was thinking more along the lines of "treasures of the state" that belongs only to the crown (as oppose to private investments). I'm not sure, but national treasures in the US (like the Statue of Liberty) belong to the people and maintained by the federal Dept of Interior on behalf of the people. I would imagine some treasures in UK from long ago were likewise funded by tax subsidies but the crown (ruling family) kept the goods.

She's inherited a few properties from her parents as anyone rich would and I think has a fairly extensive art collection that's worth in the $100s of millions, but I think that makes sense.

When you think about it, royalty in the very, very old days was more like starting a hereditary business. If you did it wrong, you'd be killed. If you succeeded, the family could rule for several hundred years over fief and serf. But you were never truly comfortable.

I guess now that those threats are over, one might argue there's no point in having an enfeebled head of state that can't do much. But they did come by it honestly, playing by the rules of the day and relative to wealth made these days, they don't really have that much.

Crown Estate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate)

In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally.

It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report.[1]


The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £6.2 billion, with urban properties valued at £4 billion, and rural holdings valued at £972 million; and an annual profit of £210.7 million, as at 15 July 2010.[2]

The majority of the estate by value is urban, including a large number of properties in central London, but the estate also owns 107,000 ha (260,000 acres) of agricultural land and forest,[3] more than 55% of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, for example Ascot racecourse and Windsor Great Park.

[sabotai]

I was thinking more along the lines of "treasures of the state" that belongs only to the crown (as oppose to private investments). I'm not sure, but national treasures in the US (like the Statue of Liberty) belong to the people and maintained by the federal Dept of Interior on behalf of the people. I would imagine some treasures in UK from long ago were likewise funded by tax subsidies but the crown (ruling family) kept the goods.

It's almost to that point in England already. The Crown Estate is technically "owned" by the Royal Family, but all profit goes to the Treasury, it's managed by an independent committee and the Royal Family can not sell any of it. And that is the same for the Crown Jewels. "Owned" by the Queen, but they are not her private property to be used or sold. (As far as I understand it, anyway)

EDIT: Damn you Cloud! :)

[Buccaneer]

Thanks Dark Cloud.

[Buccaneer]

I am still highly influenced by the events of my childhood when King George III illegally and forcefully seized property in the American Colonies.

[Mac Howard]

The idea that the royal family could flog off the crown properties and take the money and run is the silliest idea yet expressed in this thread. At best the royal family holds the crown properties in trust - in no way do they own them. The queen may have some personal wealth such as art treasures but flogging off Buckingham Palace and swanning off to Ibiza with the money is only in her dreams :rolleyes:

In practice there is a contract between the royal family and the British people. It is this: you dedicate yourselves to the British people and state and you will receive our support and be allowed to enjoy the many benefits of the crown properties. But, put your own self interest above that of ours and we'll bring back the gallows.

I exaggerate, of course, but the reaction of the British people to the refusal of the royal family to treat Dianna as a royal after her death made it absolutely plain to them that they "rule" under sufferance.

The royal family disliked Dianna intensely after she used the media against them following her break with Prince Charles. But the public still saw her as the "peoples' princess" and held her in great affection and they made it absolutely plain they disapproved of the royal family's behaviour in not attending her funeral or flying the royal flag at half mast on her death. An extremely popular queen soon learned that the correct behaviour for even her was the behaviour the population demanded not what suited her. Dianna's death was the royal family in its darkest days under this queen.

Besides the benefits of the crown and its wealth the royal family has significant duties and those are essentially total dedication to the people and state. Not only do they live in a goldfish bowl environment no Hollywood star could ever survive but they are judged with standards way beyond anything reasonable for mere mortals. We speak of the "royal family" because they're set up to epitomise the very best of family values. Any deviation from the best receives instant condemnation - that's while Prince Charles is often despised and Prince Phillip (said to be a womaniser) a joke. If royalty depended on these two it might never survive - which is why some believe Charles' access to the throne could result in Britain becoming a republic (but I doubt it will go that far). It is, in fact, one reason why some would see Prince William bypass Charles to become king - as yet William has not blotted his copybook. Much of the affection for William is that he may be the royal we all demand.

The queen today is not the monarch of the past. She has little personal freedom and has duties beyond all those who have not been brought up since childhood to the role. That's why Dianna and Fergie failed - they couldn't stand the heat of publicity or the demands on selflessness because they weren't brought up from birth believing it their duty to suffer them.

It will be interesting to see if Kate can or William will transform affection into contempt as effectively as his father did :)

[Young Drachma]

EDIT: Damn you Cloud! :)

Haha.


I am still highly influenced by the events of my childhood when King George III illegally and forcefully seized property in the American Colonies.

Well played. :)


The idea that the royal family could flog off the crown properties and take the money and run is the silliest idea yet expressed in this thread. At best the royal family holds the crown properties in trust - in no way do they own them. The queen may have some personal wealth such as art treasures but flogging off Buckingham Palace and swanning off to Ibiza with the money is only in her dreams :rolleyes:

In practice there is a contract between the royal family and the British people. It is this: you dedicate yourselves to the British people and state and you will receive our support and be allowed to enjoy the many benefits of the crown properties. But, put your own self interest above that of ours and we'll bring back the gallows.

It will be interesting to see if Kate can or William will transform affection into contempt as effectively as his father did :)

So Mac, you're not one of those Australian republicans I hear so much about? ;)

[Mac Howard]

Haha.




Well played. :)




So Mac, you're not one of those Australian republicans I hear so much about? ;)

Being a "pom" I'm not a reliable commentator on Australian republicanism ;) But I don't think it will happen for some time yet. There's not a lot to gain really - Australia's a republic in all but name already - and it's a case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it". You can only mess up the balance of the political system for no good reason with an elected head of state and Australians don't trust their politicians to select one themselves. But as a pom I don't have the emotional connection with the issue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Most watched Good Morning America ever. The 1991 reference simply means that's where the detailed Nielsen database ends, not that they had an audience this size.

ABC News Royal Wedding Coverage Attracted 8.65 Million Viewers – Marking ABC’s Most Watched Morning Telecast In Nearly 20 Years - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/05/01/abc-news-royal-wedding-coverage-attracted-8-65-million-viewers-%E2%80%93-marking-abcs-most-watched-morning-telecast-in-nearly-20-years/91140)

By comparison, CNN won the cable coverage wars with an average just under 2 million. That's their biggest single morning household total since the day after the '08 election (but only their best with A25-54 since the recent Japanese earthquake)

[Mac Howard]

Most watched Good Morning America ever. The 1991 reference simply means that's where the detailed Nielsen database ends, not that they had an audience this size.

ABC News Royal Wedding Coverage Attracted 8.65 Million Viewers – Marking ABC’s Most Watched Morning Telecast In Nearly 20 Years - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/05/01/abc-news-royal-wedding-coverage-attracted-8-65-million-viewers-%E2%80%93-marking-abcs-most-watched-morning-telecast-in-nearly-20-years/91140)

By comparison, CNN won the cable coverage wars with an average just under 2 million. That's their biggest single morning household total since the day after the '08 election (but only their best with A25-54 since the recent Japanese earthquake)

And that's why the Brits stick with the royal family. It's a tame, domesticated animal these days and nothing more than a figure-head. And what do you want from a figure-head? Precisely the outside impact, interest and respect that this event shows they have in spades. Simply can't buy this sort of publicity.

And I hate to tell you that next year is QE 11's diamond jubilee - 60 years on the throne - and the events of this week will pale in contrast to these celebrations. I think it's 6th February so plenty of time to arrange a holiday to see/avoid them :)

[King of New York]

I guess that I took the poll to be about monarchy in general, rather than about the British monarchy in particular. Ceremonial monarchies such as the British one are harmless enough, and QE seems to be a class act.