I Don't Care About the Royal Baby, Part 2

I posted my last commentary about the royal baby on another website and just today I got a response telling me that I called people who disagree with me stupid. I hate to break it to you, but I never said or implied that. I only said that the British monarchy is completely unnecessary in a modern democratic world.

But if you want another argument against the monarchy, then fine. Tourism is one of the more weaker arguments in favor of keeping the monarchy, anyway. I mentioned in the earlier post how the monarchy costs the British taxpayers a lot of money. The group Republic, a British campaign favoring a republic, has a page citing the amount of money the monarchy costs the taxpayers of Britain.

For starters, they estimate the monarchy costs the British taxpayer an estimated 202.4 million pounds per year. Republic says

£202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme. (Quoted from here)

Two hundred million pounds is a lot of money. And as shown, it could be spent in better places. Just like how the American government spends too much on unnecessary defense and military spending, the British government spends too much on the monarchy.

Of course, Republic isn't done. They estimate the monarchy not only 112 times more expensive than the Irish presidency, but they're twice as expensive as the French presidency. Even the Dutch monarchy is worth half as much as the British royal family.

If you want to say I'm calling supporters of a monarchy or anyone who disagrees with me stupid, you'd better come up with a better argument. Because I'll come up with my own.

Here's the site for Republic, where I got the numbers for the cost of the monarchy: http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php