|
|
|
|
|
|
by ravel-bar-foo
1377 days ago
|
|
|
Realistically speaking, if it weren't the monarchs wasting tabeloid inches it would be the equally inane antics of Hollywood celebrities. It's good for the UK to have homegrown entertainment, and nice that it has a historical foundation, rather than the vapidness that is lowbrow entertainment elsewhere. Note that for the royal family, the ceremony and waste of resources is the point. The UK monarchs have generational wealth, but more power from celebrity than from law. The pomp, theatrics, ritual, and press keeps them relevant to the public. In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public. |
|
|
This perpetrates the idea that UK would stop having history & landmarks without the royal blessing. Other countries, with rich histories & tourist landmarks, survived the transition away from monarchy just fine.