Karyn
Under British rules our Royal family is apolitical
Seriously?
Charlie boy enjoys and demands unfettered private access to ministers, and has abused this anachronistic privilege of his 'position' for decades. Not to mention the 'black spider' letters (and more so his efforts to conceal their content) that prove he wields influence and leverage over those politicians he's keen to sway to his ideologies.
Karyn
... they are basically a living tourist attraction that brings more money into the country than it costs to maintain them.
This oft-spouted and tired rationalisation is ridiculous on a number of levels.
The economic argument is easily refuted. Do you honestly believe that cities such as Venice, Paris, Rome, Moscow, Dublin, New York or Vienna suffer any lack of tourism because their countries have long seen fit to abolish their respective monarchies? In fact I'd argue that by ejecting Betty and her inbred bunch of benefit-scrounging parasitical chinless wonders from their various palaces and castles and other tax-payer funded piles, and by opening these historic building to ticket-purchasing souvenir-buying punters, the country would actually benefit from a direct increase in tourist revenue.
However, even if it
were the case that the royal family did attract more tourist money that it cost the rest of us to keep them wallowing in the lap of extreme luxury, I'd still argue that the fundamental principle of having an unelected head of state was more important than any other consideration.
Karyn
"Stories" like the one re-posted in the OP are simply to cash in on the tinfoil hat brigade and sell more newspapers, thus making more money off the back of the very people they're complaining about...
"Stories" = "Facts that support arguments I disagree with"