A “shocking” Gallup poll conducted on behalf of USA Today revealed that 81% of those questioned were completely indifferent to the presence of Charles and Camilla, currently on a PR tour of the USA.
I say shocking, because that means a whopping 19% actually were interested: 19% more than I would have predicted. Indifference to the future king and his Rod Hull-lookalike missus probably runs at similar levels in the UK, so why would we expect Americans to feel any different?
Charles and Camilla must rank as the least popular British export since mad cow disease.
Centrist. Atlanticist. Dry liberal. Anti-totalitarian. Post-ideological pragmatist. Child of The Enlightenment. Toucan.
Citizen Sane 
A Republican playing the man not the ball – how can that be
*scratches head*
Eh?
I do not like the Royal Family much at all, but anyone can see that the Monarchy is financially more profitable than a Republic would be.
Pragmatism first!
Disputable, but in any case the monetary aspect is irrelevant to me. I’m more concerned with the matter of direct accountability and the abolition of inherited power, wealth and privilege.
I think the head of state should be electable, removable and selected on merit, not a bloodline.
I’m strange like that.
I’m not a big fan of the royal family to be quite honest. Perhaps that us Americans are weird, but we don’t really understand the whole royal family bit anymore. It’s a great tourist attraction though, I must say.
Of course you’re not a fan. Why would you be? Neither is anyone with any sense in the UK.
You’re the lucky ones: you got a political system based almost exactly on our Parliament but without the head of state chosen by birth. Mind you, you did get lumped with Nixon and two George Bushes.
C.S. Again you play the ‘anyone who does not agree with me must be stupid’ card – your leftie roots are showing through.
Well, it’s a strong card to play, and I’ve never heard a case for the monarchy that doesn’t have a purely emotive and irrational basis: some dumb, misty eyed treatise about “blue blood” or how the Queen Mum was such an inspiration, or how they’re “good for tourism”. Bollocks to all of it. They’re an anachronism and an affront to modern democracy.
I couldn’t give two hoots about the royals. But I do like the silver jubilee tea towels and things like that for their kitsch appeal…surely that’s a good enough reason for keeping the monarchy?
I’m with CS one hundred percent. The Royal Family represents everything that is wrong about inherited power. If that bird flu ever does arrive and the royals take a hit, we could potentially end up with Prince Harry as king one day, and while that possibility amuses me in a “what fancy dress outfit will our king where next” kind of way, the reality of that fact is just rediculous. Just think… if Harry had been born first…
Inherited power? – this is Charles the III not Charles the I.
I do not see that a Monarchy detracts from the successful governance of a country – after all the worst countries have Presidents.
Secondly the unfairness of inheritance. Some inherit money, others looks, others brains, some all 3. In all cases no one DESERVES these gifts more than anyone else – but some get them all the same
I think Charlie-Boy is ok. Lots of good work for youngsters through the Princes Trust. Promotes environmental awareness. Mouths off about crap architecture. Probably never buggered a servant.
Top chap.
GB
House of Lords = inherited power. the monarchy is the very top tier of the aristocratic hierarchy…
so yes, inherited power.
The British monarchy exists only with the agreement of parliament so I really do not understand why people think the Monarchy wields considerable power.
It is good that the State’s top representative is apolitical, which is not the case with greasy pole presidents.
and my vote would be to abolish it, if i was ever given the opportunity to vote on that issue.
But- then what would all those poor people at Hello Magazine do with their time?
laura – I wouldn’t hold your breath