It's time to privatize the British Monarchy

I also thank Brian for his insightful perspective. That said, I should note that in this instance, I am doing something that I almost never condone. I am responding to a debate while heavily intoxicated. Essentially, I"m on the eighth drink this evening and would like to apologize in advance if what I am about to proffer is less then coherent. "But are you celebrating the royal pregnancy?" you ask. No. No I am not. I am just pre-gaming for the night to come. That said, let us begin. Brian begins with an interesting point, that the money the British people spend on maintaining the monarchy could be better spent on things like fighting various illnesses. Perhaps it would seem like that is the case, but let"s consider the practicality of that argument. Aside from the fact that the UK has a system of universal health care in place, it is improbable that the money from the monarchy, were it to be privatized, would be allocated to the irradiation of the medical malady which he so articulately laments. The measles are dreadful, but he has offered no evidence to suggest that if the monarchy were privatized that the capital raised from such an episode would be redirected towards the advancement of health care in any sense. I agree with him that the societal fighting of the measles is a worthwhile cause, but considering -as he earlier noted- the presence of conservatives in Parliament it is unlikely that additional funds to that end should find their way to the combatting of measles. A dreadful shame. However, if the King enjoyed the kind of power he did at one point in British history -before his power was castrated by "democratic" reformers- perhaps he might have been able to allocate OTHER funds to that end without the parliamentary nonsense we have all become so accustomed to reading about in the Telegraph, that is, when the Telegraph actually reports on something other than celebrity gossip. C"est la vie. That said, Brian missed my point regarding the monarchy. I never suggested that privatization would come as punishment for wrecking the economy. After all, my opponent and I agree that it was the conservatives that did that. Again, perhaps Labour should be brought back, but only if the people of the United Kingdom will it. As it were, they don't seem to at the moment. Granted that democracy seems to be something that my opponent is interested in, he is further admonished to take the will of the people into consideration. The solution to the plight of the English people is not to privatize the monarchy... it"s to get Labour back into power. Moreover, while the privatization of the monarchy might raise a fortune, let"s recall that it"s "privatization" not "nationalization" that Brian is arguing for. That means that the capital generated by the sale of the monarchy would not go to the people of England, but to the Crown Estate, which presently contributes it"s surplus revenue to the betterment of the citizens of the United Kingdom, but would no longer were it to be privatized. Rather, it would be an independent firm, meaning that it would keep the profits it generates. And let"s recall that in all of this, the actual citizens which are subject to the rule of the monarchy itself prefer the continuity of the monarchy as it exists, as a majority. Brian"s speculation, while interesting, really holds no merit where he lacks the evidentiary substantiation to ground his postulation. So while the wording of the survey may have had a different impact, we just don"t and can"t know that now. What"s important is that at present, the Brits have spoken. And what do they say? LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! I don't know about you all, but I'm rather looking foreword to the Diamond Jubilee. All together now: CHEERS! *raises glass of alcoholic beverage* *drinks* LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! -- See previously cited sources.