As the great Sir Francis Urquhart said (in that episode when you realise there are worse monsters in life than Urquhart)"Not at all, sir. Don't you understand what I'm telling you? I have no wish to. It is you I want to destroy, not the Monarchy. My family came south with James I. We were defenders of the English throne before your family was ever heard of. It is to preserve the ideal of a constitutional monarchy that I now demand your abdication."[/i

I guess it depends on what you think the royal family actually is and stands for.

If you see it as a monarch who is the ultimate power in the state and there only through birth and is the leader of her subjects etc etc, then yes I agree with you.

However I see the royal family as a link to our nations history (both good and bad), fulfills a ceremonial role for the nation and allows us to have some of the patriotic flag waving that happens in all countries from time to time, without it getting too xenophobic.
I also think it takes that ceremonial role away from the alternative, which would have to be some form of elected President. I don't necessarily think that that is any better. Especially as despite being a monarch, she's only there because the people allow her to be.

So for me its not a major issue and I think there are far, far bigger issues that threaten British people's lives and freedoms than the royal family.

Those people who always seem to cheerlead for the Royals - you just KNOW they haven't the slightest clue about them. I mean, imagine if someone knew about the activities of the Royals during the Opium Wars - and yet STILL supported them!

That's [isocial dysfunction[/i - right there.

It wouldn't surprise me, her mam was ancient when she died. Plus it seems these reptilians tend to live longer than us humans anyway.

Ahhh Hatred based on assumption. Hang the editors.

Nope. I think the phrase you are looking for is [iobservational evidence[/i.