How come we, the taxpayer, have to pay for these non-elects doing state visits? There is nothing that can come out of these meetings as these people have zero political legitimacy.
>>133949679
> There is nothing that can come out of these meetings
It's about sending a message
Haven't you read the propaganda? The buildings they've built over the years with your ancestor's money attract a lot of tourists.
>>133949679
I mean, they more than pay for themselves. But otherwise, it's a state visit. If you're sending ambassadors, you generally pay for it.
>these people have zero political legitimacy.
Except for being the royal family, you mean?
>>133952626
They do not hold a political office. As far as I understand the Queen holds a political office, not the third in line of royal succession.
>>133953067
Still going to be William's country one day. Doesn't need to be some (((elected))) office to have a be a governmental one. Just like other ambassadors.
>>133953455
ambassadors hold an official office, those royals do not. This has nothing to do with elections.
>>133953826
>, those royals do not.
They do, though. Inherited, rather than appointed.
>>133949679
>these people have zero political legitimacy
Its about diplomacy not whether they are meant to be able to broker deals while they visit. Its a step below a state visit from the political leader but a step above of meeting with diplomats of the said country.
Increasing democratic power was the worst thing to happen to the commonwealth.
>>133949679
What's with all the cripplepaosting?
>>133954570
THIS
>>133949679
She'd be so easy to ra-- uh uhem. Nooooothing.