Imagine a privileged tribe with hundreds of servants to wait on them hand and foot.

This tribe has the best food, lives in palatial accommodation and does little or no work. Their duties are purely ceremonial.

The chief, a woman, is one of the richest people in the land. Her inner circle receives allowances from tithes paid by the masses.

A cult of personality surrounds this privileged group. The masses treat the tribe with respect and cheer senior members wherever they go.

The tribe calls itself "The Firm" and jealously guards entry to its ranks.

Occasionally an outsider is admitted to the tribe, if she is of good breeding stock. She is expected to produce an heir and a spare.

Leadership passes from one chief to the next by primogeniture - through the first-born male heir.

However, princes of the tribe are not permitted to marry women of a different religious persuasion

Princes and princesses are educated at exclusive establishments, taking places that would be better filled by more intelligent, hard-working students.

Princes generally become playboys before settling down to careers as young warriors.

Although they learn the skills of war, unlike their ancestors, they rarely find themselves in mortal combat with any enemy.

What is the name of this tribe? Why, it's the British royal family.

Now, I'm a Scot and a republican and I think the English royal family has outgrown its usefulness.

I wonder why, in a modern Western state, Britain persists with this anachronistic, privileged tribe of work-shy individuals, who owe their position to an accident of birth?

Many politicians have described Britain as a meritocracy, in which an individual can rise to the top by dint of his or her own efforts.

But I notice that many young people have made that effort, gone to university, got a degree only to find there is no job for them. Britain must have the best-qualified waiters, waitresses and bar staff in the world. I know that Scotland has.

And when these young people look at the pampered bunch who form the royal family it must seem that life is unfair.

In defense of the royal family some people say it is a huge tourist attraction. I would answer: How many tourists have had a chat with the Queen recently? Try to drop in on Her Majesty at Buckingham House, Sandringham or Balmoral and armed soldiers will give you short shrift.

In my opinion, the palaces and treasures belong to the nation and are not the queen's personal possessions. Tourists will see the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace whether she is in residence or not.

Forget this nonsense about Wills and Kate representing a modern, more open style of royalty. Kate will soon be stifled by The Firm's snobbery and petty rules, just as Diana was before her.

The Queen is an 85-year-old mother-of-four and grandmother who has presided over a dysfunctional family. Three of her four grown-up children are divorced.

Her son and heir carried on with his mistress before, during and after his marriage to Diana. Following Diana's tragic death, Charles married his mistress.

"Air Miles Andy" (Prince Andrew) is a so-called ambassador for British industry, but has been publicly criticized for his relationships with a gunrunner and dodgy Middle Eastern politicians.

Amid all the hysteria about another royal wedding, maybe the British public should quietly consider whether they want to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

China Daily