BS: The UK Royal Family

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 02:52 PM

To Guest/Leonard, The quote: "we hold these truths"..."that all men are created equal"...etc., is from the 'Declaration of Independence' not 'The Constitution' and while certainly having considerable merit in ideology has, in fact no basis in law. The Constitution starts out in the Preamble as "We the People in order to form a more perfect union"..."of the people, by the people and for the people." One of the amendments to the Bill of Rights designates blacks as being counted as 3/5th of a person. Hardly equal wouldn't you say? While I'm no big fan of the Monarchy let's keep the Brit-bashing to a minimum as we haven't exactly been choirboys on this side o'the pond. Some of we Yanks have a tendency to mix up those two documents. One is simply stating an act, while the other is acting a State. Or in our case a group of states.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 02:58 PM

Oi! Eric - you have fallen into the "for Wales see England" trap !

Whose Royal familly died in 1066 ? And whose in 1285 ?

Tho' remarkedly, I find myself agreeing with Walrus and Cllr on this. A small, approachable, constitutional monarchy has its points.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 03:11 PM

Thanks for those comments Gareth and as regards to some of the other contributions, we are getting to the "agree to disagree" stage with this thread and I hope you will forgive me in relating a little story. My step-father (now deceased) once had a private tea with the Queen and in that relaxed atmosphere he said that they were talking about the goons and then she did the most fantastic impersonation of Peter Sellers when in his indian guise. I don't think there are many people who have seen HRH do that! Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 03:22 PM

To Bald Eagle, I'll take the grammatical correction 'we' is used at the beginning of sentences. As far as "paragraphless rambling diatribe" I was asked to expand on an opinion...completely incidental to my misuse of grammar or the length of the answer. You're entitled to use the mouse to pass over if you think it goes on too long, but that's another thread. None of us(oops..almost said we)are pro's here...

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 03:58 PM

Unfortunately for the argument, the English Royals did not die out in 1066.

The Atheling, heir to the throne, descendant of Edmund Ironside, moved to Scotland and one of his sisters, Margaret, married the King (David?). Their daughter married Henry 1, so back came the genes. A Godwin daughter married into a Scandinavian royal family, and those genes came back via Kiev, Denmark and various marriages.

The Norman barons did themselves some serious damage in the Wars of the Roses, and the nobs who took their places under the Tudors were jumped up upper middle class who knows what with names like Browne.

Doesn't alter the situation with regard to inherited "rights" to power and land and money, though. It's not impossible that someone like a present day grasping landlord who made money by ripping off and threatening tenants and exploiting farm labourers abroad could have descendants who regarded themselves as better than everyone else for reasons of bloodline or money. Doesn't make them, or him any better than the prople they call scum.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Maxine
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:05 PM

I live in Surrey Uk and the topic of royalty has always hit a nerve with me. Prince Charles stood in St Pauls cathedral some 14 or so years ago and swore to love and cherish Diana, forsaking her for all others etc etc, when all the time he was sleeping with Camilla Parker Bowles....do we really need this man to stand in the same cathedral and swear his loyalty to Britain at his Coronation when it is obvious that he is a lying toe rag, and does not mind doing so in a holy cathedral? No bloody way! Prince William thinks nothing of going out hunting foxes and any other small creature that has the misfortune of moving about the countryside......jolly hocket sticks and so on. The fact that he is hunting at all is good enough reason to make me think he has no morals or sense of well being whatsoever and therefore we do not want him as our king, (good looking as he is!) Stick them in a council flat in Streatham and let them work for a living like the rest of us mere mortals. God, I'm a bitter cow, but they really rattle my cage!

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Maxine
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:13 PM

It was nearer 20 years ago - sorry folks. Get your facts straight girl! I feel old.....

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:14 PM

Fox hunting wonderful stuff, so is hockey. perhaps we should hunt the foxes with hockey sticks. OK So this makes about as much sense as the last post of maxine's.Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Maxine
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:19 PM

Just wanted to reiterate the fact that Charles and Diana were actually married some 20yrs ago and not 14 as I first stated. Where do the yrs go? Sorry if I confused you Cllr, quite unintentional.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:20 PM

Hey Maxine, Wasn't it more like 20 years ago? And you're not bitter, but merely justified in your anger. Imagine how they feel in other parts of the Uk outside the borders of England.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:22 PM

Maxine I don't need your help to be confused, I can do that on my own... Hang on that didn't come out right.Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Maxine
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:31 PM

You're all a crazy lot!! Fun, but crazy nonetheless!

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:51 PM

Whilst I have nothing personally against certain members of the royal family and can even agree that some of them work very hard I cannot and will not support any class system that puts one man or woman above another purely on an accident of birth. Would people be so forgiving of a gin drinking gambling granny if she wasn't the queen mother ( and I'm sorry Fionn but she IS a queen and did not invent the title queen mother it has been used before. Once a queen always a queen but once a knight is enough or something like that!!:0))

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 05:01 PM

Really!! Mrs. Duck you're scandalous...and delightful...please post often!

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 05:11 PM

Penny - No, post 1485 some dreadful little oiks with names such as Tudor.

Incidently when Charles & Di' split, who had custody of us Welsh ??

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 05:15 PM

As a Canadian, I shudder to think of the day when Charles' image is put on the money. Lets have the royals but not the funny looking ones who wish to be tampons.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 05:40 PM

All these anti monarchist diatribes can be summarized in one line. "She is rich, I'm not and it pisses me off".

Sorry people, but if the monarchy were abolished today it wouldn't put one brass farthing in your pockets, not now, not tomorrow, not ever.

And I am trying to imagine the thrill of waking up in the morning and thinking "Wow, I'm so happy, yesterday I was a subject but today I am a citizen." I am having difficulty visualizing that thrill.

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 06:46 PM

Murray-I think it is worth bearing in mind that while the National Health service is in a state of decline, the police & education service likewise, HRH prince Charles has 3 men just to help him get dressed in a morning.The royal family between them have 6 palaces thousands of acres of land.A few years ago the queen decided she would pay income tax. How bloody generous of her! everybody else has no choice in the matter.No I am not a royalist.john

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 06:56 PM

John, the fallacy in your reasoning is that whatever the Queen is worth, however many millions, if it WERE in fact possible to liquidate her assets and dole the cash out to the beleaguered social services, it would only be a drop in the ocean. After a few weeks you would be back to square one. Anyway the equation really is too simplistc.

Nope, it's the old Saxon envy of the man on horseback, that's what it is.

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 07:00 PM

I reckon it would be easy enough to liquidise the assets, just stick em in an auction.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 07:04 PM

Or in a blender ! :-)

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 07:09 PM

That was funny! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 07:09 PM

Murray, wealth in itself doesn't bother me. What bothers me in this case is who pays for the wealth. I am not clear on anything but I was under the impression that they get vast incomes from the state.

Usefullness of a so called "head of state" also bothers me.

Perhaps someone will explain to me but I see constitutions mentioned. It there any evidence to suggest the the US fairs any worse than us or has constinntional problems tht could be resolved by the introduction of a monarchy?

Can someone explain to me what they really do in political terms. I struggle with the fact that the same "Majesty" had the left wing government of the 70's and Maggie for example.

The other questions of usefullness seem to me to centre around money. Tourinsm for example is cited as being a usefull purpose, yet taking this thread as an example, I have seen one "make no difference" and no other comment - is that really representative of how useful they are in that respect? If they really are that good, perhaps we should consider letting the tourist industry pay for thier marketing - the royals apparently would be better off.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 07:27 PM

you really are short of things to talk about

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cobble
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 07:54 PM

bill/sables...... your story about your "bugger" ancestors may explain why you are having to work in the dungeons of York. Serves you right you old bugger. *BG*

Not the Cobbles , somebody else. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Crane Driver
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:19 PM

And can we please stop bringing genetics into the royalty myth? Most of us will have noticed by now that people generally have two parents. Thus only half of Charlie's genes are from Mummy. Likewise Charlie has one quarter from George 6, one eighth from George 5 and one sixteenth from Viccy. That's 2 chromosomes out of 32. Go back any further, and you can forget it.

No, I don't believe in kings, any more than I believe in the tooth fairy. But abolish them? Why bother? It won't make any odds, and the way they're going now, they'll abolish themselves soon enough, without us having to do the work.

I don't think they do any real harm, they just don't live on the same planet as me.

Crane Driver

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cobble
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:36 PM

Crane Driver..... Its one sixteenth from Edward VII and 32 x 2 from Viccy, Phil the Greek is also decended from her. :-)

Mrs C

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: AliUK
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:48 PM

once again I find myself cordially disagreeing with Cllr. Who for a tory is ok. The checks and balances of a constitutional monarchy actually dont mean a thing. As a republican I find that the fact that a bunch of people who are there simply to reinforce the class system in the UK an affront to logical thinking. Monetarily speaking the french have survived and prospered from a monarchy that hasnt existed for two hundred years, what difference would it make to the UK tourist economy if the people didnt actually exist anymore? What real power does the Queen have? None. The formalities of handing over parliament could be handled just as well by a democratically elected officer ( its worked in the United States for a number of years). Quite frankly the English( german-greek-norman-austrian) royal family doesnt really have any function in British society today, except to fill the tabloids and gossip columns around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:49 PM

Bravo, Maxine! Bravo Jack the Sailor!

Mrs Duck, where and when was the title Queen Mother used before? This drunkeb bitch got to be queen only because her brother-in-law fell for the shopaholic Mrs Wallace. She ceased to be queen when her hubby died. Or did according to all precedent. Hence her invention of that title.

With King George VI, WW2 and QE2, the monarchy enjoyed a brief interlude from its usually dissolute state. And it invented a role for itself as role-model family. Sadley, three and a half divorces, and another on the way, put paid to that.

But rest assured, the nonarchy will not survive Prince Charles. This weirdo, who sets himself against innovation in architecture, talks to vegetables, and who adopted the repulsive Lauren van der Post as his mentor (as a replacement for the naval-ratings shagger "Lord" Mountbatten (ie Battenburg, before a discreet name change), will be about 80 when he assumes the crown - and as hopelessly out of touch with his subjects as it's possible to get.

If the monarchy is so marvellous, why not one for the USA? And imagine introducing one for Ireland!

Cllr, I ignored your constitution drivel because it came from a jumped up nerd who thinks that being a "cllr" is some big deal, when in fact it means fuck all. (I am myself a "cllr" for what it's worth.) I bet you got in unopposed! If you want to be an authority on the constitution, you'll have to do like I did and work at it (not easy, because in the UK there isn't one).

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:00 PM

Anyone think about how much charitable work Princess Anne has done over the years? Never a mention in the press,,, but if she fell of a horse it would make front page, and be discussed for over a week. She did a lot more than Dianna ever did (which was just show up and do photo sessions)...... Read and learn, before forming an opinion based on empty headed irrational ranting...

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:16 PM

Well Di did shake hands with AIDS sufferers when no-one else would touch them, and she did (briefly) get the world to think again about landmines - until the USA found it expedient to pollute Afghanistan with cluster bombs. But Princess Anne has done much more, I readily agree.

So what? She chose to do it, like lots of folk do. She didn't hae to be a princess to do it, and it takes more than that to make the monarchy OK.

And for every Anne, there are half-a-dozen Princess Margarets, Princess Michaels (sic) etc, not to mention the fucking Wessexes.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:35 PM

Fionn. you obviously have a lot of issues to deal with... Your bigotry, anger and hatred shows itself, and I understand it, but please overcome it, and read and learn before allowing it to blind you to fact...

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 10:15 PM

I'll tell you the thing that will eventually get me over to that side of the pond one day; The Pubs. I wanna pub crawl the whole of the British Isles, drink *real* Guinness, listen to local music and maybe not even once open my mouth (yeah, ok...that's a stretch! ;D ) What I will not be hankering to stand in line to see is the Royals. But then, I rather think I am considered a weirdo by a great many of my fellow Yanks.

As for whether or not to abolish the monarchy, I'd say what the hey, leave 'em alone. If anyone tells you that there is no such thing as Royalty in the US, then please tell me why most of our politicians have lineages filled with former politicians? And then, there's Hollyweird, where some of our recent and current politicians come from.

But that is another rant for another day! ;D

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 07:32 AM

Hello all,

I've read through this thread and to answer the question posed I would say that no, the existance of a monarch or not, would not make any difference to me visiting Great Britain if I were an American, the common links between the two countries are as long as they are durable.

To Fionn, on this and other threads, the impression I get is that no matter the question or topic of discussion - the only thing you seem capable of, or are interested in, is "Brit Bashing". In content, your input is consistantly destructive and subjective. I am extremely pleased that I do not share your "doom and gloom", vindictive, spiteful and bitter out-look on life. For once I would love to read something from you that is 1) Relevant; 2) Constructive, and 3) Objective.

There also seems to me to be some misconception as to what the Royal Family actually own and how they acquired it. As far as I know Sandringham is the Queen's home and possibly Balmoral. I say possibly about Balmoral because I think the Queen gifted that to the nation but I'm not sure. When George the First became King of England, the family were far from wealthy, as Elector of Hanover he arrived in England to provide the nation with a stable and acceptable head of state as a constitutional monarch (He wasn't all that acceptable to the deposed Stuarts, but then that was natural as they'd just recently been sacked). Queen Victoria married one Albert Saxe-Coburg who, although extremely capable, was not really permitted by the establishment of the day to do very much. He turned his attention to looking after his family. To this task he brought considerable energy, skill and a great deal of common sense. He bought Sandringham and developed it from a run down country estate into an enterprise that thrived, he did the same with Balmoral. It wasn't given to him, he didn't steal it, he worked at it.

The money voted for the Civil List by Parliament to cover the expenses of being Head of State would not alter a jot if the monarchy were abolished - it would go to someone else - and should the new head of state be elected by the people of the United Kingdom today we would probably end up with "Posh & Becks". I know which I'd prefer to represent the nation - the present "Royal Family" wins hands down.

Looking from the outside the differences between America and the United Kingdom with respect to heads of state and government I note the following.

America : Head of State is the President who is elected (max duration, two terms of four years). Once elected he puts in place his/her administration - who can come from anywhere (i.e. not elected, but some posts/all posts have to be agreed by the Senate/House of Representatives?) The President may be Democratic, Republican or Independent (although I cannot ever recall there ever having been an Independent President in office). The President and his administration then govern the country with the Senate and House of Representatives providing the checks and balances. The President obviously has an easier time if he is Republican and the Republican Party has the majority of seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and he holds the nuclear trigger.

United Kingdom : Head of State is the reigning Monarch, it is a life time job from point of succession and has extremely limited powers and is strictly non-political. The government of the United Kingdom is formed by the political party that wins a free and democratic election. The head of government is the Prime Minister who is elected by his political party the Monarch has no say in the matter. The United Kingdom's head of state fulfils no military role other than on ceremonial occasions and has no say on whether the armed forces are committed to armed conflict, or not (Note during the Falklands War the present Queen's son was a serving as a helicopter pilot in the Royal Navy - she no doubt, could have pulled a few strings to remove him from danger, which would have been quite natural for a mother to do, but she did not). Under the British system checks and balances to the government of the day are provided by the opposition in the House of Commons and by the House of Lords.

Conclusion : The American head of state is a powerfull political office with fearsome responsibilitïes. It is politically motivated through the system of party politics in the United States of America. If that Party or that President gets it wrong the potential for major disaster exists. The United Kingdom's head of state provides impartial continuity without interference with the elected representatives of the people. I would say the system in the UK is more directly hands on and a bit nearer to the electorate - my opinion only so not worth a damn.

The United Kingdom has a long and significant history, our monarchy is a link with that history, some may say relic and they are fully entitled to hold that opinion. I believe that they perform their required duties and many others well. Of the Royal family I have met, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Queen Mother, Prince Charles and Princess Anne. Speaking from personal experience, and I generally take people as I find them, I find no difficulty at all in being a "subject" as opposed to being a "citizen" - it wouldn't one one whit of difference to my life if that status were to change tomorrow. I would hate to see the monarchy abolished, but again that is only my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 07:34 AM

once again I find myself cordially disagreeing with AliUK. Who for a non-tory is ok. I belive the constitutional checks and balences do mean something but then I'm not a republican.If the Queen exercised her powers dissolving parliment, refusal to sign laws refusal to form the government etc these powers could be modified or taken away after a mandate from the people, this stops prime ministers declaring themselves in charge for life or compulsory banjo lessons for all, as it would need HRH ratification to be legal. Alright these are extreme examples but still a valid one. (similar debates have arisen over the house of lords use of its powers)The checks and balences would stop anything from happening if it was truly desired by the majority of the voting public but as possible delaying measures it does ensure that Politicians or Parties have to work within the current framework. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 07:52 AM

Fionn I wasn't going to dignify your comments with a response seeing as you stooped to getting personal but I must factually correct your attempt to mislead people. To quote you "If you want to be an authority on the constitution, you'll have to do like I did and work at it (not easy, because in the UK there isn't one)."-well actually- I have a degree in Politics & Modern History Bsc from Brunel University. The following is paraphrased from an essay I wrote on the subject a few years ago. My source material "Politics UK" a Prentice Hall publication."A constitution can be defined as a system of laws,customs and conventions which defines the composition and powers of the organs of the state (such as government, Parliament,and the courts) and regulates the relations of various state organs to one another and of those state organs to the private citizen. The british constition differs from most in that it is not drawn up in a single codified document and as such it is described as an "unwritten" constitution However much of the constitution exists in "written" form. Many Acts of Parliament such as the Parliment acts 1911 and 1949 are clearly measures of constitutional law. Those acts constitute formal, written - and binding - documents. To describe the constitution as unwritten is thus misleading. Rather, what Britain has is a part written and uncodified constitution." Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Fiolar
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:03 AM

A point. Henry VIII got the title "Defender of the Faith" for his book condemning Martin Luther, from Pope Leo X in 1521. It always has amused me how the British monarchy continues to use the title since even though they are no longer Catholic and Charlie boy wants it changed to "Defender of Faith." Seems to me it would be like changing the "Order of the Bath" to the Order of the washbowl.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,Dooley
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:18 AM

All this is fascinating if not currently particularly relevant stuff; we need a head of state and on balance the people here in the UK respect and admire the two members of the royal family in particular - the Queen and her ageing mother - notwithstanding all the evidence that HRH Queen Mother etc is indeed a manipulative old schemer who learnt how to manipulate the press to her own advantage 65 years ago. The reason is simply that neither really says anything at all and what is said is bland and noncontroversial. The lesson here seems to be to let the hereditary priveleged have their lifestyle as long as they keep stum and don't rock the boat. Let the politicians do the talking and stand by their actions. The result of abolishing the monarchy would be insignificant materially and culturally dimishing for most people here. If they are non controversial and private, even boring - long may it continue!

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,Tom
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 11:19 AM

Emmmm, I have read a lot of the replys, so many for and so many against. In general they do more good than harm. They are also a rallying point, such as in WWII when we in Britain fought for King and Country. But for all the opposition towards them I have a little bit of pride in my own heritage, you see my ancestors include some of these great Kings and Queens of history. Am I an Earl, a Lord or even Sir somebody or other?,no, I am a small leaf on a very large tree, a very plain mister, but I have something to look back at, something that I am proud of. You yourselves if you study your own geoealogy will be surprised at what you find.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:05 PM

Fionn the term queen mother has a dictionary definition of
"the widow of the former king who is also the mother of the reigning monarch"
otherwise she would be the queen dowager. It has been used throughout history, most recently Queen Mary of Teck, the widow of George V and mother of George VI and the earliest reference I found was Eleonor of Aquitaine wife of Henry II and mother of Richard the Lionheart - I wouldn't have fancied your chances telling her she wasn't a Queen!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Oaklet
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:14 PM

I think that the BBC should remove the ban on screening "It's a Royal Knockout". This was a risible 80s piece of Edward-inspired fun to show that the Royals had a human form, in case you had never seen it. Edward and Anne captained two teams drawn from the "mejia". I think that Pamela Stephenson was one. Lots of us in the UK were horrified by the awfulness of it all. They can trace their popular decline to this one televisual feast and it serves 'em right. Don't suppose anyone's got a copy of the broadcast?

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 03:09 PM

Penny, you are quite right-I was simplifying the geneteic line-since, I guess, with a tracable family history to before the conquest, I have some claim to the throne. (Don't bloody want it, or their money)However the point still remains (though it isn't saxon jeasously at the man on horseback) that the monarchy in this country (and their cronies eg people who put a title to their name)still control (or hope/wish to) the vast amounts of wealth and power. The Dutch Royal family live a much more simple life and have much love and respect.

(as for cllr-a sad person who feels that there is more importance to them in telling us all their role in civic life, and less for their role as a human being-other wise they'd have a name. You will find many people on this site with accademic qualifications and professional memberships that are equally as accademic,intellegent, rational and logical and well skilled but without bragging about it)

I agree about spreading the vast wealth of the stealing robbing royal family and their ancestors and present offspring to the poor and needy would harldy constitue a drop on the ocean (Mainly due to the tories dismantling the welfare state etc) HOWEVER I would love to see it done on the principle that it would put them on the same level as most of us (most tories excepted, who don't feel the need for equality with their fellow travellers towards death)

Also my father fought in the war-he did not fight for King and country ! he fought for the freedom of his fellow man against facism-so you can bollocks off with that notion (Tom)

It says it all for Britain when we have a Royal society for the protection of animals and only a National society for the protection of children. When you rob the royal mail, the sentence is far higher than for robbing Joe soap.

All in all-I haven't changed me mind.

Sorry Gareth, my friend-what species of rare breed sheep was killed off in the 1200's ?

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 03:17 PM

ps-I was born a free man, many of my ancestors were freemen. I don't own anybody, nobody owns me, I wont sell myself, just my ability to work,or my pricicples and I am NO-ones bloody subjetc!

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 04:46 PM

I have nothing against the monarchy. I don't like Charles. I will be upset If I have to have him for my head of state. That is a problem with monarchy you don't get to kick out the bad ones.

I read somewhere that the Queens wealth come from rental of much valuable property in London I've also read that the english people spend a lot of money on the upkeep of symbols like royal yachts and palaces.

As for subject or citizen, Canadian citizens are nominal subjects of the Queen, but she can't give us any orders, so who cares??

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Penny S.
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 05:38 PM

Gareth, by the Browne reference, I was off the Royals and on to the Norman landholders being replaced by the Tudors' "common" supporters as large estate holders. The royals are not, I understand, the largest (I despise the term owner of land). Crane Driver, I agree that after five generations, the number of ancestors exceeds the number of chromosomes, and so the probability of inheritance from any particular ancestor starts to diminish somewhat. They were still required to pass on the baton, as it were, and when the royal line is still projected back to Noah in the Ark, I was going by their own logic. They go back, incidentally, via the Welsh line just one short of Aphrodite, and by the English line just one short of Woden, and guess how much I believe in those two ancestors. You are also forgetting the family's strong adherence to inbreeding. Unlike other families, there is a stronger probability of ancestors contributing to the present generation - which is probably why they do it.

Incidentally, I tried rereading this thread while I was at school, along with Harry Potter and the dead parrot. All three were banned by nanny - I think I know why this one fell foul, but not the others.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:54 PM

Eric the viking You can call me sad and you can suggest I'm bragging- it doesn't make it true. I was responding to comments in a post that were a personal slur and incorrect factually. I know that there are many intelligent people who are more sensible qualified etc than me.Shame your not one of them or you would have looked at my post in the context of the previous post from Fionn that had attacked me. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,FOG(Friend of Gnome)
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 07:07 PM

Some short while back in this thread Guest said that Sandringham(or was it Balmoral) had been left to the nation. Well I reckon since its ours, all UK mudcatters who can produce their passports to prove they are her majesty's subjects must surely be able to march up to the door and get a meal and a bed for the night .

Yeah-just try it and see how far your royal security man will kick your arse.

Royal family-a quaint and expensive bunch of wasters.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 07:46 PM

Actually the largest landowner in the UK is the Church of England not the Royal family... HRH Prince Charles makes his estates pay for themselves, by being a shrewd business man, and a good organic farmer. By far the most industrious and eager to listen to ordinary people from all over the Commonwealth. HRH has been known to be vocal and adversarial with the "establishment" on matters of architecture and housing developments. He has shown some innovative alternatives to concrete jungles (aka public housing estates) Also a champion for greening cities and environmental protection. I admire the man, i'm not rich, and come from working class industrial background.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 07:53 PM

The Prince's Trust is the biggest of the charities backed by The Prince of Wales.

The Prince of Wales set up The Prince's Trust in 1976 to help young people to succeed by giving them opportunities which they would otherwise not have. Over half a million, most of them disadvantaged in some way, have been helped by its activities, which continue to expand.

The Prince's Trust, which had a turnover of £32 million in 1998, is the biggest of the charitable organisations in which His Royal Highness takes a guiding interest. He founded most of them himself.

The Prince of Wales's Charitable Foundation was established in 1979. Originally known as The Prince of Wales's Charitable Trust, it distributes money each year to benefit a wide range of causes throughout the world: in 1997 the Foundation made donations totalling £150,000.

The Foundation derives a significant part of its income from royalties from the sale of books by The Prince of Wales and lithographs made from his own watercolours, together with disposable profits from Duchy Originals Limited, which The Prince established in 1990 to sell a range of food and drink products using simple, natural ingredients.

The Prince's Foundation is a new charitable organisation, formed to unite and extend HRH The Prince's of Wales's initiatives in architectural design, building and urban regeneration. It brings together The School for Architecture and the Building Arts, The Urban Villages Forum, Regeneration Through Heritage, and The Phoenix Trust.

The Prince of Wales, President of Business in the Community since November 1985, is much involved in the strategic direction of the organisation and takes a close interest in its work to inspire companies to increase their contribution to social and economic regeneration. In 1990 he initiated business-led teams in areas including equal opportunities, education and environment.

Experience of business and community partnerships within the UK through Business in the Community led His Royal Highness to form The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum in 1990, as a focus for international business to work together in the global promotion of socially responsible business practices. It has 50 international member companies.

The Prince is also permanent patron or president of more than 270 organisations, and is temporary patron or president of more than 100 more.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 08:02 PM

Well there you go. Thank you guest.Cllr