BS: The UK Royal Family

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:13 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 02:43 PM

For those who care to read and learn.. The Royal family are a distinct benefit to the country and a protection from an elected dictatorship. (very similar to the USA) The USA has its rich nabobs we have our Royals. I prefer the Royals myself. Those who are die hard Republicans should reflect that after our Civil War we reinstated the Monarchy and it has served us well. Portugal and Spain are examples of modern return to monarchy countries. Students in Portugal have started a campaign to have the monarchy reinstated. It is far easier to keep what one has.. Please look at these site for interest. Click here he last 86 have been lived as a republic... Click here

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Ringer
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 02:41 PM

If nameless guest above ever learns when to use "we" correctly, and when "us", his thoughts and opinions, as expressed in his paragraph-less rambling diatribes, might be considered worthy of some respect. If (s)he put a name to those ramblings, ditto.

If...

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

Well the royal family has provide us with material for countless wonderful songs, at the very least!

Anne Boleyn (With Her Head Tucked Underneath Her Arm) being my favorite!

pax yall

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: DougR
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 01:51 PM

bill/sables: great story! Loved it!

If I am ever fortunate enough to travel to your great country, I won't care whether there is a Royal Family or not. I wouldn't expect to be invited to have tea with the Queen anyway.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 01:15 PM

Firstly you lot forget that they are not our (The English) royal family. They were killed off around 1066. They were replaced by a Norman Royal family and Barony that still controls the feudal/legal system that we have in this country today( and continues to keep a class system where less than 10% has 90% of the wealth and control). Even some conservatives know this. This last lot are a mix of greek and german-Sachs-cobergs and have little to do with Britain since before victorian times. The monachy in this country was founded by the normans by exerting fear, power and the control of lands and money over the church and peasants. Promising protection for the weaker and by taxing the poor.(in the same way the church has a hold over people with it's secular control and the promise of everlasting life or damnation.) They are not our royal family-they may be yours, but they are never mine. I do not sing god save the queen, nor do I sing hymns, since I don't believe in either.You can keep em'.

Me I would take away their rights, power and money and distribute it evenly to the poorer. They have privallege they do not earn or deserve, wealth they have extorted and lands they have stolen from common folk.

Well you know where I stand-I guess.

By the way when the Scots call us sasanach's (meaning saxons) They should be really talking about the Normans-not the saxon/Viking tribes that were here before the Normans and their tyrany.

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

Ok Cllr here goes, Just took an innocent cycle trip and came away w/a different perspective as a result. Obviously, you don't get the entire cultural/political range in 2 mos. and you are right, I 'am' offering an opinion. Don't have to 'read up' on a given situation to have an instinct for what's right and wrong. If living as a 'subject' is such a wonderful thing why has virtually every separate geographical/cultural/racial entity the crown 'colonized' over the 300 or so years of expansionism(not to excuse we Yanks in the american west) at one point or another and through various means, declared independence? Certainly, during the 18th and 19th centuries there were substantial advantages to being a crown subject, but ultimately the benefits, especially the economic ones went to the crown itself and as a result perpetuated the "divine rights of kings" theory under which, if you penetrate the ideology deep enough, is at the core of why the monarchy exists to begin with. Even the Magna Carta was an agreement among equals of advantage and had nothing to do with the rights of serfs whatever. They 'had' no rights except that which their feudal lord saw fit to give them. Again, I want to be very clear that none of these offerings are made while excusing our own expansionism on this side o' the pond. You asked me to stake a position and back up my opinion and I'm attempting to do that. Most Yanks fly into Heathrow, spend a week in London, see the postcard sites, take a few snaps and say they've been to Jolly Old England. The same applies to Ireland, except they all flock down to Cork for the Blarney Stone kiss. It's all sizzle and no steak for the average Yank and they(we)'re ok with that for the most part. It took me a year to put myself in a position to be able to spend 2 mos. on a bicycle in the Isles, precisely because I wanted an understanding of my own cultural heritage and one doesn't get that from a tour bus or a car window. Things unfold at a much slower pace from the seat of a push-bike. I don't want to give the impression that I feel I should be cannonized for it, but I 'did' want a deeper experience. The statement about the crown 'abolished' was, probably not the best word...I think dismantled would be better suited to say what I mean. The Monarchy in terms of any real power has been useless for decades and other than a figurehead for formal situations or being representative to the greater world of being 'British' what purpose does it serve? I'm not being critical of the Royals themselves, I'm sure that they're muddling about this strange planetary existence like the rest of us, but are you sure you want to continue to support this antiquated institution with your hardearned tax dollars? If it benefits England economically to keep it around by all means do so, but don't expect any freethinking(or freedom thinking)people to want to continue active participation in the charade(beyond coming by for a visit and a few snaps). Again, a united Ireland, independent Scotland and Wales, dissolution of the crown are events, clearly in the not too distant future and inevitable as the economic mode of exchange shifts from a material to an electronic powerbase. True power lies in liquidity of assets and from what I saw Ireland, though way behind militarily is ahead of the crown in terms of the 'cyber' mode. And that is what is going to determine who has the 'power' in the future. It's like the difference between East and West Germany before the wall came down. There's going to be rabble rousers, pragmatists, cowards and opportunists of varying degrees in the decades to come as this inevitability transpires. It is and will continue to be a painstaking process to be sure and I think it may be as simple as the Celts finally having had enough of the Saxons telling them when and where they could make their whiskey. In their own quiet way I think the Welsh have made the great strides by making their language mandatory in practical matters. They've made it more difficult to do business there unless you speak welsh, especially in the north. While it's one thing thing to wave the red dragon flag or wear a t-shirt that says 'Tan o Cymru!' in bold red letters, it's quite another to make your oppressors bend to doing business on your terms. Didn't mean for this to go on for so long it's just that this is the first time I've really sat and thought through my reasons for having the perspectives I do. Thanks alot Cllr, I appreciate the 'call out'.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:05 PM

MC Fat Thread drift if you want to start a discussion on privatisation we will have to go to another thread. and I never said exactly what my father said about M.U. ( although I think you get the rough idea)And yes I think you should prosecute people for fraud afterall they are taking the money from people who are entitled to it. Also getting rid of the royal family does not mean that they would lose there own money or are you saying we should go for a redistribution of other peoples money.Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: RoyH (Burl)
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:03 PM

Gervase..I'm with you mate. All the way. Burl

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Fortunato
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:00 PM

Guest, McFat, could you translate that for me? I am American and I don't get the references.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 11:52 AM

Cllr. your Dad called Man U 'Idle Scrounging Bastards'? - 'Overpaid & Underworked Bastards' perhaps. Still you Tories do have strange ideas !! Like you allowed people to make millions for themselves for privatising what was 'ours' but do someone for fiddling a few quid on the dole and at the same time the Royal Family are worth it?Never mind IDS is on the horizon with his trusty henchmen ready to deliver us from the evil belezebub Tony Blair. I can't wait !!

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Fortunato
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 10:37 AM

For myself, I prefer your traditional royalty to our situational 'royalty'. Yours are rather like a good Child Ballad: Dated, but quaint and somewhat romantic. Ours are just disgustingly rich people or media 'stars'. Keep yours, and you can have ours as well for all of me.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Grab
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 10:22 AM

JohnInHull, compare and contrast to the assassination of JFK - how many Americans had ever met him? It's not the person, it's what they represent.

Don't sell the diplomatic role short - both diplomacy in selling Britain abroad, and diplomacy in supporting British institutions. The Queen, Prince Charles and Princess Anne really do pull their weight on those issues. Other members of the Royal family don't do much, and are known not to do much, so recently there have been serious cut-backs in the money that minor Royals get - hence Edward with his TV job, and stuff like that.

For my money, it's not broken. I also believe that the House of Lords wasn't broken and was possibly a better, saner, more representative institution than the House of Commons. Remember that the House of Lords for the last 10 years or more has a history of opposing the government's more ridiculous outbursts - think Poll Tax for one. The Lords don't need to run after votes, so they can focus on what's right instead of what the current Prime Minister thinks is a good idea. For anyone who thinks that elected officials are always a good idea, think of the police chiefs in 1960's Southern US...

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 10:21 AM

MCFat My dad said a lot of things about Man United, it didn't make those comments true either. Guest- same thing applies. I can equally say that I believe that the royal family will be around for many many generations to come. Your comments of "The crown beyond being a tourist attraction has outserved it's usefulness and needs to be abolished" need to be justified or it's just an opinion. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:59 AM

When traveling by bicycle a few years ago in Ireland and the UK I was fairly low to the ground, economically speaking and got a feel for the differences between the two countries. Stayed in hostels for the most part and most of the people I met were in my income range. The thing that kept coming back to me was the difference in the sense of optimism. The Republic doesn't seem as encumbered. The phone system alone was an indicator to me as to the level of improvements willing to be made. I think Ireland is 'the' shining example to the world as to what can be accomplished once the chains of the oppressor have been thrown off. A united Ireland, independent Scotland and Wales, dissolution of the crown...it's only a matter time. England has done the world a great deal of good on alot of levels w/cultural influences, etc. And certainly we have them to thank for the structure of our government with the 2 house system, etc. However, the idea of being a 'subject' as opposed to a 'citizen' is going the way of the dodo bird in western culture. The crown beyond being a tourist attraction has outserved it's usefulness and needs to be abolished. We may or may not live to see it happen, but our children certainly will.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: MC Fat
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:53 AM

My Dad who was the most mild mannered person and never swore very much or got annoyed often was conistent when they appeared on the Television he always shouted at the screen 'Idle Scrounging Bastards'. I think that is a fairly apt description. Also read the words to Brittania Waves the Rules by Vic Gammon

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:41 AM

Parasites implies that they have no positive function Thats simply not true. 1)On a purely monetry level pound for pound the monarchy provides more into the countries coffers than it takes out(and not just tourism and the invisble earnings aspect). 2) Continuity of goverment- the Queen briefing role of succesive prime ministers.3) Constitional role as I've already mentioned. 4) Diplomatic Role. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: bill\sables
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:38 AM

One of my ancestors was in the employment of Queen Victoria. It was in the days when palaces were slightly less clean than they are today and there was infestation of rats, mice and bed bugs and people were employed by Royal appointment to get rid of these pests. These jobs were advertised throught the realm and my ancestor applied for the bed bug post. According to family history, he had been working for the Duke of Northumberland doing the same sort of thing and so he was appointed Royal Bugger to the Queen.
At the interview he beat many candidates from all over England, there were big buggers and little buggers, fat buggers and thin buggers, hairy buggers and bald buggers. There were buggers from Leeds, Liverpool, London, Birmingham and even a couple of old buggers from France, but he got the job because he was known as the best old bugger in Newcastle.
He did such a good job that he was knighted and became Sir Bill Sables, but soon there were no bugs left in the palace and so he got the sack. He will, however, go down in history as the best bugger to hold the appointment.
Bill (Another old bugger)

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Fiolar
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:18 AM

Don't forget folks MI5 or MI6 is probably checking this site right now. As far as I can remember, a law somwhere on the statute books still says it's treason to call for the dissolution of the monarchy. Me? I regard them as I regard parasites.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:06 AM

Fion, while I can't comment on a book I havn't read, I notice that your remarks ignore mine. I am arguing on the basis of constitutional monarchy not personailties, or the divine right of kings view point for that matter. And since I last checked Northern Ireland was still part of the UK. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:46 AM

Well, Cllr, the Irish among others wer happy to switch their sworn allegiance from their King to a president, and look at them now - the boom economy of Europe.

In America there is easy access to a comprehensive study: The Royals, by Kitty Kelley (1998?). It is impressively researched, and shows a much greater understanding of constitutional history etc than I would have expected.

As far as I know, it is still not published in the UK, which is a disgrace. Still, it's worth getting hold of, especially for anyone who loves to "love" our dear Queen Mum.

Disappearing a mentally ill relative into an institution, under a false name (and having that relative certified dead in her true name) might be just an indiscretion. And taking the fireplaces with her when she surrendered Buckingham Palace to our present queen (this in postwar, ration-book Britain) merely suggests a quaint detachment from the real world. But to invent a bizarre, tinpot title for herself, HRH Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother - the only title in the world to include "queen" twice - when she is not a queen at all... That betrays a truly Machiavellian genius.

And just look at the trouble these people cause. When Queen Victoria's grandchildren fell out, it wasn't a spat in the nursery, it was World War 1 (the grandchildren being the King, the Czar and the Kaiser). Too right, Linda Kelly - off with their heads!

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:43 AM

Do members of the royal family pay taxes, e.g., income taxes? I have heard that the family is one of the richest in the world. Are they carrying their weight?

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Michael in Swansea
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:36 AM

I love 'em

Mike the Welsh Catholic Royalist

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:33 AM

I think the walrus is agreeing with me but, perhaps, not using either the language or the examples that I would use.Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: The Walrus at work
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:25 AM

I always find myself thinking that the best argument AGAINST a republic is to take a good look at the scum that rises to the top of the political pond and realise that they are the very vermin that would occupy the top spot (President for Life Generallisima Thatcher anybody?).

Tom

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: RangerSteve
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:19 AM

To answer John's original question: Yes, if I ever visit the UK, I'll do it with or without the Royal Family around. There are a lot more interesting things in England than the Royals.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: mooman
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:04 AM

As Bald Eagle correctly says, the Royal Family ain't broke. Therefore they don't need to be royal as well.

I wish them no harm and actually admire one or two of them but I am fervently anti-monarchy.

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 07:59 AM

We have a constitional monarchy and to just " get rid of the UK Royal Family" woould mean a fundamental change in the political systems of this country. The two houses of parliment work in conjuntion with the Monarchy in a complicated series of checks and Balances.If your political leanings are republican then no doubt you would be in favour of radical change and of course, insulting individuals is much easier than proposing radical change to our parilemantary system. Critiscms of the individuals and finances are virtually trivial when compared to these issues. EG Would people rather the armed forces swore loyalty to an elected individual ie Prime Minster such as as Maggie or Blair or to a Queen/King. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Ringer
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 06:44 AM

Gervase, if you "long to be a citizen rather than a subject", I think you have your priorities somewhat awry - would it make the slightest difference to you?

My feeling is that the Royal Family, especially the current Monarch, personify and exemplify what it is to be British: just as the Americans have their flag, and swear allegiance to it, so we have the Queen. And I think we tamper with this arrangement at our peril. Look at the problems that the Labour party has with its current "reform" of the House of Lords: does anyone think that the result of their proposal will be an improvement? With constitutional change, wrecking is easy - improvement is much more difficult. I think that the R/Family ain't broke, so don't need fixing. (But then, that's what I thought about the House of Lords, too.)

I regard the effects of the R/F on tourism, etc, almost as an irrelevance: much more important things are at stake.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: paddymac
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 06:10 AM

Maybe Kat's onto something about training the royals to do something useful. The English are known for their great affinity for pets, so perhaps the "something useful" idea might be as the "Loyal Pooper Scoopers of the Realm." Or might that be above them? I suppose I'm a bit quaint in cherishing notions that civil servants (which includes royals, in my view) really ought to be both civil and servants of the people - certainly something more than mere parasites.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Gervase
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 06:08 AM

Bill, I hate to disillusion you, but that was no trumpet! It's a little known fact that Her Maj suffers from chronic flatulence (flatus catspawensis to give it its medical name), and spends much of the day trumpetting into her Damarts.
In her younger years, when society was less tolerant, the Royal Household would regularly appoint an official fart apologiser - usually a young and rather dim Army officer of middling rank - whose job it was to take the flak for the royal poots.
I say regularly because it was a job with limited prospects, and candidates weren't expected to last beyond the Season - often correspondence would reach the Palace to the effect: "It was lovely having Her Majesty to stay, but we must insist that she doesn't bring that flatulent, chinless oaf with her again..."
In these more enlightened times such flunkies are no longer needed, and Liz is "loud and proud", as that young prankster Edward would say. Her life has also been changed for the better by the grant of a Royal Warrant to the company which makes the renowned Viking Storm Gusset, which now features in all Royal togs.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 06:04 AM

As far as I see it they are an expense and would like to know if they really justify their keep. Pro-roylists argue that they more than justify their keep by bringing in tourists and in export sales. I'm not convinced so to go back to John's original question:

To those of you who live outside the UK: Would the presence or absence of the Royal Family make any difference to you considering visiting the UK?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: bill\sables
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 06:00 AM

John, You're at it again. First you prefer hot chocolate to British Tea, now you run down the Royals. Surley a case of high treason on both counts. I don't think you have been told that I am a relation of the Queen through marriage, and that the Queen is a fine musician.
On my last visit to London I called at Buck House to visit the Winsors but found the Queen was out. The Duke of course asked me in for a cup of Yorkshire tea and explained that their Lizzie had gone down to her mothers for the catalogue money but would soon be back. We sat and chatted for an hour about old times when we heard a loud fanfare of trumpets and Phil said "That'll be Lizzie back". I never knew that she was such a good trumpet player till that day.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: KitKat
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 05:48 AM

It may be self-evident but it ain't true that all men and women are created equal - and it isn't any more true in the USA than the UK. Social inequality sees to that. It's true we have institutionalised snobbery and the old bopy network here. It's gradually weakening over the years, though not fast enough. Not suer how I feel about the Royals. They seem a highly dysfunctional lot. They'd be better is they were trained to do something useful in the community when not actually hobnobbing with foreign big nobs (IMHO).

Kit Kat

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,Leonard
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 05:09 AM

How does it go? "We hold it to be self evident that all men (and women!) are born equal." Not in the UK apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Gervase
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:57 AM

Ha, ha, ha ha!
Sorry, mention of the Royal Family always gets me hooting.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool republican, I'm afraid; someone who longs to be able to call himself a citizen rather than a subject. Although I suppose, as someone who has sworn an oath to uphold and protect Her Maj, her heirs and successors (note the canny wording there - the UK's unwritten constitution is quite prepared to accept that the House of Windsor/Saxe-Coberg-Gotha might not be around for ever) I could be guilty of treason, but what the heck.
I haven't got much against the Royal Family per se - the Queen appears to be remarkably well-informed, level-headed and genuinenely interested in her role, while Charles, whose job description is still essentially "waiting for mummy to die", has at least made an attempt to be socially useful in the meantime, even if some of his views are Pooterish and reactionary.
As for the rest of them; Philip, Edward, the Queen Mum - they're as odious a bunch as you'd expect from such a dysfunctional family. And I do mean the Queen Mum - I know there's been so much haggiography about "The Nation's favourite Grandma", but in her 101 years she's shown herself to be a mean-spirited, manipulative and vindictive old boot (but with some mitigation).
So I don't know about getting rid of them - perhaps it would simply be best to let them wither on the vine and crumble away. It was the constitutional writer Bagehot who warned in the 19th century of the dangers of "letting sunlight in on the magic". Over the past couple of decades Murdoch's Sun has certainly done its bit to bring its glare onto the Royal family, and I nurture a vision of the lot of them turning to dust like the finale of some grande guignol Hammer House of Horrors film!
Then all True Levellers can build a Commonwealth here on Earth...(ah well, a man can dream, can't he?)

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:40 AM

Whose heads? The Tories or the royal families?