BS: The UK Royal Family

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 10:14 PM

i thot yo bew re9sted fru ays thins lik this

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:53 PM

Could ypu please show a little respect to John, who started this thread, and has technical problems with threads over 100 messages, by posting your rants to:

Royal Family - Part 2

Thank you

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:48 PM

Good few pints were it Eric ?

Guest we were trying to discuss, objectivly, the Royal Familly - Still its nice to know that Ian Duncan-Smith is a lurking Guest.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:38 PM

Firstly Cllr, I am obviously not intellegent-but more intellegent than you or you wouldn't be a tory!! (only joking, well sort of- you can hold whatever beliefs you wish and I have no desire to enter a personal arguement) But my point was that I would prefer to address you by a name personally, not by your position in society,( which, irrespective of political colour does not need stating to us peasents and is of NO relavence from my point of view)and also not by your accademic qualifications.Perhaps others might like to call themselves; PhD or MA or Dr etc (then where would we be?)and,as I feel we are all of equal status in this forum (except in musical talent) Why should I need to refer to an earlier post to form my own opinion? ( It WAS you, in a much earlier thread who stated you'd called yourself Cllr "because you are one"!-as if it gave importance or creedence to your words above others, perhaps bus driver or nurse is of less importance, we have both here-but they don't name themselves as such)But I digress.

There is only one truth or fact scientifically speaking. Unfortunately people distort and re-write the truth to suit them.(There is a link beteen knowledge and power) So much "factual" evidence is from the writers interpretation of the truth and can be slurred to fit the required purpose without becoming untrue, merely biased in one direction or another to fit the required audience.(Such as Maggie taking Milton Friedmans work and making her distorted view fit her political dogma or history from the winners point of view)

That as it maybe, I still have no love for royalty.

Next-the princes trust does indeed do splendid work and some of the young people I work with have been direct recipients of such(but they bloody well need it, living near to or below the poverty line-artificially set at a low level so it doesn't seem so bad!). It is good that the advantaged help the disadvantaged-so they should (not enough do and with not enough impact on the lives of those they are helping, or their own wealth) This is not a brag, but a statement of fact, that my children have been encouraged never to pass a charity collection of any description for any purpose and not make a donation of even the smallest coin that they have in their possession. This they now do freely, with a consideration for their fellow beings, irrespective of race, religion or creed. It is a shame however that those of such privallege, have so much that they are in a much more fortunate position than the common man, who often cares more for his fellows than those of privallege.

Guest, the prince and others being patrons of so many organisations is a good thing-the other snooties have to keep up with the rest of the mob, so they join and sit there eating good free lunches, drinking champers, getting tax breaks for their donations and generally spending much more in one day than the monthly wages of a very hard working family man on basic minimum wage (not envy-fact). Most of them are sycophants.(And before it is suggested that I am denigrating the efforts of human beings to make more of their potential, to develop their skills and talents I am not- I applaud the eforts of everyone who manages improvement in even the smallest directions in their lives, but realise that many are prevented from doing so in our society for a variety of reasons)I also have to state that I equally despise the fact, we have prime ministers who consider themselves "presidential" and a dictator is a dictator no matter what political colour, Blair, Thatcher they are all the same(as are many politicians who use their role for their own ends or gain).

I'd also remove the church as well-in it's physical state, give the lands back to the people as common lands, return the huge wealth of the secular wing in this country to the poor from which it was stolen or extorted by fear. I would also make sure that those who devote their lives to their parish got a decent wage whilst the bishops etc, could walk barefoot and naked for all I care. Since the church and the monarchy have conspired over time to enslave and control the poor and weaker, I'd let those with genuine faith,though I do not but respect their position, have a decent life.

I'd have a Jimmi Hendrix head on the coins, or Ewan McColl- Hendrix for his being not british, black and against the establishment-and a heavy metal guitar player to boot. McColl for his sensitivety and documenting the suffering of his fellow man or Tony Benn, Gerald Nabaro (A most eloquent speaker in his time)Ken Livingstone or Lenny Henry-to prove the whole thing and idea is a joke! I'd actually prefer the Euro!

Still as one so lacking in intelegence, my words will carry no weight ( I do however know the difference between your and you're!)So for the time being, I'll leave it there.

A president, you vote for and can vote out. A monarchy believe it is their divine right to rule. It is by an accident of genetics and luck that we are who we are and are born where we are.

I've said it before-it is the worth of the person that counts, not what the person is worth.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,Charles two
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 04:50 PM

EAR!EAR1

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: English Jon
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 12:46 PM

By not voting for them. Not that we get to vote for the queen anyway.

How about Spike Milligan's head on all british coins, talking of Goons? He's popular with the present lot of royalty at any rate, and with the great unwashed, to boot.

My evil ex-girlfriend's brother (who was a college friend of that bloke who does "Ali G") did a TV show in which he pretended to be "The Earl of Newmarket" and spent a week or two duping Americans to comic effect. OK, he's a twat, but it did show that if you tell enough people you're royalty with a straight face, they believe you. He even conferred a "knighthood" on a college professor in Philadelphia, and no one thought to question it. Maybe this shows that a title actually has no value whatsoever?

Oh dear. Just got myself struck off the birthday honours list there, didn't I?

EJ

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 12:24 PM

Would you really want someone like Blair to be the constitutional head of state? Or some prat like Byers. Or a Goon like Hoon? How would you prevent it?

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:55 AM

I would be happy to see Vanessa Mae on the coins, I reckon she is a lot better looking than the queen.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:12 AM

Nice Humourous response EJ but you forgot to mention whose face would be the replacement on the coins.! Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: English Jon
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:01 AM

Well, the monarchy is constitutional only, yes? So, the queen hasn't any real political clout, merely signing things for the Commons/Lords So she's a paid administrator, effectively?

So, why not advertise for a new secretary? I bet there are temp agencies out there who could get us someone with better typing skills for a tenth of the salary...

What do the other royals do? Can't think of too much in the way of kingly business that falls outside the realms of what anyone else could do? Again, off to Alfred Marks...

Buckingham palace... Very expensive office building... There are some great industrial units free in Tottenham - much cheaper. We'll use the palace as a new hospital, and staff it and equip it with some of the money saved (see above).

EJ

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 10:28 PM

dharmagirl. If humour were a deciding factor, then I would choose the Wombles of Wimbledon. I assume you mean Wallace and Gromit? I'm not familiar with Wallice and Grommitt? I would liken myself to Preston.. who lives in the basement of Wendolene's wool shop; and is something of a sheep shagger and truck driver....lol

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,dharmagirl
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 10:15 PM

Wallice & Grommitt are funnier than the Windsors. I vote for them!!!!!! hg

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:58 PM

Cllr. You,sir, are most welcome. as for the opinions of others (respected though they are) it is fairly obvious that possesion of knowledge and facts will never change their emotionally confused minds.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 08:21 PM

I agree with what Eric The Viking said.( Every word of it)

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

Well there you go. Thank you guest.Cllr

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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:00 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 07:09 PM

That was funny! :-)

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 - 07:00 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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?

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:23 AM

Off with their heads!!!!!

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

I bet Murray votes Tory, one of the few remaining Scot Unionists, Scottish freedom and soon.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 02:38 AM

Well it's 7.30 AM here in the UK, I am just about to go to bed, while the rest of the UK will be waking up.I am sure Liz the Squeek and the rest of the UK crowd will be along any minute now.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 02:26 AM

That's pretty much my take on it Kat, I regard the Royal Family in the same light as the Tower of London and Edinburgh Castle. They require maintenance but they have been around a long time and they do have an attraction for visiting tourists.

Once the heavy guns in the UK wake up, however, I expect to be shot down ................

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 01:49 AM

I've always had a soft spot for them and I agree with Murray. They are an institution and expected. Not living there, I suppose I shouldn't say, but just the fact that a royal line of succession, etc. still exists brings some sort of comfort in a world of crazy times.

katpartanglophile

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:28 AM

Prince Edward is still married, though I don't know about happily.Apparantly they spend most of their time living seperately.His film/theatre company was recently caught secretly filming his nephew in school.Chareles & Camilla are still together as far as I know.I suppose the queen mother is not too bad, I hear she likes a drink and a bet.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Blackcatter
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:18 AM

Hey Rick - I was named after Thomas Beckett (my first name is Thomas) so try to live up to that!

I do like the Queen Mum - She's really doing well since they replaced her with a Sid & Marty Krofft puppet.

Actually - if you will, give us a heads up on what's been happening in the royal family. Is the Prince who everyone thought was gay still happily married? Is Charles and "the other woman" still playing with horses and the such? Has Prince Phillip begun to adjust to the fact that he isn't the king? Has anyone recently be caught naked?

pax yall

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:10 AM

Murray you want me to be 1. Fully Awake, 2.Sober & 3.Mentally Alert! I will let you know if & when I am all these 3 things at the same time! Point taken though. Cheers.john

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:07 AM

John, we kinda like the Queen Mum. When heather feels like a glass of wine to help her watch "Weakest Link", she just screams "Richarrrrrd, bring me my gin"! Thinks that's the way the Queen Mother does it!

Perhaps they should go on the stage....

.....and there's one leaving in an hour....

be under it.

Rick (who thought he was named after Richard the Lionheart, until he found out what that bugger REALLY was like)

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Blackcatter
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:06 AM

Maybe the UK should wind up treating them they way they treat all the other really wealthy people. Oh wait, not much difference...

Frankly, since Diana's death, most people in the U.S. have probably stopped paying much attention to the Family. They really aren't all that interesting. Now the Norweigian Royal Family (especially Princess Martha Louise!)...

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:03 AM

John, when you are fully awake, sober, and mentally alert, there is one question you need to ask yourself. "If the Royal Family were abolished, would it be of any material benefit to me." You will eventually come to the conclusion that the answer to the question is "No" .

So, let sleeping dogs lie. The existence of the Royal Family benefits the UK to a much greater degree than the absence thereof would.

Your friend

Murray

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 13 Nov 01 - 11:57 PM

I think when Diana died, people went way over the top.People were crying and wailing in the streets, most of the daft buggers had never even met her!

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Nov 01 - 11:52 PM

Geeziz John.....They're an entire INDUSTRY over here as well. Half the tabloids would fold up in a heartbeat!!!

But I know what you mean. I personally don't give a rat's ass.

Spaw

Subject: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 13 Nov 01 - 11:44 PM

Should the UK get rid of the royal family? I don't mean kill them, just make them get a job in a factory or something.The people that think we should keep them say it is because of tourism, so here is a qyuestion for American people, If UK got rid of the royal family would you still visit England? I think tjey are a big waste of money.john