question for the uk guys

[headheldhigh01]

so harry went off to a party wearing a swastika armband and charles is now going to marry camilla (and become head of the c of e too).  plus everything else that's been selling tabloids for years.  

i wouldn't want this to get hot-collared, sometimes people get strong opinions about it, but do you like having a royal family, or would you rather just get rid of the royals entirely?  do they serve a practical purpose, or are they just expensive distraction and entertainment?  

[jc71]

I'm sure depression is spreading rapidly amongst the women of the world as they learn People Magazines 947th sexiest man alive will soon be off the market.  

[headheldhigh01]

no takers?  my curiosity pesters me still.  bump.  

[RRB]

I would get rid of them in a second.  They are nothing but low life scroungers that think they are a cut above everyone, yet they never worked a day in their lives.  They live of the state and do nothing in return, i for one hate them with a passion.

[Gine2D]

" They live off the state and do nothing in return"

Here in the States we call it Generational Welfare.  

Some families have been on welfare for several generations & none have ever actually worked for a LIVING

G

[brother_gyne]

what would you have us do with them? They won't just go away and we promised to stop killing them 400 years ago.  Charles wants to be King because his income depends on it, the kids have got their own stash so I think in twenty years they may not want the job. Blimey what will we do then!

[RRB]

Id be generous and give them all 1 million, strip them of any titles and tell them once they spend their money go get a job. They keep getting taxpayers money every year and they dont effing need it. The government talks about cutting public spending and stuff yet those inbred scroungers keep getting money given to them every year, which they wont even spend.  In reality i would really like to kill them all but i know thats not politically correct

[Ste]

I feel there is a place for an unelected presence in a position of power. I can assure you that most of the monarchies throughout Europe take their duties very seriously. Our Queen works tirelessly for the good of the UK and the Commonwealth helping to secure our little island as still a major force in the world. She is a shrewd diplomat and IMHO she's an asset to my country.

Also our monarchy are a potent figurehead during times of crisis and members of the royal family have fought in most of our "real" wars. Not this bullshiit war on terror. Including a King defying Churchill to walk the beaches at Normandy. During the Falklands a Prince was present to live or die with the effort as anyone else on the ships. That is one of their duties.

Charles though, I don't know. He's disliked, but has fulfilled his remit quite well with regards to his charity work and has spoken out, when he's felt he's right, even against public opinion (a freedom that's rarely available to our elected leaders). For example over the environment (Bush would be getting pure stick off Charlie), grotesque new buildings, destruction of historical (now listed) buildings, GM crops and African debt, press intrusion and recently "one size fits all" education in our schools.

However he failed his future Queen (who tragically perished outside the Royal machinery) and broke his marriage vows and I feel he will never be forgiven for that. However, his eldest is a credit, and I feel, a worthy Prince and will hopefully make a good king.

It's not worth throwing this away over one man and his love affair with a moose.

With regards to the cost of keeping the royal family - I think tax and revenue created by the tourist value alone covers their wages. Not anywhere near as many rich americans would come here without them and their history.  

Also

The ROYAL Marines
The ROYAL Navy
The ROYAL Air Force
The ROYAL Fusiliers
The Gurkhas
etc etc.. the pride and tradition make our armed forces some of the most feared (outside America) in the world.

We should be proud of this aspect of our country, and it should be respescted by foreigners, as we should respect republics.

Ste

[RRB]

Ste

Im sorry but i totally disagree with you, although you are entitled to your opinion.  One thing though, yes i suppose the royal family bring in tourists.  THese tourists are going to london, all the revenue is generated in london, so why should I, in Scotland pay tax too keep them when they absolutely nothing for me.

Do you think its the fact that its the "Royal" Army, airforce, that makes them good ?  I worked in a dockyard for years and have met a lot of Royal Navy personel and none of them give a shit about the Royal family, its just a job to them.

Another thing, the Royal family isnt even actually british anyway.  As for fighting in wars, back in world war 2 some of the royal family was actually hiding out in Germany.

[brother_gyne]

Ste - were you standing to attention when you wrote that?  Charity, dipomacy and tourism are  facades.

This family believe that they are superior beings - in the same way Nazis do. Its not because of tradition that they like to be called Majesty, Royalty and Highness (real give away that one). Horse breeders spend big bucks for the right bloodline, the best horses come from the best families- know any big horse fans-- like wearing big diamonds- got a good London postcode-kill a lot birds?

How they might be our  best examples of the UK bloodline is beyond me,  unless your aim is to develop a race of  midget teeth monsters.  

[UKgyne]

Ste

Im sorry but i totally disagree with you, although you are entitled to your opinion.  One thing though, yes i suppose the royal family bring in tourists.  THese tourists are going to london, all the revenue is generated in london, so why should I, in Scotland pay tax too keep them when they absolutely nothing for me.

RRB - do a bit of research and find out how much UK taxpayers subsidise our Scottish brethren.  People in the regions always moan about central govt spending but the fact is that they are huge per capita net beneficiaries - at the expense of the English.  And that includes North Sea oil revenues.

Re the Royal Family - I am a republican (NOT in the USA's sense of the word, but in the rest of the world's), but I do feel sorry for them.  They were born into that life; I certainly wouldn't want to swap with them.  And the Queen has never put a foot wrong - no one could argue that she isn't dedicated to public service.  Yes yes they have all the money they could ever need but they can't exactly go out and take drugs with hookers?  So what's the point?  And the tourists do love them.  So I don't really know what I would do with them if it were up to me.  You think Harry and Charles are bad though hhh - you should google the things that Prince Phillip has said over the years!  Brilliant!  The man's a foot-in-mouth legend!

Mike

[Argo]

This hearks back to Reply #5.  I laughed outloud about promising not to kill them anymore, but did you really?  Was there a law or something passed after inviting Charles II back to England and restoring the monarchy?  And I thought I knew (for an American) English history.

[brother_gyne]

I was thinking of the Restoration but your right there were no laws passed- it was the start of this funny relationship we have now. We do not have a written constitution - we are all subjects of HM as such we exist at her pleasure not vise-versa. Also its means they get to change things - Charles's Uncle had to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorcee. Now he wants to do the same and the Lord Chancellor tells us its all OK because he's the Lord Chancellor and he has read a big book about the law and he  wears the biggest wig and he is boss of all the judges and everything.

In America you have the right to bear arms ( I love your constitution), just so that you can all get together  and shoot anyone who gets too  bossy, which is a great idea. Argo where did you learn about 17C english history? I have never belived that Americans are insular.

[Argo]

Brother_Gyne -

    Where did I get my knowledge of 17th century English history?  Well, I read a lot.  And as far as Edward's abdication goes, I don't think there's a doubt in anyone's mind (no matter which side of the Atlantic they live on) that Wallis Simpson was a gold-digger par excellance.  I certainly wouldn't fault the English for not wanting her to be their Queen.  Most likely she led Edward around by his most protruberant appendage anyway.  We didn't really want her over here either.

    RE the right to bear arms:  Sounds good, doesn't it?  But it causes us a lot of problems too.  There are a few incidents in the not too distant past where gun control was really needed and it wasnt there.  Result: many dead bodies, a lot of spilled blood, and lots of broken lives.  Besides, most of our right to bear arms came about because we wanted to bear them against your George III's soldiers and Hessian mercenaries.   I'm sure there're a lot of people in Boston who will probably have apoplectic fits when I say that the irony of a Britisher lauding our right to bear arms is not lost on this southern boy.

                     Cheers,
                          Argo

[headheldhigh01]

great discussion to come back and read.  i think if i were a brit i'd probably feel like mike does and want a republic, i doubt the idea of subject at whim would much appeal to me.  i guess i missed phillip's bloopers, but i've heard people say he's not a very nice guy.  and the lord chancellor, like many things, does seem to live in a fuzzy world in which powers are not terribly well legally spelled (sorry, spelt) out.  

strangely, i've changed some on the subject of gun control.  i used to be a lot more for it, and i still believe in registration and all, but since reading about exaggeration of domestic violence/accident numbers (and yes there's that piece about doctor deaths vs gun deaths too) i've come to believe public arms do rather more good than harm, and the terror-exploiting state makes me think the more it's best for the public not to be defenseless sheep.  plus the fact some psychopath who'd have no qualms about shooting witnesses in a bank lobby would think twice if he knew others might catch him from behind, whereas police rarely respond speedily and are actually under no binding duty to do so or secure you.  

but i digress, the republic versus monarchy subject is very interesting.