The Royals

sunbeam · 25-04-2015 05:01PM

crockholm wrote: »

I keep an Eye on what the Scandanavian Royal families get up to,particularly the Swedish ones (who are actually descended from a Napoleonic French general,Bernadotte)
The king seems like a humble enough fellah,constant rumours of a penchant for strippers and has palled around with notorious Serbian mafia figures in the past.
The Queen is a German who is botoxed up to fuuck-and had nazi supporting parents iirc.
Their 3 kids are married to, a personal trainer,a model,some wall street dude called O'Neill.

They're all right.

They also have Princess Estelle the world's hardest working royal toddler who has been accompanying her mother Victoria on official engagements since she was a baby. Prince George would really need to get a move on, seeing that he is nearly two.

The son/model royal wedding is actually on this June.

pablomakaveli · 25-04-2015 05:02PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

I really do not have any respect for them at all. I don't think they have earned it.

I don't get the fuss about them. I hate the way Harry is portrayed as the likeable cheeky chappy (I reckon if you had a 5 min chat with him, you'd find he's probably an entitled little brat). The whole media circus with Kate and "wills" the love story kind of makes me feel sick also. It just seems like branding. And it was very sad how Diana died but the ridiculousness of how people went on when she died was crazy. I remember my religion teacher spent a whole class talking about how great she was and at the time mother Theresa had died but she didn't even mention her. This was in Ireland and an irish teacher.

I don't get what a monarchy bring to a country. People should not have to pay a tax to go to some family that are already loaded and have been given enough from the country. I think it's backwards.

I know people who have met Harry within the army and by all accounts he's a nice bloke. William has worked within the RAF doing search and rescue so is at least giving something back in that regard. I dont think they're bad people really.

Although i don't think a monarchy should exist in this day and age it's ultimately up to the British people to decide to have one and they seem quite happy to do so for the foreseeable.

Saralee4 · 25-04-2015 05:15PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I know people who have met Harry within the army and by all accounts he's a nice bloke. William has worked within the RAF doing search and rescue so is at least giving something back in that regard. I dont think they're bad people really.

Although i don't think a monarchy should exist in this day and age it's ultimately up to the British people to decide to have one and they seem quite happy to do so for the foreseeable.

He could be a nice guy who knows but i dont know i just cant shake the idea that he is probably not the funny little chap portrayed in the media. Im pretty sure he has been brought up amongst a load of yes men. I don't believe that they would be treated the same as other people working in the army. I don't think they would have to do a lot of the menial tasks and i don't think they would ever be put in any real danger.

i might be wrong but i imagine they are given an authoritive or higher ranking position in the army without going through the same steps as everyone else.

Tarzana2 · 25-04-2015 05:53PM

folamh wrote: »

You watch that Hitchens documentary too?

No, read other stuff about her.

Fratton Fred · 25-04-2015 06:00PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

He could be a nice guy who knows but i dont know i just cant shake the idea that he is probably not the funny little chap portrayed in the media..

That's called prejudice, or reverse snobbery.

Saralee4 · 25-04-2015 06:14PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's called prejudice, or reverse snobbery.

Do you mean I am predudiced for questioning a bias media of a guy who has naked drug orgys in Las Vegas, shoots a protected bird dead unpunished and goes to a fancy dress as a nazi whilst apparently representing his country and taking a tax payment from the country which he does not need?

Wonder where I got the idea that he might be a self entitled twat, must be some mental reverse snobbery on my behalf.

Dozen Wicked Words · 25-04-2015 06:19PM

Time for them to go, and take back the huge swathes of the UK that they own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlu-n3RO8q4

Summer wind · 25-04-2015 06:26PM

What I can't understand is the absolute adoration they all get from the public. Can you imagine standing outside a church in the freezing cold on Christmas Day just to see that bunch of twits go in and come back out. They walk past talking and laughing and take no notice. Do these observers have no homes or families of their own. Can you imagine being a "subject" of these people who are where they are because of an accident of birth. I think it's ridiculous.

folamh · 25-04-2015 06:27PM

Summer wind wrote: »

What I can't understand is the absolute adoration they all get from the public. Can you imagine standing outside a church in the freezing cold on Christmas Day just to see that bunch of twits go in and come back out. They walk past talking and laughing and take no notice. Do these observers have no homes or families of their own. Can you imagine being a "subject" of these people who are where they are because of an accident of birth. I think it's ridiculous.

You could say the same thing about many a mediocre celebrity with their legions of obsessive fans.

Summer wind · 25-04-2015 06:37PM

At least the celebs have done something interesting to warrant attention and I bet they wouldn't expect someone to put their toothpaste on their toothbrush for them as prince Charles does. A grown man is he not ashamed of himself.

Fratton Fred · 25-04-2015 06:51PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

Do you mean I am predudiced for questioning a bias media of a guy who has naked drug orgys in Las Vegas, shoots a protected bird dead unpunished and goes to a fancy dress as a nazi whilst apparently representing his country and taking a tax payment from the country which he does not need?

Wonder where I got the idea that he might be a self entitled twat, must be some mental reverse snobbery on my behalf.

Prejudice because you have pre judged him.

You admit you have nothing to based your assessment on other than your own bias.

Fratton Fred · 25-04-2015 06:52PM

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Time for them to go, and take back the huge swathes of the UK that they own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlu-n3RO8q4

Such as?

Saralee4 · 25-04-2015 07:00PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Prejudice because you have pre judged him.

You admit you have nothing to based your assessment on other than your own bias.

Nope.... just listed some of the reasons in the post you quoted me on!

Dozen Wicked Words · 25-04-2015 07:22PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Such as?

Since the Crown estate is owned by the queen that would be a start. Regardless of the fact she has no power of management or control. Why should her name be on the deeds. Similarly duchy of Cornwall pays some of what tax it wants, can't think of too many other land owners in the UK who'd be allowed to decide how much they think they should pay. Balmoral must be worth a few bob. Lots of titled people we could do a Zimbabwean style land grab from too! (Step too far?)

Interesting blog about the cost of the Royal family (though not specifically about land ownership and certainly doesn't give my point a 100% endorsement but is genuinely interesting) here:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-does-the-monarchy-pay-for-itself/10711

But I don't care if they make money or not, I'd like to see a Republic in England. Fairly sure you wouldn't Fred, and that's OK.

murpho999 · 25-04-2015 07:43PM

folamh wrote: »

"The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace"

"What's more, a British firm called Brand Finance, which evaluates "intangible assets," said the royal wedding alone boosted London's economy by 107 million pounds ($165 million) through "accommodation, travel, and nightlife," even while factoring in the economic drag of time off work."

"Judging solely from those statistics (which obviously vary in their methodology), it does seem like the monarchy pays for itself, at least in the years that feature familial mega-events."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

Not technically proof, but ought we discount strong evidence?

Do republics not have visitors too?

If the monarchy was gone the likes of Windsor Castle, Tower of London would still be there so there is no issue.

Either way the idea of a monarchy in this day and age is ridiculous. Bowing and curtseying, dukes and duchesses,knights etc....whole system is ridiculous.
Lived in the Netherlands for a while and they are as bad over there with stupid things about Weddings and births etc but people just seem brain washed into it.
I'm very happy that Ireland is a republic.

25-04-2015 07:47PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Give me Princess Diana over that witch Mother Theresa any day, though I agree that the fuss was ridiculous.

Both of them highly savvy media manipulators. Both self-styled saints.

c_man · 25-04-2015 07:49PM

Maybe the could placate both sides by making the system fairer, and better in dealing with class mobility. Basically an allocated number of the wider Royals will be forced to marry council estate living spouses every year. Failure to do so will result in another Royal family being invited from elsewhere in the world to take over from the Windsors. Wealth re-distribution on an ongoing basis.

Fratton Fred · 25-04-2015 08:24PM

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Since the Crown estate is owned by the queen that would be a start. Regardless of the fact she has no power of management or control. Why should her name be on the deeds. Similarly duchy of Cornwall pays some of what tax it wants, can't think of too many other land owners in the UK who'd be allowed to decide how much they think they should pay. Balmoral must be worth a few bob. Lots of titled people we could do a Zimbabwean style land grab from too! (Step too far?)

Interesting blog about the cost of the Royal family (though not specifically about land ownership and certainly doesn't give my point a 100% endorsement but is genuinely interesting) here:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-does-the-monarchy-pay-for-itself/10711

But I don't care if they make money or not, I'd like to see a Republic in England. Fairly sure you wouldn't Fred, and that's OK.

The crown estate isn't owned by the queen. The monarchy relinquished it centuries ago.

I'm not fussed about the UK being a republic, I just don't see the point in changing a system that works.

A lot of the cost of the monarchy is the cost of maintaining the property, which would still require maintaining in a republic, you would also then have to add in the cost of a president etc. and their state duties, protection, visits and other stuff.

As a percentage of the UK economy, the cost of the monarchy is minimal. There's things I'd change, but generally I don't see the point of changing for the sake of changing.

The monarchy also serves as a focul point for national pride. But I wouldn't expect a non Brit to understand it, anymore than a non Irish person can understand the national pride Ireland gets from St Patrick's day.

I don't get the fawning bit though, but then I don't get the fascination with the Kardashians either, some people just like that stuff I guess.

Fratton Fred · 25-04-2015 08:27PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

Nope.... just listed some of the reasons in the post you quoted me on!

A young soldier going off to war has naked orgies in Vegas?

What is the world coming to?

Saralee4 · 25-04-2015 08:56PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A young soldier going off to war has naked orgies in Vegas?

What is the world coming to?

Painting him out to be the poor young lad who is having a laugh before the war. Sure he might die over there right? He should have some self indulgence before he goes! Come on.

He has been given a very privileged life and with that comes responsibilities. He is a representative for the country and that is something that he has to be considerate about. I don't believe the average soldier has a holiday and sex and drug fuelled orgy in las vegas before going to war. These are the men who might not come back - id rather the tax payer pay for a holiday for them.

Dozen Wicked Words · 25-04-2015 09:09PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The monarchy also serves as a focul point for national pride. But I wouldn't expect a non Brit to understand it, anymore than a non Irish person can understand the national pride Ireland gets from St Patrick's day.

I'm English Fred (don't agree with idea of Britain but that's for another thread), cheer on most of the country's sports teams (not the Rugby Union team out of bitterness!), proud to come from England and proud of the diverse country its become but I don't need the monarchy for that.

Different strokes for different folks though Fred and since 75% of population in UK consider themselves monarchists in last survey I read, don't think I'm getting my way anytime soon. Atb

Zebra3 · 25-04-2015 09:21PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The crown estate isn't owned by the queen. The monarchy relinquished it centuries ago.

I'm not fussed about the UK being a republic, I just don't see the point in changing a system that works.

A lot of the cost of the monarchy is the cost of maintaining the property, which would still require maintaining in a republic, you would also then have to add in the cost of a president etc. and their state duties, protection, visits and other stuff.

As a percentage of the UK economy, the cost of the monarchy is minimal. There's things I'd change, but generally I don't see the point of changing for the sake of changing.

The monarchy also serves as a focul point for national pride. But I wouldn't expect a non Brit to understand it, anymore than a non Irish person can understand the national pride Ireland gets from St Patrick's day.

I don't get the fawning bit though, but then I don't get the fascination with the Kardashians either, some people just like that stuff I guess.

The whole idea of a monarchy is that it creates an unquestionable elite group of people.

Not that all republics are preferable but at least its ideals of equality amongst its citizens are far better. It's a sad indictment on so many people so many western countries that they find it acceptable that their head of state should be born into the position than have to earn it.

Dark Ages stuff. Anyway if that's what the Brits, Spanish, Scandos, Dutch and Belgians want, that's ultimately their problem.

murpho999 · 25-04-2015 09:40PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The crown estate isn't owned by the queen. The monarchy relinquished it centuries ago.

I'm not fussed about the UK being a republic, I just don't see the point in changing a system that works.

A lot of the cost of the monarchy is the cost of maintaining the property, which would still require maintaining in a republic, you would also then have to add in the cost of a president etc. and their state duties, protection, visits and other stuff.

As a percentage of the UK economy, the cost of the monarchy is minimal. There's things I'd change, but generally I don't see the point of changing for the sake of changing.

The monarchy also serves as a focul point for national pride. But I wouldn't expect a non Brit to understand it, anymore than a non Irish person can understand the national pride Ireland gets from St Patrick's day.

I don't get the fawning bit though, but then I don't get the fascination with the Kardashians either, some people just like that stuff I guess.

Leaving a system alone just because it works is hardly advisable when you consider that Apartheid, Nazism, Communism and despotic dictatorships have also worked.

Regarding national pride , St Patrick's Day is about the country and Irishness whereas homage to royal families is very different in my opinion.

I liken the Brits love for monarchies to that of Irish people's Catholicism. Something that was culturally followed by families without really being questioned of thought about.

Junkyard Tom · 25-04-2015 09:56PM

murpho999 wrote: »

I liken the Brits love for monarchies to that of Irish people's Catholicism. Something that was culturally followed by families without really being questioned of thought about.

Ah it's a bit different in fairness. The Catholic church had far too much power over the Irish citizenry up to less than a generation ago. The GB royal family have had no such power for, what, centuries?

If the Brits enjoy it then let them be I reckon. The street parties look like they'd be a bit of a laugh too (the ones in England not the ones up north).

murpho999 · 25-04-2015 10:00PM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Ah it's a bit different in fairness. The Catholic church had far too much power over the Irish citizenry up to less than a generation ago. The GB royal family have had no such power for, what, centuries?

If the Brits enjoy it then let them be I reckon. The street parties look like they'd be a bit of a laugh too (the ones in England not the ones up north).

I'm talking about now not the past. Irish people remain 'catholic' just because it's the culture here and don't really question it.

Friends of mine, not religious at all, but sending kids to Catholic schools to keep grandparents happy and kid making Comminion this year because it has to be done.

Fratton Fred · 25-04-2015 10:22PM

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I'm English Fred (don't agree with idea of Britain but that's for another thread), cheer on most of the country's sports teams (not the Rugby Union team out of bitterness!), proud to come from England and proud of the diverse country its become but I don't need the monarchy for that.

Different strokes for different folks though Fred and since 75% of population in UK consider themselves monarchists in last survey I read, don't think I'm getting my way anytime soon. Atb

I wouldn't consider myself a monarchist, just not that interested in going through the hassle of change when, imho, it isn't needed.

I couldn't give a toss about royal weddings and guessing the sex of the new addition to the Windsor clan, but I do think that they generally do a decent job.

But then, I think Britain is a good concept and I like Rugby ;-)

Fratton Fred · 25-04-2015 10:24PM

murpho999 wrote: »

Leaving a system alone just because it works is hardly advisable when you consider that Apartheid, Nazism, Communism and despotic dictatorships have also worked.

Regarding national pride , St Patrick's Day is about the country and Irishness whereas homage to royal families is very different in my opinion.

I liken the Brits love for monarchies to that of Irish people's Catholicism. Something that was culturally followed by families without really being questioned of thought about.

Apartheid, communism and Nazism didn't work though. All those regimes disappeared because the majority of people opposed it. It is a rediculous comparison.

Fratton Fred · 25-04-2015 10:30PM

murpho999 wrote: »

I'm talking about now not the past. Irish people remain 'catholic' just because it's the culture here and don't really question it.

Friends of mine, not religious at all, but sending kids to Catholic schools to keep grandparents happy and kid making Comminion this year because it has to be done.

And what's wrong with that?

Saralee4 · 25-04-2015 10:36PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And what's wrong with that?

What is wrong with that, is that people are keeping a system, belief, company whatever you want to call it going without really knowing what it's about or believing it. You shouldn't support what you don't believe.

You compared the royals to the kardasians earlier. Would you be happy if the kardasians came to England and were paid to take over the monarchy? If it worked I mean and there was no unnecessary upheaval. Would you be happy that they were now associated with your country and a representation of the people of your country?

what really do the monarchy say about the people of England in your opinion?

Fratton Fred · 25-04-2015 10:46PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

What is wrong with that, is that people are keeping a system, belief, company whatever you want to call it going without really knowing what it's about or believing it. You shouldn't support what you don't believe.

You compared the royals to the kardasians earlier. Would you be happy if the kardasians came to England and were paid to take over the monarchy? If it worked I mean and there was no unnecessary upheaval. Would you be happy that they were now associated with your country and a representation of the people of your country?

what really do the monarchy say about the people of England in your opinion?

You're being daft now.

Are you suggesting a Khmer Rouge style wiping clean of the past and starting at day one?

The Royals

Comments