Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What is KMC's opinion towards the Royal Family?

To me the Royal Family is an embodyment of being British, however many others feel differently. What is your opinion?

they are lizards

Why does that matter?

Originally posted by Deano
they are lizards
I predicted this.

I actually thought Deano would ignore this thread.

I think they're a wonderful institution.

I think they're pointless.

then i must kill you

Bring it on, shame on me for having opinions.

Hoo-rah!

However the Golden Days of the Monarchy are numbered when Her Maj goes it will see the end of the "Old Guard" And we will have a new brand of Royalty.

God save the Queen!

Absolutely superfluous.

Originally posted by Syren
Bring it on, shame on me for having opinions.

women shud be seen and not heard.

Originally posted by Syren
I think they're pointless.


Tell that to all the people who have benefited from their assorted charities, the various Estates and the Prince's Trust.

Don't worry though many people feel the same way.

nono Deano, you little tyke.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Tell that to all the people who have benefited from their assorted charities, the various Estates and the Prince's Trust.

The people themselves, pointless. The Queen represents something, but what does she do?

She's provides a pretty good revenue for the UK, with all the visitors that come here to see a real monarch.

Originally posted by Syren
The people themselves, pointless. The Queen represents something, but what does she do?


Runs the country to an extent, do not undermine the power of the Monarchy just because you take The House of Commons for granted.

When Britain wins a battle she shouts, "God save the Queen"; when she loses, she votes down the prime minister

Originally posted by Syren
nono Deano, you little tyke.

love you too

The Commonwealth is probably the most diverse group in the world when it comes to Faiths, Races, Traditions and Cultures. It should do so much more in the socio-economic field of its poorest members.

Originally posted by Deano
When Britain wins a battle she shouts, "God save the Queen"; when she loses, she votes down the prime minister

Are you mocking The Queen, Deano?

Originally posted by mechmoggy
God save the Queen!
...The fascist regime!
I had to that.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Are you mocking The Queen, Deano?

i mock all lizards

QUOTE from Christine Fitzgerald - Princess Diana's personal confidant - who then threatened to sue if the transcript of the tape - a tape made in front of witnesses - appeared published in David Icke's Book 'The Biggest Secret'

"The Queen Mother... now that's a serious piece of wizardry. The Queen Mother is a lot older than people think To be honest, the Royal Family hasn't died for a long time, they have just metamorphosised. It's sort of cloning, but in a different way. They take pieces of flesh and rebuild the body from one little bit. Because it's Lizard, because it's cold blooded, it's much easier for them to do Frankenstein shit than it is for us. The different bodies are just different electrical vibrations and they have got that secret, they've got the secret of the microcurrents, it's so micro, so specific, these radio waves that actually create the bodies. These are the energies I work with when I'm healing.

They know the vibration of life and because they are cold-blooded, they are reptiles, they have no wish to make the Earth the perfect harmony it could be, or to heal the Earth from the damage that's been done. The Earth's been attacked for zeons by different extraterrestrials. It's been like a football for so long. This place was a bus stop for many dfferent aliens. All these aliens, they could Cope with everythng, including the noxious gases. They're landing all the time and coming up from the bowels of the Earth.

They looked like reptiles orignally, but they look like us when they get out now through the electrical vibration, that life key I talked about. Tbey can manifest how they want to. All the real knowledge has been taken out and shredded and put back in another way. The Queen Mother is "Chief Toad" of this part of Europe and they have people like her in each continent. Most people, the hangers on, don't know, you know, about the reptles. They are just in awe of these people because they are so powerful-

"Balmoral is a 'very, very nasty place. That's somewhere they want to dig underground. They will find reptile fossils, it goes back that far. Don't think of people like the Queen Mother and Queen Victoria, as different people' Think of them as the same person which after a while has had to replace their coat. when the flesh dies, that energy. while it's dying, will be immediately up someone else's jacksy (backside) It's very vampire, worse than vampire.

They are not going to come to you with hooked teeth and suck you're blood. Fear is their food, they can actually take fear and manifest it into a tangible thing. The key is the vibrational current. At that vibrational current, they can manifest anything from anything. its like a holographic image. We are all mineral and water vibrating. This is all an illusion we are living in. Ihat's the secret. You know when the monarchy's fallen, it's not the end of it- They will manifest in another form. The reptiles have never been defeated and this is the closest they have come to it. The reason they are so threatened today is because the Earth is in such trouble and the mental power of people is returning.

This is their most frightening time, but this is not going to kill them. There are long centuries before it's over yet. The difference this time is that it'll be more difficult for them and they are going to have to settle for less and the Earth people are going to get more. But even though these reptilian ones are ****ers, they are sad, pathetic beasts really, white humanity is galloping towards light.

So the queen has been here for such along time that she might actually like Humans as friends.

Originally posted by Deano
When Britain wins a battle she shouts, "God save the Queen"; when she loses, she votes down the prime minister

Simple, yet precise.

Sounds like treason! hang

You need your ears tested

Originally posted by Syren
You need your ears tested

I agree with Syren.


Originally posted by mechmoggy
She's provides a pretty good revenue for the UK, with all the visitors that come here to see a real monarch.

Hahaha. That always makes me laugh. Who comes here to see the queen? Idiots? I've lived in England my whole life, and I haven't seen her.

How exactly are they going to see the woman? She doesn't have tourists in for tea.

The whole revenue argument is flawed. Look how busy the Tower of London is. Why? You get the chance to actually go inside a historical building. There are no royals present.

Same would apply to Buckingham Palace. If it were empty, and fully open to tourists, it would generate even more tourism.

Exactly. Brits are so outstandingly hypocritical.

Americans appreciate our heritage more than people that live here for the most part. This leads to idiotic patriots saying "Yeah damn right." What? They know more than you do about the country you live in, moron. I've never met an American who came here to see anyone royal. Nor would I want to.

Patriotism is bad enough as it is, but now there's talk of there being a day to celebrate "Britishness". News for ya: If you only celebrate Britain when you're told and can only make an effort one day a year, yet STILL celebrate the "wrong" things, then you're not a patriot anyway.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I agree with Syren.




Hahaha. That always makes me laugh. Who comes here to see the queen? Idiots? I've lived in England my whole life, and I haven't seen her.

How exactly are they going to see the woman? She doesn't have tourists in for tea.

The whole revenue argument is flawed. Look how busy the Tower of London is. Why? You get the chance to actually go inside a historical building. There are no royals present.

Same would apply to Buckingham Palace. If it were empty, and fully open to tourists, it would generate even more tourism.

Im finding that post amusing cause its so true. You get a better chance to see QE on foreign soil rather than in her home.

Originally posted by Deano
QUOTE from Christine Fitzgerald - Princess Diana's personal confidant - who then threatened to sue if the transcript of the tape - a tape made in front of witnesses - appeared published in David Icke's Book 'The Biggest Secret'

"The Queen Mother... now that's a serious piece of wizardry. The Queen Mother is a lot older than people think To be honest, the Royal Family hasn't died for a long time, they have just metamorphosised. It's sort of cloning, but in a different way. They take pieces of flesh and rebuild the body from one little bit. Because it's Lizard, because it's cold blooded, it's much easier for them to do Frankenstein shit than it is for us. The different bodies are just different electrical vibrations and they have got that secret, they've got the secret of the microcurrents, it's so micro, so specific, these radio waves that actually create the bodies. These are the energies I work with when I'm healing.

They know the vibration of life and because they are cold-blooded, they are reptiles, they have no wish to make the Earth the perfect harmony it could be, or to heal the Earth from the damage that's been done. The Earth's been attacked for zeons by different extraterrestrials. It's been like a football for so long. This place was a bus stop for many dfferent aliens. All these aliens, they could Cope with everythng, including the noxious gases. They're landing all the time and coming up from the bowels of the Earth.

They looked like reptiles orignally, but they look like us when they get out now through the electrical vibration, that life key I talked about. Tbey can manifest how they want to. All the real knowledge has been taken out and shredded and put back in another way. The Queen Mother is "Chief Toad" of this part of Europe and they have people like her in each continent. Most people, the hangers on, don't know, you know, about the reptles. They are just in awe of these people because they are so powerful-

"Balmoral is a 'very, very nasty place. That's somewhere they want to dig underground. They will find reptile fossils, it goes back that far. Don't think of people like the Queen Mother and Queen Victoria, as different people' Think of them as the same person which after a while has had to replace their coat. when the flesh dies, that energy. while it's dying, will be immediately up someone else's jacksy (backside) It's very vampire, worse than vampire.

They are not going to come to you with hooked teeth and suck you're blood. Fear is their food, they can actually take fear and manifest it into a tangible thing. The key is the vibrational current. At that vibrational current, they can manifest anything from anything. its like a holographic image. We are all mineral and water vibrating. This is all an illusion we are living in. Ihat's the secret. You know when the monarchy's fallen, it's not the end of it- They will manifest in another form. The reptiles have never been defeated and this is the closest they have come to it. The reason they are so threatened today is because the Earth is in such trouble and the mental power of people is returning.

This is their most frightening time, but this is not going to kill them. There are long centuries before it's over yet. The difference this time is that it'll be more difficult for them and they are going to have to settle for less and the Earth people are going to get more. But even though these reptilian ones are ****ers, they are sad, pathetic beasts really, white humanity is galloping towards light.

Yes deano..yes..we're not judgeing you here..we are all friends here deano..

*basks in the glory of making a valid point*

The visitors come here to see what the Queen represents. VVD is right, she doesn't personally meet every tourist at customs and shake their hand as they step onto British soil.

I'll ask again. What exactly does the Queen do?

Nothing, more or less. It's obvious, anyone can see that.

-AC

Originally posted by Syren
*basks in the glory of making a valid point*

The visitors come here to see what the Queen represents. VVD is right, she doesn't personally meet every tourist at customs and shake their hand as they step onto British soil.

I'll ask again. What exactly does the Queen do?

She looks good on coins and such.

Originally posted by Bardock42
She looks good on coins and such.

You would say that.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nothing, more or less. It's obvious, anyone can see that.

-AC

Exactly.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You would say that.

Well, I can't see much positive in her except for that....then again I am not british and don't really care. The Euro is pretty ugly though.


On another thought, what bad does she do? Do you have any disadvantages because of her existance?

She costs loads of money to preserve.

Originally posted by Syren
She costs loads of money to preserve.

Hmm, how much money exactly?

Originally posted by KidRock
Yes deano..yes..we're not judgeing you here..we are all friends here deano..

gdgd friends forever

Deano's cool!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, how much money exactly?

Is this relevant?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page433.asp

Originally posted by Syren
Is this relevant?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page433.asp
Well yeah, I'd like to know to jusge for myself.

It looks like most money goes to charitable things. Although I still see why you are upset, I can't find the Institution such a horrible thing after all. There are of course other reasons I know. Just...well..I don't know. I will leave now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well yeah, I'd like to know to jusge for myself.

It looks like most money goes to charitable things.

Exactly. MOST money, and none of the money is earned. It's tax money. People tend to say 'they give money to the treasury'. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for giving it back.

The Royal Family is a bunch of inhumanly inbred, no good, low down, useless worthless trailor park trash that's a drain on society unlike any other. Yep, they're the embodiment of everything British.

Originally posted by Uberking Robert
The Royal Family is a bunch of inhumanly inbred, no good, low down, useless worthless trailor park trash that's a drain on society unlike any other. Yep, they're the embodiment of everything British.

Although they're not British, so the joke falls a bit flat.

I may as well say it before anyone else does, as is ever the case when a poster of amoebic cranial capacity starts posting.

...Spelljammer?

it seems the queen "works" quite a bit harder than the vast majority of the royals...not bad going for a 77 year old...

Public engagements as in showing up? Hardly much.

My Grandfather is 86 and still walks around every single day. Replaced hip and all.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Public engagements as in showing up? Hardly much.

My Grandfather is 86 and still walks around every single day. Replaced hip and all.

-AC

thats unfair...she does have to do a bit of waving and, god forbid, smiling at the little people

and at least she knows when to keep her mouth shut...unlike her "this fuse box looks like its been put in by an indian" and "do you still throw spears at each other" husband

I found the first one funny, just because it's so damn stupid (no, racism isn't funny).

A) Indian is one of the least offensive "racist" terms you could use, as he might actually refer to people from India.

B) How does an Indian put a fuse box in anyway? As if there's a specific way they do it.

The man is an idiot.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I found the first one funny, just because it's so damn stupid (no, racism isn't funny).

A) Indian is one of the least offensive "racist" terms you could use, as he might actually refer to people from India.

B) How does an Indian put a fuse box in anyway? As if there's a specific way they do it.

The man is an idiot.



New to all this, aren't you.

Yeah, don't come rahnd 'ere.

-AC

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
What is KMC's opinion towards the Royal Family?

To me the Royal Family is an embodyment of being British, however many others feel differently. What is your opinion?

Meh. As an Australian with strong English/Irish family ties I'll say I'm a staunch monarchist. Now I'll agree, they don't really serve any purpose, they cost a lot of money when they visit and all that, but it doesn't matter. I like the odd bit of pomp and pageantry, the history and all that. It's all about the image, I'm just happy having the Royal Family lurking about.

That said, at the same time if we one day get rid of them, it wont destroy me or anything. It's not really that important, not on my top 1000 most important thing list at any rate (maybe even lower.)

Still, I don't like progress for progresses sake. Sure, Australia could become a republic, but it would change nothing really, except on a cosmetic basis. Being part of the commonwealth doesn't harm us in any way, there are no real benefits in going through all that separation.

And if they are super smart lizards, well, probably even better to stay in their good books, no need to alienate them by getting rid of them. And besides, I like lizards. Combining lizards and the monarchy gets my approval.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Now I'll agree, they don't really serve any purpose, they cost a lot of money when they visit and all that, but it doesn't matter. I like the odd bit of pomp and pageantry, the history and all that. It's all about the image, I'm just happy having the Royal Family lurking about.

Possibly the most blind comment I've read on these boards. It does actually matter doesn't it? Because they do nothing and they cost money of people who give no shit. People who couldn't careless about the monarchy are paying for it.

History? What history? They're German, you said you have British ties. At least love the country, not those who claim to be a cornerstone of it, but in actual fact do f*ck all. London and England in general DO have an amazingly rich history, but it's because of attitudes like yours that it all gets overlooked in favour of some old crone in a crappy building (because Buckingham Palace is actually shit).

I think that's an extroadinarily ignorant comment.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Possibly the most blind comment I've read on these boards. It does actually matter doesn't it? Because they do nothing and they cost money of people who give no shit. People who couldn't careless about the monarchy are playing for it.

History? What history? They're German. You said you have British ties. At least love the country, not those who claim to be a cornerstone of it, but in actual fact do f*ck all.

I think that's an extroadinarily ignorant comment.

-AC

True, true, and I know all that, and how it sounds. But I'm looking at it from an Australian point of view, and Australian with English ties. It serves no purpose here. It's purely symbolic, and I like the symbolism. It costs us nothing, except when they visit. But then it cost a great deal more when George W. Bush visited, as far more people hate him then the Queen, ergo far more security. Of course his visit was all about diplomacy, the Queens visit honorary.

If I lived in England, well, my answer might be different, but then again it might very well be the same. There are plenty of things in society that offer little in ways of practical return for money invested, but we keep them around for historical, cultural, social purposes. The Royal Family costs money, but hardly enough to bring the nation to it's knees, and it's gone on for much of England's history, and people have gotten by fine without complaining for much of that time.

So yes, it was kind of a cop out answer. They don't bother me in the slightest, and I would vote in any referendum on the question to retain them, if only for the symbolic and historical purposes (and just because they came from Germany doesn't mean they can't have some historical relevance.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, true, and I know all that, and how it sounds. But I'm looking at it from an Australian point of view, and Australian with English ties. It serves no purpose here. It's purely symbolic, and I like the symbolism. It costs us nothing, except when they visit. But then it cost a great deal more when George W. Bush visited, as far more people hate him then the Queen, ergo far more security. Of course his visit was all about diplomacy, the Queens visit honorary.

I'll get to that little "I have English ties" part later. Firstly, it costs you nothing. So basically you'd vote to keep something just because you like it from a distance, for no justifiable reason, even though it costs a lot to people who don't give a shit? You see how bad a view that is, right? Not popping at you personally, infact I'm surprised you hold such a dreadful view, because most of your posts I enjoy reading.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
If I lived in England, well, my answer might be different, but then again it might very well be the same. There are plenty of things in society that offer little in ways of practical return for money invested, but we keep them around for historical, cultural, social purposes. The Royal Family costs money, but hardly enough to bring the nation to it's knees, and it's gone on for much of England's history, and people have gotten by fine without complaining for much of that time.

About history: All the true great history of this country, my city, it's all overlooked in favour of a stupid building that a pointless old woman lives in. People would rather go see Buckingham Palace because they think that's as good as it gets. There's a church down the road from me that has way more historical significance and interest than that place. Nobody will ever really know because people have your kind of attitude.

If you're gonna love the history, love the right stuff. Not the stuff that doesn't matter and doesn't represent England in a way it deserves to be represented. This is all coming from me, someone who hates patriotism. I love my city because I've GROWN to love it. Not because I feel I have to.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So yes, it was kind of a cop out answer. They don't bother me in the slightest, and I would vote in any referendum on the question to retain them, if only for the symbolic and historical purposes (and just because they came from Germany doesn't mean they can't have some historical relevance.)

They don't have any relevance to the history that matters. The fact that they are from Germany does matter, though. Why? Because if your blood ties are why you claim you love them, then you're being silly. They're not Australian or English. Nor have they done anything that truly matters, they've just been around DURING important times. They didn't do anything during them.

"The Queen's Mother lead our country through world wars." No she didn't. She was around at the time shouting "Go us! I hope we win!" just like every other person.

-AC

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura


If I lived in England, well, my answer might be different, but then again it might very well be the same. There are plenty of things in society that offer little in ways of practical return for money invested, but we keep them around for historical, cultural, social purposes.

Do you think the Tower of London is no longer 'historical', now that it houses no royals?

A quick question- what's more historical? Something still sitting around doing nothing much of note, or something that has gone?

John Lennon or Paul McCartney?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll get to that little "I have English ties" part later. Firstly, it costs you nothing. So basically you'd vote to keep something just because you like it from a distance, for no justifiable reason, even though it costs a lot to people who don't give a shit? You see how bad a view that is, right? Not popping at you personally, infact I'm surprised you hold such a dreadful view, because most of your posts I enjoy reading.

About history: All the true great history of this country, my city, it's all overlooked in favour of a stupid building that a pointless old woman lives in. People would rather go see Buckingham Palace because they think that's as good as it gets. There's a church down the road from me that has way more historical significance and interest than that place. Nobody will ever really know because people have your kind of attitude.

If you're gonna love the history, love the right stuff. Not the stuff that doesn't matter and doesn't represent England in a way it deserves to be represented. This is all coming from me, someone who hates patriotism. I love my city because I've GROWN to love it. Not because I feel I have to.

They don't have any relevance to the history that matters. The fact that they are from Germany does matter, though. Why? Because if your blood ties are why you claim you love them, then you're being silly. They're not Australian or English. Nor have they done anything that truly matters, they've just been around DURING important times. They didn't do anything during them.

"The Queen's Mother lead our country through world wars." No she didn't. She was around at the time shouting "Go us! I hope we win!" just like every other person.

-AC

I'm more then prepared to admit it's a horrendous view, often one of surprise and wonder to my friends. I guess it's a bit of a character flaw - but then that's it, a personal view. I just like the Royal family (or some of them at any rate.)

You point about history and culture being overlooked is one that I agree with entirely. As a person who loves their history immensely there is little more painful to me then seeing worthy artifacts, structures and the like overlooked by people preferring the glitz and glamor of popularised history. It's a terrible shame, and in no way does my like of the Royal Family indicate that I think they should be looked at or appreciated before many of the marvels. In fact, when I talk to people planning trips to the grand old Isle, there are a plethora of things I advocate seeing well before a thought of standing in a line to look at a bit royal paraphernalia should ever enter ones head. So I agree it's a terrible thing that people focus on the Royals so much, to the detriment of others things. But that doesn't make me wish them gone any more or less. After all even if they weren't there, well, there is always something less worthy that will draw attention, be it the Royals, or a tree Elvis Presley planted on a tour getting loads of US tourists while an amazing art gallery is as silent as a tomb.

However, in terms of history, you are mostly right, once again they didn't really do anything, and once again I'll say they don't really do anything now. I've agreed that it's a shame about there dominance of the cultural and historical landscape - but the fact remains, fairly or not (mostly unfairly) - the Royal family is a part of England's cultural identity, and historical identity. They didn't have to be native to the nation, or do anything (though Royals hundreds of years ago played a part in shaping it) - but like happens so often, as Grand Moff Gav implied in his first post, they can still sometimes be seen as hand in hand with English history by non-English. Is this right? Not really, but it happens. Once again I emphasize the point that their claim to fame is indeed questionable, but they have been integrated the cultural/historical strata that every single nation possesses.

Now as to my blood ties, well, my mentioning of them was more to express my view that could have been, but hasn't been, shaped by family. Now, it terms of the Australian commonwealth - mostly, as I pointed out, people here really don't mind either way. In Australia the Queen and her Governor General are purely figure heads. The question of getting rid of her is purely symbolic - changing from a symbolic queen to a symbolic president. Dispensing with my long windness I should have just said I prefer the monarchy figure heads. If I lived in England still, however, my view might very well be different - as it's a more relevant question there. As I should probably have said "I'm a staunch Commonwealth monarchist" - simply because the way we view the Royals is different from the way a citizen of England views them. Essentially we get all the perks - as I mentioned the pomp and pageantry, admission into Commonwealth games, travel for our politicians between commonwealth states etc - without any of the bad things - that is, the upkeep of them. We here have no reason to want them gone, except a symbolic cultural one. Once again I agree with you, it might seem quite wrong from Australians to not mind having a queen simply because we don't have to pay and appreciate her from affair, but it's once again a cultural thing - after all we plan to one day spend millions of tax payer dollars on a proper cricket museum simply so the English will let us take the ashes urn home when (if) we win them. And we don't have to like the Royals, we don't have to hate them. We are usually just apathetic on the subject. So it's kind of rare for people to really get excited and go "Yes, They have to be removed now!" or "We like them, they should stay!" And it is with some strangeness I ended up in third group - I could just not give a toss (majority), want them gone (minority) or want them to stay (minority.) These groups aren't decided by patriotism, but simply personal preference.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But that doesn't make me wish them gone any more or less. After all even if they weren't there, well, there is always something less worthy that will draw attention, be it the Royals, or a tree Elvis Presley planted on a tour getting loads of US tourists while an amazing art gallery is as silent as a tomb.

True enough, but you are saying you are very much for them. If you have even the slightest love of this country, you'd realise that loving them and loving England are two different things. On one hand you're appreciating what deserves to be appreciated because you are genuinely interested. On the other you're loving a family that you have absolutely zero (factual) connection with or reason to love. Justifiable reason anyway. It's like, so many Americans learn about our history (or parts of) in school and then they come over and miss all the best stuff in favour of that BS. Them being gone means people aren't paying for them to be there, it also means, as an aside, that history getting overlooked will have less chance. At least with Big Ben you can go right up to it. Why go and stand many feet away from a building that really isn't all that spectacular anyway, just to stare at it from behind a big fence?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
However, in terms of history, you are mostly right, once again they didn't really do anything, and once again I'll say they don't really do anything now. I've agreed that it's a shame about there dominance of the cultural and historical landscape - but the fact remains, fairly or not (mostly unfairly) - the Royal family is a part of England's cultural identity, and historical identity. They didn't have to be native to the nation, or do anything (though Royals hundreds of years ago played a part in shaping it) - but like happens so often, as Grand Moff Gav implied in his first post, they can still sometimes be seen as hand in hand with English history by non-English. Is this right? Not really, but it happens. Once again I emphasize the point that their claim to fame is indeed questionable, but they have been integrated the cultural/historical strata that every single nation possesses.

Yes, but it's not right that this has happened, as we can both agree. It has happened, it won't be changed, but it's wrong. So on that note, you like them because of some other inexplicable reason then? You like the mystery and elegence they have in myth, but don't actually have in reality. Doesn't that ring any bells? It's like being a fan of Ashlee Simpson because of the talent and good looks she's supposedly got, when we all know she has none of either. They are false icons of our cultural and historical strata, so therefore, liking them in connection with it is illogical. You like them for purely superficial and non-existing reasons, yet you'd vote to keep them and resultantly keep people paying FOR them, just for these reasons. That's wrong.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Now as to my blood ties, well, my mentioning of them was more to express my view that could have been, but hasn't been, shaped by family. Now, it terms of the Australian commonwealth - mostly, as I pointed out, people here really don't mind either way. In Australia the Queen and her Governor General are purely figure heads. The question of getting rid of her is purely symbolic - changing from a symbolic queen to a symbolic president. Dispensing with my long windness I should have just said I prefer the monarchy figure heads. If I lived in England still, however, my view might very well be different - as it's a more relevant question there. As I should probably have said "I'm a staunch Commonwealth monarchist" - simply because the way we view the Royals is different from the way a citizen of England views them. Essentially we get all the perks - as I mentioned the pomp and pageantry, admission into Commonwealth games, travel for our politicians between commonwealth states etc - without any of the bad things - that is, the upkeep of them. We here have no reason to want them gone, except a symbolic cultural one. Once again I agree with you, it might seem quite wrong from Australians to not mind having a queen simply because we don't have to pay and appreciate her from affair, but it's once again a cultural thing - after all we plan to one day spend millions of tax payer dollars on a proper cricket museum simply so the English will let us take the ashes urn home when (if) we win them. And we don't have to like the Royals, we don't have to hate them. We are usually just apathetic on the subject. So it's kind of rare for people to really get excited and go "Yes, They have to be removed now!" or "We like them, they should stay!" And it is with some strangeness I ended up in third group - I could just not give a toss (majority), want them gone (minority) or want them to stay (minority.) These groups aren't decided by patriotism, but simply personal preference.

If you're apathetic to them then you shouldn't vote either way, quite honestly. If you had the option to vote for or against keeping them, you should vote neither. Why? Because your apathy in conjunction with your rather petty and indirectly superficial love of the non-existent pagentry of the monarchy, is costing those who really don't care. It's like giving a US presidential vote to someone in England.

"I think Bush, his slip-ups and misfortunes, plus his idiocy, are all funny. Therefore I'm gonna keep him in. Doesn't bother me as I'll watch it from afar."

People in the US still have to deal with him. Granted, the Queen is very much the different ball game, but the principle is the same. If you like the monarchy and admit that it's an absurd view, that's fine although I DO also think it's ridiculous and horrendous. You can't logically say you'd actively try to keep them in out of apathy though. That's both contradictory and careless.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
True enough, but you are saying you are very much for them. If you have even the slightest love of this country, you'd realise that loving them and loving England are two different things. On one hand you're appreciating what deserves to be appreciated because you are genuinely interested. On the other you're loving a family that you have absolutely zero (factual) connection with or reason to love. Justifiable reason anyway. It's like, so many Americans learn about our history (or parts of) in school and then they come over and miss all the best stuff in favour of that BS. Them being gone means people aren't paying for them to be there, it also means, as an aside, that history getting overlooked will have less chance. At least with Big Ben you can go right up to it. Why go and stand many feet away from a building that really isn't all that spectacular anyway, just to stare at it from behind a big fence?

Yes, but it's not right that this has happened, as we can both agree. It has happened, it won't be changed, but it's wrong. So on that note, you like them because of some other inexplicable reason then? You like the mystery and elegence they have in myth, but don't actually have in reality. Doesn't that ring any bells? It's like being a fan of Ashlee Simpson because of the talent and good looks she's supposedly got, when we all know she has none of either. They are false icons of our cultural and historical strata, so therefore, liking them in connection with it is illogical. You like them for purely superficial and non-existing reasons, yet you'd vote to keep them and resultantly keep people paying FOR them, just for these reasons. That's wrong.

If you're apathetic to them then you shouldn't vote either way, quite honestly. If you had the option to vote for or against keeping them, you should vote neither. Why? Because your apathy in conjunction with your rather petty and indirectly superficial love of the non-existent pagentry of the monarchy, is costing those who really don't care. It's like giving a US presidential vote to someone in England.

"I think Bush, his slip-ups and misfortunes, plus his idiocy, are all funny. Therefore I'm gonna keep him in. Doesn't bother me as I'll watch it from afar."

People in the US still have to deal with him. Granted, the Queen is very much the different ball game, but the principle is the same. If you like the monarchy and admit that it's an absurd view, that's fine although I DO also think it's ridiculous and horrendous. You can't logically say you'd actively try to keep them in out of apathy though. That's both contradictory and careless.

-AC

Yes, I forgot about that bit. I don't think the royal family are an embodiment of being British, not one in the same in the least, though some people do.

And interesting and good points. I will begin on my Australian stance. As much as I care for England, Australia is where I live. The apathy doesn't stand for me. I was talking about Australians in general on the subject. Now we can have the Queen, or we can give her the old heave hoe, the question is whats best? Now a few years ago the republican group got motivated, and managed to get a referendum begun - to declare our independence entirely, to leave the Commonwealth, to remove the queen. In the place of the Governor General we would get a President. Essentially a figure head position meant to represent the state, but with no real powers - different in this way from the US presidency, which combines head of state with Head of Government. The referendum revealed that kind of apathy in a good many Australians. Now, I was to young at that point to vote in it, but if I had been able to I would have voted to remain a part of the commonwealth, not out of apathy - but personally because I prefer the Monarchy as our symbolic figure head and secondly because such a change is not needed - from an Australian point of view. It's always struck me as an absurd debate, and as such my view does seem silly to me - essentially as the question comes down personal preference. It's not like voting in a political party. More like voting in a state mascot (as comedian Will Anderson said quite succinctly at the time.)

But Grand Moff question was both to citizens of the England, and the Commonwealth. And views will differ - ultimately if we had voted the queen out, it wouldn't have effected England in the least, only us - you'd still have her.

A vote to leave the commonwealth would have led to a period of bureaucratic juggling, a fair bit of money spent changing things, a long off period in parliament as wording was changed on the constitution and in laws. All for a simple cosmetic change. As a result you are right - I am very much for them in a Commonwealth sense. Simply because of aesthetic (read personal preference) and because of the absurd bureaucratic paperwork that follows such things. Practically speaking being in the Commonwealth has been fine and dandy for Australia. Changing brings no real benefits and a period of confusion and wasted time and money while i's are dotted and t's are re-done. Thus, I will remain interested and apathetic, and vote in any far off future referendums to retain the monarchy for the simply reason I like them better then the alternative, because such a change is not necessary, and the benefits are not out weighed by the negatives. So while my personally preference is a part of this in the commonwealth sense, I also think it's more practical. Yes, I like some of them. I don't love them. And that like for some of them tips the balance when it comes to Australian and the Monarchy. And true - if there was a practical reason for dropping the Queen in Australia I would support doing so. The good of the state and all. But there isn't really, and the image of the Queen is slightly more appealing then the image of President John Howard (who incidentally is a true Staunch English Monarchist who would stick with the monarchy no matter what.) In the end the vote went against the Republicans by a pretty large margin. Australians, who don't mind what we have at the moment, when asked the question of what they would prefer, went with the Royal family, for either practical reasons, or because they like them, or liked them better then the alternatives. Is it greedy of Australians? Most Australians would say no, and I think that if we keep her we should contribute to her upkeep (which would quite likely shake a good number out of their apathy)

Yet it is different for English citizens, as I said in my first post, if the best thing for England was to dissolve the Royal family, then it should be done, and I wouldn't be devastated or even disappointed. It might have a knock on effect for Australia similar to what I described before, but that to would have to acceptable. And as I care a great deal about England, I would be very happy if they did something that was good for them as a state and culture.

And I loved your example using Ashlee Simpson, and I agree with what your saying. And yes, while I like the Royal family, I agree they shouldn't be in the limelight, strangling culture and becoming false icons. I would vastly prefer if they had to exist being a bit more like the Royals of other nations who are far less obvious, far less mainstream, less overt and self important - realising of course that monarchy and feudalism are a bygone governing systems and that they are little more then artifacts of a bygone time - essentially museum pieces. Living pieces, but still pieces.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And interesting and good points. I will begin on my Australian stance. As much as I care for England, Australia is where I live. The apathy doesn't stand for me. I was talking about Australians in general on the subject. Now we can have the Queen, or we can give her the old heave hoe, the question is whats best? Now a few years ago the republican group got motivated, and managed to get a referendum begun - to declare our independence entirely, to leave the Commonwealth, to remove the queen. In the place of the Governor General we would get a President. Essentially a figure head position meant to represent the state, but with no real powers - different in this way from the US presidency, which combines head of state with Head of Government. The referendum revealed that kind of apathy in a good many Australians. Now, I was to young at that point to vote in it, but if I had been able to I would have voted to remain a part of the commonwealth, not out of apathy - but personally because I prefer the Monarchy as our symbolic figure head and secondly because such a change is not needed - from an Australian point of view. It's always struck me as an absurd debate, and as such my view does seem silly to me - essentially as the question comes down personal preference. It's not like voting in a political party. More like voting in a state mascot (as comedian Will Anderson said quite succinctly at the time.)

All of what you're saying here rests upon the belief that getting rid of them isn't needed, a change isn't needed. Since when did England need a mascot? Since when did England need a mascot that isn't even doing anything? Since when did England need a mascot that doesn't do anything, represents false images AND is costing it's inhabitants money? The answer to all those is never. If they wanna be our "mascots" AND at the same time give us lots of money back, as previously said, then fine. I just don't like the idea of them being an unneeded mascot doing nothing but draining. There's no point saying "They don't drain much", because they're still draining SOMETHING. That something IS too much when you're giving nothing back. To some, having the Royal Family as our mascot is enough, I call those people idiots.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But Grand Moff question was both to citizens of the England, and the Commonwealth. And views will differ - ultimately if we had voted the queen out, it wouldn't have effected England in the least, only us - you'd still have her. A vote to leave the commonwealth would have led to a period of bureaucratic juggling, a fair bit of money spent changing things, a long off period in parliament as wording was changed on the constitution and in laws. All for a simple cosmetic change. As a result you are right - I am very much for them in a Commonwealth sense. Simply because of aesthetic (read personal preference) and because of the absurd bureaucratic paperwork that follows such things.

That's why there is so much shit in the world though. Britain would be more open to accurate and relevant representation if there was no monarchy, so to claim that a bit of "paperwork" and cost is all for nought when the reputation of a great country is at stake, is rather silly. Especially when the monarchy are costing money for literally nothing. At least all that bureaucratic paperwork would be FOR something. Infact, if the monarchy gave everyone back the money they stole from them I'm sure most people would be willing to chip in toward the cost of getting rid of them. It's all based around "I prefer them there.", which is just BS. You agree they're pointless and you agree on how wrong they are, you are aware that they drain people's money and represent a false image of what this country is, yet you would keep them because you basically like the look of them. That is a disgrace and if you claim to care for this country then so are you for having that opinion. Because you aren't thinking about the country, you're thinking about image. People are being robbed of their money so you can go "Aww, looks lovely."

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Practically speaking being in the Commonwealth has been fine and dandy for Australia. Changing brings no real benefits and a period of confusion and wasted time and money while i's are dotted and t's are re-done.

For those of us who give a shit enough to not want our money stolen by false representatives of this country, it's not too much work. So claiming that it's all pointless is silly. You claim apathy but you would make the effort to keep a pointless institution. It's just so far into the field of being illogical that I find myself questioning just how you can sanely believe what you do.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Thus, I will remain interested and apathetic, and vote in any far off future referendums to retain the monarchy for the simply reason I like them better then the alternative, because such a change is not necessary, and the benefits are not out weighed by the negatives. So while my personally preference is a part of this in the commonwealth sense, I also think it's more practical. Yes, I like some of them. I don't love them. And that like for some of them tips the balance when it comes to Australian and the Monarchy. And true - if there was a practical reason for dropping the Queen in Australia I would support doing so. The good of the state and all. But there isn't really, and the image of the Queen is slightly more appealing then the image of President John Howard (who incidentally is a true Staunch English Monarchist who would stick with the monarchy no matter what.) In the end the vote went against the Republicans by a pretty large margin. Australians, who don't mind what we have at the moment, when asked the question of what they would prefer, went with the Royal family, for either practical reasons, or because they like them, or liked them better then the alternatives. Is it greedy of Australians? Most Australians would say no, and I think that if we keep her we should contribute to her upkeep (which would quite likely shake a good number out of their apathy)

Why do you keep saying there's no reason for dropping her? There is. People are paying for them to exist when they are more negative than they are positive. The only positive is "Visually appealing." To who? Not to me. I don't give a shit about the monarchy. All they do is visit places and cost people money. They do NOTHING. There's more counting toward getting rid of them than there is keeping, which is nothing. Your idea of change/confusion is flawed because those of use who give a shit, as I previously said, don't want them there.

You say it's better than the alternatives. So you would rather look at the Queen than John Howard. So? Not my problem. Of course it's greedy of you, you're voting and deciding purely on superficiality in the face of all the negatives that are endured by people of Britain. You would have us pay for them just so you enjoy what you see? Well I believe the phrase I would use to reply rhymes with Duck Blue.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yet it is different for English citizens, as I said in my first post, if the best thing for England was to dissolve the Royal family, then it should be done, and I wouldn't be devastated or even disappointed. It might have a knock on effect for Australia similar to what I described before, but that to would have to acceptable. And as I care a great deal about England, I would be very happy if they did something that was good for them as a state and culture.

Knock-on effect? You mean the confusion of Australians everywhere? It's simple. The Queen is gone. Done. Solved.

Dissolving the monarchy would mean people of Britain, as I have continually said, wouldn't be paying for them to remain. Which you seem to be ok with despite admitting that they are pointless, false and unneeded, just so you can enjoy it.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And I loved your example using Ashlee Simpson, and I agree with what your saying. And yes, while I like the Royal family, I agree they shouldn't be in the limelight, strangling culture and becoming false icons. I would vastly prefer if they had to exist being a bit more like the Royals of other nations who are far less obvious, far less mainstream, less overt and self important - realising of course that monarchy and feudalism are a bygone governing systems and that they are little more then artifacts of a bygone time - essentially museum pieces. Living pieces, but still pieces.

So now you're saying you wish they were like royals of other countries? This is more superficial than I thought. They are what they are, and what they are is pointless, 100% pointless. Getting rid of them would be fairer to everyone. "Not for us, we like how they look", yeah? Then you pay for them to come live over there. YOU pay their upkeep.

-AC

VVD's logic is flawed.

Most of the old woprld has old buildings. The reason the UK gets a disproportionate tourist attendance is because its history is a living institutiion rather than a dead relic.

Be sure- if Britain was a Republic, tourist revenune would fall significantly.

Meanwhile- as people always forget when considering the money issue... first of all, the cost is a relative pittance. Secondly, they are due far more money from their land that they surrender the revenue from to the Government. That's not land they own unfairly- it is simply land that belongs to their family, and there is a whole lot of land in the UK that is owned by various families, and most of them keep all that money, yet no-one complains about them, do we?

We make the Royals give up all that money, and we give them enough back to maintain their estates and live as in some respect befits the concept of Royalty. They are the losers on this one, but they don't mind because it's the concept that is important.

But people still complain on monetary grounds? Insanity.

The Royal Family is a fantastic institution- it is a living monument, a source of continuity for the nation, an area of distinctiveness, and it does also try to do some good.

We would be very much diminished without it.

Very pretty and all that, but I hardly think we'd be 'very much diminished'. I can see what you're saying regarding the financial issue, in fact I wasn't aware that the Royal Family lived on just enough to cover necessities. Just like the rest of us, then?

Why are we paying for them to live? Especially those who don't care for them.

I didn't say the cost wasn't "pittance", I said it was A cost, which is too much for those who quite frankly don't give a shit isn't it? We give them money to live and they give nothing back. If you having them as your "representatives" is enough then let them take your money gladly. They don't represent me and a lot of other people and we're still treated as if we want them there.

There are "dead" relics with much more significance than the royals. Especially in connection to London's history. For one they're actually English.

-AC

Exactly.

As a typical and usually loud and pompus American Tourist....IMO I would personally loved to visit all the historic places England would offer. I'd never been to London but I would love to tour the city. All it's rich history and is gorgeous medival architecture is just so damn appealing.

There is a sense of romanticism about England history which many foregners (like yours trully) develops an interest of it. One of them is the British Royalty. If England were to lose sucha thing...quite honestly I would find England to be boring. No offense to you guys. Keep the Royals...it'll keep the tourist coming. Unless you really don't like us loud American money spending Tourist?

If England were to lose the Royal Family it'd be rendered boring? But you said you find the architecture and rich history appealing... is this only architecture and history related to the Royals?

Well I would find it boring. It just wouldn't feel the same. All my life since childhood I've heard about the queen and the royal family. That somehow it has grown intereste within me. The architecture will still be there *cough*stonehenge*cough* but things like castles and buckingham palace just wouldn't feel the same without the royal presence.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As a typical and usually loud and pompus American Tourist....IMO I would personally loved to visit all the historic places England would offer. I'd never been to London but I would love to tour the city. All it's rich history and is gorgeous medival architecture is just so damn appealing.

You're aware that the best historical sites in London have zero to do with any royal? Thought not.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There is a sense of romanticism about England history which many foregners (like yours trully) develops an interest of it. One of them is the British Royalty. If England were to lose sucha thing...quite honestly I would find England to be boring. No offense to you guys. Keep the Royals...it'll keep the tourist coming. Unless you really don't like us loud American money spending Tourist?

The Royal family aren't part of British history, they're tag alongs, quite simply. They're the figurehead that every "pompous American" is taught to love, when in actuality there is so much more worthwhile history.

You've never even been to London and you say you'd find our country boring without even knowing how "exciting" it is here WITH the royals? Talk about an uneducated comment. If you came here and had a brilliant time, all without seeing Buckingham Palace, which I guarantee you would, how would it's loss make the country/city more boring? I've lived here all my life and I've been seen Buckingham Palace three times. Once because I had to go past it to get somewhere, second time because it was on a school trip as a kid and third because I took an American friend to see it. Ironically once the surrealness subsides, and it did so quickly, she was quite underhwhelmed. The areas SURROUNDING the palace are better than the actual palace itself. The greenery surrounding it is beautiful, the palace itself is shit. Point being that I've seen it three times in my 20 years of living here. The two times in which the palace was supposed to be seen, it wasn't even the main attraction.

It makes me laugh when people claim they love this country and find it interesting, only to cite the most boring parts of our country as the highlights.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Well I would find it boring. It just wouldn't feel the same. All my life since childhood I've heard about the queen and the royal family. That somehow it has grown intereste within me. The architecture will still be there *cough*stonehenge*cough* but things like castles and buckingham palace just wouldn't feel the same without the royal presence.

What royal presence? She's not standing there waving from the window.

As VVD said earlier, the Tower of London is actually much better than any royal building. There's no one in there, but it's a historic place you are allowed to go into. You stand and stare at Buckingham Palace from far away behind a big black fence. It's a very underwhelming building.

That's the point I made to Samura, the whole part you learn about, all the pagentry and glamour, it's false. There's none of it. All these uninformed views seem to be of the belief that you'd actually be seeing the Queen. You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. It's just a building that the Queen "lives" in. You stand and stare at it. There's no presence besides the one you've been conditioned to have.

They're people, pointless people at that. The mistake everyone makes is to connect the royals with history that can be viewed. You see them on TV, that's it.

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As a typical and usually loud and pompus American Tourist....IMO I would personally loved to visit all the historic places England would offer. I'd never been to London but I would love to tour the city. All it's rich history and is gorgeous medival architecture is just so damn appealing.

There is a sense of romanticism about England history which many foregners (like yours trully) develops an interest of it. One of them is the British Royalty. If England were to lose sucha thing...quite honestly I would find England to be boring. No offense to you guys. Keep the Royals...it'll keep the tourist coming. Unless you really don't like us loud American money spending Tourist?
I don't know a lot about the king's or the queen's role in a country now a days but I think that keeping them so that tourists will keep coming is a silly reason to keep them.

Excuse my ignorance, but does Elizabeth actually live in Buckingham Palace?

Originally posted by Eis
I don't know a lot about the king's or the queen's role in a country now a days but I think that keeping them so that tourists will keep coming is a silly reason to keep them.

It is a silly reason, because tourists don't come to see the Queen. If anyone comes here with the intention of seeing the Queen or with the SOLE purpose of seeing her, they're idiots.

People think Palace = Queen. It's stupid. Stop connecting the two, seeing one doesn't mean seeing the other. All you're gonna get is Buckingham Palace.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It is a silly reason, because tourists don't come to see the Queen. If anyone comes here with the intention of seeing the Queen or with the SOLE purpose of seeing her, they're idiots.

People think Palace = Queen. It's stupid. Stop connecting the two, seeing one doesn't mean seeing the other. All you're gonna get is Buckingham Palace.

-AC

Well you will have to admit theat the Queen does create some jobs....althoguh that's probably not sufficent reason.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're aware that the best historical sites in London have zero to do with any royal? Thought not.

Umm...yes, I did mention Stonehenge in my other post.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The Royal family aren't part of British history, they're tag alongs, quite simply. They're the figurehead that every "pompous American" is taught to love, when in actuality there is so much more worthwhile history.

Umm...no, we haven't been taught anything. It is the image YOU guys have presented to the rest of world. We fallen in love with your princess Diana and the royal family saga that even after her death we still want to know more.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You've never even been to London and you say you'd find our country boring without even knowing how "exciting" it is here WITH the royals? Talk about an uneducated comment. If you came here and had a brilliant time, all without seeing Buckingham Palace, which I guarantee you would, how would it's loss make the country/city more boring?

And there are countless other places I've never been visited. And I may have a "boring" impression of them. Until I visit them then my mind will change. Uneducated? I'm not sure...Unaware maybe.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What royal presence? She's not standing there waving from the window.

Unless American Television is lying to me (another bag of tricks I'm not going to endulge) I've seen her giving speaches in her palace. Believe it or not...If I'm in England I'd love to hear them. Curiosity kill the cat.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As VVD said earlier, the Tower of London is actually much better than any royal building. There's no one in there, but it's a historic place you are allowed to go into. You stand and stare at Buckingham Palace from far away behind a big black fence. It's a very underwhelming building.

That is his opinion on what maybe a better place. I'm the tourist...I'm the one paying to see...I want my money's worth. Even if it is a crappy tour I'd like to see it with my own eyes.

-WD

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf

-WD

Anyone else found that amusing?

Not really, it's been done...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyone else found that amusing?
How is it amusing?

Originally posted by Syren
Not really, it's been done...
Yes, but not by WindDancer .....well I enjoyed it anyways.

Originally posted by Eis
How is it amusing?

Shut up, leave me alone. cry

Hopefully I'll visit Germany one day. Would be interesting meeting Bardock.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Hopefully I'll visit Germany one day. Would be interesting meeting Bardock.

We don't have no Queen though. Well, besides the British one who actually belongs to us anyways.

Classic... the Queen got Owned.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Umm...no, we haven't been taught anything. It is the image YOU guys have presented to the rest of world. We fallen in love with your princess Diana and the royal family saga that even after her death we still want to know more.

I certainly didn't/don't want her as my representative, nor do many others. You saying that is just another reason why I found your posts about England to be uninformed. We never presented her, her and her stupid followers are the reason a lot of Americans feel we're still stuck in the victorian ages and adhere to every British stereotype in the book. The amount of ignorant Americans I've met who feel "Wouldn't it be funny if I said 'bloody hell' and spoke of tea while I talk to this guy from England" is sheerly worrying. It's stupid. You're in for a shock if you ever come here. Fantasy will go out the window in terms of what you've said you like so far.

Princess Diana was just as pointless as anyone else, infact, THE most pointless and fake of all the "royals". So it just proves you do actually suck up whatever you're fed. Over here the only people who loved her were stupid patriots.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
And there are countless other places I've never been visited. And I may have a "boring" impression of them. Until I visit them then my mind will change. Uneducated? I'm not sure...Unaware maybe.

Well considering you're not even thinking to question the image of England that you've been fed, I'd say it is uneducated, not unaware. Why? Because you're not trying to make yourself aware of what it's really like here.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Unless American Television is lying to me (another bag of tricks I'm not going to endulge) I've seen her giving speaches in her palace. Believe it or not...If I'm in England I'd love to hear them. Curiosity kill the cat.

Yeah she does those once a year (Christmas speech) or unless something serious goes down. As I said, uneducated on the country it would seem. Her speeches are nothing but drivel. She's so out of touch with this country that it actually makes anti-monarchists cases stronger.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That is his opinion on what maybe a better place. I'm the tourist...I'm the one paying to see...I want my money's worth. Even if it is a crappy tour I'd like to see it with my own eyes.

You'd rather stand and look at Buckingham Palace from behind a fence, very far away than go inside a building with rich and interesting history?

Haha, money's worth.

-AC

AC, if that's how WD feels there's no telling him, or any other tourist, any different. It's ignorance, not intentional but still ignorance {I don't mean that as a derogatory term}.

stonehenge is in London?...mmm...i wondered where they moved it too

Stop being picky

Originally posted by jaden101
stonehenge is in London?...mmm...i wondered where they moved it too

I didn't even notice that. Quite extraordinary.

Maybe English History 101 in the States is "Everything English is in London."

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, but not by WindDancer .....well I enjoyed it anyways.



Shut up, leave me alone. cry
I still don't get it... WD. How is it amusing? Anyone?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't even notice that. Quite extraordinary.

Maybe English History 101 in the States is "Everything English is in London."

-AC

well i have heard with my own ears, an American say "outside the houses of parliment in England, London"

the same person who said, when i told them i was from Scotland "oh yeah...Scotland?...i've heard of that"

Originally posted by Bardock42
We don't have no Queen though.

But you do have Bavaria....Beer and Pretzels!

Originally posted by jaden101
stonehenge is in London?...mmm...i wondered where they moved it too

Thus a good reason why maps are important.

Originally posted by Eis
I still don't get it... WD. How is it amusing? Anyone?

Because WD's post was in response to AC's, and AC always signs his posts in such a way

Originally posted by Syren


Classic... the Queen got Owned.
No, you got that all wrong...she IS owned.

Originally posted by Eis
I still don't get it... WD. How is it amusing? Anyone?
Cause AC signs his posts with "-AC" and WindDancer did the same (-WD) to mock him (which is evil but funny at the same time...to more simple minds like me)

Originally posted by jaden101
stonehenge is in London?...mmm...i wondered where they moved it too

I drovve by Stonehenge once...couldn't be bothered leaving the car.

I'm such a pioneer.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm such a pioneer.

-AC
yeah...and all the shit you get for it (I feel with you)...although Jackie Malfoy might have done it before you

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
But you do have Bavaria....Beer and Pretzels!



Thus a good reason why maps are important.

we doo indeed...I actually live in Bavaria......oh and watch out for the pretzels one of them almost killed the most powerful man on this planet.

I can't do the AC Signature as I have only one name. It would look odd anyway, I certainly can't carry it off

I also drove by Stonehenge, although they've closed it to the public and you can't get close any more. It was a nice sight, sort of silhouetted against the darkening sky.

Do you drive a tank, Bardock?

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
yeah...and all the shit you get for it (I feel with you)...although Jackie Malfoy might have done it before you



I think AC joined before JM.

Originally posted by Syren
AC, if that's how WD feels there's no telling him, or any other tourist, any different.

Actually AC might keep the American tourists away with his opinions...j/k

p.s. just kidding AC!

I resent that! I resent that stoopid Amehrikin.

-AC

Originally posted by Syren
I can't do the AC Signature as I have only one name. It would look odd anyway, I certainly can't carry it off

I also drove by Stonehenge, although they've closed it to the public and you can't get close any more. It was a nice sight, sort of silhouetted against the darkening sky.

-EM

I did it for you


And they closed Stonehenge? Those Bastards.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you drive a tank, Bardock?

-AC
I guess that's a reference I am supposed to pick up...I don't though......forgive my germanity.

there are a ton of places with hugely more important British historical significance that the royal family...most involving battles...although very few of them have anything to see

http://homepage.mac.com/beatonl/.cv/beatonl/Sites/.Pictures/Europe2003/Bannockburn.JPG-thumb_269_202.jpg

http://www.armin-grewe.com/holiday/scotland2001/culloden-battlefield.jpg

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did it for you


And they closed Stonehenge? Those Bastards.


EM?? Let her go man, LET HER GO fear

Originally posted by Syren
EM?? Let her go man, LET HER GO fear
I can't..I can't....she's part of my KMC Youth.Originally posted by jaden101
there are a ton of places with hugely more important British historical significance that the royal family...most involving battles...although very few of them have anything to see

http://homepage.mac.com/beatonl/.cv/beatonl/Sites/.Pictures/Europe2003/Bannockburn.JPG-thumb_269_202.jpg

http://www.armin-grewe.com/holiday/scotland2001/culloden-battlefield.jpg

I like Ireland...why is it not a Part of the UK....are they cooler than you or what?

yep...they are far cooler...if by cooler you mean more ginger and more alcoholic...

cause as we all know...all the irish are exactly like shane mcgowan and/or the commitments...

although i dont know why you brought up ireland from 2 pictures...one of bannockburn and the other of culloden

Originally posted by jaden101
yep...they are far cooler...if by cooler you mean more ginger and more alcoholic...

cause as we all know...all the irish are exactly like shane mcgowan and/or the commitments...

although i dont know why you brought up ireland from 2 pictures...one of bannockburn and the other of culloden
Well, I don't know either...at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I don't know either...at all.

obviously not seen braveheart

long story short...bannockburn...Scots kicked English ass...culloden...English came back and kicked Scots ass

Originally posted by jaden101
obviously not seen braveheart

long story short...bannockburn...Scots kicked English ass...culloden...English came back and kicked Scots ass
I have seen Braveheart...but I don*t really care for who beat whom where and why. I think the whole British-Irish Islands have some very nice countrysides......

Originally posted by jaden101
obviously not seen braveheart



You need to see Braveheart to know about battle of Bannockburn?

Now, I'm the one nitpicking.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have seen Braveheart...but I don*t really care for who beat whom where and why. I think the whole British-Irish Islands have some very nice countrysides......

so do i...unfortunately its always full of bloody tourists

historical significance that gets overlooked

how about Dunnottar castle

its been sacked by William Wallace (the scene where he burns the English Garrison to the ground was actually Dunnottar...was the saviour of the Scottish crown jewels during a seige by Oliver Cromwell...played a part in the Jacobite uprising...and played host to Mary queen of Scots

http://www.marie-stuart.co.uk/images/Scotland/Dunnottar3.jpg

I find Historical Sites rather boring..usually.....

But the pic looks really cool.

Originally posted by jaden101
so do i...unfortunately its always full of bloody tourists

historical significance that gets overlooked

how about Dunnottar castle

its been sacked by William Wallace (the scene where he burns the English Garrison to the ground was actually Dunnottar...was the saviour of the Scottish crown jewels during a seige by Oliver Cromwell...played a part in the Jacobite uprising...and played host to Mary queen of Scots

http://www.marie-stuart.co.uk/images/Scotland/Dunnottar3.jpg

Gorgeous pic

Originally posted by Syren
Because WD's post was in response to AC's, and AC always signs his posts in such a way
Oh...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you drive a tank, Bardock?

-AC
I don't get that either...

Guess I'm a little slow tonight... well it is 3:23 am and there's a huge fire in the building they're constructing next to my building the fire dpt. just arrived.

Eis, why did you quote that post of mine?

Originally posted by Syren
Eis, why did you quote that post of mine?
I confused it with the one u explained the whole 'ac' 'wd' thing... sorry im just really tired.

I figured, I just wanted to make sure

Originally posted by Syren
I figured, I just wanted to make sure
there fixed it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
VVD's logic is flawed.

Most of the old woprld has old buildings. The reason the UK gets a disproportionate tourist attendance is because its history is a living institutiion rather than a dead relic.



be sure- if Britain was a Reoubliuc, tourist revenune would fall significantly.

The history wouldn't disappear without the 'living institution'. It's a history; that is the point I am making. When I say revenue I refer to the revenue based on visits to Buckingham Palace by those who are here.

People don't want to come here because the royals are gone? I can live with that. I don't agree definitively that the tourist stream would even decrease that much. It has yet to happen, and I'm not entirely sure that those would be the consequences. I doubt anyone would be cancelling their holidays.

However, my argument for their removal isn't based around the tourist revenue. Smoking makes lots of money, but I don't think that's a logical argument for its being acceptable.

I simply don't agree with the idea of a 'royal family'. It's a pathetic anachronism.


Originally posted by Ushgarak

Meanwhile- as people always forget when considering the money issue... first of all, the cost is a relative pittance. Secondly, they are due far more money from their land that they surrender the revenue from to the Government. That's not land they own unfairly- it is simply land that belongs to their family, and there is a whole lot of land in the UK that is owned by various families, and most of them keep all that money, yet no-one complains about them, do we?

I don't wish to pay a 'pittance' towards their upkeep. I don't see the logic in haggling over the price. I would rather not contribute anything to them.

I am not in favour of anyone that historically plundered their land, no. Royal or otherwise.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

We make the Royals give up all that money, and we give them enough back to maintain their estates and live as in some respect befits the concept of Royalty. They are the losers on this one, but they don't mind because it's the concept that is important.

The concept of royalty is inherently flawed, and anachronistic. Where's the genuine objective argument for their existence, besides tourist bucks? 'Prestige' I don't agree with, and I don't believe anything would be lost by their removal.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

But people still complain on monetary grounds? Insanity.

Many people do complain on monetary grounds, but that's not my personal problem. I don't agree with the concept in any way. Therefore I do not wish to contribute any money at all, but this concern is simply epiphenomenal.

As far as I can see, monetary grounds aren't the main complaint; they're the main defence.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

The Royal Family is a fantastic institution- it is a living monument, a source of continuity for the nation, an area of distinctiveness, and it does also try to do some good.

We would be very much diminished without it.

I don't really agree with this. This is the crux of the point, and I imagine where the disagreement arises, and will remain. I am sure others are of the same opinion.

Perhaps those people should cover the costs of the ones that have no desire to contribute.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Well I would find it boring. It just wouldn't feel the same. All my life since childhood I've heard about the queen and the royal family. That somehow it has grown intereste within me.

I can understand a quaint curiosity, I guess. I'm not sure why their removal would magically remove excitement though.

Here's a plan. Let them work in tourist shops.

You get to go in their buildings without having to stand outside gates and wonder from afar, 'I wonder what the Queen's doing in there right now?'

Also- you get to buy a mini London bus off Liz.

Twice as good.

Well said.

monetary grounds aren't the main complaint; they're the main defence.

Well, my main concern isn't money. I don't doubt that they generate revenue, but that's here nor there.

For me, the idea of having to put up with a monolithic outdated dinosaur, and the image of us as all London buses, taxis, and either incredibly posh or salt of the Earth, cap-doffing awlright Guv'nor inhabitants is irritating to say the least.

Especially if the motivation behind that is a spurious sense of 'prestige', and in order to bring in some inane tourists to patronise us as some kind of modern-day curiosity.

You don't want to pay a pittance towards their upkeep, but support taking their own money from them just because you disagree about how they have used their own land? You seem to have an irrational drive behind your dislike, which makes me wonder.

I have given reasons for its existence. Though it is worth noting that it also lends a certain measure of constituional stability, and in the form of the Commonwealth a better voice in world affairs.

"The concept of royalty is inherently flawed, and anachronistic."

Inherently flawed how? Certainly no more flawed than our system of Government, seeing as they have no constituional power with which they can abuse their privilege with.

And anachonistic? Well, that somewhat comes with the history, hmm? The palace is anachronisitc. A huge part of London is, actually, Anachronism can have value. For the Royals, it is essential.

"Perhaps those people should cover the costs of the ones that have no desire to contribute."

Sheer selfishness. The Royal Family is at the heart of our country and provides money to it. There are a whole lot of things that people might not want their tax money to go to- mech makes such a point above- but one of the points of civilisation is that we all pay for the lot.

I really find very little intelligence behind such complaints. They are normally based on some odd feeling of inferiority from the whole deal, or the weird idea that everything in life has to be modern and oredred to have value, which simply is not true.

There is absolutely no way at all in which anything- ANYTHING- would be improved by their removal, But we would lose money, and a lot of us here would lose a huge symbol that we value very dearly, and the UK would lose a point of distinctiveness that actually enhances its world status. And no- the prestige is not spurious at all, that's just a comment you threw out that has no basis whatsoever.

And if you want to bat toruists for their pre-conceptions of other countries... then you'd better ban anyone from going anywhere, because it sure as hell is not going to stop, ever, and it moulds to the characteristcs a country has, and so it would continue, royal family or none, just in different form. That;s just people- nothing to do with us having a royal family.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why are we paying for them to live? Especially those who don't care for them.

I didn't say the cost wasn't "pittance", I said it was A cost, which is too much for those who quite frankly don't give a shit isn't it? We give them money to live and they give nothing back. If you having them as your "representatives" is enough then let them take your money gladly. They don't represent me and a lot of other people and we're still treated as if we want them there.

There are "dead" relics with much more significance than the royals. Especially in connection to London's history. For one they're actually English.

-AC

And full marks here for not reading a post properly.

As I pointed out, they give back WAY more than we give them. If the situation was actially fair, the country would be losing money as revenue from the family's own lands would go to them, not the country. The Civil List is much smaller than the revenue from that land.

I have no idea where this weird idea of 'I will not pay taxes for something I do not approve of' has come from. It's an exceptionally odd view.

The Royal Family is as English as any of those relics.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It is a silly reason, because tourists don't come to see the Queen. If anyone comes here with the intention of seeing the Queen or with the SOLE purpose of seeing her, they're idiots.

People think Palace = Queen. It's stupid. Stop connecting the two, seeing one doesn't mean seeing the other. All you're gonna get is Buckingham Palace.

-AC

Regardless of what you think, the amount of people that come is greatly increased because this is a current, rather then dead, Royal Family. They would not come in such numbers if that were not so. It matters not one tiny tiny bit that they don't get to seem them in person- it's still a fact. Look at the global popularity of Diana, for Christ's sake. Even though it was totally irrational, it was still a FACT. This is how it is. The Royal Family creates interest in the UK. I am sorry if that annoys you, but it does.

For all your words... HUGE amounts of people come to see Buckingham Palace, even though there is nothing to see there, as you describe. Why? Because of the Royal Family. That's it. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.

I suspect that completely naive beliefs like "Britain would be more open to accurate and relevant representation if there was no monarchy" are at the root of this. That's so untrue it puts me in hysterics.

I think its maybe a bit weird for us to understand the fascination with royals because we live here...

Yup. But it exists, for sure.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And full marks here for not reading a post properly.

As I pointed out, they give back WAY more than we give them. If the situation was actially fair, the country would be losing money as revenue from the family's own lands would go to them, not the country. The Civil List is much smaller than the revenue from that land

I have no idea where this weird idea of 'I will not pay taxes for something I do not approve of' has come from. It's an exceptionally odd view.

The Royal Family is as English as any of those relics.

Where do you get the idea that it's an odd view to not want to pay for something that does nothing? Oh wait...unless you want to count the amount of money that the royal family brings as a result of tourism. Which, as said before, wouldn't decrease so dramatically if they were not here. A lot of people come to England for England, not for the Queen. So her not being here isn't going to have much negative effect on tourism in the grand scheme of things. People who show up to see the Queen specifically never end up seeing her at all anyway do they? So they're not losing anything unless they're too stupid to realise that. Some people actually think they'll see the Queen on a two week vacation here when a lot of people haven't seen her in their many decades of life here. It's pathetic.

Despite being German, yes they are as English.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless of what you think, the amount of people that come is greatly increased because this is a current, rather then dead, Royal Family. They would not come in such numbers if that were not so. It matters not one tiny tiny bit that they don't get to seem them in person- it's still a fact. Look at the global popularity of Diana, for Christ's sake. Even though it was totally irrational, it was still a FACT. This is how it is. The Royal Family creates interest in the UK. I am sorry if that annoys you, but it does.

For all your words... HUGE amounts of people come to see Buckingham Palace, even though there is nothing to see there, as you describe. Why? Because of the Royal Family. That's it. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.

I suspect that completely naive beliefs like "Britain would be more open to accurate and relevant representation if there was no monarchy" are at the root of this. That's so untrue it puts me in hysterics.

Yes, but as I said above, how many of them actually get what they came for if coming to SEE royals is their goal? Near zero, is the answer. Why else are they coming? The feel of having royals? If you get that by looking at a royal building then as VVD said, keep the building and open it to the public. The Queen needn't be there. Nobody, to my knowledge, denied that they generate interest. The debate was that there is no reason for such interest and that such interest is extremely illogical when compared with reasons as to why this fascination exists. Nobody denied the existence of it.

Yes, but nobody is saying remove Buckingham Palace. If they come to see a building because of who they THINK might be in it, then that removes even more credibility from their claim. "This is mad" "Why?" "Queen might be in there." That's flawed on so many levels.

You seem to be arguing that the fascination exists, nobody is denying such. Just that it's an illogical one. If they're current, as also stated previously, they can't be history. If you want them to be history, make them history. Because currently they're not doing anything.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak

I suspect that completely naive beliefs like "Britain would be more open to accurate and relevant representation if there was no monarchy" are at the root of this. That's so untrue it puts me in hysterics.


What part does the monarchy really play in Britain at this point? Other than being more of a symbollic presence of what once constituted Old Britain? Seriously..I'd really like to know. Correct me if I'm wrong..but I always believed that the modern Royal Family had no real authority in Britain.

They're a "fantastic institution." to some. That's about it. Unless you count the money they take from people to "put back".

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think its maybe a bit weird for us to understand the fascination with royals because we live here...

People have explicitly explained their reason for fascination and absolutely none of it makes any sense, nor is any of it arguable.

If you think they're great, fine. Subjective. I don't, nor do many others. They're a pointless relic.

-AC

Well, to be fair, it'd be hard for you to understand the whole fascination that people from other countries, the US in particular, has with the royal family. I never had much of a fascination with it, though I can understand why so many people do. We don't have anything even remotely like that here in the US, therefore it's something that most Americans will be interested in. It might seem silly, but since when does someone have to have a logical reason to be interested in something?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You don't want to pay a pittance towards their upkeep, but support taking their own money from them just because you disagree about how they have used their own land? You seem to have an irrational drive behind your dislike, which makes me wonder.

I don't like the fact that it's being classed as 'their land' or money, in the first place. Nothing irrational about it. I do not wish to contribute towards the lifestyles of those people. Pittance or not.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

I have given reasons for its existence. Though it is worth noting that it also lends a certain measure of constituional stability, and in the form of the Commonwealth a better voice in world affairs.

Constitutional stability? In what sense?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Inherently flawed how? Certainly no more flawed than our system of Government, seeing as they have no constituional power with which they can abuse their privilege with.

One is elected, one we are given no choice over. To me, the whole concept is an antiquated idea of privilege, and serfdom. I don't like the idea at all. I don't regard them as having any superiority- there's no reason to do so. For that reason I don't like being made to treat them as such.

Why do they even have privilege? That's my essential problem, and no manner of wrangling is going to change that. I do not start from the perspective that they should be there, and there's no point removing them now.


Originally posted by Ushgarak

And anachonistic? Well, that somewhat comes with the history, hmm? The palace is anachronisitc. A huge part of London is, actually, Anachronism can have value. For the Royals, it is essential.

Anachronistic buildings is one thing; anachronistic practises are another. Having old buildings of architectural interest is a bit different to continuing to subsidise the royals.


Originally posted by Ushgarak

Sheer selfishness. The Royal Family is at the heart of our country and provides money to it. There are a whole lot of things that people might not want their tax money to go to- mech makes such a point above- but one of the points of civilisation is that we all pay for the lot.

We also have a say in what we pay for. I am exercising that right in this case. What do you mean 'the heart of our country'? It's just a quixotic fallacy. What exactly would be lost by their removal?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

I really find very little intelligence behind such complaints. They are normally based on some odd feeling of inferiority

I'm not sure I follow the strand of logic here. I don't see a lack of intelligence in not wanting to subsidise a royal family. You seem to have some kind of inbuilt respect for them- I personally don't. I feel no inferiority- hence why I don't wish them to be treated as some kind of social centerpiece.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

There is absolutely no way at all in which anything- ANYTHING- would be improved by their removal, But we would lose money, and a lot of us here would lose a huge symbol that we value very dearly, and the UK would lose a point of distinctiveness that actually enhances its world status. And no- the prestige is not spurious at all, that's just a comment you threw out that has no basis whatsoever.

I think it would be improved- we would no longer have a society viewed as a quaint little class-based backwater.

I don't like them as a symbol. I don't value the symbol at all- you may do, but that's up to you. For me it's a symbol we could do without.

In your eyes they're prestigious- for many they are a ridiculous antiquity, only having value as a curiosity. That's hardly concrete prestige- it's a symbol which can be taken either way.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

And if you want to bat toruists for their pre-conceptions of other countries... then you'd better ban anyone from going anywhere, because it sure as hell is not going to stop, ever, and it moulds to the characteristcs a country has, and so it would continue, royal family or none, just in different form.

I would prefer the different form.

I understand that you value them as a symbol- I do not. I don't really wish to back and forth over the reasons I do not agree with them, and you do. It's been covered above.

We are all aware of their misdemeanours and idiocy, though, and the way that their charity work is always wheeled out in order to ameliorate any antipathy towards them.

Originally posted by Lana
Well, to be fair, it'd be hard for you to understand the whole fascination that people from other countries, the US in particular, has with the royal family. I never had much of a fascination with it, though I can understand why so many people do. We don't have anything even remotely like that here in the US, therefore it's something that most Americans will be interested in. It might seem silly, but since when does someone have to have a logical reason to be interested in something?

Nobody is saying interests have to be logical or that the royal family yield no interest universally - just that it IS illogical. If you find the royals interesting, you're not wrong. Just like someone like Avril Lavigne isn't wrong, but it's rather shit and it's illogical. I sat here and laid it all out in my discussion with Samura.

It's not being said that there's no interest, just that it's a stupid interest. It's not hard for me to understand, I perfectly understand why. It's all been laid out in many forms, all of them as illogical as the other.

-AC

My post was more in response to Milla's, where she said "I think its maybe a bit weird for us to understand the fascination with royals because we live here..."

It's something that we don't have in many other countries. And people will always be fascinated in something they don't have. I'm sure if there was royalty in the US, there wouldn't be such a fascination, but that's not the case.

Originally posted by Lana
My post was more in response to Milla's, where she said "I think its maybe a bit weird for us to understand the fascination with royals because we live here..."

It's something that we don't have in many other countries. And people will always be fascinated in something they don't have.

Mine was still relevant, same issue.

Yes, nobody is disputing that. Just that it's stupid and illogical. "Let's go to England!" "Why?" "They have a Queen!" "You won't see her or any Royals though." "So! We don't need to see her, just know she's around!"

As I said, illogical. The fact that you admit there'd be not as much interest if you had a monarchy of your own only boosts my point.

-AC

I just edited my post about three times, adding to what I said

Originally posted by Lana
Well, to be fair, it'd be hard for you to understand the whole fascination that people from other countries, the US in particular, has with the royal family. I never had much of a fascination with it, though I can understand why so many people do. We don't have anything even remotely like that here in the US, therefore it's something that most Americans will be interested in. It might seem silly, but since when does someone have to have a logical reason to be interested in something?

I don't deny that people are interested in them, of course they are. Regardless of any 'benefits' that arise from their being kept on life-support, I do not agree with the idea of 'royalty' per se. Money and chimeric ideas of eclat don't persuade me personally that they should continue to be subsidised.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Mine was still relevant, same issue.

Yes, nobody is disputing that. Just that it's stupid and illogical. "Let's go to England!" "Why?" "They have a Queen!" "You won't see her or any Royals though." "So! We don't need to see her, just know she's around!"

As I said, illogical. The fact that you admit there'd be not as much interest if you had a monarchy of your own only boosts my point.

-AC

Hey, I said myself that I have never had much fascination in the royal family or cared much, I don't know why, but I've personally never seen why they're such a big deal. But as someone from a country where we don't have any sort of royalty, and really, we have a very short history, I can see why so many people would have such a fascination.

Personally I care more about actual history

Originally posted by Lana
But as someone from a country where we don't have any sort of royalty, and really, we have a very short history, I can see why so many people would have such a fascination.

Personally I care more about actual history

Exactly. The royals have no part of ours, so the interest is flawed from the beginning.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly. The royals have no part of ours, so the interest is flawed from the beginning.

-AC

Yeah, it is flawed, and I never denied that or said otherwise.

But flawed or not, the fascination is there.

Who denied that? Me and VVD have been saying that from the beginning.

Fascination or not, they're pointless and many people justifiably don't want them around anymore.

-AC

Originally posted by whobdamandog
What part does the monarchy really play in Britain at this point? Other than being more of a symbollic presence of what once constituted Old Britain? Seriously..I'd really like to know. Correct me if I'm wrong..but I always believed that the modern Royal Family had no real authority in Britain.

Correct... But on a serious note, Its all about increasing the amount of money the govenment wastes on crap... another useless service Great Britain doesn't need... Spokes people, I wouldn't mind as much if they were actually good at there job.. But the amount of shame they cast... well they should be payin us!!!

Philip's the best... I can't believe he hasn't joinned the BNP or the KKK...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who denied that? Me and VVD have been saying that from the beginning.

Fascination or not, they're pointless and many people justifiably don't want them around anymore.



We are now making different points, I believe.

Well I can definately think of one reason to keep the Royals around..
One word People..

CAMILLA..

damn she's hot as sh*t!!!

I know you were joking (I hope) Whob, but that's what I mean. It's got to the point that some random woman that Prince Charles hooked up with is now being considered a genuine royal and is being mentioned in a thread about British figureheads.

-AC

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well I can definately think of one reason to keep the Royals around..
One word People..

CAMILLA..

damn she's hot as sh*t!!!

Ironically, in the tabloids is the only real place they hold any relevance or interest to most natives. Oh, besides the inherent cap-doffing sycophantism that seems to be ingrained in many of us.

Camilla's my b*tch..she could give a dog a bone!!!

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/europe/03/16/britain.wedding/long.camilla.jpg


Look at those womanly curves!!!

http://worldroots.com/brigitte/diana_gifs/diana371.jpg


Man..why has this thread gone on so long..Camilla is everyman's fantasy. Why the heck Charles made the mistake of picking Di over Camilla is beyond me. Stupid Queen..obviously she doesn't know true beauty when she sees it..

Long live Duchess Cammy!!


http://jphilip.typepad.com/redguybluestate/images/camilla.jpg


We wubba ya baby...the only reason for anyone to want to visit England..

Fin

Just to bring together my posts, and to reiterate my point, because I don't particularly wish to continue bouncing against the side of an impasse for the next week-

As far as I can see, there are a few arguments being advanced for keeping the monarchy:


Constitutional balance, tourism, and some kind of 'prestige'.


Constitutional balance is a fiction. The crown's power is nominal.

Tourism is a fair argument, but I don't think it holds water. Until they are gone we won't know for sure, so I'm prepared to leave that as it stands.

As for the prestige- perhaps in the eyes of some it gives us some kind of nebulous grandeur. I don't feel that this is at all important enough to be a justification. Nobody of any real import is going to view the country less favourably because of the lack of a monarchy.

I personally have a problem with the whole concept before any of these attempts at justification. I like neither what they represent, nor how they conduct themselves generally.

That is my own view- no 'justifications' or palliatives will alter it.


I think there is one argument which does have legs, and it is one which is fair and reasonable. That is simply to hold a referendum over the future of the monarchy. If the majority of the citizens (or as we are quaintly known, 'subjects') are in favour of keeping the monarchy, then that's fine by me. I wouldn't agree with the decision, but I could accept it as a fair one.