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 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 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!!!
Look at those womanly curves!!!
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!!
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.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Aww come on Vic..it was kind of funny..Camilla is a hotty...lighten up a bit..😉
I wasn't really referring to your comment when I said that.
I also refuse give more than the quickest of glances to any sentence with the name 'Camilla' and the noun 'hottie'.
Unless the adverb 'not' is present.
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Correct... But on a serious note, Its all about increasing the amount of money the govenment wastes on crap... another useless service [b]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... [/B]
The answer you should have given there was "Wrong" the Monarch has the power over Foreign Policy and lets not forget the Courts themselves.
Now what you people seem to completely ignore is the great Estates that the Royal Family own(Not public letted land) The Duchy of Cornwall for example employs most of the people in its area. It also stimulates it's economy.
Oh and for those who really need some conformation of power the Queen can dissolve parliament and is commander in chief of the army.
yer... like she could do that... I'm quite sure that parliament can overthrow/ignore all her requests.... I don't think she can do/say anything without tony giving her the go ahead...
She shouldn't have that land.. There nothing more then figureheads these days... Figureheads that continue to gorge themselfs even after they have become bloated.. Now they just abuse there power and make a mockary of what was once a privaliged position... Andrew abusing his power to make crappy tv... Using the armed forces like its a taxi rank.. And theres talk that harry is going to be comander of our armies one day, Oh great.. Giving power to a "nazi", Thats the last thing we need..
Does make me chuckle, that "stimulates the economy" lark.
Related, here's a piece by Brian Reade:
"I'M so pleased we're going-to build a statue for the Queen Mum, especially after scrapping-the idea of making-it extra lifelike by giving her a water feature.
But what will it be?
Designers say they want to erect something simple that sums up her life. What about a sculpture of a finger symbolising what she never lifted. Or maybe something that shows how clever she was. After all, there aren't many women so ingenious they end up paying virtually no death duty on their £60million fortune, despite the taxpayer handing them £643,000-a-year.
I've got it!
A sculpture of a load of old mugs. To symbolise how she saw us. Gawd bless 'er"
-AC
Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
The answer you should have given there was "Wrong" the Monarch has the power over Foreign Policy and lets not forget the Courts themselves.Oh and for those who really need some conformation of power the Queen can dissolve parliament and is commander in chief of the army.
It's a nominal power. Constitutionally, the Queen must do those things under instruction from the government. It's completely out of the question that she could ever dissolve parliament on her own initiative.
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.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.)
£1 a year is what it costs everone to keep the Royals. Thats it £1 pound not £100 not £200... £1 pound. You can't buy a 99 Ice Cream for a pound so they are pretty cheap to keep.