The Royal Wedding.

The only thing they represent is tradition and history. To blame them for any sort of social mobility issues is inept and simply a distraction from any genuine solution to economic issues.

The ignorant rantings of moaners aside, I saw a happy country when I was out jogging on Friday. Flags, bunting, parties and good nature. Not BECAUSE we have a royal family, that's just silly, but it is all part of an embodiment of something significant and useful which meant people felt like putting the effort in that day.

They don't cost us a darn thing- quite the reverse. If we didn't have them, we'd still need some sort of head of state, which would still include public holidays and security costs, only this time accompanied with typical bloated government bureaucracy.

Talk of privilege is stupid, as the Royal Family is basically obliged to support the country- they have a role to fulfil. You can dislike their wealth, but then you have MUCH bigger problems than the royals to worry about.

If you think getting rid of them solves any sort of issue at all, you are mistaken. All you would achieve is to diminish a part of this nation. Again, really these feelings of yours are very petty indeed and attitudes like yours are a much bigger problem than the monarchy could ever be. Decades on, you'll still be left with social mobility issues and then who will you be able to blame? Or will you then finally realise that's an economic issue, not one related to mere tradition.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The only thing they represent is tradition and history. To blame them for any sort of social mobility issues is... inept and simply a distraction from any genuine solution to economic issues.

The ignorant rantings of moaners aside, I saw a happy country when I was out jogging on Friday. Flags, bunting, parties and good nature. Not BECAUSE we have a royal family, that's just silly, but it is all part of an embodiment of something significant and useful which meant people felt like putting the effort in that day.

They don't cost us a darn thing- quite the reverse. Talk of privilege is stupid, as the Royal Family is basically obliged to support the country- they have a role to fulfil. You can dislike their wealth, but then you have MUCH bigger problems than the royals to worry about.

If you think getting rid of them solves any sort of issue at all, you are mistaken. All you would achieve is to diminish a part of this nation. Again, really these feelings of yours are very petty indeed and attitudes like yours are a much bigger problem than the monarchy could ever be.

I know for many the royal familiy provide a romantic version of Britain. It is; however, very difficult to attribute in a democracy a reason for them. They have no mission statement or purpose. The contempory lexicon of audit, accountability and transparancy is difficult to apply. A positive I would agree with is for some the Royals provide a rallying point for a proportion of the nation in a time of disunity; However, for others they merely underline inequality and division. Nobody can measure the true power or possible value of an institution as vague in modern times as the monarchy which depends on fluctuating popular opinion and no votes. After the royal wedding, the republican movement is at its weakest since the death of Diana. Cynics would say the timing of the royal wedding could not work out better for the establishment and the arguments against a British President can be summed up in four words which put off political proponents of all colours. President Blair, President Thatcher. It is perhaps even more controversial to consider president Beckham; Although, President Warnock might seem to have some sense were she younger. In the end it really comes down to do you consider someone to be above you merely due to birth. Cherie Blair didn't and upset the Queen by refusing to curtsey. Whilst Oxford and Cambridge let in so few Black students and students from state schools; Prince Harry gets his art A level coursework done for him. Royalty certainly has its perks.

There can be a case made for a representative head of state in a democracy. In Germany there is an elected head of state called the president, which does not have particular political power and is mostly an instrument for representation and unity. Sure there are some ritual things a president does, but really it's mostly being a representative for Germany as a whole, it is basically the same thing as a King or Queen in England, except that the person is voted in for every couple of years. Admittedly you don't need to have this separation, in the US I believe the president has both the role of the Prime Minister/Chancellor and King/President but there's definitely a place for such an institution within a democratic system.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There can be a case made for a representative head of state in a democracy. In Germany there is an elected head of state called the president, which does not have particular political power and is mostly an instrument for representation and unity. Sure there are some ritual things a president does, but really it's mostly being a representative for Germany as a whole, it is basically the same thing as a King or Queen in England, except that the person is voted in for every couple of years. Admittedly you don't need to have this separation, in the US I believe the president has both the role of the Prime Minister/Chancellor and King/President but there's definitely a place for such an institution within a democratic system.

Those are indeed my feelings. Hereditary heads of state are something left over from feudal times. Money is not the main issue I have with the monarchy, position as head of state by right of birth is. The extended royal family is also so strange. I have real reservations about the new independent schools having often such close ties to the church in the U.K., it seems almost a way of reverting things back to those feudal times. The seperation you talk about leads to two sets of costs, the Queen has her court and Cameron has his. The German president some believe is more expensive than the Queen. At least though he is elected and therefore more palletable in a democracy.

Interesting how the car they drove away in was converted to be fueled by English wine.

It figures someone would finally find a use for it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Interesting how the car they drove away in was converted to be fueled by English wine.

It figures someone would finally find a use for it.

Haha, that's why it's fueled on 'surplus' British wine. 😘

Why is the world so ****ing obsessed with this? Aren't there other royal weddings periodically in other countries but you don't see the world go all ga ga over that. I mean these two will probably be divorced in a couple years and she'll get a nice settlement. I just don't get it, I mean really....some sources said this was "the most watched event in history", sad really.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Why is the world so ****ing obsessed with this? Aren't there other royal weddings periodically in other countries but you don't see the world go all ga ga over that. I mean these two will probably be divorced in a couple years and she'll get a nice settlement. I just don't get it, I mean really....some sources said this was "the most watched event in history, sad really.

Yeah, I give it a year or until MI5 act on Prince Philips orders (I joke) 😖hifty:

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Why is the world so ****ing obsessed with this? Aren't there other royal weddings periodically in other countries but you don't see the world go all ga ga over that. I mean these two will probably be divorced in a couple years and she'll get a nice settlement. I just don't get it, I mean really....some sources said this was "the most watched event in history", sad really.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Other countries didn't rule 1/4 of the globe less than a century ago. *shrug*

I don't think Imperialism is something to be proud of myself.

This video contains a good set of arguments on both sides of the "monarchy" argument. Charlie Veitch was arrested for doing nothing, in a police state type action for something he "might do" after being arrested he gave this interview,

YouTube video

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I don't think Imperialism is something to be proud of myself.

Just that countries that used to be major powers, even if they aren't major powers today, (take for instance Russia, France, and Germany) get much more attention than other countries that have never been important.

England is still riding the 'we used to be Top Dog' wave.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
This video contains a good set of arguments on both sides of the "monarchy" argument. Charlie Veitch was arrested for doing nothing, in a police state type action for something he "might do" after being arrested he gave this interview,

YouTube video

Oh yeah, unbiased, two-sided reporting indeed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Never said it was.

Just that countries that used to be major powers, even if they aren't major powers today, (take for instance Russia, France, and Germany) get much more attention than other countries that have never been important.

England is still riding the 'we used to be Top Dog' wave.

Still doesn't explain the fascination with the royal wedding, especially by the rest of the world.

When Chelsea Clinton got married did anybody even care? Even in America?

I mean this event exceeded even the moon landings, whch were far more important from almost every perspective concievable.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Never said it was.

Just that countries that used to be major powers, even if they aren't major powers today, (take for instance Russia, France, and Germany) get much more attention than other countries that have never been important.

England is still riding the 'we used to be Top Dog' wave.

I misunderstood, no probs and yes I think the elite do like to make out the UK is still a power hence the ludicrous action in the middle east.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Still doesn't explain the fascination with the royal wedding, especially by the rest of the world.

When Chelsea Clinton got married did anybody even care? Even in America?

I mean this event exceeded even the moon landings, whch were far more important from almost every perspective concievable.

In what way did it exceed the Moon Landings? In terms of viewership?

Originally posted by Omega Vision

In what way did it exceed the Moon Landings? In terms of viewership? [/B]

Yes, CNN reported last night it was probably the most watched television event in history.

Glad this thing is over. Got so sick of hearing about it every time I turned on the TV. You'd think these two people are the most important human beings on the planet with the amount of publicity and hype this thing got, even here in the states.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Yes, CNN reported last night it was probably the most watched television event in history.

To be fair - TVs are far more common than they were 40+ years ago.

Originally posted by BackFire
Glad this thing is over. Got so sick of hearing about it every time I turned on the TV. You'd think these two people are the most important human beings on the planet with the amount of publicity and hype this thing got, even here in the states.

Sadly it's not over, by cleverly not having the honeymoon now- it can be extended as a continued hype, when the honeymoon starts.

You mean the British royal family are not the most important people on the planet? Really?