The English Royals

headbang8

Admired Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Posts
1,627
Media
12
Likes
819
Points
333
Location
Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I learned my civics in American public school. The understanding I got of the Royal family led me to believe that a King or Queen was potentially a dictator. Her or his power is absolute, and if her subjects live lives of freedom and dignity, it was only at her whim.

Of course, fast forward to Law School in a Commonwealth country. I learned that the monarch had forfeit many of those powers long ago, under the political pressure of modernisation. In fact, the monarch is restricted from doing anything meaningful without the instruction (called "advice") of the democratically elected parliament. There are some things which only a head of state can do--declare war, make treaties, and sign bills into law--and she can't do those things unless the elected officials tell her to.

She has a great deal less power than a President. Good thing, or bad thing?

Probably a good thing. The office of the President, beginning with Reagan, simply refused to enforce laws made by Congress (many environmental bills were simply ignored). And so-called signing statements and vetoes mean that a President has powers that are a lot more kingly than a modern monarch. Fair enough, one could argue; a president is elected, a monarch is not.

Would it be better for Britain to have a less flashy head of state (perhaps a prominent citizen appointed as an honorary position for a fixed term, like Canadian or Australian governors-general) rather than a high-maintenance, undereducated, inbred, loopy, embarassing royal clan?

I think, symbolically, yes. It wouldn't be cheaper--the government, for cultural reasons, would probably wish to maintain ceremonial pomp and circumstance. But it would show the average Briton that he was, indeed, a citizen, not a subject. And that potentially he, too, could be afforded as much respect and honour as some eighty-odd year-old horsey grandmother, presiding over a brood of middle-aged marital fuckups and rebellious grandchildren.
 

hypolimnas

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Posts
2,035
Media
0
Likes
3,043
Points
343
Location
Penisland
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
uncut said:
A lesson for one and all about inbreeding!!!

Well perhaps breeding in general.

My father's family love the royals because they love horses and dogs. They have nicely kept gardens. They also have big diamonds, and good art collections. Oh, that and the Queen loves Coro. I did have to swear the Oath of Allegiance, once, on account of being in the Commonwealth. Didn't think about it too much. We generally regard them as very ordinary.

And how could I forget: they have funny hats, and employ lots of men who have nice uniforms.

It struck me reading through this that the only "royals" who have cared what Amercians thought were Diana and Camilla. That, and how populist Stronzo's views are in some parts of the world.

Anyway the other thing that came to mind (regarding Anglo Amercian perspectives) was the following story about the big bling. Liz told one version (on Parkinson from memory) which went:

"My God, that's the most vulgar thing I have ever seen. (Pause).
Can I try it on?"

According to legend, Princess Margaret spotted the 39-carat Krupp diamond on Elizabeth Taylor's finger and exclaimed, "That's the most vulgar thing I've ever seen!". The actress offered to let the stylish royal try on the bauble, one of many dazzling gifts from fifth husband, Richard Burton. Watching the Princess' eyes sparkle as she examined the jewel, the quick-witted star famously quipped: "See? It's not so vulgar now, is it?".

I suppose the parallel here is:

"My God, that great horse dong is not going anywhere near my ass, I'm not ready to die. (Pause). Do you have a condom?" *bends over*.

Human nature, huh?
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,997
Media
3
Likes
23,734
Points
643
Gender
Male
Re: Taxation of the Royals:

The UK government excused King George VI and his successors from paying taxes sometime during his reign. After Elizabeth II's ascension to the throne the lavish spending and bad behaviour of her sister Margaret caused the state supported royals to be considered "a bunch of parasites" by a number of dismayed Britons.

Due to QE II's exemplary conduct she currently is the most respected and loved of the Royals. However many of her subjects were cross with her following the fire at Windsor Castle in Nov. 21, 1992. The Government of John Major determined that the public should foot the bill for restoring the uninsured damaged landmark at the cost of several million dollars, a decision that caused a great uproar in the country and parliament.

The Queen thought it wise to make the following announcement as of Nov. 27, 2002:
Excerpt from the NYTimes article by WILLIAM E. SCHMIDT

"Breaking with legal and royal tradition, Queen Elizabeth II will voluntarily pay tax on her private income and personally absorb a larger share of the public cost of the royal family's expenses, the Government declared today. In what appeared to be a well-timed public relations initiative to defuse festering resentment over the royal wealth and life style among Britain's recession-weary public, Prime Minister John Major disclosed the Queen's proposals in a surprise statement this afternoon before the House of Commons."

The British Monarchy's website link is shown below:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page6.asp
 
2

2891

Guest
BigPoppaFury said:
The Queen as an independent head of state is laughable, she's entirely void for that purpose no matter what power she's supposed to have. Likewise, the monarchy itself is meaningless and I resent that my tax money goes towards keeping these people in helicopter rides and caviar. The only purpose they serve is to attract tourism, especially from the US where there seems to be a great interest in history.

For me this begs two questions:
1) Would these tourists be less interested if we no longer had a royal family?
2) Do they bring in any more money than they cost anyway?

To me they are only useful if they are good for the welfare of our economy, otherwise they should get jobs and make thier own damn food.

I feel England has to move forward in so many ways and it's disappointing to look at Scandanavia not far across the waters and see how clean the streets are, how low the crime rate is and how intelligent the average Joe is. God Save The Queen? No thanks, if there was a god I'd rather it saved my friends and family. I'd love to have a national anthem that I could sing and really mean, I never feel right asking a higher being to save someone I couldn't care less about.

We do have much to be thankful for (and this IS home, there's nowhere I'd rather live) but the royal family represents to me everything that is holding us back from making ourselves somewhere to be truly proud of once again. We're creating nothing that future generations will thank us for (perhaps aside from cities like London where for the most part cultural ignorance is very slowly starting to ebb away). There is a church where I live that has stood for over eight hundred years, which is still fully functional. I find the fact that one of the sights of home was also that for someone who lived in the 13th century far more capturing of the imagination than some old lady living on her family tree and giving us a speech every Christmas day.

I agree with BigPoppaFury. I was in the UK last year visited many historical places because I wanted to do that but I really didn't have an interest in catching any glimpse of any royals of any sort. While there I got the general impression that the royals are indeed expensive. Many complained to me and rightly so.

I mean we have had many historical figures creating historical sites and such places in the states and we pay taxes to help maintain those sites so we may visit them if we wish but we are not paying the decendants of those historical figures any money. They're on their own. Just MHO. UK was great BTW. Looking forward in going again!
 

DaveyR

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
5,422
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
268
Location
Northumberland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
When it comes to Americans talking about History and British culture I'm afraid I cannot take things seriously due to an experience I had in Edinburgh a couple of years ago. I know one should not generalise but this experience had a huge effect on how I view US citizens.

I was working in in Edinburgh and was walking back to my hotel after work through the Princess street gardens which overlook the castle. I overheard an American lady say to her husband - " Isn't it wonderful how they built the castle right next to the railway tracks".

I really wanted to run over and say hey lady " The castle was built more than 1000 years before locomotives were even dreamt of". I decided to leave her in her ignorance.

Perhaps you will understand why I refuse to listen seriously when Americans express opinions on ancient British Institutions.and our History. I don't mean to come acroos as derogatory I just feel our cultures make us think differently and have very different outloks on the world.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
134
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I understand entirely Dave.

I beg you not to think we all have such a limited knowledge of things generally here on this side of the Atlantic.

"eddyabs" and his assumption that I, as an American, could know nothing of the background of the Princess Diana debacle and her boyfriend Fayed's background (unless instructed by him) is equally moronic to me.

That's why I said that I thought it best not to make generalizations based on groups per se.

In many ways Bostonian culture is more indellibly connected to English culture than it is American. We have a direct connection genealogically and sociologically to you British and most of those who travel in my circle are extremely well read when it comes to world events (and particularly so when it comes to things going on in the UK).

For the love of Christ I was in school there for four years. I guess it counts for some cognizance eh?
 

DaveyR

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
5,422
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
268
Location
Northumberland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Stronzo said:
I understand entirely Dave.

I beg you not to think we all have such a limited knowledge of things generally here on this side of the Atlantic.

"eddyabs" and his assumption that I, as an American, could know nothing of the background of the Princess Diana debacle and her boyfriend Fayed's background (unless instructed by him) is equally moronic to me.

That's why I said that I thought it best not to make generalizations based on groups per se.

In many ways Bostonian culture is more indellibly connected to English culture than it is American. We have a direct connection genealogically and sociologically to you British and most of those who travel in my circle are extremely well read when it comes to world events (and particularly so when it comes to things going on in the UK).

For the love of Christ I was in school there for four years. I guess it counts for some cognizance eh?

I accept and understand what you are saying.

I did say myself that one should not generailse even though I did so.

I slap myself on the wrists and promise not to do it again.

Whilst the situation I described was quite amusing it was a bit disturbing at the same time and i am sure you will understand what I mean by that.

I for one don't expect foreigners to understand our strange and eccentric British ways. But I do expect you to respect us for what we are. We are all very different and that's what makes the world an interesting and diverse place.

As an aside I have heard it quoted many times that only 6% of the American population have passports. Please feel free to correct me if you know otherwise. Perhaps if more of you travelled and experienced other parts of the world and their cultures you would be a bit less judgemental and introspective.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
134
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Daverock said:
As an aside I have heard it quoted many times that only 6% of the American population have passports. Please feel free to correct me if you know otherwise. Perhaps if more of you travelled and experienced other parts of the world and their cultures you would be a bit less judgemental and introspective.

Sadly I admit it's true.

My first was "gotten" :wink: for me by my parents when I was a four or five I think.

And your last sentence is beyond accurate. It's the main reason so many so willing condemned the French when the War ON Iraq was initiated by our fearsome President.

We'll all recall certainly that French Fries (what you folks call "chips") were forever more to be known as "Freedom Fries"... :rolleyes: I've seen and admonished the "Ugly American" as recently as last October in Italy Dave.

It's a sad phenomenon.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
BigPoppaFury said:
The only purpose they serve is to attract tourism, especially from the US where there seems to be a great interest in history.

You are too generous with your praise of us. I suspect the average Yankee tourist's great interest in the UK's royal history does not extend much beyond compulsive ogling of castles, crowns, jewels, beheading axes, and the like.

BigPoppaFury said:
For me this begs two questions:
1) Would these tourists be less interested if we no longer had a royal family?
2) Do they bring in any more money than they cost anyway?

1. I think so. If the Windsors' castles were empty relics rather than functioning dwellings there'd still be some tourist draw but probably much less than there is now. There is some mystique surrounding real, live royals that draws tourists like flies. I felt a bit of it myself while I waited for hours in front of Buckingham for an ever-so-brief glimpse of QEII.

2. Don't know.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Stronzo said:
We'll all recall certainly that French Fries (what you folks call "chips") were forever more to be known as "Freedom Fries"...

The menu at the House of Representatives cafeteria quietly re-instated the name "French Fries." Why quietly? Well, it seems the original proponent of the renaming was forced to step down from a House committee in the wake of the Abramoff scandal (the scandal the GOP wants voters to forget about).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14152281/
 

jeremyA

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
97
Media
6
Likes
11
Points
153
Location
England
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
The royal family, yeah well apart from being the richest woman in the world the queen does a great deal of harm to this country by perpetuating the myth that we all live in a perpetual london fog,spend all day cleaning chimneys with a dick vandyke accent and popping in and out of each others houses for a nice cup of tea and a sit down and we all run round saying to each other' the queen mom didn't just love her gin soaked wooden teeth' well thats the impression I get from the number of American tourists in bright orange shirts and green trousers who hang around Buckingham palace
actualy they are a bunch of parasitic inbred morons who will be the first against the wall come the revolution.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
We did that revolution a long time ago and found that what we replaced it with was rather worse.

Chill out Jezza - we have a good line in live and let live.
 

D_alex8

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Posts
8,055
Media
0
Likes
1,379
Points
208
Location
Germany
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
novice_btm said:
I feel the same way about people who refuse to take down their fake pix. :tongue:

Yes, I'm bemused that JeremyA thinks anyone will find any truth in a word he says so long as he has the patently fake picture on his profile.

Since that picture was discussed on the following thread:
---> http://www.lpsg.org/adult-websites/20267-tristan-s-12-incher.html

...one can tell from the link on the opening post that the image dates from at least as early as April 2002, when JeremyA would have been about 15. Ergo, if he wishes us to believe it's his pic, then we need to assume that he is actively distributing material that must be classified as 'child porn'.