The English Royals

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Why is it the only people who like the Monarchy aren't British?

I know, let's do a trade with the US.

We will have your money, your current economy and growth rate, natural resources and millitary strength.

You get the Queen and 500 years of boring history.

Deal?

 

[DaveyR]

Why is it the only people who like the Monarchy aren't British?

I know, let's do a trade with the US.

We will have your money, your current economy and growth rate, natural resources and millitary strength.

You get the Queen and 500 years of boring history.

Deal?

Don't go there Orca - they might throw in GWB :rocketwhore: OMG

 

[Ethyl]

Don't go there Orca - they might throw in GWB :rocketwhore: OMG

Might? Try GWB, Dick Cheney and the entire administration. Be careful what you wish for, Orca. You just might get it.

 

[DaveyR]

Might? Try GWB, Dick Cheney and the entire administration. Be careful what you wish for, Orca. You just might get it.

See what I mean Orca? I just knew that would happen

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Might? Try GWB, Dick Cheney and the entire administration. Be careful what you wish for, Orca. You just might get it.

We already have them dictating our foreign policy, so ain't nothing new!

Winnar!

 

[Ethyl]

We already have them dictating our foreign policy, so ain't nothing new!

Winnar!

Yes, but you don't have to claim responsibility for them--yet.

 

[DaveyR]

We already have them dictating our foreign policy, so ain't nothing new!

Winnar!

Are you sure it's only foreign policy?

 

[dong20]

This point of view always fascinates me

It's totally economic and speaks nothing to the sense of history the Windsors give to England..

A Thoroughly Hated Anachronism?

I have never seen the queen in person, nor do I have any burning desire to do so, but that doesn't mean I don't support the institution. The occasional blubbering sense of sentimentalism does rather make me cringe, and I was no fan of Diana, while she met a tragic end and she did engender much affection here and elsewhere she was in my view was unecessarily sentimentalised . As for the conspiracies.....they are always a source of amusement.

Charles and Camilla? seriously, I couldn't care less, if they are happy together then we should all be so lucky. If it's an embarrassment to the Queen or a constitutional nightmare then it will be neither the first nor the last. There are larger problems in the world.

I agree, it's not about the money. Those who whine about the cost; well, last year the Royal family cost me, as a taxpayer about 60p or about US1$. If the existence of the Royal Family promotes a positive image of the UK at home and abroad, to me that is money well spent. If the existence of the Royal Family promotes tourism or investment and generates revenue which exceeds the public cost of supporting them, then that's a double bonus.

Those who use the argument about no trickle down income combined with a waste of public funds? Well, I while it's a valid personal opinion to me it is largely without substance; that 60p will buy me what, a cup of tea? a chocolate bar, half a dozen text messages? I truly don't believe that saving 1p per week off my tax bill by abolishing the Royals would tip me into the uber rich bracket. On the financials, I think a little perspective is needed.

JeremyA's comments that the Royals perpetuate a myth of an eternally Dickensian England? Well, while he is entitled to his opinion it is one entirely typical of his immature and myopic statements about most topics. I have never in my life seen a real life working chimney sweep and I am considerably older than he.

Without them "out there" (seen or unseen) and continuing in their various capacities Windor Castle, Balmoral, and all the other royal palaces and castles would have nothing more than the feel of the Palace at Versaille; EMPTY.

For me as an American tourist the continuity would be lost were the Royal Family no longer recognized as such.

I agree, I have visited many former Royal residences in the UK and abroad and while I can usually appreciate their architecture and grandeur they have almost without exception been without any sense of 'soul' and thus rather sterile.

 

[JustAsking]

Thirdly, I'm no fan of hard-written constitutions (such as the American or French model) - since the only rights one has are those that are listed in the document - with the implicit reasoning that rights not so delimited do not exist. With the glorious tradition of an 'unwritten' (actually uncodified) constitution, Britain retains all of the flexibility that has fostered a long process of expanding 'rights' for all in a system where any 'right' may theoretically exist. That is to say, I admire the flexibility of the fundamental legal/sovereign basis of the British constitutional monarchy system as opposed to the strict constitutional model used in the USA.

:smile:

Lucky,
This was the one argument against having a Bill of Rights that people took seriously at the time. That argument being that if you enumerated a certain set of rights, it would be implied that any that were not listed would be considered nonexistent.

This is the reason for the Ninth Amendment, which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
​

Although it looks innocuous, this amendment has been used to defend such things as rights to privacy and other important rights.

The original premise of the American Constitution was that all rights go to the people unless specifically assigned to the government. Also, the rights that are listed are pretty specific. So the concept of penumbral rights is used quite often in the courts. For example, Article I protects the press from government censorship, but its penumbra covers things like the Internet, public libraries, etc.

Interesting enough, the term "exegesis" comes up frequently in Constitutional Law, so you can see that it is considered a flexible document in that it needs to be interpreted so as to get to the spirit of the original authors, not just their words.

I just wanted to point that out. However, I don't disagree with your observation that there are a number of highly effective and very flexible democracies that are running with no constitution. The UK and Israel come to mind.

Don't get rid of the Royal Family. For all our iconoclasticism in the US, deep down in side we all feel like distant cousins to the British monarchy. However, not having one of our own, we assign royal status to CEOs and celebrities.

 

[vindicari]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame."Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

this was america, the dream, that all men are created equal, but in todays world we are insular and afraid, more so in britain, trust no-one, because to trust is to beleive. and belief is weakness. so we will spiral down into chaos. america was lucky in that it needed a population, (the indigenous people may disagree) however we have the EU here with all its advantages and shortcomings but the ramblings of some ill-informed bigots will not change the fact that europe is now a single entity and britain is no longer a world power and the empire is gone. britain can no longer lift the ball and huff in the changing room. get busy livin or get busy diein. anyway it says in the book, the yellow race will rule the world. empires rise and empires fall. I suspect we are at the start of the fall of the west.

 

[vindicari]

after the american civil war an organization was started by {nathan bedford forrest} an oustanding confederate general, called the ku klux klan. despit common belief the organisation was not exclusively anti black, it was anti semitic, anti catholic, homophobia. but its main task was to resist the reconstrution of USA as a single entity. i fear the west is heading down this road.

 

[elf]

Without wanting to sound like a humourless pedant, the "realm" (as they say) extends to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as the Channel Isles.

(Charles is the Prince of Wales, for example and the Queen's husband is the Duke of Edinburgh).

So, it's more accurate to say the British Royals than to talk about "England's Royals".
I expected better from East Coast Americans....

 

[dreamer20]

So, it's more accurate to say the British Royals than to talk about "England's Royals".
I expected better from East Coast Americans....

Elfy dear you should expect this as they know that this is one of the ways to get under your skin.
I'll classify you as one of the Britons who hates being called English.:wink:

 

[JustAsking]

after the american civil war an organization was started by {nathan bedford forrest} an oustanding confederate general, called the ku klux klan. despit common belief the organisation was not exclusively anti black, it was anti semitic, anti catholic, homophobia. but its main task was to resist the reconstrution of USA as a single entity...

And they succeeded.

 

[dreamer20]

:crying:Gender Bending Princess Banished!!!:crying:


On Sept. 23, 2006 our members were shocked and saddened to learn that our former Crown Princess Spladle was ordered to leave the kingdom after using forbidden incantations upon an evil dragon in this thread:

http://www.lpsg.org/sex-with-a-large-penis/20971-are-black-men-bigger-41.html

We were relieved to learn that the dragon was also banished from the kingdom for the crime of wounding a number of our members.

In this thread you will find a brief summary of the rise and fall of Crown Princess Spladle prior to her signing a peace treaty with Lord Pichulon and her abdication, which again, in combination with her sex change to "the little prince", was another shock for her former subjects:

http://www.lpsg.org/women-s-issues/29638-larger-lips-better-sink-ships-10.html?highlight=crown


http://www.lpsg.org/519179-post14.html


TC Chase

lol dreamer20

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

The plane of thought has just crashed into a building.

 

[dreamer20]

Last Sunday a BBC documentary featured the Royal jewels of Britain. I learned that the Queen gave Diana only two pieces of jewelery as she suspected that the Princess' marriage would not last. The Queen was shown throughout her reign wearing her various dazzling crowns, tiaras, necklaces and broaches.

the crown jewels do not belong to the royal family, they belong to the state. liz wears them on state occasions but they aint hers. they are kept in the tower of london.

That is correct re: the Crown Jewels. The sovereign is permitted to wear them and let pieces, other than the State Imperial Crown, be worn by lesser Royals at times, e.g. for special occasions, on the condition that these items never leave the UK. Yet there are crowns and jewels that were acquired or given to Royals as personal possessions. Examples as follows:


The heavy Imperial State Crown (which weighs ~4lbs) caused Queen Victoria to have headaches. Hence she commissioned a tiny diamond encrusted one that weighed 4oz. Victoria willed this crown to the State.
When George V and Mary were to be crowned Emperor and Empress of India they had crowns made in India for that occasion in 1911.
Among the crowns that Queen Elizabeth II inherited are those of the Queen consorts Mary and Alexandria. The bulk of the Queens personal jewellery collection was previously owned by the Queens Mary and Alexandria.

See the following link for more details:

The Royal Scribe