Brits and the Royal Family

[Queso]

The Daily Express still carries front page stories about the death of Diana at least twice a week, for chrissakes.

That's more to do with the personal friendship between Richard Desmond, who owns the paper, and Mohammed Fayed, who for obvious reasons wants the story of Diana and Dodi's death to remain in the public eye.

 

[Abstract]

Abstract

The problem is the so-called Royal Prerogative. This allows the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to bypass Parliament and introduce whatever laws they like in the name of the Queen. They were talking about using it earlier this year when the House of Lords staged a rare rebellion and was refusing to rubberstamp the introduction of compulsory ID cards linked to a centralised database on every person in the country (i.e. a big bad expensive idea)

Whilst the Royal Prerogative exists, the UK Government is not bound by the law, since it can change the law as it sees fit with no checks or balances. It can also send British troops into battle abroad without Parliament having a say. In the 21st century, this country should be governed in the name of the people, and be accountable to the people. Having the Royal Family gives politicians the capability to abuse their positions on a grand scale.

Um.......don't know if you noticed or not, but Bush does whatever he wants and sends whoever he wants to war, and has nobody to answer to, not even the UN. Well, not really, anyway. The UN has no way to stop the US.

I'm not trying to get political. I'm quite apolitical, but if you're going to argue with something like this, just remember Bush and his ability to do something in the name of anti-terrorism and get away with it.

All I'm saying is that the Royal family does serve a purpose. I already told you all why.

I used to hate them in my reckless years. But now, I tend not to think about Prince Harry pissing my [parents] taxmoney on drugs, or silly helicopter flights.

No he doesn't. All the money that they spend on personal stuff is their own. They're one of the bigger land owners in the UK, so they do make money and they do spend it on their own cars and such. However, it costs around 40 million quid for them to do official Royal "duties," which includes hosting functions, flying around and visiting nations and leaders, etc. They spend too much money on this sort of thing (the amount of money they spend on flowers for events each year is staggering!), and they're reducing their costs each year, so it's less than 40 million quid now.

And yes, travelling to different countries and attending/throwing functions sounds easy, but like anybody who takes business trips can tell you already: Business trips only sound good to people who don't take business trips. People who take them often think it's a nightmare. They're lucky people, but they're also very busy people, and they have no privacy whatsoever --- even less than movie stars, and they were just born into this situation.

I'm not pro-Royal, per se. I just don't like it when people say they're useless to keep around when they're clearly not. They're cheap to keep around, and give Britain lots back.

 

[Queso]

Um.......don't know if you noticed or not, but Bush does whatever he wants and sends whoever he wants to war, and has nobody to answer to, not even the UN. Well, not really, anyway. The UN has no way to stop the US.

I'm not trying to get political. I'm quite apolitical, but if you're going to argue with something like this, just remember Bush and his ability to do something in the name of anti-terrorism and get away with it.

All I'm saying is that the Royal family does serve a purpose. I already told you all why.

The American model of a Republic puts too much power into the hands of one person. I was seeing the role of President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as being more like the Italian or Irish position.

 

[caveman_uk]

Incidentally, my grandma is related to the Duke of Bedfordshire (or was, I don't know any of the details). And apparently is a direct link to some obscure Royal. So, if only 400 royal people are killed off I WILL BE KING! maybe.

My mother-in-law is distantly related to Mungo Gerry (of 'In the summertime' fame)...

Anyway, the Royals. I do have quite a bit of respect for the queen because she obviously see's being a royal as her life's work, her vocation. The others I couldn't give a toss about.

They're one of the bigger land owners in the UK, so they do make money and they do spend it on their own cars and such.

And why are they one of the biggest land owners in the UK. Did the earn it, or buy it with their own money? No, they either inherited it or were given it. The whole lot (queen included) are born with a ****ing big silver spoon in their gobs.

 

[Queso]

And why are they one of the biggest land owners in the UK. Did they earn it, or buy it with their own money? No, they either inherited it or were given it.

And unlike every other landowner in the UK, including the rest of the aristocracy, the royals have never paid inheritence tax. The cause of so many of the other "noble" families in this country living in cottages on their estates whilst working hard in their ancestral home, now a hotel or conference centre.

To be honest, I think most of the royals would be happy doing that. Some of them seem desperate to be allowed to have a career.

 

[Mustafa]

i have to say though, that the queen's mum was wonderful, especially for her work during wartime britain

And it's precisely this type of unthinking uncritical codswallop that gets in the way of us having a sensible debate about the role of royalty in 21st century Britain.

How wonderful people are or not has nothing to do with anything. We could all be 'wonderful' with their money and free time.

And in any case, what work do you think she did in the war? She never did any work in her whole life. In the war she was eventually persuaded to be driven a few miles to where mainly poor people had been bombed out of their homes to shake hands and be photographed. And this only after a bomb had fallen on Buckingham Palace.

She spent all her time after her husband died going to horse races and drinking gin and Dubonnet. When she died she left a bank overdraft of £8m which nobody had dared to ask for. The Queen had to pay it off.

These people are no more wonderful than the rest of us. They just have privileges which protect them from the harsh facts of everyday life. Why this should be passed on down the generations of one family completely escapes me.

 

[Jaffa Cake]

So, if only 400 royal people are killed off I WILL BE KING! maybe.

Should that day come, don't forget your good friends here at MacRumors when you get around to handing out titles and stuff. I wouldn't mind First Lord of the Admiralty, if that one's up for grabs?

 

[Nickygoat]

Should that day come, don't forget your good friends here at MacRumors when you get around to handing out titles and stuff. I wouldn't mind First Lord of the Admiralty, if that one's up for grabs?

You mean you're happy to house share with John Prescott?
Oh I forgot the location

 

[Jaffa Cake]

You mean you're happy to house share with John Prescott?

So long as there's a lock on the fridge, it'll be fine.

 

[Applespider]

And why are they one of the biggest land owners in the UK. Did the earn it, or buy it with their own money?

There are two different things going on here. They are big landowners - think Duchy of Cornwall (Charles), Duchy of Lancaster (Queen) and the income from those estates is what pays for their (and Harry's) standard of living. This is the privy purse.

The majority of 'Royal' land belongs to the Crown Estate (vast tracts of London and Scotland) from which the profits go into the public purse. The Civil List is funded from this and only goes to those Royals who do public service to fund that. From memory, the civil list in recent years is around the £10m mark and the Crown Estates bring in nearly £200m.

And to get this on an Apple track, the Regent St store is in one of the Crown Estate building.