On 12 Jun 2010 at 11:41am Decent Citizen wrote:
Watching the Trooping The Colour as I post. Patriotic or not it is a wonderful thing to see. I expect there will be those who have other feelings about it but,I feel very moved watching it!
On 12 Jun 2010 at 2:36pm Rookie wrote:
I like the traditional British pomp and ceremony stuff. I have a particular dislike for the vast majority of politicians, but I do quite like watching the State Opening of Parliament.
On 12 Jun 2010 at 3:50pm Old Cynic wrote:
I always enjoy the pomp, the history and spectacle and we are bloody good at it. The big shires (Hercules and ?) are fab!
On 12 Jun 2010 at 5:22pm Decent Citizen wrote:
As a child my parents took us children up to london each year. One year I was at the edge of the pavement as the Queen came past riding sidesaddle. Her Majesty gave this little girl a wonderful smile. Have loved watching ever since.
On 12 Jun 2010 at 8:59pm Vive la republique wrote:
I think an excellent way of raising a hefty chunk of revenue for the coffers would be to get the royal family to downsize large. A family who own and receive huge sums of cash curtesy of the taxpayer!!! And if someone comes in with all that tosh regarding there status as wealth generators ie. tourist magnets, there are plenty of countries without those individuals exulted to status of "more important than you even though we don't actually our money " and many of them are a much more poular destinations than dear Blighty. I think those displays of pomp are grotesque and pointless and hark back to a time of the British Empire and we all know what a shameful episode in our history that was.
On 12 Jun 2010 at 10:45pm Lopster wrote:
Royal Family downsized large enough thankyou a number of years ago they are much more accountable now -and a huge asset to this country - wouldn't want it any other way thank you
I watched Trooping ths AM too for the first time in years (is it always televised - I don't remember so much coverage?) it was EXCELLENT
On 13 Jun 2010 at 12:20am vive la republique wrote:
woah there Lopster, far too many thankyous. It's not a constitutional necessity to be perennially grateful to the royal family.
On 13 Jun 2010 at 10:49am Floop wrote:
On 13 Jun 2010 at 11:21am Vox Populi wrote:
"A family who own and receive huge sums of cash curtesy of the taxpayer"
That's social housing for you!
On 13 Jun 2010 at 11:27am jrsussex wrote:
Viva la republique - I am going to come in on the matter of wealth generators, the cost of the civil list has always been far below the level of income into the Treasurery coffers so the argument that the UK taxpayer has to support them is simply untrue. In addition they generate huge sums of money in the promotion of British companies exports across the world. I have travelled the world (36 countries) and believe me when I say that the vast majority of other countries remain with a massive respect for the British monarchy.
The British Empire a shameless episode in our history? There were mistakes made, just as the populating of the USA against native Americans, the Australians with aborigines, the Maoris of New Zealand the Russians with the Empire they created after WW11, the Third Reich in attempting to form an Empire, the list is endless. The fact is that if you look at the modern world the British Empire has, by and large, left a significant amount of good in many countries that were Empire countries. Also take in the pride which the countries that willingly, stiil today, belong to the British Commonwealth because they want to belong to the "family". We didn't always get it right in the days of Empire, and there are some acts that we should, and do, regret but in the main it created a new world of the time.
And with regard pageantry, who does it better than the Brits? The only time I have ever seen anything approaching the splendour, perfection and precision matched was during an Indian military event. There were incredible to watch but when congratulating an officer after the parade he remarked that they continue to perform as the British Army taught them all those years ago. I took that as a compliment to the British Empire.
On 13 Jun 2010 at 12:17pm vive la republique wrote:
So, a bit of clarity please JR. Are you saying that the income received from the royal family into the coffers exceeds that receieved from it....(courtesy of the taxpayer?) Would that be cash that the royal family worked hard to earn, nose to the grindstone, or income generated from everyday punters paying their hard earned cash to look round vast mansions and gaze at the obscene splendour that the royal family take for granted? Are you also suggesting that the companies you have visited would only do business because of the royal family? And no, I don't feel remotely proud that the Brits do pageantry best. Making direct comparisons with other abominations in human history doesn't detract from the misery caused by darling blighty on it's mission for world domination. That would be plundering other nations of their wealth and then buggering off when the natives are getting restive. Oh and by the way, did you get a badge after visiting those 36 countries? Have a day off JR.
On 13 Jun 2010 at 12:59pm The Tooth Fairy wrote:
You're out numbered on this one vlr. The Royal Family are a credit to the nation. On the subject of Empire, that's what powerful countries did then (as jrs mentioned). What would you have prefered, Britain colonised by some African despot?, And, as a whole the British Empire was a force for good. All of the former colonies were places of extreme savagery before the British came.
And finaly, which may not sit comfortably with your bleeding heart, the reason you are able to enjoy the lifestyle that you do, is down to our visionary leaders of yesteryear who 'plundered' these countries of their resources. I'm very grateful they did, you on the other hand?
On 13 Jun 2010 at 2:19pm jrsussex wrote:
Vlr - Not entirely clear what you are saying but I'll have a go at answering what I think you're banging on about. What I am saying, and it is a fact, is that the money paid to the monarchy (taxpayers money, including mine) falls dramatically short of the the total amount of income that having a monarchy brings into the UK Treasury coffers, not put there by the royal family themselves but by foreign visitors and other means to the UK. Think of it in terms of profit and loss, the outlay (civil list) creates a huge profit for the UK. The leisure industry is one of the largest employment sectors in the UK, the royals and their pageantry contribute a great amount to that. In addition there is a very substantial amount of money brought into the UK through the export industry and the royals play a major part, and have done so for many years, in promoting that market.
With regards the plundering of other countries I'll tell you a true story. When I was in Saudi Arabia in the mid-seventies there were a lot of Indians working there, I mixed with them and became a good friend to many. During a number of discussions on the issue most of them, over the age of about 40 thought they had been better off under British rule and some expressed a desire that they would like to see its return. Bear in mind at that time they had only been under their own rule for about 25 years.
I am clearly not going to persaude you of anything other than your view, not that I would I attempt to, but god forbid I should ever have to live in a world that you, and other like-thinking persons, would have for us. Read Animal Farm, I think you would want to be one of the ruling pigs.
On 13 Jun 2010 at 4:28pm Decent Citizen wrote:
FLOOP. PONCEY NONSENCE? I would love to be there if you said that the soldiers on parade Saturday,they were just back from Afghanistan!!
On 13 Jun 2010 at 6:14pm Clifford wrote:
The monarchy is now powerless and harmless and I'm sure that as long as they continue to entertain us with their chinless-wonder antics we're allow them to live their absurd lives. When they stop, then they'll have to find proper jobs.
On 13 Jun 2010 at 6:24pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
If the monarchy is essential for British exports, how come the US, France, Germany and Italy do so well without one?
It's an anachronistic bit of window dressing and I woudl rather be a citizen than a subject any day.
On 13 Jun 2010 at 6:26pm I dont live in lewes... wrote:
Not sure about "Now" the monarchy are powerless and harmless... they've been that way for quite some years haven't they?
Agree with jrsussex, the Royal Family are a financial asset. Personally I'd rather live with a monarchy than under a president/ military dictatorship etc.
On 13 Jun 2010 at 6:52pm Clifford wrote:
You're right, of course, ACT. The world's top exporting nations are China, Germany and the US, all republics. As far as tourism goes, France and Italy are way in front of Britain: both republics. One day Britain will grow up and won't want to watch the antics of the Windsor family any longer.
On 13 Jun 2010 at 8:01pm Red Ken wrote:
The French had the right idea back in the late 18th century. Get the guillotine out and off with their heads.
On 13 Jun 2010 at 8:37pm jrsussex wrote:
AC-T - No one appears to have said the monarchy is essential to UK exports, I simply make the point that they play a part. Obviously those responsible for the major part are the companies involved in manufacturing goods and providing services for export. Neither can the monarchy be blamed for the fact that we have slipped, over the last 50 years or so, from the top league of exporting nations.
To those dreaming of a republic please spare me from such politicians as Blair. Mandelson, Prescott and others becoming president of the UK. That would be the last straw, I would most certainl;y be leaving for foreign shores. I am not a hard boiled royalist, I recognise their mistakes and which one's we could manage without, but I do honestly believe that overall our monarchy does benefit the country and its people.
One more point about the Queen, wouldn't it be great if politicians demonstrated the same devotion to their duties as she and other members of the family have done over so many years?
On 13 Jun 2010 at 10:11pm MC wrote:
> I would most certainly be leaving for foreign shores.
Viva La Republic!
And while I'm here... Germany for the cup!
On 13 Jun 2010 at 10:25pm vive la republiqe wrote:
I think the notion of a collection of individuals in society with extrordinary levels of inherited wealth, who should be revered and admired is outdated (and always was.) And no, I don't admire the queen, who wouldn't be devoted to a job with that many perks.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 7:21am jrsussex wrote:
Vlr - Read the post, the comparison is with politicians. Many have earned shed-loads of money from what they do, millions in many cases, but have not displayed the level of duty that the Queen has. The same devotion to their duties can be said for many others in various walks of life who have done so without lining their pockets but history shows that cannot be said of too many politicians.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 11:25am Vive la republique wrote:
I would not deny that there are very many wealthy, scheming politicians, just look at the lot that have just got voted in. Not by me. However, I think you raise an important point when you describe the attainment of said politicians cash as "earned". It could come down to, how you define to earn? However, my personal definition of "earned" does not include: inheriting vast income and assets, having money thrown at you on a yearly basis, courtesy of the civil list, or income generated by tourists shelling out to look round your stately homes, not to mention the enormous grace and favour perks by trading on the family name. I'm not sure really what you mean by duty either. Lets face it the queen doesn't need to be corrupt (unlike her ancestors) because she's so minted. I would also like to add, for the record, that I'm not a Commie and I'm curious as to why my anti-royalist comments would suggest I was.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 11:30am sashimi wrote:
JRS, I am alarmed to know you are, like Humpty Dumpty 'not a hard boiled royalist' since if 'pride comes before a fall', you may need to call on All the Kings Horses which got him nowhere. There's a slight contradiction in your suggestion that Blair, Prescott and Mandelson might become President of the UK. Republicans, which presidential candidates would have to be, usually take care to refer to the bankrupt federal state we now live in as GB. Cynics whether royalist or republican often refer to it as 'the Banana Republic' which is what I suppose it will be by the time Charles eventually takes over.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 2:54pm Vox Populi wrote:
I would not trade my life with that of the Queen (or member of her family).
She may well be "minted" but she works extremely hard, 7 days a week (far more than 37 hours a week). Her life is not her own, she is owned by the public.
And there is no retirement either.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 4:54pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
One can be a patriot without supporting the monarchy.
IMO the slave trade was the most shameful era of Britain's great Empire. We exploited other countries whilst imposing our ideas of culture on them.
TF - " All of the former colonies were places of extreme savagery before the British came." . The Victorian's may have regarded many colonial subjects as 'savages', but that was a result of pomposity and ignorance as to cultures of indigenous peoples. The British Empire unfortunately didn't clean up its mess when it left many former colonies and left a poor legacy. Look at what's happened in the middles east following the British mandate in Palestine. Look at what's happened to the aboriginal Australians. It's really nothing to be proud of. The legacy of colonialism in Africa from all empire nations has all but destroyed parts of the continent.
I love my country but not the empire legacy, nor the dysfunctional family we call the monarchy - the biggest social security spongers of them all.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 4:56pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
At least you can vote out politicians if they turn out to be corrupt and useless. Charles Windsor, with no mandate from anybody, seeks to use the influence he has as a result of an accident of birth in a most improper way imo.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 4:59pm sashimi wrote:
Vox Pop, there is always an 'early' retirement option available to E II R: Edward II elected for a red hot poker in a Welsh castle; Richard II got his comeuppance in a Palace coup after the Peasants Revolt; Edward V and his young brother were smothered for standing in the way of Richard the Hunchback; Charles I lost all his capital; James II dropped the Great Seal in the Thames as he fled to France; and Edward VIII abdicated because The Heart Has Its Reasons.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 5:24pm orf with their heads wrote:
and another thing.. it's time we got rid of that ridiculous and offensive "God Save the Queen" nonsense. Should be 'god save us FROM the queen'.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 8:10pm vive la republiqe wrote:
VP could you be a bit more specific as to the "hard work" that you feel the queen actually does? I too work 7 days a week and alot more than 37hours, as I'm sure most of the contributors on this site do. Early retirement options, what's the point of charles et al, if not to succeed when the encumbent monarch has had enough? Although, this may raise the rather thorny issue of charles and queen camilla.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 10:00pm sashimi wrote:
Monsieur VLR, I always understood Camilla was due to become the Duke of Edinburgh under a modern name-sharing agreement. As for 'the rather thorny issue of Charles and Camilla', it sounds rather uncomfortable and not at all suitable for a family forum.
On 14 Jun 2010 at 10:51pm vive la republique wrote:
Madame Viva lewesR actually. Seems like the royals have all bases covered then, so retirement options a plenty!! No offence intended by the way, with regard to reference of "thorny issues", although I would appreciate a little clarity my old china sashimi, as to what is offensive about that phrase.
On 15 Jun 2010 at 10:13am sashimi wrote:
Madame, I am mortified to have made such a crass error about your gender. Apologgies. Since the purpose of royals is apparently for breeding to maintain a programme of succeeding, I just thought a 'thorny issue' would be a trifle uncomfortable. In the mangled situation Charles has created to avoid offending supporters of his previous wife, we have the Prince of Wales sleeping with the Duchess of Cornwall and I gather Charles III will not be sleeping with Queen Camilla but some other fudge has been arranged to avoid his wife appearing to be a usurper.
On 15 Jun 2010 at 4:01pm vive la republique wrote:
Thanks for that Sahimi, I love a bit of genuine clarity. If those windsors hadn't been such a ridiculous dysfunctional bunch, there would be no need for this confusing bit of shennanigans, and charlie boy could have married camilla first.
On 15 Jun 2010 at 9:42pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Loving your retirement schemes for ageing monarchs, Sashimi!
Which William was it that was "retired" by the small gentleman in the black velvet coat?
On 16 Jun 2010 at 7:22am sashimi wrote:
ACT, I'm sorry I missed William III (of William and Mary). The Jacobite toast was to the mole that tripped up his horse.