The English Monarchy

Happyman42

discus wrote: »

I'm just as subservient as you are. Maybe I'm slightly fatalistic about it though.

Think of the bosses who employ you. Making money from your labour. Think of the politicians, who take a cut of that pay too. And what about VAT? You want to buy something in the shops, you have to pay for the priveledge of buying something!

Thats ok though! Sure, after all, when you drive back from the shop, you're in the car that is powered by petrol. Not only do you pay taxes on that, you're at the whim of some Middle Eastern Royalty who might one day decide to cut off petrol sales to our country. They hold us to ransom every now and again, by raising prices or cutting shipments, just to remind us who holds the power.

Top of your tree? Not unless you're Ray Mears, mate.

Those are unwritten contracts that we enter into because it is of benefit to us. Nothing like doffing your hat to a 'better'

bhamsteve

The whole ethos of inherited power and social statification still permeates British life, the first step to achieve a meritocracy is to remove the royal family and the hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

discus

And how exactly does anyone 'doff' their hat to a member of the Royal Family? Tell me, day to day, how are we subservient to them?

Celebrities act out the supposed 'royal' image that you are mistaking royals of the past fulfilling.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/overexcited-choristers-instructed-not-to-bother-kunis-on-set-592692.html

Don't make eye contact? Such ego! What about the ludicrous spending by hip hop stars on unnecessary bling? Not in touch with the worlds problems. People doff their hat more times to celebrities and their levels of excess far more often than the Royal Family. The 'hollywood' elite expect such preferential treatment!

discus

bhamsteve wrote: »

The whole ethos of inherited power and social statification still permeates British life, the first step to achieve a meritocracy is to remove the royal family and the hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

Let me know one country in the world with a meritocracy or technocracy?

bhamsteve

discus wrote: »

Let me know one country in the world with a meritocracy or technocracy?

Legally speaking, Ireland. Socially and economically speaking, nowhere truly, but some strive for it more than others. I'm not gonna get into a deep one on this as I'm off out for a swim but at least Ireland has a president and constitution that affords the population basic rights, the Brits have to rely on the House of Lords for the higher legal decisions, which is itself part of the nobility. A very politically backward country.

discus

bhamsteve wrote: »

Legally speaking, Ireland. Socially and economically speaking, nowhere truly, but some strive for it more than others. I'm not gonna get into a deep one on this as I'm off out for a swim but at least Ireland has a president and constitution that affords the population basic rights, the Brits have to rely on the House of Lords for the higher legal decisions, which is itself part of the nobility. A very politically backward country.

BAHAHAHAHAA IRELAND A MERITOCRACY OR TECHNOCRACY?!

wolfpawnat

bhamsteve wrote: »

The hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

You see, again I don't get it, you get a position of political power, without being elected simply because you were sired by a man that sat on his overbred áss in that seat before you. I mean really, our politicians are bad, and in many cases only voted in because "sure his/her father was a politician before them" but at least it is democratic!

Happyman42

discus wrote: »

And how exactly does anyone 'doff' their hat to a member of the Royal Family? Tell me, day to day, how are we subservient to them?

In many many ways, but most critically, by not objecting to it every single day.

oppenheimer1

IvySlayer wrote: »

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

Ah this old chestnut - its not true.

France got rid of its monarchy and strangely enough people still visit it. In fact if the British Monarchy was done away with it might increase tourism as all the palaces could be opened up to the public.

robroy1234

Instead those palaces are shut off and add to the expense to the British taxpayers because the queen dips into the winter fuel allowance to cover those costs. The crux of this is that if the Brits want to keep on paying for the royals and their lifestyle then they should shut up and stop complaining about their economic woes. Britain it seems can afford to have no good royals, useless peers, an anachronistic aristocracy so therefore they should not have any financial/economic problems. I mean they sent off thatcher for a measly 10 million pounds so if they can afford that then they should have no need to cut disability allowances.

oppenheimer1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Then why is Alex Salmond pro Royalty?

The royals are, after all, more Scottish than English.

Its called the foot-in-the-door technique.

In order to get what he really wants, independence he has to offer something as a form of continuity.

I doubt an independent Scotland would retain the British Monarchy as head of state for more than 10 years after independence.

robroy1234

Actually the royals are not Scottish and not even English. Prince Phillip is Danish-Greek and the Queen is off German Descent. The name Windsor wasn't officially adopted until 1952., prior to that it was nominally used to placate anti-German resentment during WW1. How Edward VIII was very found of the Germans, even assisting the Nazi regime during WW2 and Prince Phillip two sisters married two prominent Nazis and even attended a high profile Nazi funeral by leading the procession.

bhamsteve

discus wrote: »

BAHAHAHAHAA IRELAND A MERITOCRACY OR TECHNOCRACY?!

Intelligent post, are you just trying to troll or do you have anything to say?

ResearchWill

robroy1234 wrote: »

Actually the royals are not Scottish and not even English. Prince Phillip is Danish-Greek and the Queen is off German Descent. The name Windsor wasn't officially adopted until 1952., prior to that it was nominally used to placate anti-German resentment during WW1. How Edward VIII was very found of the Germans, even assisting the Nazi regime during WW2 and Prince Phillip two sisters married two prominent Nazis and even attended a high profile Nazi funeral by leading the procession.

Philips mother was born in Windsor Castle. She was also given the honor of Rightous Amongst Nations by Isreal in 1993. As up until the last century most royals in Europe where very closely related. Kings of England have been vickings, Saxons, Norman, French, Welsh, Scotish, Dutch and German. Same pretty much for many of the royal houses of Europe.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bunch on inbreds

ResearchWill

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Bunch on inbreds

Hence why now they marry outside of royalty. There was many a cousin spouse in royal lines.

vepyewwo

wolfpawnat wrote: »

In medicine it is still "my father is a consultant in X hospital" and in Veterinary it is assumed students come from homes capable of funding cars, insurance and petrol for their children while they are in college.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Finally those courses are becoming more accessible to everyone on paper, but to succeed, you need money in the background from family or the like to afford to live while slaving through those courses. There is no such thing as working weekends with them to keep yourself going.

That is complete rubbish. I am a doctor - I was the first person in my family to go to university. My dad is a tradesman, my mam is a housewife. I worked part time in the evenings and at weekends and full time during the summer for the entire 6 years that I was in college. There were some people in my class whose parents were doctors or who came from privileged backgrounds but it certainly wasn't everyone.

This idea that "in medicine it is still my father is a consultant in X hospital" isn't quite as true as as you seem to think.

wolfpawnat

vepyewwo wrote: »

That is complete rubbish. I am a doctor - I was the first person in my family to go to university. My dad is a tradesman, my mam is a housewife. I worked part time in the evenings and at weekends and full time during the summer for the entire 6 years that I was in college. There were some people in my class whose parents were doctors or who came from privileged backgrounds but it certainly wasn't everyone.

This idea that "in medicine it is still my father is a consultant in X hospital" isn't quite as true as as you seem to think.

My partner was there, I went to the college, I heard it with my own ears. It is not everyone, but there were a few.

discus

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My partner was there, I went to the college, I heard it with my own ears. It is not everyone, but there were a few.

Oh so its gone from sweeping generalisation, to a few? Was your partner even studying medicine?

wolfpawnat

discus wrote: »

Oh so its gone from sweeping generalisation, to a few? Was your partner even studying medicine?

Yes, he studied it for a semester in UCD (then his dad died) and a year in RCSI before leaving to go into Veterinary, search boards, he and I have discussed it several times here

And the "sweeping generalisation" was that for the most part, there are family at home helping people through the course financially, not that all of them go on with the "my daddy's a consultant" You should double check

And besides, what has this to with British Monarchy?

discus

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And besides, what has this to with British Monarchy?

Good question! Ans: The lower classes have no place in medical professions and should be shining shoes or used as cannon fodder.

wolfpawnat

discus wrote: »

Good question! Ans: The lower classes have no place in medical professions and should be shining shoes or used as cannon fodder.

To those in higher positions yes, but in truth, being born to privilege doesn't mean you are the best, brightest or most able. Why should anyone shoulder another.

sam34

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I never said all, but there are a few and you would know that yourself. My partner was in the course, came out to do veterinary. The most of his class were from better off backgrounds and the only ones with jobs were writing for their columns in the Irish Times (yes, no joke) and a guy working weekends that had to give it up as soon as they got into the biochemistry and pharmacology which you know yourself is extensive study.

in my class it was only a few that were from wealthy backgrounds, it was not most as you previously implied. the reality is that medicine is now accessible to people of all backgrounds.

i and lots of my classmates worked all kinds of jobs to support ourselves, from babysitting to shelf stacking, cinema staff to hospital care assistants. one guy even did late night shifts in a 24 hr shop. and we did those right thru college, incl in final med.

Clareboy

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh have done an excellent job in representing their country around the world since 1952. Having a monarchy does give the UK a considerable advantage when it comes to international status and prestige. Her Majesty and her husband have devoted their entire lives to the service of their country and they are to be admired for their sense of duty and service.

robroy1234

what rubbish. they only represent themselves and dont give a fig about anyone else. they are a bunch of nazi leeches...but at least they are a british problem and not ours...

Fratton Fred

robroy1234 wrote: »

what rubbish. they only represent themselves and dont give a fig about anyone else. they are a bunch of nazi leeches...but at least they are a british problem and not ours...

Could you provide some evidence to show that they are Nazis, or ate you trying to claim that because they have a German background they must be Nazis?

discus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Could you provide some evidence to show that they are Nazis, or ate you trying to claim that because they have a German background they must be Nazis?

It does have a slightly racist ring to it, doesn't it?

Clareboy

robroy1234 wrote: »

what rubbish. they only represent themselves and dont give a fig about anyone else. they are a bunch of nazi leeches...but at least they are a british problem and not ours...

Some of you seem to forget that at least one million people on the Island of Ireland regard Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. What an insult to the Loyalist and Unionist population. How dare you insult the head of state of our nearest neighbour! Some hope of a united Ireland with that kind of mentality!

swimming in a sea

QEII first loyalty has always been to her own family and to the future of the royal line. She is a very smart woman who has seen that the biggest threat to royal family is her own dysfunctional children. That's why she is pushing on into her late eighties, she would have abdicated over ten years ago if she thought anything of Charles. She expects his reign to be short so William can take over.

The interests of the realm matter little to those people, it wasn't divine intervention that got them where they are, it was cheating, killing etc.

BrensBenz

bilston wrote: »

£32.2m isn't really that much money, it's what 50p per person in the UK. I don't think there is an official figure or any accurate way of measuring it but I'd be shocked if the Royal Family don't bring in that figure several times over to the UK economy. Spending £20bn on Trident irks me more as a UK taxpayer than £30m on the Royal Family.

Agree about Trident and that the figure for maintenance of Betty and her clan is relatively small but, I'm blue in the face hearing that the British Monarchy brings millions to UK tourism. Other than by constant repetition, how can this be proven? So far, I've never met a tourist to the UK who came because of the monarchy. Am I alone?

Tourists fly to London because it's a hub; they "do the London day-tour" and photograph double-deckers and London taxis; they might see a westend show or two; they might go to Shakespeare country; perhaps the building site they call Stonehenge; or, if really adventurous, the (marvellous) Lake District, Yorkshire Dales or Welsh Valleys, i.e. NON-monarchy stuff. Usually, at least during Summer, Betty is at Balmoral, helping Philo shoot man-eating birds, and certainly not available for tourist viewing.

Other European countries have monarchies and successful tourist industries that do not claim to be hugely benefitting from their monarchy. So, why, other than being told a million times, do we believe that the British monarchy is such a significant contributor to the UK economy? I believe it contributes something but not enough to sustain that myth.

Fratton Fred

BrensBenz wrote: »

Agree about Trident and that the figure for maintenance of Betty and her clan is relatively small but, I'm blue in the face hearing that the British Monarchy brings millions to UK tourism. Other than by constant repetition, how can this be proven? So far, I've never met a tourist to the UK who came because of the monarchy. Am I alone?

Tourists fly to London because it's a hub; they "do the London day-tour" and photograph double-deckers and London taxis; they might see a westend show or two; they might go to Shakespeare country; perhaps the building site they call Stonehenge; or, if really adventurous, the (marvellous) Lake District, Yorkshire Dales or Welsh Valleys, i.e. NON-monarchy stuff. Usually, at least during Summer, Betty is at Balmoral, helping Philo shoot man-eating birds, and certainly not available for tourist viewing.

Other European countries have monarchies and successful tourist industries that do not claim to be hugely benefitting from their monarchy. So, why, other than being told a million times, do we believe that the British monarchy is such a significant contributor to the UK economy? I believe it contributes something but not enough to sustain that myth.

You obviously missed the jubilee celebrations then.

Their legacy brings in tonnes of tourism money for the UK and it is maintaining that legacy that costs the money, so if the UK became a republic then I doubt that cost would decrease by much. Add to that the cost of a president and it would be cost neutral at best.

Personally, I think the current bunch are doing an ok job, so why change?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You obviously missed the jubilee celebrations then.

Their legacy brings in tonnes of tourism money for the UK and it is maintaining that legacy that costs the money, so if the UK became a republic then I doubt that cost would decrease by much. Add to that the cost of a president and it would be cost neutral at best.

Personally, I think the current bunch are doing an ok job, so why change?

Just as many would come if the buildings where empty. It is no defence of a royal family or monarchy in the modern age. Do you think millions of people go to the Vatican because of the current incumbent, Francie Whateverhisnameis?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just as many would come if the buildings where empty. It is no defence of a royal family or monarchy in the modern age. Do you think millions of people go to the Vatican because of the current incumbent, Francie Whateverhisnameis?

That's kind of what I was saying.

If you are starting from scratch then a monarchy isn't the way to go, but personally I cant see the point of change for the sake of it.

gallag

Its not just about tourism, the queen is always off securing trade deals and boosting international relationships.

Again the Irish obsession with the British, I wonder are there any threads about the pointlessness of the Irish president on any u.k forums or do they not give a ****?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's kind of what I was saying.

If you are starting from scratch then a monarchy isn't the way to go, but personally I cant see the point of change for the sake of it.

Stopping the hereditry bull**** might allow them to claim to be a fair and equal society. Keep the buildings and the history though, nothing wrong with that.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Its not just about tourism, the queen is always off securing trade deals and boosting international relationships.

Again the Irish obsession with the British, I wonder are there any threads about the pointlessness of the Irish president on any u.k forums or do they not give a ****?

Is your 'obsession' with our opinion and what we choose to talk about, not more alarming? I used to find it charming that you where so interested, but maybe not.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Stopping the hereditry bull**** might allow them to claim to be a fair and equal society. Keep the buildings and the history though, nothing wrong with that.

Heredity bull****?

I'd rather hereditary Windsors than hereditary Healy-Raes or De Veleras to be honest.

discus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Heredity bull****?

I'd rather hereditary Windsors than hereditary Healy-Raes or De Veleras to be honest.

This is it, Fred. Think of all the people who worshipped the likes of Quinn or Ahern during the Celtic Tiger. Particularly the Quinn family, who threw around wealth to match the royal family!

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Heredity bull****?

I'd rather hereditary Windsors than hereditary Healy-Raes or De Veleras to be honest.

Is it the clothes? I don't think hereditary anything is right and should be ended immediately. I would never vote for somebody on the basis of who their father was. Did you elect her Fred?;)

Saab Ed

Clareboy wrote: »

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh have done an excellent job in representing their country around the world since 1952. Having a monarchy does give the UK a considerable advantage when it comes to international status and prestige. Her Majesty and her husband have devoted their entire lives to the service of their country and they are to be admired for their sense of duty and service.

Hook

Line

Sinker

summerskin

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is it the clothes? I don't think hereditary anything is right and should be ended immediately. I would never vote for somebody on the basis of who their father was. Did you elect her Fred?;)

Democracy was responsible for Thatcher and Ahern, maybe the vote isn't all it's cracked up to be...

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is it the clothes? I don't think hereditary anything is right and should be ended immediately. I would never vote for somebody on the basis of who their father was. Did you elect her Fred?;)

No, but the lack of support for a republican party in the UK would imply that it isn't a burning issue.

I suppose having to choose between a paedophile apologist, a neurotic Eurovision winner, a terrorist and noddy would make the UK a much better place for everyone.

It's one thing living with a waste of 're and money based on an ancient legacy, but inventing one in 1922 because De Velera didn't have the cajones to negotiate with Churchill is just plain bonkers.

BrensBenz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You obviously missed the jubilee celebrations then.

Their legacy brings in tonnes of tourism money for the UK and it is maintaining that legacy that costs the money, so if the UK became a republic then I doubt that cost would decrease by much. Add to that the cost of a president and it would be cost neutral at best.

Personally, I think the current bunch are doing an ok job, so why change?

No, I witnessed the jubilee celebrations at close hand and, although born and raised in a republic, I thought they were very well done. I'm just not convinced that the crowds included a substantial number of foreign tourists who came just to see monarchy. The UK had a massive tourism year last year but I feel that the Olympics (another great effort) was a bigger attraction for foreigners than the monarchy last year and that the "country" is a bigger attraction for foreign tourists in other years.

As for the predictable, me Mammy said, anti-British monarchy rants on here, there is a tendency to attribute the sins of the ancestors onto the living descendants. Tired and unfair, especially when you learn how miserable the lives of ordinary British (and Irish) people were in those times. Undoubtedly, this will generate some "whataboutery" but it's long since time to let it go.

Happyman42

summerskin wrote: »

Democracy was responsible for Thatcher and Ahern, maybe the vote isn't all it's cracked up to be...

The point is; they are gone.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, but the lack of support for a republican party in the UK would imply that it isn't a burning issue.

I suppose having to choose between a paedophile apologist, a neurotic Eurovision winner, a terrorist and noddy would make the UK a much better place for everyone.

It's one thing living with a waste of 're and money based on an ancient legacy, but inventing one in 1922 because De Velera didn't have the cajones to negotiate with Churchill is just plain bonkers.

I think we picked an upstanding and good president. Anybody can run for presidency, that is the important thing...no?, and we don't have to doff the hat. But much more importantly, the same class bull**** doesn't permeate our society and I don't give it permission to leech on me in return for the sight of a few jewels and fancy furs patronising me every now and then.
They're laughing at you, not with you.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think we picked an upstanding and good president. Anybody can run for presidency, that is the important thing...no?, and we don't have to doff the hat. But much more importantly, the same class bull**** doesn't permeate our society and I don't give it permission to leech on me in return for the sight of a few jewels and fancy furs patronising me every now and then.
They're laughing at you, not with you.

You're joking right? The snobbery, nepotism and leaching that takes place amongst the ruling political class in this country far outweighs anything the royal family do in the UK.

The biggest joke is they could be voted out and the system changed, but it is so endemic people have come to accept it.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You're joking right? The snobbery, nepotism and leaching that takes place amongst the ruling political class in this country far outweighs anything the royal family do in the UK.

The biggest joke is they could be voted out and the system changed, but it is so endemic people have come to accept it.

Tell us Fred again...how many can join the titled class and who opens the door to let them in? Could you be king one day?
We are as money obsessed as the rest of the western world, a nation of hat doffers to people who have done nothing to earn it, we are not.

TheLastMohican

One or two of the above posters, are and have been for a long time, suffering from a pretty advanced form of Stockholm Syndrome.

The monarchy kill the people to take over

They then create a kind of Royal hegemony and start reeling in the Untermenschen

Eventually, these brainwashed/downtrodden yokels sing the praises of the very people that caused this problem initially

The good old Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Battenberg Phil. That's the way to do business!

Madam

Oh for a revolution - OFF WITH THEIR HEADS:p

discus

TheLastMohican wrote: »

One or two of the above posters, are and have been for a long time, suffering from a pretty advanced form of Stockholm Syndrome.

Hahahaa, you guys give me a great laugh. I thought the 3 weeks off on the Queens pay was good enough, but she's organised for her detractors to keep me entertain.

Cheers Lilybeth!

TheLastMohican

discus wrote: »

Hahahaa, you guys give me a great laugh. I thought the 3 weeks off on the Queens pay was good enough, but she's organised for her detractors to keep me entertain.

Cheers Lilybeth!

It's such a shame that she also didn't organise for her detractors to teach you her language.