The monarchy

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
German? How?

Actually after Queen Anne the next person in the line of succession was a cousin in "Germany" - George; not sure if his original German name was George though. He didn't even speak English. He became King George I in 1714. He was the first member of the House of Hanover to rule - which ended with Queen Victoria's reign. After that all the royal family has German ancestory. But it's pushing it anyway - all the royal houses of Europe were inter-related through marriage. You could just as easily say they are French because of Wlliam the Conqueror.

Don't have my English history books here - they're packed away - but that is from memory.

[osszie]

Anyone seriously interested in the power held by the UK Monarchy, this is a rather nice website

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page342.asp .........although personaly I could care less about the Royals, two quotes I've always enjoyed are...

Statesman in Tazmania: I welcome you. Although I can never forgive the British people for the murder, slavery, imprisonment and oppresion of my ancestors.
Queen Mother: As a Scotswomen I can only agree with you!

Interviewer: Prince Charles, do you feel any regret that your affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles has become public knowledge? Do you also feel that you have betrayed the trust in your position as a representative of the UK?
Prince Charles: Not really princes have been honest about their extra marital affairs since 1275............I do not beleive who they slept with then changed the course of history, I see no reason why who I sleep with now will either.

They are all mad German in-breds, but they do still have some charm

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I couldn't live under a Monarcy or visit the Queen or royal family. I would not back out of room so my back would not be turned away or any of the other "protocol" you must adhere to. As my mother used to say "They put their pants on one leg at a time." I don't think they have someone else clothe them anymore - except for special occasions. My mother used to have other sayings too for indicating people weren't better than others - but I won't say them here.

Personally I can't picture England without a monarchy and there was a time when I thought that America should not have fought the Revolution (obviously changed my mind on that). I also felt that Parliament had taken too much power from the King/Queen.

funny that i allways put my pants on two legs at a time. Does that make me better than you all?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
funny that i allways put my pants on two legs at a time. Does that make me better than you all?

No - that just means you're strange.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No - that just means you're strange.

good enough for me

[emplynx]

Monarchy is a bad idea. Most current monarchies are symbolic, which is a good idea for country morale and respect.

[webwizard333]

I personally think its silly and archaic, but as it doesn't affect me I really don't care.

[Telperion]

Originally posted by webwizard333
I personally think its silly and archaic, but as it doesn't affect me I really don't care.

I agree completely. The monarchy is defintely out-dated. It's amazing how many people still like it. The queen just visited us (Canada) and it was amazing how many people turned out to see the queen. Of course, that could just be people wanting to see a real queen and not people supporting the monarchy system.

[Dwarven Sen]

I personally happen to be supportive towards my countries royal family & find it disgusting that the media is prepared to write such trash in order to sell a few more 20p papers.
Our country has a long & glorious history that i happen to be proud of.
As for german heritage, the eldest son of Victoria was Edward VII of a german household, over a century ago. Since then the family have been prepared to change their family name to windsor for our country to show where their loyalties lay in the previous hundred years.
I mourned the death of the queen mother, and celebrated the jubilee with many many people. the royal family is part of our heritage, and my family has always been faithful to them.

sorry rant over.

[Miranda]

Originally posted by Dwarven Sen
I personally happen to be supportive towards my countries royal family & find it disgusting that the media is prepared to write such trash in order to sell a few more 20p papers.
Our country has a long & glorious history that i happen to be proud of.
As for german heritage, the eldest son of Victoria was Edward VII of a german household, over a century ago. Since then the family have been prepared to change their family name to windsor for our country to show where their loyalties lay in the previous hundred years.
I mourned the death of the queen mother, and celebrated the jubilee with many many people. the royal family is part of our heritage, and my family has always been faithful to them.

sorry rant over.

In total agreement with you. I really like the royal family and I think its so out of order how people hound them over the slightest mistake- they're only human. That seems to be something the press doesn't realise. Whenever they dig up some trash on one of them they don't realise how its hurting people. I especially feel sorry for the princes when they talk about Diana and all the scandal they've created round her or when they slag of Charles- they seem to forget that they're William and Harry's parents and that those poor boys have feelings that can be deeply hurt everytime the see something bad in the papers. When they went mad about Harry experimenting with cannabis I was like- what kid doesn't? There a very few teenagers in Britain that don't come into contact with drugs once in their lives and its all part of growing up, you face things and you act on them but sometimes you make a mistake- c'est la vie. Its ridiculous that the press seem so bothered about the monarchy when there's loads of other more important stuff going on in the world that they should be reporting about. Mx

[Dwarven Sen]

I am in total agreement, we just held the commonwealth games & all of manchester was happy to see the royals. As for cannabis I don't see the press actually saying just how many of us do take drugs, just cos he's famous doesn't make him worse for doing it. How many famous people are known for taking harder drugs?
I'm hoping to get into St.andrews uni next year, i wonder what its like for the princes.

[Ruinel]

A recent PM from another Mooter, has inspired me to do a little research, and to post this.

The Brittish royal family:
Elizabeth II and her husband Phillip (an apparent foreigner) head the famliy. Their offspring...




Charles (his offspring: William and Henry)

Andrew (his offspring: Beatrice and Eugenie)

Edward (his wife: Sophie. His offspring: Louise)



In the UK, the total budget for welfare was £100 billion, of which only a small portion goes to the citizens for support*. 24% of the total budget goes to unemployment, 42% of that budget goes to pensioners who have worked all their lives and are now in their golden years. (* I read on one site that a mere 5% of that £100 billion actually goes directly to the needy, the rest is absorbed in administrative costs.)

The total cost to the tax paying UK citizens for royal family welfare was...£4.7m. This is for only one welfare family in the UK.

None of them seem to have any real job, though some have joined the service for a short stint and do some charity work, occasionally. But as far as actually being self supporting, it seems that none of them care to do so, except Edward and his wife, Sophie.

Edward seems to be the only redeemable working member of this welfare family (but otherwise socially inept, see comment below). He and his wife actually owned their own business (a TV production company), even though it went belly up, and partially supported themselves. Ed's mom stepped in to help bail his company out, but the £250,000 wasn't enough. (Hmmm, I wonder if any other welfare mom's in the UK could have afforded a bill like that? )

For some reason, this family feels they deserve to ride on the backs of hard working UK citizens. Edward and his wife once walked 500 yards from Buckingham Palace to St. James Place for lunch. when he got there, he explained that they had traveled by foot "to give pleasure to the people." I'm sure everyone was utterly thrilled.

But surely the UK tax paying citizens are getting their money's worth. Or are they?
Royal family duties:



attending sporting events (such as a rugby game that included an £11,467 helicopter ride that was charged to the civil list)

traveling in high style to other countries to make a presence (such as traveling to China to encourage trade... wtf?)



One might argue that any family on welfare is sort of "on vacation", since many who are unemployed do not go to work every day. However, the royal family takes vacation every year from mid-December to February 6th. Their "work" week ends religiously before 3pm, when queen Liz takes off for the country estate, and begins after lunch on Monday. Must be nice.

We've heard of "generational welfare" families, where a woman with kids is on welfare like her mother before her and so on. Well, the royal family has been on the dole for generations before. Seems not a one felt compelled to make anything of themselves other than jet-setting mootchers.

Being a US citizen, I'm quite grateful to those American colonialists who stood up to England and kicked them out. I'm also grateful that not one penny goes to this family of freeloaders. The more I know, the worse an impression they leave on me.

However, I'd like to remind the Canadians that they're paying taxes to support this one welfare family across the water. Perhaps you should take up arms like we did.

Before certain royal-philes get their panties in a twist, I really don't care what the royal family of England does. I just don't understand how this sort of mootching is allowed by the honest, tax paying citizens of the UK.

Just wondering what other people's impressions are of this. I encourage your comments, pro and con.

[Draken]

Notwithstanding that our head of state has no executive powers and cannot influence the direction or policies of government, it is indeed true that a constitutional monarchy can always, by genetic accident, leave you with a figurehead who is cut off from reality, none too bright, or just plain embarassing.

Whereas certain countries seem to rely on a very extensive election process to find such people...AND give them executive power!

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by Draken

Whereas certain countries seem to rely on a very extensive election process to find such people...AND give them executive power!

*snicker* You wouldn't be referring to anywhere in particular, would you Draken???

(**I'm leaving now...I don't want to be around when jerseydevil sees this....**)

[brownjenkins]

i agree that it is insane... many other countries hold onto their figurehead monarchies, yet don't subsidize them anywhere near as much... i guess it's mostly the 'tourist attraction' factor these days... though it still seems like they could get that without such excessive subsidizing

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Erawyn
Yeah why is it that she has to apprive our laws? We are our OWN country now, it took awhile but we really don't have any need to have legal ties to britain at all! Anyone actually know why this archaic rule still exists?

I'm an anti-monarchist myself, but....

we don't have any legal ties to Britain; we have a long and glorious tradition as a free and independent nation going back for the last.....um, 22 years.( Repatriation of Constitution, 1982)

The Queen approves the laws of Canada strictly and solely as the sovereign of the people of Canada; as well as being the Queen of Britain, she has a totally separate and independent role as Queen of Canada.

Don't get angry at people who call Canada a colony; use the occasion to enlighten their ignorance.

Believe me, once you launch into a full explanation of the BNA Act, "Two Nations", Repatriation, the role of Federal-Provincial conferences, the Opting Out Clause, etc- they'll never want to talk about Canada's status ever again.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Draken
...Whereas certain countries seem to rely on a very extensive election process to find such people...AND give them executive power!

Hey, I didn't vote for him... you can't blame me.

ooops.. I'm off topic. Back to the real topic at hand.

[BeardofPants]

Well, Bush does look like an inbred shrub.... Isn't he supposed to be blah blah blah's royal cousin xth removed? Or was that someone else?

Oh yes, down up monarchy, up with republic.

edity edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2263945.stm

Yup, the shrub is related. I knew he looked like an inbred.

[brownjenkins]

royalty eh?

that explains this quote:

"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference. And that difference is, they pass the laws and I execute them." ~ Washington, D.C., 12-18-00

[Ruinel]

So far... most of the UK citizens that have replied to my post are against a monarchy that is supported through taxes.

My questions now are: [list=1][*]why not change this? [*]if the money is so little compared to other taxes you pay, then why not separate the monarchy from your financial support and put that little bit you're already paying in to some better use? Surely the UK isn't completely without need someplace. [*]If this is a plan you think would work, where do you think that money should be diverted to instead?(i.e., education, highways, etc.)[/list=1]