British Royal Family

[mizlaplan]

I am a Royalist.
Always have been.
Always will be.
The alternatives?
Go on. Make me laugh

[knobby109]

The benefit of a monarchy becomes apparent when you look at the "worst President in history" thread and see the hatred for Obama. A politician as Head of State is bound to be divisive.
In principle a Monarchy makes little sense.In practice it makes full sense because it works and works well. An American once said to me that he likes to vote for his Head of State.In practice, though the president could be any of a hundred or two million individuals the choice is narrowed down by Big Money and horse dealers so the average citizen has hardly any say at all.Basically one of the two the machinery throws up.
The Queen technically reigns. In practice she serves.And mightily well for an octagenarian. Respected around the globe she has done an incredible amount of good for the realm.

[sydney1]

Originally Posted by knobby109

The benefit of a monarchy becomes apparent when you look at the "worst President in history" thread and see the hatred for Obama. A politician as Head of State is bound to be divisive.
In principle a Monarchy makes little sense.In practice it makes full sense because it works and works well. An American once said to me that he likes to vote for his Head of State.In practice, though the president could be any of a hundred or two million individuals the choice is narrowed down by Big Money and horse dealers so the average citizen has hardly any say at all.Basically one of the two the machinery throws up.
The Queen technically reigns. In practice she serves.And mightily well for an octagenarian. Respected around the globe she has done an incredible amount of good for the realm.

Point well taken. But I like the idea of the man at the bottom, or woman can rise to the very top, let's say like Lincoln. The downside is..Bush. I maybe republican in my attitude, but that doesn't mean I'm not a Brit. People seemed to get very confused about that.

[howerd]

I'm not a royalist. There's no such thing as blue blood. As far as I'm concerned the 'royal' family are just a family - except they have far far far too much money which is an obscenity on a planet where some people cannot get enough to eat. I remember seeing 'Princess' Margart on 'It's a Knockout' carrying a chartity shield with 'Save the Children' on it. God that woman has a nerve!

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by howerd

I'm not a royalist. There's no such thing as blue blood. As far as I'm concerned the 'royal' family are just a family - except they have far far far too much money which is an obscenity on a planet where some people cannot get enough to eat. I remember seeing 'Princess' Margart on 'It's a Knockout' carrying a chartity shield with 'Save the Children' on it. God that woman has a nerve!

I can see where you are coming from.But although there is of course no such thing as blue blood there is such a thing as heritage and tradition which add up to a general acceptance of the validity and value of the Monarchy.Not just here but world wide.
As for money, that's a non issue.Most of the wealth is held by the office not the person anyway.Do we really wish to be represented by an impoverished Head of State? What impression would that give to the rest of the world of the way we choose to represent ourselves?
Who would you prefer to be our leader then?

[richardoe]

The subject of money and the Royal Family is one that always causes problems. The Queen doesn't get a salary, the Civil List goes to the running of the office of the Monarchy. The Queen does have her own private money, how much that is is of no ones business but the Queen and her accountants and the taxman. And that's the same for every other citizen in this country.

By the way, I think I started a thread about what sort of President we would like in this country.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by richardoe

And when I saw the President of the USA being questioned in 98 and quibbling over what exactly sex was I thought "thank god were a Monarchy", and I wonder what Americans thought about their Presidents behaviour over Ms Lewinsky?

Of course a Monarchy does not guarantee sexual propriety.....

[richardoe]

Of course it doesn't, but imagine if our Head of State was being interviewed by Parliament! Although as a reigning Monarch is above the law that would never happen.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Of course a Monarchy does not guarantee sexual propriety.....

You reckon some of the Royals are VEF members ?!?!

[winebeavis]

Not really for or against. I suppose "I don't have a dog in this fight." It doesn't mean much to me. . . for obvious reasons. I suppose I still have trouble figuring if I was born in the land of my grandfathers I'd care.

On one hand, I'm supposing it hasn't effected the average guy at all in the last couple hundred years. On the other hand, it is kind of cool to have a figurehead monarch. But on a day to day basis, is it really that big of a fuss? Really?

I have to admit that I can go weeks without even thinking of who is the president of the u.s. --which some tell me is a good thing. Is it really that different in the UK?