British Royal Family

[richardoe]

As a constitutional monarch must reign within the constraints of the constitution then I would say that there couldn't be that much chance of them being bad at the job. Yes Edward VIII behaved like a spoilt brat, but no one has ever said that he didn't do his duty.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by richardoe

As a constitutional monarch must reign within the constraints of the constitution then I would say that there couldn't be that much chance of them being bad at the job. Yes Edward VIII behaved like a spoilt brat, but no one has ever said that he didn't do his duty.

King Edward VIII had a duty to his subjects to serve them faithfully as their monarch. The last king who thought that the people, his subjects, were his serfs and vassals with an unconditional duty to obey the King, no matter how erratic and unreasonable and incompetent he was, got his head chopped off. Even though the Royalists went to extraordinary lengths after the 1660 restoration to find and kill the people who signed the death warrant and participated in the trial of the King, who had thought he was above justice, King Charles II exercised his powers much more responsibly and was, ironically, the first really good constitutional monarch Britain has had, unless one counts the informal compact Queen Elizabeth I made with the Lords and Commons and which she explained in her final speech to Parliament.

I do assure you there is no prince that loves his subjects better, or whose love can countervail our love. There is no jewel, be it of never so rich a price, which I set before this jewel: I mean your love. For I do esteem it more than any treasure or riches; for that we know how to prize, but love and thanks I count invaluable. And, though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves. This makes me that I do not so much rejoice that God hath made me to be a Queen, as to be a Queen over so thankful a people. Therefore I have cause to wish nothing more than to content the subject and that is a duty which I owe...
To be a king and wear a crown is a thing more glorious to them that see it than it is pleasant to them that bear it. For myself I was never so much enticed with the glorious name of a King or royal authority of a Queen as delighted that God hath made me his instrument to maintain his truth and glory and to defend his kingdom as I said from peril, dishonour, tyranny and oppression. There will never Queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects and that will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety than myself. For it is my desire to live nor reign no longer than my life and reign shall be for your good. And though you have had, and may have, many princes more mighty and wise sitting in this seat, yet you never had nor shall have, any that will be more careful and loving.

For all her many faults, Queen Elizabeth I was a great queen of England, as her father Henry VIII (England's Stalin) was in his own reign a great king. What made them good monarchs, even while they were both bad people, was that their sense of duty to their people was sincere and deeply felt. Within living memory, their country had been hideously tormented by civil war; they maintained peace and good order, imposed the rule of law - a much more fair and honest law than England had ever previously had - and created the conditions under which the the country's economy improved. The standard of life of the poor did not improve, but society was considerably safer, as is seen by the move away from fortified houses with moats and drawbridges (such as Hever Castle, where Anne Boleyn was born and raised) to the classic English mansion such as Hardwicke Hall, built in the reign of Elizabeth I by the Countess of Shrewsbury. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were wicked people but also hard workers who governed their country with a lot of common sense

Charles I, on the other hand, did not have the common sense God gave to an ant. It was not so much that he was a wicked man; he may have been a quite decent person, as hereditary monarchs go. Rather, he showed a fatal lack of Queen Elizabeth I's intuitive communication skills; her ability to understand and respond to the feelings of her subjects. Regardless of the Divne Right flannel of Tudor propaganda, Elizabeth and Henry Tudor realised that they could not ignore their subjects and everything would still be OK. Charles governed to suit himself, without a thought for what his people thought or wanted, and expected to get unswerving loyalty regardless of what he did. It didn't end well for him.

Edward VIII committed a similar error. Instead of preparing for his future role as Britain's king, he lived the high life. Status and good looks (he was clearly a handsome chap) got him plenty of women, usually married women, for whom he showed a particular preference. But he didn't appreciate that he was not free to do as he pleased. The world is so different now that have to make a leap of the imagination to grasp how dreadful and sinful divorce was thought to be by millions of church-going British citizens. The New Testament has some very clear condemnations and prohibitions on divorce. Edward VIII was promoted by his father's death to become official head of the Church of England, which until 2002 did not permit divorced people to marry again in Church, though it would acknowledge the existence of their new marraiges. Even today, it is pretty difficult for divorced people to remarry in a Church service in a Church of England church. It was never going to fly for Edward VIII to marry Wallis Simpson unless he abdicated. George VI would not have done this, and neither would Elizabeth II; because it was letting the people down, and they had a sense of obligation. That is the offence of which Edward VIII was guilty; putting himself first and flouting his duty as a King.

[sausageman]

better some poor sod born to the role than deal with the ego of someone who wants to be head of state... I would not want to be a Prince or King for all the money and women in the world

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by sausageman

better some poor sod born to the role than deal with the ego of someone who wants to be head of state... I would not want to be a Prince or King for all the money and women in the world

That's a fair enough comment.
There are some for whom even Buckingham Palace isn't big enough to house their ego, yes that includes you Anthony

If it's not broke leave it alone.

[Attila The Hun]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I'm all for the Queen - she keeps toerags like Blair and Brown and Cameron and their ghastly spouses in their place.

Not really. Not only does she not have any real powers, she isn't even allowed to support any political party. Also it is worth noting that most countries have a head of state (usually a president and not a monarch) and a president and the dynamic is really the same as in England. The head of state, queen Elizabeth, is simply a symbol whereas the prime minister is the actual leader of the country. Absolving the monarchy wouldn't necessarily change anything, Cameron would probably still be prime minister, with all the same powers, and we would elect someone else as president.

[haroldeye]

Absolving the monarchy. Of which sins?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Attila The Hun

Not really. Not only does she not have any real powers, she isn't even allowed to support any political party. Also it is worth noting that most countries have a head of state (usually a president and not a monarch) and a president and the dynamic is really the same as in England. The head of state, queen Elizabeth, is simply a symbol whereas the prime minister is the actual leader of the country. Absolving the monarchy wouldn't necessarily change anything, Cameron would probably still be prime minister, with all the same powers, and we would elect someone else as president.

I cannot think of a single reason why this would be a good thing. Even Prince Charles would be preferable, and I wouldn't give Prince Charles the steam from my piss.

[Meini Again]

When you think about it ~~~ having a Head-of-State, without a veto even, without any political or democratic strength...is a bloomin farce.

It is a figurehead in name only, a point to emphasise that the elected government is beholden to a greater power through respect only.
Meanwhile...in the UK...the elected Government write the Monarch's annual "State of the Union" speech. The Prime Minister visits the Monarch once a week and brings them upto date..except when he is on Holiday or they are at Ascot.

It's a Gilbert & Sullivan Fantasy of Ruritania, and people still think it's meaningful or has a purpose.

And... I know there exists strange genealogy charts that link the UK Royal Family back to Jesus Christ ~~~ are they the only ones who believe that rubbish ?
Even though there has been breaks in the generations, a cousin here or there, a foreign uncle etc, loose links don't defeat, they seem to seem to maintain that nonsense.

Why should the Head-of-State, of a civilised and democratic nation, have their Children take over their role in perpetuity ~~~
An Obama or Putin Grandchild still as Head-of-State in 50 years time?
Stupid, I know.
But in the UK, the unelected and mostly nuetered but well fed, will assume their Future Roles with Dignity and Purpose.
~ what exams/degrees/ Education did they take for that task?
~ what did they give or do for the people/their "subjects" ?
~ armed services ! Check.
~ Medicine Sans Frontiers ? Nope
~ Peace Corps ? Nope
~ Voluntary Work (cos they can't endanger Trust Fund Taxes) ? Nope
~ Gymkhanas, Polo, Shooting, Skiing, Race Horses and Meetings ? Check

~ Doing 400-500 PR stints per year ? Easy ! Include Gymkhanas, Polo, Shooting, Fishing, Skiing..going to the Cinema, Rock Concerts, Footie matches etc etc... it all adds up to a hard life of doing 400-500 PR stints in a year.... in a 365 day year! Check

ooops...they get paid for those PR stints. Comes out of the Civil list.
Which is Why Princess Anne was the most Active, it ramped her income up, she far outled Charles {before Camilla} in terms of income from the taxpayers, because she attended a lot of Horse meetings, and opened Village Fetes at the same time.

It's on record

Proves they earn their taxpayer's money, don't it ?

USA Robber Barons in the last 2 Centuries, Carnegie, Rockefellow etc, gave more, to their Society and took less ~~ than the UK Royal Family ~~ who gave nothing and took more forever.
They only started paying taxes recently...jeez.

Queen Victoria turned the Royal Family into a "BUSINESS"...probably by accident and self-protection, but in Elizabeth's Reign, it is now Corporate Finance at it's deadliest.

AND the UK taxpayer maintains the Civil List...which is the Posh word for benefits / welfare....so the dozens and dozens of lesser Royals get the Posh education at Posh schools and Posh jobs...like working for Andrew LLoyd Webber

I'm not a class-warrior... honest........just someone who laughs when I see them in their Gilbert & Sullivan Regalia, medals the size of frisbies, standing on their porch waving to the suckers, who think they are "special".

They aren't, they just do a lot of PR for the UK ~ have to suffer First Class Travel and Top Class Hotels and Embassies and blimey...they've done more shifts in a year, than there are days in a year......some people will believe anything...



Fastest answer to the Question..would have been.... NO.... but I needed a
little rant, it's that time of the month....

[footstep]

I was but I give them royalists enough rope

[BigBucket]

If we didn't have Her Queenie as our head of state we'd have that Etonian Pig Shafter David 'Dodgy' Cameron the Corrupt.

I'd rather boil my head in a vat of my own p*ss.