Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, do you?

After reading another thread that veered slightly OT (I know, big shock...), I thought I would find out people's various opinions on the matter.

Do we like 'em?

Do we need em?

Do we even give a gak?

Personally, I like the Royals. They are part of what makes us British. Without our Royal Heritage, we'd just be another windswept island in the North Sea. Like Iceland. Doesn't sound like much fun, does it?
People complain that they get tax-payers money, but with the money generated from tourism at royal sites, we're actually turning a handsome profit, which would be reason enough to keep them. Plus, the money we pay to the Royals is a small fraction of what this current Labour government pays out to unelected think-tanks and quangoes. The sort of organisations that need several million pounds to tell us that eating vegetables is good for you. Money well spent, I'm sure you'll agree.

Other nations feel free to chip in your opinions, but remember: THIS LADY IS THE NATION'S GRANDMOTHER - DO NOT TROLL THIS THREAD WITH NEEDLESSLY INSULTING COMMENTS ABOUT OUR MONARCH. I AM DEADLY SERIOUS. Criticism of institutions is fine.

Anyway, here she is gaaawdblesser:


Would you LOOK at all that ice she's wearing!

Meh. Take them or leave them.

But overall, no real problem with the Queen. She is a lucrative Tourist Attraction.

It's all the pointless hangers on I object to. True, most of the fringe Royals were trimmed off the Civil List (or whatever it is) a good few years ago but seriously, do we actually need the rest of the extended Royal Family? Beyond the Queen and the Bloodline Heirs apparent, I say stuff them. Got no real love for Her Maj, but I wouldn't say I'm antiroyalty either.

Mind you, I'd quite like to see the old bint start exercising some of her powers, like seizing land left right and centre, and giving it to me. That would be cool.

Yeah, Princess Michael of Kent can jog on, like.

That's the sort! Other than her Maj and her sprogs, stuff them. They are the real parasites, as they don't really seem to do an awful lot, making them crap value for money. At least Charles speaks out on environmental issues (Something I like to see) and his sons do something. In fact, Harry serving in Afghanistan, and in more than just a 'morale' role was quite heartening for me, as it showed willing to actually do something beyond sit around being filthy rich!

Actually feel a bit sorry for William and Harry, as despite being Royals, they are actually quite down to earth, all things considered.

Do tax payers pay for all of her extended family? I can see keeping the queen around for a mascot and all but paying some spoiled earl or what not just because he's some far off relation seems like a bum deal.

Albatross wrote: we'd just be another windswept island in the North Sea.

That's pretty much what we are. Maybe a bit funnier than some of the others I'll grant you, but if I ate Puffin I'd be miserable as well.

People complain that they get tax-payers money, but with the money generated from tourism at royal sites, we're actually turning a handsome profit, which would be reason enough to keep them.

Except this isn't true is it ? My understanding is that the current royal family costs each and every person in the UK 62 pence per person -- disclaimer that was from a year or two ago..may well have gone or down a bit since.. but still a small amount I'll grant you. And that sum entirely precludes the immense security costs and drain on resources the family entails.

Plus, the money we pay to the Royals is a small fraction of what this current Labour government pays out to unelected think-tanks and quangoes.

citation and/or evidence please. The NHS is unelected as is the MOD...you know the Crown and the Monarch both appoint and approve NDPB as well yes ? Sure the amount spent on NDPB is mucg harger than is spent on the monarch, and... ?

Other nations feel free to chip in your opinions, but remember: THIS LADY IS THE NATION'S GRANDMOTHER - DO NOT TROLL THIS THREAD WITH NEEDLESSLY INSULTING COMMENTS ABOUT OUR MONARCH. I AM DEADLY SERIOUS.

THis would be the British sense of irony coming through here, for every poster from outside the UK here who's ever has Brit posters wade into threads about their countries and laws and ideas.

Carried on from the other thread and reds8n:-

She -- as in out of her/her families own/private money doesn't pay for the above : the taxpayer does through the civil list. "The Crown" -- as the institution not the specific family -- receives vast sums which go towards the above, this money is entirely separate from the personal/private money which she/her family owns and has from investments and their personal holdings.

Far enough, I don't know enough about private royal finances to comment here. But as I said earlier, she more than works for her money, and I could pull a list of other public figures who receive just as extortionate sums for far less work in my book.

I wouldn't wave a flag for the monarch either. I fail to see what is, apparently, laudable about the families conduct

You might not wave a flag for her, but if you were a soldier, having a medal pinned on you by the Foreign Secretary or Deputy Prime Minister doesn't quite make you swell with the same kind of patriotic pride does it? Like it or not, she is a focal point for what nationalism we have left, and kicking her would be a kick to all remaining patriots in the teeth.

debatable, I know very few commonwealth people who give a rats arse about the monarch either way, it seems quite likely Australia will severe their ties completely in the next few years and good luck to them

I was talking of the Commonwealth as an organization, and a symbol of goodwill between countries. I know perfectly well the Commonwealth is good for nothing but diplomatic ties, but those are important, and the Queen is a key part of that.

I'm not from Germany or Greece.

Overprotestation much? If we're going into semantics here, I'm an eighth latvian. Does that make me less English? Half the bloody populace is descended from European stock in recent memory, and the rest is from saxons, normans, etc....

Teenage hyperbole from someone who wasn't around when every other Govt. did exactly the same thing, more or less agreed.

Hey, I say what I know. All I know is that Thatcher at least didn't fill the cabinet with yesmen, and rely on spin. You might have hated her, but at least you got what it said on the packet. And even if other governments have taken more power than they should have done, does that make it magically right? It's still a bastardization of the system, whoever's doing it.

So is Madame Tussuad's, Stonehenge and the streets were the Beatles grew up. But.. yeah.. fun to look at.

They all receive grants of government money.

'd say the same about your neighbourhood too, most people don't give a flying feth about the royals BUT.. would indeed choose to hang onto them for pretty much your last (well only ) point : They do alright, the country works and if it ain't broke then don't bother trying to fix it without anything that seems likely to be significantly better. Better the devil you know kind of scenario.

Oh certainly. I feel no innate loyalty towards the woman, but she performs a useful function, makes a living, and helps it all work. But the point I was arguing against was whatwhat's assertion that most of the country would like to get rid of the monarchy. I'm not saying we all love, worship, and adore her, but there's a certain public fondness of the old bird, and a view that it does no harm to keep her there. There are far more important things to be worrying about, and when someone starts ranting about Madge, you know they've got their priorities mixed up.

@Reds8n

The Telegraph wrote:The Cabinet Office puts the cost of Britain's quangos at £34 billion a year, about the same as the defence budget. This is disputed by the Taxpayers' Alliance, which reckons the true cost is nearer £60 billion, enough to pay for half our annual outlay on the National Health Service.

Here is a link to the article which outlines the concept I am referring to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7095929/Quangos-are-a-luxury-we-dont-need-and-certainly-cant-afford.html

The BBC wrote:The Queen and the Royal Family cost the UK taxpayer £37.4m in the last financial year, her financial public accounts reveal.

That was in 2006 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5123580.stm

You can claim that we are 'just another island in the north sea' all you want, but it's just balls - we are wealthier and more powerful than most other countries in the world. This is as a direct result of our Imperial (and therefore, Royal) history.

I like the main royals, the Queen, Charles, William, Harry, are well worth the investment we put in, not only on tourist money but on social and eviromental issues. They serve as good representatives to the outside world ans although there has been a fair few mess ups they are still on the positive side for me

Would I be right in thinking that Britain is the one and only Country in the world to have held a successful Republic Revolution (Cromwell) and then gone back to a Monarchy permanently?

@MDG - I wanna say Spain... but I'm not sure why.

Now you mention it, I think you might be right. Certainly I know the Third Reich threw their weigh behind the Spanish Civil War, but I'm ashamed to say I have no idea what that was actually about (Basque region perhaps? I dunno!) nor who actually won, and what they achieved.

Which is doubly pathetic, as part of my comedy routine is to be lambasting uninformed debate on the Interwebs, seeing as it is the ultimate respository of Mankinds knowledge and learning, freely accessible once you know how to use Google efficiently. Ho hum!

Yeah Spain went from Monarchy, to Dictatorship (under Generalissimo Franco, who is still dead) and back to Monarchy thanks to King Juan Carlos' GIANT BALLS

I'm not British but I like your German monarch. When she came for our quadricentinniel, all the people came out to see her. As the Ozzys might say, "she's a good Sheila, Bruce, and not at all stuck up."

All I know is that Thatcher at least didn't fill the cabinet with yesmen,

This is quite possibly the single funniest sentence ever written.

If you seriously believe that Thatcher didn't disregard her cabinet whenever she felt like it and treat them ALL, without exception, as disposable puppets to do what she told them then there is no further point in talking to you about anything ever again. Because you are so genuinely detached from reality you are on a different level of existence.

Seriously.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19810916&id=XowQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2730,113088

She was renonwed for it. SOme of her cabinte ministers were portrayed as slugs they viewed as so spineless.

If I was having a medal pinned on me .. apart from us all being in a lot of trouble, I'd have more respect for it being given to me by, for example, Major ( the exPM) or Prescott who both dragged themselves up to where they got by their own merits rather than being born to it like Charles or Lizzie.

Overprotestation much

No. Philip's Greek and the family is largely germanic by descent.. you do know when ( and why) they changed their name right ?

You can claim that we are 'just another island in the north sea' all you want, but it's just balls - we are wealthier and more powerful than most other countries in the world. This is as a direct result of our Imperial (and therefore, Royal) history.

Or perhaps we're less rich and powerful than we'd have been if we had not brought them back at all eh ? The USA and China seem to have done remarkably well without Royal families ? I think there's a strong argument to say firstly it is perhaps in-spite of our royal families -- who over the centuries have also led us into ruin and catastrophe time and time again as well as success, and also.. recently, because we're a nuclear power and a dwindling colonial legacy of euro centric power which is boosted by the language we speak being the "default" settings for much of the business done around the world.. this might well change of course as, inevitably, other countries rise to prominence.

With regards to the linked article : well, I agree that the job mentioned is overpaid. However the UK FIlm Council has from their website :

The UK film industry now contributes approximately £4.3 billion per year to the UK economy – up by 44% since 2000, when the UK Film Council was created;
In 2008 UK films took 15% of the global box office and 31% of the UK box office;
UK film grossed £2.3 billion at the worldwide box office last year – up 133% since 2002;
UK box-office takings are at record-breaking levels, worth £850 million in the UK in 2008, up 46% from 2000;
UK Film Council investments in British films have been hugely successful – for every £1 we have invested, £5 has been generated at the box office;
Over 164 million people went to the cinema in the UK in 2008 – up 22million (15%) from 2000;
The UK has more digital screens than any other European country – 310 and counting;
Overall UK audiences had a far greater choice of films in 2008 – 527 films were released, 34% more than a decade ago;
The UK film industry directly provides jobs for almost 35,000 people, with extended employment impact of 95,000 jobs;
The film industry earns over £1 billion in export income from film rights and film production services;
In 2008 alone, British films and talent scooped 32 awards.

http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/vitalstats

which seems a good return to me for our investment....

..blimey..maybe we ARE more important than Iceland, it's a good job we've got industries like this then being helped to show trhe rest of the world eh ?

You'll note the article doesn't actually make any points.. let's have a look at the facts then :

As at 31 March 2009, there were 766
NDPBs sponsored by the UK
Government. This consists of 192
Executive NDPBs, 405 Advisory NDPBs,
19 Tribunal NDPBs and 150 Independent
Monitoring Boards of Prisons, Immigration
Removal Centres and Immigration
Holding Rooms.
This compares to 790 NDPBs in 2008.
Since 1997, the total number of NDPBs
has fallen by 91 – over 10%. The
Government keeps the need for existing
bodies under close review. New NDPBs
are only set up when it can be clearly
demonstrated that the NDPB model is the
most efficient and effective model to
deliver the function in question

fething Govt. monitoring the rpsions ! How dare they ! Lets look at page 17 on here http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/PublicBodies2009_tcm6-35808.pdf

which lists all these quangos and so on then.

Now I'm sure that A. We've all got better things to do than wade through documents like this -- I have to for work at times/in the past.. not fun. B. Sure there's bound to be a few on there that even us would all agree are BS... but there's loads on/in there that aren't too : Security Commission, Hearing Aid council, the UK ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY.. tenants services authority etc etc

that all fall under the wonderfully vague "quango" heading that, realistically, we couldn't do as well without.

And also note that some :

Civil Service Appeal Board
Committee on Standards in Public Life
House of Lords Appointments Commission


have a distinctly Royal bent to them too.

reds8n wrote:

All I know is that Thatcher at least didn't fill the cabinet with yesmen,

If you seriously believe that Thatcher didn't disregard her cabinet whenever she felt like it and treat them ALL, without exception, as disposable puppets to do what she told them then there is no further point in talking to you about anything ever again. Because you are so genuinely detached from reality you are on a different level of existence.

Oh, I never said that. She might have disregarded her cabinet 24/7, that wasn't what I said. What I did say is that she didn't install it completely with yesmen, aka people who agree with you on everything. After all, if her cabinet had been filled with yesmen, she would never have had to disregard them in the first place. Great strawman btw.

If I was having a medal pinned on me .. apart from us all being in a lot of trouble, I'd have more respect for it being given to me by, for example, Major ( the exPM) or Prescott who both dragged themselves up to where they got by their own merits rather than being born to it like Charles or Lizzie.

You'd want a medal pinned on you by two-jags? The man who abandoned everything he stood for? Have fun with that, but I can't say I would agree with your taste there.

Overprotestation much

No. Philip's Greek and the family is largely germanic by descent.. you do know when ( and why) they changed their name right ?

Semantics. If you can sit here and tell em you can trace your heritage back to pre-saxon times without one drop of European blood, I would be utterly gobsmacked. The Royal Family as an institution has been an integral part of this country's history regardless of who their grandaddy was a hundred years ago.

You can claim that we are 'just another island in the north sea' all you want, but it's just balls - we are wealthier and more powerful than most other countries in the world. This is as a direct result of our Imperial (and therefore, Royal) history.

Or perhaps we're less rich and powerful than we'd have been if we had not brought them back at all eh ? The USA and China seem to have done remarkably well without Royal families ? I think there's a strong argument to say firstly it is perhaps in-spite of our royal families -- who over the centuries have also led us into ruin and catastrophe time and time again as well as success, and also.. recently, because we're a nuclear power and a dwindling colonial legacy of euro centric power which is boosted by the language we speak being the "default" settings for much of the business done around the world.. this might well change of course as, inevitably, other countries rise to prominence.

Please tell me you did not just accuse the decline of the British Empire on the Royal Family. That would be silly.Or, if you're saying we would have been better off if we'd kept Cromwell's republic, any reading on the era will instantly tell you how unstable the entire thing was, and held together through brute force, like any other military dictatorship. It couldn't have survived. Period. So trading in, 'what if's', is like saying, 'what if England had managed to reconquer America! We'd still be number 1 then, eh?'.

Ketara. She filled her cabinet with spineless tossers who just said nothing. I'd actually prefer the Yes-Men in this case.

Oh, I never said that. She might have disregarded her cabinet 24/7, that wasn't what I said. What I did say is that she didn't install it completely with yesmen, aka people who agree with you on everything. After all, if her cabinet had been filled with yesmen, she would never have had to disregard them in the first place. Great strawman b

I can only work with what you give me, and it does come across as if that was exactly what you were saying, I just assumed you were talking up about stuff you didn't know again. She did fill it full of yes men-- contrary to what you explicity stated-- and, to a large part that was what led to her downfall at a later date.

Considering the number of people in and then out of Blair and Browns cabinets I don't really see why you even raised the issue then other than another tiresome jibe at a Govt. you don't really seem to know that much about.

You'd want a medal pinned on you by two-jags ?

Want ? No. I want to never have to get in a position in the first place which could lead me to being awarded such a medal.

Aside from my World Cup winning Medal with England next year of course. SHUT UP ! IT COULD HAPPEN !



But I'd prefer him or Major or anyone else who made something of themselves and I actually have some respect for, so yes.

Semantics. If you can sit here and tell em you can trace your heritage back to pre-saxon times without one drop of European blood, I would be utterly gobsmacked. The Royal Family as an institution has been an integral part of this country's history regardless of who their grandaddy was a hundred years ago.

Not at all, way to dodge the point. The current Royal Family is not, and has never been a BRITISH instituition at all, reagardless of the claims made about it earlier. They're so not British in fact they had to change their name so as not to upset people.

Good strawman though.

Please tell me you did not just accuse the decline of the British Empire on the Royal Family.

Worry not, I am making no such claim.

So trading in, 'what if's', is like saying, 'what if England had managed to reconquer America! We'd still be number 1 then, eh?'.

Totally agree. Therefore, as we are agreeing that history is the .. the.. interweaving of lots of events and affects I think it is ludicrous to state that we are/were powerful due to our "Royal History"-- ie any sizable influence attributable directly to the monarch or crown -- as was claimed.

reds8n wrote:
I can only work with what you give me, and it does come across as if that was exactly what you were saying, I just assumed you were talking up about stuff you didn't know again. She did fill it full of yes men-- contrary to what you explicity stated-- and, to a large part that was what led to her downfall at a later date.

Hang on, what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a second ago, you said:

If you seriously believe that Thatcher didn't disregard her cabinet whenever she felt like it and treat them ALL, without exception, as disposable puppets to do what she told them then there is no further point in talking to you about anything ever again. Because you are so genuinely detached from reality you are on a different level of existence.

If they were all yes men, then why would she need to disregard or dispose of anyone? Not only that, Mad Doc just above said that he would have preferred yesmen(implying that they were not yesmen, just spineless cowards), and I'm pretty sure he lived through the era.

You'd want a medal pinned on you by two-jags ?

Want ? No. I want to never have to get in a position in the first place which could lead me to being awarded such a medal.

But I'd prefer him or Major or anyone else who made something of themselves and I actually have some respect for, so yes.

You have respect for Two-jags? Again, I suppose that's a matter of taste. Major I can understand, whilst a bit of a fill in and ineffectual, from what I know of it, he didn't make too bad a hash of it. I don't know much about him though, so I couldn't comment. All I know is that I would personally have a medal pinned on by the person I swore allegiance to when I joined up, and someone who represented Britain in a more symbolic sense than a politician.

Semantics. If you can sit here and tell em you can trace your heritage back to pre-saxon times without one drop of European blood, I would be utterly gobsmacked. The Royal Family as an institution has been an integral part of this country's history regardless of who their grandaddy was a hundred years ago.

Not at all, way to dodge the point. The current Royal Family is not, and has never been a BRITISH instituition at all, reagardless of the claims made about it earlier. They're so not British in fact they had to change their name so as not to upset people.

Good strawman though.

What? Please, define the word British for me. The Royal Family, regardless of whose bloodline is in it, is a British Institution ever since James the 1st united England and Scotland. And I'm pretty damn sure we had a King then. In other words, the monarchy (again, bloodline is irrelevant, I'm referring to it as an institution here) has been here since the word go, and held the reigns back at the start. Your claim here is that the monarchy is not a British Institution. History my friend, disagrees.

Totally agree. Therefore, as we are agreeing that history is the .. the.. interweaving of lots of events and affects I think it is ludicrous to state that we are/were powerful due to our "Royal History"-- ie any sizable influence attributable directly to the monarch or crown -- as was claimed.

Oh certainly. The Royal family were around in Pax Britannica, and still retained a fair bit of power, but it was already passing over into the House of Commons back then. It would be ludicrous to state it was due to any one factor. Having the monarchy as a focus for the fierce nationalism the British possessed back then could be counted as one of them, but is certainly not the sum of the story.

Reds8n wrote:But I'd prefer him or Major or anyone else who made something of themselves and I actually have some respect for, so yes.

Both were incompetent and mired in sleaze. But hey, as long as they 'pulled themselves up from nowt'... how condescending. Why don't you just admit that you are a class-warrior and that your position will never change? It'd save a lot of argument.

By the way, I posted the article I that quoted from for the sake of... not sure. I didn't read it all, just thought it might be useful to link the source.

Yes, prison monitoring services, advisory comittees and hearing aid councils are very nice. Why exactly should 766 NDPBs cost us £60 billion?

Reds8n wrote:I think it is ludicrous to state that we are/were powerful due to our "Royal History"-- ie any sizable influence attributable directly to the monarch or crown -- as was claimed.

I think it's ludicrous and revisionist to think that our imperial and colonialist (and by extension, royal) past has no bearing on our current power and wealth. The Crown played a large role in the Empire, as a symbol of unification to disparate peoples.

Ketara wrote:
Not only that, Mad Doc just above said that he would have preferred yesmen(implying that they were not yesmen, just spineless cowards), and I'm pretty sure he lived through the era.

I believe spineless cowards are essentially the same as yes men.

Really? You think someone who just keeps their mouth shut so they keep their job is the same as a sycophant?

If the two terms are interchangeable, then someone who runs away from a fight is a yesman, correct?

@Dogma - Ah, but if you told a yesman to fight, what would he do? If he runs he is no longer a yesman, if he fights, he isn't a coward.

Albatross wrote:@Dogma - Ah, but if you told a yesman to fight, what would he do? If he runs he is no longer a yesman, if he fights, he isn't a coward.

CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!

Manchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:@Dogma - Ah, but if you told a yesman to fight, what would he do? If he runs he is no longer a yesman, if he fights, he isn't a coward.

CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!

I lol'd.

Albatross wrote:

Both were incompetent and mired in sleaze.

Just like the Royal family then. But as long as you can tug your forelock that's alright then eh ? Wow, this is fun.

But hey, as long as they 'pulled themselves up from nowt'... how condescending. Why don't you just admit that you are a class-warrior and that your position will never change? It'd save a lot of argument.

I'm not a class warrior, but I do think that someone who has gone from a poor or working class background to the leadership of their country certainly has something-- I don't know if you'd call it X factor, or drive or charm or just determination,, for example, Prescoot has endured terrible snobbery from worthless piles of crap like Soames -- and is more worthy of respect than someone who was simply born into wealth. It's not hard to understand.

by the way, I posted the article I that quoted from for the sake of... not sure. I didn't read it all, just thought it might be useful to link the source.

Brilliant. fair enough though.

Yes, prison monitoring services, advisory comittees and hearing aid councils are very nice. Why exactly should 766 NDPBs cost us £60 billion?

As opoosed to how much ? Some/many/most of the organisations serve useful purposes and are answerable to parliament, I don't have a problem with that.

Reds8n wrote:I think it is ludicrous to state that we are/were powerful due to our "Royal History"-- ie any sizable influence attributable directly to the monarch or crown -- as was claimed.

I think it's ludicrous and revisionist to think that our imperial and colonialist (and by extension, royal) past has no bearing on our current power and wealth. The Crown played a large role in the Empire, as a symbol of unification to disparate peoples.

Just as well I didn't say that then, as the quote you've helpfully included says " any sizable influence attributable directly to the monarch or crown ". I would say things like the maxim gun and good military discipline were mroe essential.

If they were all yes men, then why would she need to disregard or dispose of anyone? Not only that, Mad Doc just above said that he would have preferred yesmen(implying that they were not yesmen, just spineless cowards), and I'm pretty sure he lived through the era.

Perhaps we're arguing at crossterms here : I take the term to mean they just agreed with what she said ir rubber stamped it regardless, often to keep their jobs. Obviously there comes a point when some of them made a stand and they were disposed of or, equally often, when the press/opposition etc etc were howling for blood she'd fire/get rid of one of them. That's what I take the term to mean in the given context.

You have respect for Two-jags? Again, I suppose that's a matter of taste. Major I can understand, whilst a bit of a fill in and ineffectual, from what I know of it, he didn't make too bad a hash of it. I don't know much about him though, so I couldn't comment. All I know is that I would personally have a medal pinned on by the person I swore allegiance to when I joined up, and someone who represented Britain in a more symbolic sense than a politician.

I wouldn't swear alleigance to a person myself. I think Charles is far more distasteful than Prescott. YMMV.

Specifically I cannot see how you can state this and then go on to waffle on about bloodline being irrelevant.. in a hereditary monarchy.. ? WE did indeed have a king then.. and at times we've got rid of them and even killed them. When they haven't been killing each other in towers and the like anyway.You keep misreading what I'm claiming, I'll assume accidentally : I do not think the current Royal family is British in any significant way thatdeserves extra respectr than any rich 3rd or 4th generation immigrant family. I'm not going to bow to the Rothschilds either and at least they've earnt their money and not only changed their name to make it easier for the public to accept them.

It would be ludicrous to state it was due to any one factor. Having the monarchy as a focus for the fierce nationalism the British possessed back then could be counted as one of them, but is certainly not the sum of the story.

QFT indeed.

Ketara wrote:Really? You think someone who just keeps their mouth shut so they keep their job is the same as a sycophant?

Yes, that seems to be the implication.

Ketara wrote:
If the two terms are interchangeable, then someone who runs away from a fight is a yesman, correct?

You can't run if you don't have a spine.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:@Dogma - Ah, but if you told a yesman to fight, what would he do? If he runs he is no longer a yesman, if he fights, he isn't a coward.

If he fights, he bows to your will. He is a coward for that motion.

Specifically I cannot see how you can state this and then go on to waffle on about bloodline being irrelevant.. in a hereditary monarchy.. ? WE did indeed have a king then.. and at times we've got rid of them and even killed them. When they haven't been killing each other in towers and the like anyway.You keep misreading what I'm claiming, I'll assume accidentally : I do not think the current Royal family is British in any significant way thatdeserves extra respectr than any rich 3rd or 4th generation immigrant family. I'm not going to bow to the Rothschilds either and at least they've earnt their money and not only changed their name to make it easier for the public to accept them.

You misunderstand me and my position here. I'm not arguing that it is the Queen herself on a personal level that deserves respect here. As you said, she is no more than someone who happened to be born into a wealthy position in the Royal Family. I have no innate desire here to swear allegiance/tug my forelocks etc. I'm not a fan of the Divine Right. I merely used the medal example to show how she performs a useful role in her ceremonial position as Head of State that would be difficult to replace.

No, what I have respect for is the position of King/Queen, as an integral part of our nations history. The office represents the country as a whole on a national and symbolic level that a minister, who is usually rotated every five years, would find difficult to match. By showing my respect to the representative of that position, I show my respect for my own cultural roots, and nation. The respect is not aimed at them on a personal level, but at what they are meant to represent. The various parties in power come and go, but the Royal Family remains a constant reminder of who we are, and where we came from. That is why the bloodline is irrelevant.

Have you ever considered that it is a curse as much as a gift? If you're born into the royal family, you have the media hawkishly watching everything you do, you're expected to live up to royal commitments, and have absolutely no privacy. It's as much a burden of responsibility as a gift, and not one you can just shrug off either. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a royal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If he fights, he bows to your will.

So we're all bowing the will of the Taliban are we? And in World War 2, by fighting Hitler, we were all submitting to his will?

You're a smart guy Dogma, but that was the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard you say. I get the feeling you're just arguing here for the sake of arguing, and trying to make people rage on the net for alaugh then any real conviction in what you're saying.

You're misunderstanding Mr. Dogma there I think : he's saying that if you were a pacifist and you fight then "the other guy" has won as he's forced you to change your views/life. To use your Taliban example, if we retreat to and start using the same tactics and radically alter the free and open nature of our society to fight them.. then they have won.

All I know is that I would personally have a medal pinned on by the person I swore allegiance to when I joined up

is what you said, now you're saying :

I'm not arguing that it is the Queen herself on a personal level that deserves respect here

You keep chopping and changing what you're arguing for as far as I can tell.. but, well.. we are just wasting time on the internet I guess. I think a lot of people would much rather receive a medal from a sportsman or "pop" star or someone similarly ghastly that would mean a lot more to them. That's perhaps a comment on the times and and a whole other thread though.

Have you ever considered that it is a curse as much as a gift?

Oh totally, at times I think the coverage they get and stupidity they come up against must be incredibly awkward. And bear in mind it's only really in the last few decades -- post Murdoch and the rise to eminence of the tabloids IMO ..although the royals have always had their moments

I wouldn't want to be a royal either, but I do think although it has its pressures, it's a damn straight easier than living on a sink estate living hand to mouth. They'll never go hungry or lie there listening to roaches climb the wall... *common people rant*

And, much as I am personally agaisnt the monarchy in its current format and would much ratehr have something else, I respect there's a huge amount, even if it is a minority say, who do want to keep it, so I'm in no hurry and don't want to ban them overnight and turf them out of their homes etc etc. That would not be fair.

I'm an Aussie and I like having good ol' Queenie on our currency.

Not too fond of the next guy though.