The Royal Family Discussion Thread

Just for a moment, forget about the expense etc. This is just a young man and a young woman, very much in love, promising before God to always care for each other and stay together.

 

I think that's rather touching and beautiful.

 

The rest is just froth.

 

I wish them all the best, just as I would anyone else.

 

Good Luck Jack and Eugenie.

God is dead

God is dead

Well he is for you.

I would be happy to send in a cheque for 69 pence, or 70P as the case may be.

 

I don't believe its so much about the excess income over expenditures that the country gains from Royal and historical tourism, but which is positive for many in commerce. Its about the stability and background ... and ...

and as long as we keep supporting them we absolutely do not live in a meritocracy.

A meritocracy definition says people advance on only ability, not social position or money.

Its somewhat utopian, but good luck in finding what what you're looking for. One thing I would point out concerning ability in leaders in the UK's democracy.

The Queen has in my opinion, an extraordinary ability to deal with situations and people from all walks of life, and does it so well. That's why I consider her to be a very significant asset to the UK and the Commonwealth, and part of the glue that holds the program together for us all.

Should she be excluded from the country's asset list because she was born into wealth as you advocate ? I don't believe so.

Some one mentioned that the "Monarchy has its history dripping with blood." Not the generation she represents, but if you want to tag her with all with the wars, torture, beheadings, actions going back to Richard lll, Henry Vlll etc, that happened centuries ago, you may have a case. But not so relevant in the 21s t century.

Incidentally that happened with all States centuries ago, it was how business was done and disputes were settled in those days

Poland and Auschwitz/Birkenau ? People are there because it is the best example to see today for States/countries of what not to do. Same with the "Model" plantations that have been preserved in the USA. They go there to remember history and be part of the group that says "Never again" when the despotic dictators reappear, which they are doing now. Quite the opposite of why they come to Buckingham Palace

A meritocracy definition says people advance on only ability, not social position or money.

Its somewhat utopian, but good luck in finding what what you're looking for. One thing I would point out concerning ability in leaders in the UK's democracy.

The Queen has in my opinion, an extraordinary ability to deal with situations and people from all walks of life, and does it so well. That's why I consider her to be a very significant asset to the UK and the Commonwealth, and part of the glue that holds the program together for us all.

Should she be excluded from the country's asset list because she was born into wealth as you advocate ? I don't believe so.

Some one mentioned that the "Monarchy has its history dripping with blood." Not the generation she represents, but if you want to tag her with all with the wars, torture, beheadings, actions going back to Richard lll, Henry Vlll etc, that happened centuries ago, you may have a case. But not so relevant in the 21s t century.

 

Incidentally that happened with all States centuries ago, it was how business was done and disputes were settled in those days

 

Poland and Auschwitz/Birkenau ? People are there because it is the best example to see today for States/countries of what not to do. Same with the "Model" plantations that have been preserved in the USA. They go there to remember history and be part of the group that says "Never again" when the despotic dictators reappear, which they are doing now. Quite the opposite of why they come to Buckingham Palace

I'm not sure it's an 'extraordinary ability.' She simply never says anything beyond, 'How do you do,' and 'Have you come far?'

Never having an opinion on anything means she is never controversial, and it allows people to project their own views onto her. Personally, give me Prince Charles any day. At least he has something interesting to say, although it may well get him into trouble in the future..

As for the British Monarchy 'dripping with blood; you don't get a monarchy going back a thousand years without them being utterly ruthless. Our modern day monarchy are no different, they just hide it better.

It's the media portrayal that irks me. We had Dame Jenny Bond, and now the oily, sycophantic Witchell delivering his adoration.

I believe she is discouraged publicly from pronouncing position on politics , history despots etc. I agree with the policy in that it may provide a contrast to the PM's office. But I am sure she has a private position that some will hear.

Yes both the Duke and Charles have expressed opinions that may be termed as being outside the boundary, but they can look at things from a different perspective.

With all the charity work that the family undertakes incl. the Queen, ie. current eg. Harry and the disabled games, I just don't see them as ruthless

I believe she is discouraged publicly from pronouncing position on politics , history despots etc. I agree with the policy in that it may provide a contrast to the PM's office. But I am sure she has a private position that some will hear.

 

Yes both the Duke and Charles have expressed opinions that may be termed as being outside the boundary, but they can look at things from a different perspective.

With all the charity work that the family undertakes incl. the Queen, ie. current eg. Harry and the disabled games, I just don't see them as ruthless

Good PR certainly.

Meanwhile, behinf the scenes...

It's simply not possible to equate what happened 370 years ago to the situation now. We have moved a long way since then and it is difficult to see the relevance in the twenty first century.

 

 

Having done more than two minutes searching on Google it seems to me that actually nobody can give any definitive answer regarding how much wealth the royal family bring to the UK. It depends on who is doing the research, their bias and what data they include. For every positive there is a negative. As for other people who are wealthy, that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

 

I don't know what the Queen does all day but the mere fact that she is 92 and still doing her job would seem to indicate that it can't be that arduous. How many people do you know who are still able to work at that age? Very few people in the north live to anywhere near the age of the Queen and her husband. No prizes for guessing why that is. Having had a lifetime of working in a stressful occupation I cannot and will not believe that the Queen 'works hard'. Go into any NHS hospital, especially A&E and then see if you agree that the Queen works hard. She actually doesn't have to lift a finger, not even to wash her own mug! She doesn't have to care for her ailing husband. There are carers all over the UK who are under tremendous pressure, 24/7. It is insulting our intelligence to say that the Queen 'works hard' in comparison to the ordinary person who does not have her privileges.

 

Many people do not want the UK to be without a monarch but they do object to the sheer size and burden of the royal family en masse. It needs slimming down drastically to a manageable level. They are simply overstaffed and in the corporate world overstaffing leads to redundancies. The taxpayer should only be expected to fund the monarch and no more than the first five in line of succession.

You will be getting action taken against you if you keep on posting common sense like the above.

Angel1.

I just don't see them as ruthless

I don't think Lady Di and Dodi al-Fayed would agree with you!

From the French Accident report I saw, they were victims of a drunk driver, the chauffeur,and had nothing to do with the Queen and the conspiracy reports that were subsequently concocted

From the French Accident report I saw, they were victims of a drunk driver, the chauffeur,and had nothing to do with the Queen and the conspiracy reports that were subsequently concocted

I wasn't referring to the accident, I was referring to the cold, callous response of the family to their deaths.