Who loves the Royals?
- Thread starter Cavalier
- Start date
- Feedback
- View
Actually it was a question.
if you fail to appreciate the open non-judgemental nature of my question and wish to start an argument I can't help you.
if you fail to appreciate the open non-judgemental nature of my question and wish to start an argument I can't help you.
- Feedback
- View
Does it have to be direct then?
Could it be historical? Political? Indirect even? Notional? Social? Charitable?
And I'm not just talking about the 'Royals'
Your question could equally refer to anybody we support through an accident of birth.
Could it be historical? Political? Indirect even? Notional? Social? Charitable?
And I'm not just talking about the 'Royals'
Your question could equally refer to anybody we support through an accident of birth.
Hello Mr. History Man.
I should say that I only started this thread as a light hearted jibe at the Royals. I watched this particular BBC programme at my mother's house, who adores the Royals, as a lot of her generation do, (over 50% of the GB population thought the queen was appointed by god at her coronation).
The actual question of royalty is hugely complex. I remember discussing the subject with a good Canadian friend of mine who is staunchly pro-royal (which I found surprising at the time AND she's from Montreal) and when pushed as to the reason for her royalist beliefs she stated that it was Canadian loyalty to the crown in the 18 century that meant that Canada duly outlawed slavery, in the 18th century, as opposed to the republicans of North America, and thus subsequently did not suffer the racial degradations of the current USA- this is a very good point in history.
The question should have been asked as to whether the '''current royals''' measure up and thus have any relevancy in their current form?
Both yourself, Mike-Muz and all the other commentators are sound members of this community and I apologise if I've inflamed tensions that turned devoted rusty bike fan against rusty bike fan.
Maybe one day we will meet up and the only difference will be the size of our pot-bellies!!!
I should say that I only started this thread as a light hearted jibe at the Royals. I watched this particular BBC programme at my mother's house, who adores the Royals, as a lot of her generation do, (over 50% of the GB population thought the queen was appointed by god at her coronation).
The actual question of royalty is hugely complex. I remember discussing the subject with a good Canadian friend of mine who is staunchly pro-royal (which I found surprising at the time AND she's from Montreal) and when pushed as to the reason for her royalist beliefs she stated that it was Canadian loyalty to the crown in the 18 century that meant that Canada duly outlawed slavery, in the 18th century, as opposed to the republicans of North America, and thus subsequently did not suffer the racial degradations of the current USA- this is a very good point in history.
The question should have been asked as to whether the '''current royals''' measure up and thus have any relevancy in their current form?
Both yourself, Mike-Muz and all the other commentators are sound members of this community and I apologise if I've inflamed tensions that turned devoted rusty bike fan against rusty bike fan.
Maybe one day we will meet up and the only difference will be the size of our pot-bellies!!!
highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
Re:
One thing they contribute is a large part to the notion that this group of nations is hindered by class and ingrained privilege.
I am not sure that is worth their other contribution, whatever it is supposedly worth.
We used to sit down for dinner with them a couple of times a year, and host them for pub meals.
The queen mum loved a jumbo sausage.
Used to be a welder before she married into them, had Love and Hate tattoos so she did. Think about it, you never saw her without her gloves.
One thing they contribute is a large part to the notion that this group of nations is hindered by class and ingrained privilege.
I am not sure that is worth their other contribution, whatever it is supposedly worth.
We used to sit down for dinner with them a couple of times a year, and host them for pub meals.
The queen mum loved a jumbo sausage.
Used to be a welder before she married into them, had Love and Hate tattoos so she did. Think about it, you never saw her without her gloves.
The History Man":26sleo3l said:
Enlighten me, as I'm not too clued up on history.
Politically? I'd trust the royals - especially Charles - even less than Cameron. Why should he - first and foremost, as he always tries to do - have any say in the politics of this country? At least Cameron and his cronies were democratically elected.
Indirect. Tourism? Fair enough.
Notional :? Can you expand on that ?
Social. Not sure about that either, other than you can waste £150 a ticket (10,000 in total ) to go to Her Majs' birthday party. Organised as 'non-profit-making' by the royals own companies.
Charitable, again expand please.
I don't believe in contributing to those who clearly don't need help. That's all.
This is still a friendly discussion as far as I'm concerned Mr History, but if Archie growls at me upon my next visit, I'll know why !
Mike
technodup
Senior Retro Guru
Re: Re:
For all the pish about us supporting them by birth the same works the opposite way around. I for one wouldn't fancy a life of relentless public engagements, endless small talk with the unwashed and neverending travel all in the name of promoting Britain. Oh and seemingly no retirement either, the Queen is almost 90 and Charlie's past pension age and hasn't even got the top job yet.
The status quo suits me just fine. Although I think Kate is ageing terribly.
For all the pish about us supporting them by birth the same works the opposite way around. I for one wouldn't fancy a life of relentless public engagements, endless small talk with the unwashed and neverending travel all in the name of promoting Britain. Oh and seemingly no retirement either, the Queen is almost 90 and Charlie's past pension age and hasn't even got the top job yet.
If we got rid of them we'd only replace them with a president, who would inevitably be some Eton & Oxbridge Cameron clone you could have exactly the same complaint about.highlandsflyer":38kbzwet said:
The status quo suits me just fine. Although I think Kate is ageing terribly.
Similar threads
