Who loves the Royals?

[technodup]

Re: Re:

The option of a smaller royal family appeals to me. Why ditch the tourist bucks?

They can't really help the size of the family but iirc they stripped some of the minor ones titles a while back. Eugenie and Beatrice have 'real' jobs, likewise Zara Philips and I think her brother, so there is movement.

But the Windsors themselves are never going to be serving coffee in Starbucks.

 

[The History Man]

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'm not offended at all. Everyone is entitled to their view. Absolutely no apology necessary.

 

[The History Man]

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.

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

The notion of status- 'proud to be British' that they promote, national identity, sense of continuity and stability, or ceremony perhaps? All very hard to measure but i certainly felt a lot of this attending various events at the big house and the castle, and i was there to work.

For the record I'm not a Royalist or a Cromwellian.

 

[legrandefromage]

The Royal Family are an anathema, an anachronism but then so are many other things that we love to cling on to. Daft practices, strange dress, disturbing doctrines - thats just the Abrahamic religions or daft Health & Safety!

I'd rather have the royals over religion even though the two are supposedly intertwined. There are far, far more worrying things to get in a lather over.

And besides, I met Her Maj in 1979 and she was very nice to me. I was in the Guardian and the Evening Argus (which will give a clue to where it took place) so expect to see 'Sir LGF' nonetime soon.

*and I live near Cromwells birthplace. One of the local Pubs was on the IRA list of things to do before lunch as its called The Lord Protector.

 

[PaulSE]

Absolutely ridiculous to still have a royal family in the 21st century, how can we call ourselves or hope to be a fair democratic society when we have unelected people in public office? As for the claim that they bring in more to the economy than they cost is both irrelevant and untrue, they don't, and its not as if France lacks tourists because it doesn't have a royal family.

 

[PaulSE]

Re: Re:

They generate far more to the economy than they cost. On that measure alone they are a good taxpayer investment.

The moral or political argument is separate but the above fact can't be ignored.

Apart from it being a myth

 

[technodup]

Absolutely ridiculous to still have a royal family in the 21st century, how can we call ourselves or hope to be a fair democratic society when we have unelected people in public office? As for the claim that they bring in more to the economy than they cost is both irrelevant and untrue, they don't, and its not as if France lacks tourists because it doesn't have a royal family.

It's not really public office for a start, that's more a claim for hereditary or appointed Lords.

When we've had prime minsters with only a couple of O-levels, another the daughter of a grocer and a home secretary who used to be a postman I don't know how you can suggest we don't have a fair and open system of public office.

And as for France's tourism- I don't know why people go to France. I'd guess their warm weather, cheap plonk and the Eiffel Tower. I'm not sure so many Japanese or Americans will be going to look at the president's house the same as they do with Buckingham Palace.

 

[26er]

I have to say I very much like the French way of dealing with that problem.

 

[legrandefromage]

You're a fan of beheading hundreds of innocent people??

 

[26er]

You're a fan of beheading hundreds of innocent people??

Nope, quite the opposite actually. I have a human... gous problem with their kind beheading millions for centuries, if not for thousands of years... all over the planet.