PDA

View Full Version : Queen's Golden Jubilee-Celebration or Waste of Time?


Tartan Gannet
10th Mar 2002, 14:34
Jet Blast seems to have become awfully tame in the last week , so I thought Id throw a stone in the pond with this topic. (I DID consider posting a thread about Sir John Stevens, Metropolitian Police Commissioner and his remarks about the Criminal Law System and Courts in the UK but this Gannet didnt fancy being mobbed by the staffel of Legal Eagles which inhabit PPrune- anyway you all know my views, 100% in agreement with Sir John Stevens).. .. .So leaving THAT controversy for some other brave soul to initiate, I thought I would canvass the views of PPruners on the impending 50th Aniversary of Betty taking over the family business, or if you prefer, Her Gracious Majesty, our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth's accession to the Throne.. .. .I have mixed views on this subject. Im no rabid Royalist to be sure neither am I a Republican given the sort of President we would end up with, either a non executive Stooge of the Party in Power, eg President Prescott, President Dobson, or President Hurd, President Tebbit. Worse still imagine if Phoney Tony Blair really DID have full executive Presidential status or come to that imagine what President Thatcher would have done? In balance, we are better off with our Constitutional Monarchy, and I have to say I DO like the ritual side of it.. .. .Im all for the day off to mark 50 years of Elizabeth II but Im cant say I am keen on the street parties and other organised festivities that some would wish. I will probably have a low key day off and get on with my own affairs.. .. .So how do others here feel about Golden Jubilee Day? Will you be out there waving your Union Jacks, will it be just another Bank Holiday, or will you be working as usual?. . . . <small>[ 10 March 2002, 11:01: Message edited by: tartan gannet ]</small>

Kermit 180
10th Mar 2002, 14:46
Lizzie's shout!. .. .Kerms

rover2701
10th Mar 2002, 14:56
Waste of time. Whats to celebrate? fifty years of paying for the spongers and inbreds. Not for me. Contrary to you TG I am a republican. No matter who the great British public voted into the role of President, it would be just that, their choice. No accident of birth would have given anybody the right to be head of state. Its about time we the people(heard that somewhere before)took control over who we choose to represent us on the world stage.. .Now I get my head down before it gets blown off by Clowns and his right wing militia. (Joking clowns)with his guns from the deregulated gun clubs

redsnail
10th Mar 2002, 15:44
I believe that Australia should be a republic (but not the model that the politicians presented a few years ago). The royal family has no relevance in Australia any more. . .Now, what Britain does with them is the peoples business. It's time a fair and reasoned debate was started about the relevance of the Royal Family to Britain of 2002. Dismantling the constitutional monarchy won't be easy and would take a great deal of care. In many cases it is a case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it". That could be the case here.

Tartan Gannet
10th Mar 2002, 16:07
Trying to keep party politics out of it to avoid the thread being snagged by Danny, I can see some of what you mean Reddo as it applies to Australia.. .. .In mainland UK we have had a Monarchy for more that 1000 years apart from the brief interlude of Cromwell's Commonwealth and it has evolved from the absolute monarchy of the Plantagenets, through the Tudors,and Stuarts, to an appointed Monarchy of William and Mary then the imported Royalty from Hanover, much controlled by Parliament. Today we have a Queen who whilst a figurehead embodies many great powers and thus prevents too many excesses on the part of the political party in charge at the time. I shudder to contemplate an untramellled Thatcher or worse still the supreme control freak Blair with his totally supine Party. Having the Monarcy at least curtails such ambition.. .. .Of course should some military types backed by powerful interests ever stage a coup in the UK then the Monarch could do no more to stop them than anyone else, no amount of Letters Patent or Golden Crowns will stop tanks in their tracks. Given however that such an outcome is so highly unlikely in the UK as to be laughable, I feel that we should retain the Monarchy rather than have a Presidential system, either Executive or Figurehead.. .. .Now the serious part over, how will PPruners celebrate Golden Jubilee Day if at all?

ORAC
10th Mar 2002, 17:52
Not at all.

Brit Abroad
10th Mar 2002, 17:56
Like yourself TG, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter either way.. .. .However.... .. .In the few years before I left the UK, I would say I was definitely anti-Royal family - I felt that they were all overpaid, underworked and completely removed from reality. But you know, since moving to France, I now get to see the wider picture as an "almost neutral outsider" and also am a witness to the foreign attitude to our monarchy, which is viewed, believe me, in a very positive light. We are in the middle of Presidential election campaigns here at the moment, and trust me, the amount of BS flying about is sickening.. .. .In a funny way, the Royal family now makes me feel a little "Proud to be British" From where I'm standing, there's not much else back in Britain that can do that any more...... .. .I agree, there have been scandals, but isn't that the case in all families ? I also feel the media doesn't exactly help by reporting their every single movement and faux pas.. .. .Getting back to the question of celebrating the Jubilee or not. - I have very fond memories of the 25th Jubilee. I was only 4 and my sister was 5. It was a beautiful Summer's day, and there was a street party organised in errr, our street. . .. .Everyone brought tables, chairs, food and drink and everyone mucked in basically. I think I stuffed myself silly on cakes, jelly and ice-cream etc, while waving a plastic Union Jack flag like everyone else seemed to be doing. It was a fantastic opportunity to get talking to our neighbours and put names to faces. Just thinking about it now, 25 years on still brings a big grin to my face !. .. .What I think I'm trying to say is wouldn't it be great if people celebrate the 50th Queen's Jubilee in the same manner with Street parties etc. Even if people aren't pro-Royal family, it is surely a great opportunity to shake hands with one's neighbour and give the children a party to remember........ .. .And just think, the French et al will be jealous as hell <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . .. .PS - Just for a bit of controversy, I'm secretly hoping that the Sex Pistols will be performing their own version of "God Save the Queen" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

swashplate
10th Mar 2002, 18:01
Hmm...this is a very difficultone..... .. .As I've said before, I don't particularly like a non-elected Head of State,but at ALL COSTS I do belive we must avoid an unfettered President Blur... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . .. .Or even Pres Portillo... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .However, I feel that the curent monarchical system with it's Palaces and State Landaus and flummery is not really taken seriousley any more, particullarly by the younger generation.... .. .Perhaps we should keep our Constitutional Monarchy, but move gradually to a slimmed-down, lean 'n' mean, scandinavian type Monarchy?. .. .Whatever we do, I also think it should be done SLOWLY, CAREFULLY AND STEP-BY-STEP.. .. .At all costs, we must avoid 'revolutionary chaos'. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . .. .Remember, the chaos in France after 1789 led directly to Napoleon taking over 'to restore order' by the whiff of grapeshot... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . .. .Germany also got rid of it's Kaiser overnight in 1919. 13 Years later.........

KayGridley
10th Mar 2002, 19:11
Well as one of the "younger generation" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> I'm going to throw my tuppence in <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .I think its a great idea <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Having a Royal Family makes GB special. Believe me there is nothing I have done that has made me so proud as to hear the National Anthem playing after winning a medal <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> It just wouldn't be the same if we changed it. Ok so they have their fair amount of scandel but what family doesnt <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> They seem to have a hard job to me, permenantly being watched, so I think the Queen deserves her day, even if its just to say well done for not going crazy with us watching you for fifty years <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . .. .Personally I'm going to one street party, and if I'm really lucky a posh lunch <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

Unwell_Raptor
10th Mar 2002, 19:30
Well - going back to TG's thread title, I am proud to say that I am hosting a mega party on the 4th of June. I was inspired to do so because the Press kept on telling me that the whole thing would be a failure. Not in my street it won't. And there will be flags and drink and all the rest of it. . .. .So to answer the question: yest we shall celebrate in Marlow.

HugMonster
10th Mar 2002, 19:39
I shall feel sorry for all the very confused little Eton boys... (not!) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

Skytrucker87
10th Mar 2002, 19:43
I am unashamedly in favour of the Monarchy. HM has had a very difficult and demanding job over the past 50 years. She has carried out her tasks effectively, with dignity and good nature in spite of the several problems which have been placed in her court. . .. .I do think, however, that Britain urgently needs a re-think regarding the national Anthem. GStheQ is a mournful dirge and should be replaced with (for instance) Land of Hope and Glory or Flower of Scotland.

Firestorm
10th Mar 2002, 21:22
Unashamed Rabid Monarchist. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .I hope there will be a street party, with at least white and blue (I am in Jockland after all)and with luck some red as well. I think the monarchy are an amazing asset to the Nation (ie the United Kingdom) and should be honoured. Lets face it, not many of the population have gone on working for 15 years after they could have retired. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . .. .I hope the Monarchy lives on for a long long time. I will always give my support till my dying day I am sure. This doesn't mean I will not acknowledge when they stuff up (and we all do from time to time) but with the press reporting on their every move how can they avoid critisism?. .. .As for the minor Royals (the Wessexes and cousins, Prince Andrews' daughters) could we find a role for them to become reigning monarchs in some other areas of the Commonwealth, such as Australia and New Zealand? Or even Canada (maybe without Quebec). Or do what used to happen in the days that I'm told were 'gold old' ones, and marry them off to other Royal Families around the world in exchange for land and trade rights.. .. .God Save The Queen. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

HOVIS
11th Mar 2002, 00:10
Right then,. .. .If Peter Mandelson was elected Head of State, then the national anthem would not have to be changed!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .But seriously, an unelected head of state in the 21st century is an anachranism.. .. .We "the people" have absolutely no say as to how the queen or her relatives spend our taxes.. .. .The security bill for even minor dignatories is enormouse alone, next time you see one of their highnesses swanning off to open whatever, have a look at the convoy of Bentleys and police etc.. .. .Same goes for the house of lords. A fully elected second chamber has to happen sooner or later, none of this appointing nonsense. (Maybe this should be for another thread.). .. .So, the short answer is NO I will not be celebrating Liz's Jubilee.. .. .UP THE REVOLUTION!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

Blacksheep
11th Mar 2002, 10:15
I remember Coronation Day. We stood outside Connellys' corner shop and watched the royal proceedings through the window on the Connellys' black and white television, that they set up especially so's we could all see it. Many folk remember street parties and the like, but I never saw so much as a cream bun - although there was plenty of sad tatty old bunting and mini Union Flags hanging about, I'm sure most of the parties are just a collective illusion. Most of us were more concerned about our ration books than with having a party.. .. .On a recent thread someone mentioned how it gave him great comfort to think that Tony visits the palace every week to meet with a head of state who has been through every political upheaval of the last 50 years and can give him advice based on first hand experience. Yes, very comforting. But after we have the State Funeral and the bands have all marched back to their barracks, would he be so comforted to think that Tony was down the palace having a chat with Charles III? . .. .Surely it is best to have an elected President with no more than the same constitutional powers as the Queen now holds and who is selected from among the precious few who have the experience and standing to hold the post? Admittedly, if we were to get rid of the monarchy today and institute a republic there is only one candidate for Head of State and she already holds the post. But just because we have an experienced old biddy at the top now, there's no reason to believe that more of the same will follow. We didn't make that much fuss when she started the job, so why make a big fuss today? Its not as if she were retiring or anything.. .. .**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema

Gash Handlin
12th Mar 2002, 01:35
Well I'll be sleeping,. .. .I'll have just got back from three weeks of fun and frolics getting meself a bit of paper with liz's signature on it wot says I can tell people what to do <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .better learn to speak proper too i spose.

ImNot
12th Mar 2002, 04:01
Do we still have a Queen then?? If so is she still skimming of the tax payers money to pay the gas and lectric bill for Big Bucks Palace and to keep her Gordons and Woodbines?. .Wasn't she German and how about Phil the Greek?

Tartan Gannet
12th Mar 2002, 15:07
Yes the Royals are of Germanic origin Im afraid. Queen Anne was the last true, Stuart, monarch.. .. .When she died without an heir parliament invited the Elector of Hanover, who had a connection with the English Royal family some generations previously through intermarriage to become King of England. I think their family name was Guelph. Then Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg-Gotha, another German, and that was the family name. During WWI as the Germans were the enemy George V renounced his German Titles and changed the family name to Windsor, a convenient confection to say the least. Prince Philip was of course Greek and indeed had a claim to the throne of that country, but was of German stock again, Sonderburg-Glucksberg Von Schlesweig-Holstein I believe, though on becoming a British Citizen he took the name Mountbatten (originally Battenburg). The Windsor name was retained however when the present Queen ascended the Throne 50 years ago although Lord Louis Mountbatten had wanted the name to become Mountbatten-Windsor.. .. .So all in all our present Royal Family is by heredity far more German than British.

WeatherJinx
13th Mar 2002, 18:04
I'm with Rover on this. Complete Republican - this country has held itself back, presiding over its own decline for years (not to mention having been surpassed in almost all respects by competing nations lacking this kind of this emotional baggage), because of assumed superiority due to accident of birth. . .. .We should now be grown up and brave enough, as a nation, to be able to consider and debate a future without them - not simply keeping them on and paying substantial amounts to maintain them as notional figureheads, just because it 'brings the tourists in'. . .. .These are beautiful and infinitely interesting islands - the tourists would come regardless. We are a wonderful, irreverent, humourous, creative, intelligent people. These are qualities which have helped us build the world's fourth biggest economy on our own, with little or no help from our so-called 'rulers'.. .. .Brenda & Co. are irrelevant - Get rid of 'em along with the Lords. Fark the Jubilee.. .. .WxJx <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . . . .:::ducking in anticipation of incoming:::. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 13 March 2002, 14:11: Message edited by: WeatherJinx ]</small>

chapman1
13th Mar 2002, 20:19
I wasn’t even born (just) the last time this thing happened, in 1977. From what I can gather many people (mostly old people and taxi drivers) did, for a reason known only to themselves, celebrate the Royal occasion. However, the majority of those at street parties appeared simply to be waving Union Jacks and enjoying a day of being openly British, the Royals were simply an excuse for the party.. .. .Speaking from the generation ‘X’ that rarely ventures out into natural light, it is this pride in Britain that is lacking. We (people my age) have been too long in ‘comfy zone’ that we don’t appreciate the protection the principles of this nation delivers. Luckily, were I to become like this my dad (who is no doubt reading this and knows who he is) would cuff me and make me sleep in the coal bunker. . .. .Although it appears today that patriotism is tantamount to Nazism, the imminent party should be to celebrate those things we cherish at the very heart of what it means to be British. Suggest ‘Anti-France Day’. Or ‘Why-eye like, coma heer un ey’ll hitya me big stick Day’ <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Geoff500
13th Mar 2002, 23:09
The notion of having a Royal family is completely past its sell by date... .This country is set up for the preservation of the Establishment and the rest of us poor 'subjects' can go hang. Two tier Britain - education, health, housing - if you've got money, you're OK otherwise.. take a hike. . .In a republic, anyone can rise to be head of state - here, we have to suffer the dead hand of the House of Windsor. . .Democracy to me means equality of opportunity. Try telling that to some poor kid born on a sink estate in a large city.. .Meanwhile, Fleet Street's finest fawn around the Royals. . .Forcing MPs to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen also ensures that the status quo is preserved.. . .Gawd 'elp us... .No Constitution and stuck with the Queen with the exciting prospect of Charles to follow.. I'm voting with my feet in a few years. . .All you sheep who blindly repeat the old maxims that "Hey, it could be worse, it could be President Blair/Thatcher/whoever.." So? At least it would only be for 5 years. Unlike the present shower. . .And why pick on France? Unlike us, they at least had the guts who boot out the parasites who governed their country. . .Rant over!

Squiddley
14th Mar 2002, 08:25
"Aye!". .. .The British Monarchy is, rightly IMHO, a National asset/treasure/heritage and should be respected as such. Whilst individuals may leave much to be desired, it's not as simple as teaching little Johnnie not to pick his nose. There are hundreds...thousands (?) of years of tradition involved.. .. .The Monarchy has evolved a lot over the last 25years, and does more good than harm by a long chalk. "Long may she reign over us" I say, and only wish I could attend the almighty party that's brewing.

Firestorm
14th Mar 2002, 13:41
Those of you who complain that the Royal FAmily are expensive seem to ignore the cost of Prime President Blair, Blair Force One, Johnny Two Jags (and his dry cleaning bill), and all that goes along with them.. .. .Anywhere you go in the world (pretty literally) peopple know about Queen Elizabeth, but cosiderably fewer know about presidents (except perhaps of the USA, and ain't he one to be proud of... or Russia). That has to be worth something.. .. .God save the Queen!

G.Khan
15th Mar 2002, 02:39
Of all the republics in todays world could you republicans please name the everso successful ones that you think the UK should emulate?. .. .I tried but couldn't think of any worth copying.

HugMonster
15th Mar 2002, 02:47
Ohm boy, you appear to have a strange idea about what democracy does or does not mean, and what on earth do the Royal Family have to do with poor opportunities for someone born and bred in a poor area? You think a black kid brought up in the poorest areas of Harlem or in Chicago is any more likely to become President of the USA? Give me a break.

ImNot
16th Mar 2002, 01:02
I think it's about time we handed them back to the Germans as a good will gesture. We have been selfish in hanging onto them far too long already. By way of apologie we could bung in free entrance to the stately homes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays (excluding public holidays).. .We should allow each member to take one item each from their former homes for sentimental purposes.. .We could then open up all areas of these former stately homes to the public for a nominal fee of say thirty quid a head and sell some of the less popular pictures and nic naks (and of course the ones held in storage) to foreign collectors. We could bung some of the proceeds to the NHS for example.. .We should be able to raise a fair old wedge and think of the money we would save in wages.. .Reinvestment is of course the key to long term sucsess so we could build American style theme parks and Mega Stores on the grounds which would encourage visitors and boost souveneir sales. How about selling limited edition Queen Liz T shirts, table cloths and plate collections. The Yanks love all that stuff and it would help towards costly maintenance bills. Andy could run helicopter rides around the grounds of Buck Pali too.. .I think we should hang on to Old Lord Bath and put him on a fast track carreer program and promote him to king as a token head of state to add a bit of colour to things. I reckon he'd be up for it, he seems to like a larf.. .Unfortunately this would mean no more Jubilees and we would have to work on the days that they would have fallen on but 'Hey' it's a small price to pay.

rover2701
16th Mar 2002, 13:49
Firestorm . .I for one have never argued against the royal family on cost. Whoever is elected to President we would still have a Prime Minister and all the functions of a democraticaly elected Government. Are you seriously saying that our elected government of the day when on official business use public transport and go economy class on easyjet or some other low cost airline(better still Ryanair)I dont think so. As for two Jags Prescott, it seems he had his own Jag before he was in government. Should he get rid of his own car. Would you if you had a company car and may lose your job at the whim of the boss, at the next board reshuffle, get rid of your own vehicle?. .. .I am saying that we the people should be able to elect our head of state and he/she not be there by an accident of birth.. .As to other models of republics. Why should we have to model ourselves on anyone else. There is good and bad Kingdoms and Republics. We should be mature and confidant enough to be able to do this for ourselves. . .Just a last point to make. People repeatedly quote the number of tourists visiting the UK because of the Royal family. Well this might surprise you but the country with the highest number of visitors is just across the water from us, yes France, and surprise surprise its a republic. . .. .Now time for head down again because of incoming. .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 16 March 2002, 12:30: Message edited by: rover2701 ]</small>

rainbow
16th Mar 2002, 18:19
Congratulations to Her Royal Highness on attaining her Golden Jubilee. Best wishes and good luck to Her and Her family. They will all need it.. .. .She is without doubt a fine woman and has my respect as such. However, the truth is, Her Majesty's family is little different to any other dysfunctional family whith which we might be familiar. (And not only The Simpsons...you should see my in-laws.). .. .Another truth is that regardless of the political party holding the majority of seats in the commons (commons?), now, and in recent centuries, Brit society holds steadfast to a class system riven and divided in wealth, religion, region, language, education and opportunity.. .. .And that system seems to be self-perpetuating. (One shudders at the memory of, in successive 'Royal Command Performances', Warren Mitchell from My Fair Lady playing the dad singing 'armh gettin murrid in t' mornin...' and Michael Caine reciting Tommy Atkins with hypocritic hubris in patronising (our working class is better than your working class; read.. our cannon fodder die better than your cannon fodder..) condensention.. .. .Nonetheless, if that's what they want.. that's what they get. The tragedy is that the ordinary man and woman falls for believing that just the shadow of a royal wave passing by with a wafting fart from a carriage and four is a blessing to them both.. .. .Happy plastic Union Jacks (Flags,actually) and enjoy the crisps.. .. .(Digging deeper in the foxhole....incoming!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> ). . . . <small>[ 21 March 2002, 00:29: Message edited by: rainbow ]</small>

Velvet
17th Mar 2002, 17:06
A small point, but perhaps pertinent - the Queen's mother is Scottish and her father English - that some distant ancestor was born in Germany is of little consequence, Does it make her less British. If we insisted that everyone return to the birthplace of their eversomany-great grandparents, I doubt there'd be many left in England. Isn't it rather perverse to claim that she has no right to live here merely because of a political view. . .. .Whether we should be celebrating her Jubilee is a matter for each person to decide - it's not likely that anyone will be imprisoned for not celebrating. . .. .Whether one supports or not the Monarchy, what is not in doubt is that the Queen and her family have not been responsible for the declining standards of British life. That is down not only to the Government, but to us the British people for accepting passively all the politically correct changes that have been enforced on us - all for our own good you understand. Or because they do it better elsewhere!!. .. .Would we become a more egalitarian society without the Monarchy, a fairer one with more opportunities for the underbelly of society? Has the Lords become more independent or less with the so called 'whiter than white, new and improved' method which has effectively replaced hereditory peers? 60% is in the 'gift' of the PM. Only 20% of this much vaunted 'People's Upper Chamber' will be elected. Is this not just returning to the 18th and 19th Century system of patronage. . .. .I think pigs and flying would feature in any answer.. .. .Of course, the redundant Wessex's and several other members give the Monarchy a bad press, but are they any worse than the appalling Stephen Byers and Jo Moore, or John Prescott who at the moment seems to be enjoying a very good lifestyle at our expense. One might ask why we are paying for him to attend rather obscure junkets in other countries, when he was elected to serve as a British MP. . .. . . .Yes, it costs money to protect the royals, but does it cost any less for Government. Apparently, we are paying £400,000pa to police John Major's residences. Did we scrap Britannia only to purchase a customised Blair Force One jet. . .. .I wonder what we would achieve if we scrapped it, just because......... well, just because, not for any good reason really, unless you count social engineering a good reason. Can it all come down to cost though - would we not be a much poorer nation in spirit is we tried to emulate other countries. Is it wisdom to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Golden Monkey
17th Mar 2002, 17:18
Brit Abroad - Re: the Sex Pistols. They are, in fact, re-releasing "God Save The Queen" to concide with the jubilee. Or so I've heard. I'd imagine that these days there probably won't be quite so much pressure from "on high" to rig it's chart postion like last time out. . .. .As for SSS, well I'm as patriotic as the next Brit but I don't connect that with any particular affinity toward the royals. Personally the addition of another four day weekend into my year means I'm liable to be off to Amsterdam or Copenhagen or somewhere entertaining on a cheap Ryan/Easy flight. Cheers, HRH! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

ImNot
17th Mar 2002, 19:22
The point I endevoured to make is the fact the Royal Family isn't quite as English as the outsider may think. Cetainly not compared with the Yorkshire Dales, The Cotswolds, The New Forest and many other places. They all represent England (or whats left of them) whether they have been renamed or reasigned.. .(Apologies for the numerous places I have left out).. .We are in a 'lean mean' climate, one that encourages getting rid of dead wood. . .Blairforce one what ever form it may take may or may not be extravigant but it is security for the only leader of this country and will be for many leaders to come. . .Current and future leaders need some form of security I'd hate to think what would happen to our reputation if some form of terrorist action took out our PM. It's not as good as we would all like as it stands.. .It appears you are very pro royal but what reason is there to keep them?. . . . <small>[ 17 March 2002, 15:26: Message edited by: Im Not ]</small>

Velvet
18th Mar 2002, 00:45
What a strange and rather bizarre comparison, my point was that they are as English or British as virtually anyone. Can you honestly claim that your ancestry is English back to the 18th Century or beyond. . .. .Actually, I'm not pro royal; I just don't think that getting rid of them will be the wonderful solution to our problems that you do.

Grainger
18th Mar 2002, 00:58
Velv:. .. .Perhaps a bit of civil list money redeployed into hospitals ?. .. .Getting rid of them may not solve too many problems..... but then , _having_ them doesn't really achieve anything either, so why bother ???

ORAC
18th Mar 2002, 01:00
There are many misunderstandings about the cost of the monarchy, some of them perpetuated by republicans, especially journalists, who deliberately give false information about the number of members of the Royal Family, for example, who are on the Civil List. The following sets out to explain the facts and equip members to challenge any inaccuracies which they see or hear in the media. . .. .The Queen and her Household has four sources of funding - the Civil List, Grant-in-Aid, the Privy Purse and private income. The first two, which cover official expenditure, are not taxed, the Privy Purse is fully taxable subject to a deduction for official expenditure, and the Queen pays tax on her personal income and capital gains. . .. .The Civil List is the sum provided by Parliament to meet the official expenses of the Queen as Head of State. About 70% of Civil List expenditure goes to pay the salaries of staff working directly for the Queen. Their duties include dealing with State papers, and organising the Queen’s public engagements, meetings, receptions and official entertainment, including Royal Garden Parties. In other words, the whole range of activities expected of a Head of State, whether president or monarch. . .. .The Civil List as it currently exists was created on the accession of King George III in 1760, when it was decided that the cost of government should be provided by Parliament. In return, and in a move described by John Brooke in his biography of the King as "from the point of view of the Crown ... the most disastrous step that could have been taken", he surrendered the hereditary royal revenue. This included income from the customs and post office and the net surplus of the Crown Estate. The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for year ending March 31st 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy. The Queen’s Civil List has been fixed at £7.9 million per annum until 2011. Full details of Royal Household expenditure are published. . .. .The Queen Mother and Prince Philip are the only other members of the Royal Family to receive annuities from the Civil List, of £643,000 and £359,000 respectively. The annuities of other members of the Royal Family who carry out engagements on Her Majesty’s behalf are provided by the Queen from the Privy Purse. The revenue for this is obtained from the Duchy of Lancaster, an independent possession of the Sovereign since 1399. It is not included in the National Asset Register of Government holdings published by HM Treasury. The Prince of Wales derives his income, on which he pays tax, from the Duchy of Cornwall. . .. .The Occupied Royal Palaces, principally Buckingham Palace, St.James’s Palace, Clarence House, parts of Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle are funded by Grants-in-Aid. Obviously, they would be maintained by the State whether Britain were a monarchy or not. The Unoccupied Palaces, such as the Tower of London and Hampton Court, are maintained from visitor admissions. . .. .Royal transport, required to enable the Royal Family to carry out almost 3000 engagements a year, is also funded by Grant-in-Aid. Of course, official travel would also have to be paid for if Britain were a republic. Privately, the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham and some smaller properties. Estimates of the Queen’s wealth have often been wildly exaggerated, as they mistakenly include items which are held by the Queen as Sovereign on behalf of the nation and are not her private property. These include the Royal Palaces, Art Collection, Crown Jewels etc. It is interesting to note that, far from being Britain’s wealthiest person, the Queen is 105th on The Sunday Times 2001 Rich List. . .. .The annual cost of the monarchy is approximately £37 million. For details see http://www.royal.gov.uk . .. .In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for, and official and historic residences maintained. And there is the added expense of periodic elections. Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of their heads of state, but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably.

ImNot
18th Mar 2002, 01:24
I remember hearing once that Old Liz wouldn't pass the mantle over to Charlie as that would mean the Queen Mum would no longer hold that title and therefore lose her anual payout???? Any coments???

Tartan Gannet
18th Mar 2002, 01:57
Im Not, at the risk of being overtly political, if some organisation "took out" Phoney Tony Blair our present Prime Minister then they would receive the heartfelt gratitude of one TG, be they Islamic, Left, Right, Republican, Loyalist, or whatever affiliation they may care to chose!! I may have strongly disliked Thatcher, and felt contempt for Major but I HATE Blair and "NEW" Labour and all they stand for!. .. .Returning to the main topic, like most of the others here, I feel that the Royals, for all their faults, are far better than any elected President be that person a mere figurehead as in Southern Ireland or an Executive President as in the USA. We all know that the nominations would be fixed by our two totally useless and self seeking political parties either that their leader would be the candidate if an Executive or if a mere Figurehead some loyal lickspittle party stooge, e.g President Frank Dobson, President Ancram etc. No, let us keep the Queen and long may she reign. Its a pity we are stuck with Charlie when she does go, although should she live as long as her mother, 102 not out, then we may just be spared that fate and Prince William may follow his Gran to the Throne.. .. .Orac, right on the ball debunking the Civil List myth. We would be in the sh*t if the Queen were able to reclaim the funds from the Crown Estates instead.. .. .Rover, sorry to debunk the "get rid of them in 4 years" argument. Remember last year's general election? I think the Great Helmsman's majority only dropped by about 3 or 4 seats. Without a credible and electable Opposition we have in effect an elected dictatorship. I'll stick with the Monarchy, Blair hasnt found a way to work HER to his advantage YET!. . . . <small>[ 17 March 2002, 22:08: Message edited by: tartan gannet ]</small>

rover2701
18th Mar 2002, 01:58
Orac. .I personaly have never argued for the abolition of the monarchy on grounds of cost. I want the British people to choose who should represent them. Its called democracy.. .I cant think of any valid reason in the 21st century why we should be represented by an unelected head of state. I have heard all the arguements about if it isnt broke then why fix it. Well that doesnt make it right. The Queen may have given stirling work as our head of state but I think she is the exception to the rule. Most of our Monarchs have not with a few exceptions. Let us make the decision and at least if we have made the wrong one we have the opportunity to get rid of him/her in a given number of years. If we have a poor Monarch we are stuck with them until they pass away.. .Before anyone also starts about the upper chamber in our democracy, I would like to say I am in favour of an elected chamber here also.

G.Khan
18th Mar 2002, 03:47
Well said ORAC, I wanted to refer to your post on a previous thread, same subject but couldn't find it!. .Interesting that all those who shout about cost to the public, leeches etc. etc. go very silent after you post some facts!. .As I said before, since there do not appear to be any good republics, (and I include both Ireland and France in that), why should the British want to vote themselves into one?. .We are all "accidents of birth" so do we have to give up everything we have in order to bring ourselves down to the same miserable level as those who have nothing? More to the point, would you if asked?

ImNot
18th Mar 2002, 04:10
TG.. Pretty much with you all the way on your first paragraph but I don't go quite as far as hating Phoney Tony. I'm very disappointed with him, strongly believe he sold out etc but thats only my opinion and I agree that politics and religion should be avoided so you wont hear anymore from me on that. I wouldn't want any harm to come to Grinning boy as I think it would harm us as a country but that goes for any leader past and present, of our country in my humble opinion.. .I think I have made my feelings known on the Royals although they may or may not have been misunderstood to a small degree. I have held back certain arguements of mine to avoid getting too political. Suffice to say that Grainger and Rover have represented my feelings.. .. .PS Velvet didn't want to offend (too much <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> ), hope we can agree to disagree.

Velvet
18th Mar 2002, 05:06
I'm not offended, I just prefer people to argue with facts. On the parameters you laid down, very few people including myself are eligible for English residency (doesn't that include one Tony Blair). More than likely you too should be shipped out to another country. The claim that the Queen is German is an enduring and inaccurate myth. Her once upon a time patrilineal ancestors were German; her father was English and her matrilineal line is Scottish. . .. .You are also confusing the monarchy which has been English for over 1000 years, with a minor break in the 17th Century, and the current royal family. Just like to point out that the English didn't particularly like the experiment with Cromwell, since Charles II was welcomed back to popular aclaim. . .. .I agree Rover, but on present experience we wouldn't have a choice. When it was first mooted that we should have a reform of the House of Lords, it was implied that the majority would be elected with a gradually phased out hereditory section. What happened is that 60% - yes, the majority is in the patronage of Tony Blair. 20% are hereditory and the remaining 20% are elected. You remember the 'people's peers'. . .. .You are no doubt thinking of the American President where he is elected separately and independently from the Government. Our structure doesn't allow for that, what would happen is that our Prime Minister would be elevated. It would be a political appointment, not an elected one. . .. .It would be interesting too to see if the majority of British people voted to retain the monarchy. Would you accept it then as the people's choice. . .. .I'm not arguing to keep them, I think they are an anachronism. However, I also think that the alternative could be far worse. If you think that we couldn't end up with a Dictatorship you haven't studied history properly. Dictators aren't voted out after a couple of years.. . . . <small>[ 18 March 2002, 01:32: Message edited by: Velvet ]</small>

ImNot
18th Mar 2002, 06:24
Hey Velvet. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . .I can trace my English ancestory back way beyond the current Royal familys. At the risk of digging myself a deeper hole I will say that..no that doesnt make me feel any more superior to them.. .I have my opinions and you have yours. To be honest I'd stick to my opinions even if I was the only person that believed in them. (damn stubborn me). .Gis a smile <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . .. .Go on <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . .edited due to non complient smileys. . . . <small>[ 18 March 2002, 02:28: Message edited by: Im Not ]</small>

rover2701
18th Mar 2002, 18:50
Velvet . .I have never been an advocate of modelling our presidency on the American system. To much power in the hands of one man there.. .I still dont understand the arguement about voting him/her out of office being difficult. Governments put themselves up for election every few years, dont remember that being a problem. Even the mighty, and Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher come to mind, have to bow to democracy and go when the people or there party have had enough. The point I am trying to make is even if we dont like the peoples choice of President, it will be just that the peoples choice. Its no use whinging about I never voted for him. If you or I dont like it we will have a choice come the next election and if you/we dont vote you/we only have ourselves to blame. Thats my whole point we have a choice unlike now where it will pass on to the next in line be it Charles or William. That is no choice, ever.. . . . <small>[ 18 March 2002, 14:51: Message edited by: rover2701 ]</small>

Golden Monkey
20th Mar 2002, 15:18
http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_548919.html?menu=entertainment.music.latestpopnews. .. .Billy Bragg is aiming to be number one for the Queen's Golden Jubilee.. .. .He will be urging fans to buy his single Take Down The Union Jack as a protest against the celebrations.. .. .Billy will release the track two weeks before the jubilee weekend.. .. ."I'm going to do my best to have the jubilee number one," he told Ananova.. .. ."We need an army of people who are appalled by the whole jubilee and nostalgia thing.". .. .Take Down The Union Jack includes the lyrics: "Britain isn't cool you know, it's really not that great, it's not a proper country, it doesn't even have a patron saint, it's just an economic union that's passed its sell-by date.". .. .Billy said the single would not get much promotion or radio airplay.. .. .He is starting a campaign through his website and by word of mouth to urge people to buy Take Down The Union Jack when it is released at the end of May.. .. .Billy said he also hopes to spoil the Sex Pistols' plans to be number one with God Save The Queen.. .. .He dismissed the re-release as an act of nostalgia rather than subversion.. .. .Tickets for the remaining dates of Billy Bragg's current UK tour are available from Ananova's ecommerce partner Way Ahead. .. .His new LP England Half English is available to buy through Ananova's ecommerce partner HMV.

Tartan Gannet
20th Mar 2002, 21:13
Thanks for the warning Spin Spin, I most certainly will NOT be buying Master Bragg's CD/TAPE.

Moritz Suter
20th Mar 2002, 21:53
Lets keep 'em!. .. .Anyway, with so many Queens featuring so prominently in British history, imagine the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands that would follow the launch of Republic Britain.. .. .God save you, Your Maj, and all those who sail in you.

chapman1
20th Mar 2002, 21:56
I’ve seen Billy Bragg live and he is a funny and entertaining guy. However, his entire market strategy has always been that of rebellion, in a predictable sort of way. . .. .So if the report is true, he has every right to produce a record against the jubilee. I know I don’t care, and those who do are unlikely to have even heard of Billy. . .. .Equally, he has every right to release a song slating Britain as a whole. However, I believe his possession of this right is the main reason for him not to produce it. I think that before he releases the record he should be made to busk a song slating Zimbabwe on the streets of Harare. On his return, and once he’s discharged from hospital, it would be interesting to see if the lyrics still work for him. . .. .If they do, then he can just kiss my ####. He can take a ######## and three metres of high tensile cable up ### ####### #### ###### and not even a whole tube of ##### ####### # ## ####. A week later he’ll #### ### ## like a monkey and ### #### # and have to get a doctor to pull it out again. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />