Pomp, Pageantry, and a Prat of a Prince?
 

Trooping the Colour - yet again, a demonstration of how Britain can lay on its displays of pomp and circumstance like no other nation on earth. And, of course, a welcome poke in the eye for republicans who claim the Armed Forces don't care about the Monarchy, that the country no longer cares for parades, and that the Queen doesn't pull in tourists. All looked pretty popular to me!

However, even as an ardent royalist, I accept that there is one particular element of the Royal Family that could be dropped without too many wailing protests. Look very closely at Prince Edward.... notice anything out of place?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/w...4.queen.ap.jpg

Why is he wearing a Royal Marines tie? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am sure one should only wear a regimental/Service tie on successful completion of one's training. If this isn't the case, I'd say it's still a poor show. As Royal Honourary Colonel of the Royal Wessex Yeomanry, and Colonel-in-Chief of the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment, why doesn't he pick one of their ties, instead of one to which he is not fully entitled?

Grr.... these things matter!

IMHO, it's a fine choice, but only if he uses it to suspend himself from a suitable light-fitting.

Only kidding.

Envy is a word that springs to mind!

Ah the great royal debate - Do we hang em or shoot em?;)

Well, if you want to consign the Head of State's legal and political independence to the rubbish bin of history, reject the overwhelming desire of the majority of HM's subjects to keep the Monarchy, and leave the constitutional safeguards governing Parliament at the hands of the Leader of the House (BUFF!!! NOOOOO!!!) or the Lord Chancellor (for as long as the position remains, appointed as he is by the PM), hanging would probably do the trick.

If, on the other hand, you want to turn Britain into a bland republic, squander billions of pounds on changing laws, title deeds, diplomatic missions, documents, livery, courts, the constituion, warrants and (to be rid of them altogether) that old-fashioned "Kingdom" reference in our national name, all in order to save the public a mere 67p per head per year, maybe shooting is a better option?

I'd rather still be seeing sights like this:


http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/w...een.new.ap.jpg

.... and not swearing my allegiance to a political executive, personally.

Hear, hear! Was in London on Wednesday, and the Household Cavalry were in Hyde Park practising for Saturday's event, regaled in full military splendour - shiny hats, shiny boots etc. The public, albeit a mere handful, loved it especially our colonial cousins. Makes one proud - for a change - to be British.

Mind you, if we got rid of the lot of them we wouldn't have to waste thousands of pounds marching up and down the Mall once a year.

Vive La Republic.

Tablet, the sad flaw in the system that you admire is that it would only take 5 deaths for your "Prat of a Prince" to become Head of State. :ugh:

tablet_eraser - No matter to whom you swear allegiance the fact is you do as parliament wills it. I do not want a republic in England BUT I should very much like to see the curbing of all the hangers on and get rid of a few of the more embarrassing prats, be they from the House of Windsor or elsewhere. Can we start by stopping the wearing of medals to which they have an entitlement just because mummy says so? Prince Charles comes to mind on that issue. What is Cammila going to be decorated with? (yes we all have our views as to what she should be given).

Yep, great country, fourth or fifth largest economy in the world and my son has to wait four years to get dental treatment but at least we have blokes in shiny boots and pointy hats!

Tablet, whether the Armed Forces care about the Monarchy or not is irrelevant, we go on parade when we are told to do so. Our prescence there is neither an endorsement for, or a protest against them. It is our job!

Right... (clears throat, rolls up sleeves)...

AT: 5th in line to the Throne? The Order of Succession is: Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Prince Edward, putting our inept Royal Highness at 7th in line. Thank God! Don't think he'll sneak in by the back-door yet (though apparently he is not unfamiliar with the back-door... :bored: )

WH: We swear allegiance to the Queen, and our system of Government is such that Parliament speaks in HM's name. The Queen In Parliament principle. No one party holds a veto over the deployment of British forces. My point was that unlike nations who swear allegiance to a presidency, we do not owe our allegaince to a political executive.

SB: Fair point. But I still disagree with the republican argument that the Armed Forces have no regard for the system we swear allegiance to. I think most of us - certainly most of my colleagues - hold the Queen in high respect. Maybe I picked the wrong republican argument to pick on!

As for reducing the size of the members of the Royal Family on the Civil List... not an entirely unfeasable idea. I think it should be based on the extent and importance of their public duties. HM, Prince Philip, Princess Anne and Prince Charles certainly do a hell of a lot of official work. Prince Andrew is Britain's International Business Ambassador, or something like that, maybe if we pointed out that golf (yes, even Captaincy of the Royal and Ancient) does not constitute official duties...? As for Prince Edward... :yuk:

These events look very impressive, with the royal offspring resplendent in fancy dress, their breasts emblazoned with mummy's toy town medals!

My God! Think about it man. If we got rid of the Royal Family...we'd be just like the Americans! :eek:

Tablet....

Small point of order here....in the US Military, we swear to support and defend the Constitution and that we will bear true faith and allegiance to it.....we also swear to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over us. Within the Constitution, the President is designated the Commander-in-Chief of the military. The office is filled by an elected natural born citizen....which by definition would be a politician. The powers of the government comes from the people as set forth by the Constitution.....the Constitution limits the power of the government not the people. It used to required for the Congress to authorize war but over time those powers have been delegated to the President with limitations by the War Powers Act. Congress cannot veto the President's use of military force but has the power to cut off funding for it....ala Vietnam years ago.

Gettng back to the original post....
Personally I couldn't give a stuff what ties they wear. They are all appointed Col -in Chief of something and everyone knows that it bears no relevance to their individual capability.

Having said that I'm quite happy to keep them and have no wish to become a republic. There is no way some ****** like Tony Blair or, God forbid, Fatty Two Jags could ever fill the public role that the Royal Family fulfils because people, both ours and the tourists, want to see royalty and all that entails.

When it comes to saving money, we could save far more by sorting out all the swindling scum bags taking advantage of the welfare state while they hang around on street corners beating up pensioners. And if you take everything away from the Royal Family, exactly where do you think that wealth will end up? Back to the political wankers again.

As to who we swear alliegance to; I wouldn't waste my time or my life in saving any politician but I will put my life on the line for my country because it's unique and it's mine. :D

Really? I thought it was a Royal Nepal Airlines tie, but of course he's not entitled to wear one of those, either...

SASless I was under the impression that Vietnam was never declared as a war, but remained an "armed conflict".

A subtle distinction perhaps, but one with some important consequences. Out of interest, do you know if this is true, or if I am mistaken.

The last time Congress declared war was in 1941, even Korea was a "police action". But the line is a lot more blurred than that. See here.

All of you take 10 out of 10 for failing to answer the original objection/point and waffle on about something else completely.

Tablet
Your absoluteley right. He's not entitled to wear the tie and after being drummed out of Lympston, not sure why he would want remember his experiences by wearing one?
On the subject of wearing dress to which you're not entitled; I don't remember Charles doing P company, so he can stop wearing a red beret.
Thank you. Good parade though and nice of the Airforce to put their entire fleet into the sky to mark the occaision
:E