Many people are not exactly distraught over Queen Elizabeth’s death.

Brummie said:
I am sorry to read above negatives about the QUEEN.
If ENGLAND gets rid of the ROYAL FAMILY, it will be a BIG mistake.
The ROYAL FAMILY brings in thousands of pounds each year from visitors abroad, that is the draw.
Click to expand...
How much is paid by taxpayers to facilitate their lavish lifestyles? :unsure:
 

Those figures state that most of the money goes to keep up the palaces and pay all the people involved. Unless they're planning on leveling Buckingham palace and putting up a Tesco, getting rid of the monarchy won't save that much.

It's not like the Queen was flying off to Dubai on the weekends to party with rock stars. How much could matching hats and coats in pastel colors really have cost?
 

Pepper said:
"A financial report revealed that the royal family cost the British people £102.4 million during the previous year."

That ain't much, especially what they bring in.
Click to expand...
I agree. You can talk all day about the monarchy and whether it's right or wrong to have a royal family. But in terms of value for money spent, it's an incredible bargain (tourism, trade deals, plus an incalculable positive effect on the morale of the British people).
 
Happy Heart said:
Not much different than the U.S. and it has paid well for the professional bleaters who make a living off it. We are free to bleat or get moving and change what doesn't work. We are Free to chose our life!
I'm not sure distraught is the word I would use to describe my feeling about the Royals since they don't give a hoot, but do respect her life of service which so rare in the world today. Camilla is like a rock in your shoes, but I don't think she plans on going away.
Click to expand...
Interesting point here about being able to "bleat." I think that living in a country and there are many where you are not allowed to "bleat" at all would be a lot worse. Think Stalin's Russia or Mao's China and dozens of other countries where if you "bleat", you get a knock on your door at midnight and disappear so that your family never hears from you again.
 
Packerjohn said:
Interesting point here about being able to "bleat." I think that living in a country and there are many where you are not allowed to "bleat" at all would be a lot worse. Think Stalin's Russia or Mao's China and dozens of other countries where if you "bleat", you get a knock on your door at midnight and disappear so that your family never hears from you again.
Click to expand...
It's Putin's Russia and Xi's China. No real difference and that's the sad part.
 
I have no great love for monarchies. We booted them out nearly 250 years ago and that is fine with me.

I do wonder about people who have to wait until somebody dies , and then start spewing vitriol and hate about that person. They seem pathetic unhinged miserable people to me. Besides the British monarchy has had no real power since before WW2. Whatever nasty stuff George III did to the colonists, it was not done by Elizabeth or Charles. In WW2 the King stayed in London with his people while it was being bombed. And the Queen stayed with her King. I think that’s about all they had the power to do and they did it well.
 
Della said:
That Readers Digest story is just quoting the Andrew Morton book which was entirely Diana's words telling her side of the story. At the time that's all anyone heard because Charles was hardly in a position to go on TV like she did and have a tit for tat fight. The royals just don't air their dirty laundry in public.

Diana cheated on Charles first and he just turned to his long time best friend for comfort. Diana is the one who had endless affairs, some with married men, and was such a pain in the palace she fired over forty servants.
https://www.newsweek.com/princess-d...rry-mannakee-royal-protection-officer-1639903
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9703/05/britain.diana/
Click to expand...
Don't believe one word of that rubbish. Charles and Camilla were a big thing long before Diana came along and wanted to marry her. Due to her checkered past, she was not deemed appropriate for the heir to the throne. Thus, he married Diana who actually was in love with him, or so she thought. She was young, troubled child, and just in love with love. The realities of life after they were married were more than she could handle.

Diana found out that Charles and Camilla were involved right after Camilla's divorce, and the rest is history.

That the Queen gave into Charles after Diana died, and allowed him to marry Camilla is still a mystery to me. She'd have remained his mistress for life if it were my son.

Read about Camilla and her past. She was a real player, that babe.
 
The monarchy has nothing to do with the Constitutional running of the government. That's the Prime Minister's and Parliament's job.

The Royals are examples of what is expected of the citizens of the UK. They uphold the Constitution, conduct diplomatic events among the Empire, and serve to see that various charities, etc. are attended to. The Monarch receives a box from Parliament daily, which contains all the doings of that august body. He/she reads each one and places his/her signature on every piece of paper in that box. The King or Queen may offer a suggestion on those items, but that is as far as any involvement in law making or other government activities goes.

Also, tourism brings in countless dollars to the Crown. Which is why they carry out all the pomp and circumstance, because that's what we go to see.

Money pours into their charities big time as well. So, it isn't a matter of the old-timey oppressive reigns of the past.

Watching how Charles emerged from his car when he first arrived at Buckingham Palace from Windsor, was like watching a rock star or big time politician, immediately go over and work the crowds, shaking hands and receiving condolences on the loss of his mom. This is a 21st century monarchy, and I doubt anyone has one thing to worry about.

I admire what Queen Elizabeth has gone through for so many years, and yes, she was very old-fashioned in so many ways, but then again, she was raised in a very different era. She withstood the passage of time very well, and the entire world should honor that lady.
 
Personally, I'm sick of hearing about the queen. She was just a person, not inherently better than anyone else. She did have power and money to do things, and that's great if she used those advantages to better society, but she didn't earn that money and power. It was just an accident of birth.
 
I wonder why there are so many who are quick to condemn the British but seem to forget all the other countries which also had empires. Slavery has been a way of life for centuries among all nations, yet it is only the British who are vilified for it. The Jews were held captive in Babylon and Egypt. Yes, it is a very long time ago but I'm just using that as an example to show that such things are nothing new.
Britain itself has been invaded and occupied by different factions...Romans, Saxons, Normans....and ruled over by the Pope. The Catholic church has had control over Christian countries and is responsible for horrific atrocities.
So, if you wish to condemn, include all not just the one which suits you.
 
Geezer Garage said:
As I understand it, she was for some time the richest woman in the world.
Click to expand...
She owns property but is hardly in a position to sell any of it. Revenue from those properties goes to the government in return for a portion of it being used for upkeep and other expenses.

That is as I understand it but Holly would be able to give a clearer picture.
 
StarSong said:
During a gathering with my children and their spouses last evening, this subject came up. One of my sons works in sports television so that's one of the prisms through which he sees the world.

He said the monarchy is basically a cross between being UK's team mascot and one of the lesser Kardashians.

Think about it. Like royalty, mascots have virtually no role with what's happening on the field of play, most people in the stands occasionally enjoy their antics but mostly tolerate them unless they get crazy obnoxious, little kids love them, they get trotted out for PR and social events, and when one moves on from the job a replacement is swiftly appointed and is expected to don the ridiculous costumes and behave very much the same way as his/her predecessor.

Like Kardashians, they receive a tremendous amount of money for reasons mostly unknown, are famous for being famous, are controversial, and the rest of the world is a little mystified by their popularity.

Edited to add: I'm not for or against the monarchy, nor do I hold strong feelings about the Queen. My heart goes out to those who mourn her passing - their loss is real.
Click to expand...
Love the analogy Star!
 
Lewkat said:
Don't believe one word of that rubbish. Charles and Camilla were a big thing long before Diana came along and wanted to marry her. Due to her checkered past, she was not deemed appropriate for the heir to the throne. Thus, he married Diana who actually was in love with him, or so she thought. She was young, troubled child, and just in love with love. The realities of life after they were married were more than she could handle.

Diana found out that Charles and Camilla were involved right after Camilla's divorce, and the rest is history.

That the Queen gave into Charles after Diana died, and allowed him to marry Camilla is still a mystery to me. She'd have remained his mistress for life if it were my son.

Read about Camilla and her past. She was a real player, that babe.
Click to expand...
Charles should have been made to marry some horsey lady of the nobility who understood her duty was to produce an heir and a spare as soon as possible, and then settle down to a life of opening hospitals and christening ships while leaving Charles to continue his peccadillos without any complaints from her. I mean, wasn't that "tradition"?
 
Americans don't have a monarchy. Their default monarchy is Hollywood...Brad Pitt...et al.

Celebrity worship to replace the lack of royal worship.
 
Shalimar said:
My goodness. The Queen hasn‘t even been laid to rest, and many of us are in mourning. It is less than sensitive to bring up this stuff so soon after her passing. I wonder how some might feel if those of us from Britain or the Commonwealth dissected their late revered leaders in such a manner? 😞
Click to expand...
Yes, it just shows the churlishness of some people.
 
jujube said:
Charles should have been made to marry some horsey lady of the nobility who understood her duty was to produce an heir and a spare as soon as possible, and then settle down to a life of opening hospitals and christening ships while leaving Charles to continue his peccadillos without any complaints from her. I mean, wasn't that "tradition"?
Click to expand...
Somebody should have told Diana that after she stole her sister's boyfriend, got the prize, and had the fab wedding, she would be expected to do some un-fun stuff and people wouldn't like it if she had a series of sports stars in and out of her bedroom.

It's well documented that she had many affairs before Camilla and Charles started up again. Camilla might have been a player while she was young, but Diana was a player after she got married. That and firing 40 servants during her first 2 years says it all to me. Not a nice person, even if she did tell us she wanted to be known as the caring princess.

I don't know why people want to idolize Diana (and hate Camilla and Charles because they "hurt" her.). So many clear facts about her are ignored. Did you know she purposely pushed Raine, her stepmother, down a flight of stairs? If it had been anyone else she would have been arrested for attempted murder.
 
It wouldn't be the same England without the monarchy. It would be like another piece of history has been removed. What happened in the past is over and done with. During my lifetime, I have enjoyed watching the King and Queen when they were shown together on TV. Like I stated earlier, my Grandmother adored the Queen and her colorful outfits, especially on the one St. Patrick's Day when she was shown wearing an all green outfit. She looked so beautiful. When I looked at the Queen, she looked and acted like royalty.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top