The Royal Family

[Guest TinCanFan]

Just wondering what people think of the Royal Family (that's the real one, not the pretend one off TV).  Personally I think that it's silly in this day and age to still have a family who inherit their title and for some reason are treated better than eveyone else and they get the live the life of luxury while others live in poverty.  Get rid I say.

[FortressICT]

I personally very much disagree with you!  I don't think the royal family get enough credit...especially the Queen!  I would also be very happy if Harry or William were to take over from her! :022:

[Caley Mad In Berks]

I've never considered myself a royalist, but it is clear to me that the economic benefits this country enjoys from tourism alone, because of the Royal family, far outweighs what it costs us in maintaining them. 

[Dmacca]

Ive grown to respect the queen, not sure about the rest of them though, and certainly got no time for any politician at moment.

[Action Man]

[Alex MacLeod]

I've never considered myself a royalist, but it is clear to me that the economic benefits this country enjoys from tourism alone, because of the Royal family, far outweighs what it costs us in maintaining them.   

And therein lies the problem. South East of England reaps the benefits............the rest of Britian pays.

[Heilandee]

I've never considered myself a royalist, but it is clear to me that the economic benefits this country enjoys from tourism alone, because of the Royal family, far outweighs what it costs us in maintaining them.   

And therein lies the problem. South East of England reaps the benefits............the rest of Britian pays.

Think Royal Deeside does pretty well out of the "Royal Pound" not to mention the worldwide profile family snaps at Balmoral bring,helping to promote tourism up here.

On balance i'd keep the Queen and immediate family,but let the extended line of hingers on fend for themselves. Whilst no great lover of the pomp and ceremony i can appreciate the benefits . I reckon the Queen does a fantastic job under very trying circumstances as head of state,also, keeping this an  unelected postion means they have no agenda or political axe to grind.

(Thats one L in my first name M'am)

[+dumpmaster]

A monarchy symbolizes privilege, greed and exploitation.

It is a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their Head of State and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that public office, and that such a Head of State is more accountable to the people.

All people are created equal and a monarch born into power, without earning it, is not likely to be the best person to act as Head of State, whereas someone elected is likely to be chosen on merit for their superior qualities.

Monarchical prerogative powers could be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability.

A hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood that produces an abnormal individual as Head of State.

Monarchy is a very expensive system.

In other words NO I don't like the monarchy

[Johnboy]

Dumpmaster : Is your real name George Galloway..?  :024:

[Alex MacLeod]

I've never considered myself a royalist, but it is clear to me that the economic benefits this country enjoys from tourism alone, because of the Royal family, far outweighs what it costs us in maintaining them.   

And therein lies the problem. South East of England reaps the benefits............the rest of Britian pays.

Think Royal Deeside does pretty well out of the "Royal Pound" not to mention the worldwide profile family snaps at Balmoral bring,helping to promote tourism up here.

On balance i'd keep the Queen and immediate family,but let the extended line of hingers on fend for themselves. Whilst no great lover of the pomp and ceremony i can appreciate the benefits . I reckon the Queen does a fantastic job under very trying circumstances as head of state,also, keeping this an  unelected postion means they have no agenda or political axe to grind.

(Thats one L in my first name M'am)

London ---30m visitors a year who spend approx 15 billion quid

Aberdeen & Grampian ----1.75m visitors spending approx 250 million

[Heilandee]

Alex,assuming yer figures are correct, 30 million visitors to London compared to 1.75 million is a ratio of 17.15:1 for each visitor in Aberdeenshire.The population of London at the last cencus was over 7 million,Aberdeen was 200,000 ish,seems we're getting a good deal per capita.

[Alex MacLeod]

The figures are from 2006 Tourist Board records. The Aberdeen figures are very false though because they are based on hotel room occupancy. A large number of offshore workers, who have to spend a night in Aberdeen prior to an early start, are included.

Add Dundee to the comparrison which is where around 600,000 visitors spent about ?110m.

If you talk to a lot of foreign tourists they will tell you they go to London for the Royals but come to Scotland for the beauty.

Personally I have no real view on the monarchy. They are an English insitution. I do prefer Ann over all the rest though. She is the only honest, down to earth, in touch with the people, member of the family.

[Heilandee]

I accept a fair proportion are oily's in Aberdeen, but like wise, not abody's in London for a look at Buck hoose,I do a lot of work for hotels in Royal Deeside and they almost totally rely on tourism related to Lizzie (the clues in the title).Just felt yer original sweeping statement that only the south east benefits while we all pay was incorrect.

[Alex MacLeod]

I know Royal Deeside depends a great deal on visitors to Balmoral and benefits greatly by it but other parts of the country need to use non monarch attractions.

[Canada Bob]

Odd how when me dad and his brothers went to fight for "King and Country" they were told they were Hero's, but when they came back 5 years later they suddenly became "Commoners", not fit to breathe the same air and the royal family, how's that work ? Add to that, when the war was over these Hero's couldn't walk on the land they'd fought for, couldn't fish in the rivers "owned" by the Establishment, and weren't welcome where they "knobs" congregate. Ever noticed how "they" try to segregate public events by pricing you out of events that they attend, think Royal Ascot, etc etc etc, they get in for nowt, you pay through the nose and still can't get the same seats.

The UK is the most socially stratified society in the western world, where the rule of thumb is, the harder you work, the less you get paid for it, vs the less work you do the higher your status and wages are.

The only useful service that "we" are to them is to maintain the status quo, we pay taxes to maintain them in a standard of living that they couldn't earn for themselves, and for the better part of 100 years the royal family paid nothing in tax, now due to the embarrassment they pay "what they think appropriate".

As far as the benefits they bring to the UK, well how many of these tourists would visit London anyway ? I guess Thailand "benefits" from the sex trade that attracts peado's to Bangkok, maybe the money from that trickles down to some poor sod bare footing it with a rickshaw, to the same extent that it benefits the pensioners in the UK.

Respect and regard should be a two way street, as they say in Wigan, "Honour all men, bow down to none" I'd rather be buggered than bend my knee or pay homage to the royal family or any of their hangers on.

Odd how prevalent the Vera Duckworth syndrome is, where folks think it raises their own status by classing themselves as royalists ! fiercely defending an elitist group who {if the truth be known} wouldn't *iss on them if they were on fire...

Canada Bob.

[Heilandee]

So, can we put you down as a maybe then Bob?

[Johnboy]

Respect and regard should be a two way street, as they say in Wigan, "Honour all men, bow down to none" I'd rather be buggered than bend my knee or pay homage to the royal family or any of their hangers on.

Canada Bob.

Whoever made that statement had obviously never encountered Freddy Mercury....  :crazy07:

[tm4tj]

Get that fekkin chip off yer shoulder ya commoner. :blah01:

[Alex MacLeod]

[Johnboy]

Thanks Alex.... Are you trying to trigger off my nightmares... :crazy07:

I just got that turned off in the nick of time....  :018:

[Scarlet Pimple]

Basically the Royal family is in being because their forbears  murdered, pillaged and grabbed as much land as possible. Their privileged state exists only because of that. Wealth means power and significance . Power means retention of that power by any means possible including all of the above. Wars are fought for land and power, rarely anything else. The Royal family come from Germanic stock. So did the Duke Cumberland, a relative of the King--and , boy, after Culloden did he ever make sure that no Highland uprising would EVER again threaten the Hanoverian throne, their wealth and their power.

And from that inevitably came the Highland Clearances initiated to foster the financial interests of the English Landlords which, for unabashed viciousness and cruelty, is a horror story carefully concealed with the ardent participation of the Media at the time well paid to report only the official line to the majority. But reading deeply uncovers a harrowing tale of burnings (even of people in their very own beds), murder, dispossesions and theft , starvation and despotic evictions into the freezing night and snow even of people so old (over 90) and sick and diseased and bed-ridden that their cries could be heard as they were dragged off to the sea until their screams of pain died away to either a whimper or a death rattle . Not to mention the younger women who in a group stood up to the factors who came at them with clubs and battered them senseless, ripping their faces to shreds and their breasts too and leaving them all at the side of the road or in the ditch with broken arms , legs and other injuries too indelicate to mention. Make no mistake, any threat at all to the Landlords' plans was met with merciless brutality.

Never mind "Weep for me Argentina", think of the peasants of the past used and abused by their masters who were little more than slaves. The Clan system where the clansmen formed a group in which the Clan Chief gave them a lease( often unwritten) of a small parcel of land enough to keep body and soul together but never big enough or of a quality high enough to make them rich and independent whilst at the same time ensuring that he got his tithes first and, if he did not , evicted them summarily. For those lucky enough to prosper the result of their success was often the making of them as factors, more closely under the Chief's thumb than ever, and invested with powers over the poorer folk which were often used as a more cruel extension of the chief's power but for which he rarely took the blame when things went wrong.

In response for allowing the peasants to survive the Chief expected his "clansmen " to blindly fight for him against any invading other clans or to fight in support of which ever flavour-of-the-month cause that he decided to embark upon.e.g. Bonnie Prince Charlie --to their ultimate death and ruin.

So where was the fine English-based Duke of Sutherland when his factors and others enacted the Highland Clearances . Nowhere to be seen to help his peasants whilst his wife spent obscene gobs of money taken from these same peasants in the elegant shops and salons of Edinburgh? 

Whether that was 100 years ago or 15 centuries ago it is an uncontestable fact. In the process they had scant regard for the "common folk"who they used as "cannon fodder" to further their ambitions and wealth and power. This was done more often than not under the

noble guise of "for freedom" or "for King and Country" whatever that meant?. History is full of bloody battles and countless deaths, often gruesome, among the rank and file but few bloody deaths of the aristocratic classes  in proportion.

Even if the American Civil war was fought for alleged rights of freedom for the Southerners the battle of Gettysburg alone produced death and destruction on an unprecedeneted scale amongst the common soldiers...50,000 deaths. Did General Lee die? ..no.

Did Sherman die ?...no. Did Lincoln die?..no. Did the President of the Southern States die? no. But 500,000 common folk mostly did die in the that war which was the highest number of deaths in any war ever fought up to that time. Bu it still was about power and money.

Did Cumberland die at Culloden?..no. Did Wellington die at Waterloo? no.

The Queen of England once passed the end of my road in Inverness in her swanky limousine when I was very young but my decision at the time was not to walk 200 yards down the road to see her drive along Telford Street. This decision was the correct one for me and so it will come as no surprise that I share Canada Bob's accurate and intelligent overview why basically they are ,and always have been, in general terms an affront to society and parasites at best. Not to mention the fact that whilst they wallow in the lap of luxury all ex- pat British Pensioners  living in an Ex -Commonwealth country, many of whom fought in the past for King and Country , have never had their pensions uprated by the British Government EVER and are living on 5 pounds a week......................

:cry04:

[Canada Bob]

So, can we put you down as a maybe then Bob?

Aye, you could say that LOL...

I just believe in the dignity of all men {and some women}, at my age I can't alter my left wing stripe. In my book a man who gets up in a morning to go to work to provide for his family is worthy of more regard than an idle b*stard who expects us tax payers to carry him through life, one generation after another. Why should we pay homage to the kilted greek, he's no better than the long term unemployable, except he's living better than any of us, at our expense.

Although I'm left wing I can't stand "New Labour" what a con trick that was, a bunch of spivs who have conned the working class, whilst raking in millions for themselves, the wrong type of folks are attracted to politics these days. In my 20's I wanted to "change the world" after 40 years of trying to make some adjustments to the balance I've come to the conclusion that the only world you can change, is your own, but that's not what a "socialist"  really wants to do. How does it go, if your not a socialist when your 20 you have no heart, if you're still a socialist at 40 you have no brains... I've found that to be a truth...

Obviously this issue divides folks right down the middle, but if there's one thing that we all benefit from it's the right to our own opinion, I've never felt the obligation to conform to prevailing conventions, nor do I need to claim some imaginary association the royal family to raise my self esteem, as I said, I'd rather be buggered...

With some humour I recall when we were sworn in as Canadian Citizens, and I had to swear allegiance to the Queen  :017: I couldn't stand them when I lived in Wigan, so you can imagine my chagrin to be 4000 miles away and having to swear allegiance to her  :008:

Canada Bob.

[starchief]

Personally, I couldn't care less about them, I just don't want to give them any of my money.  Let the royalists pay for them and they can have all the castles and boats they want.  I have real doubts as to whether the Royal Family bring in money or whether that's the history associated with them (which would obviously remain - in fact, we'd be able to see more with all the castles opened up).

don't think the royal family get enough credit...especially the Queen!  I would also be very happy if Harry or William were to take over from her!

Next in line is Prince Charles and his queen.  You don't want them?  Then that's not being in favour of the monarchy system.  See, that's the thing - you can't pick and choose who's next in line.  As Brian Clough once said, "you're either loyal...or you're not".

Chris

[Charles Bannerman]

Basically the Royal family is in being because their forbears  murdered, pillaged and grabbed as much land as possible.

Spot on Scarlet. Quite simply they are there because their ancestors were more ruthless and unscrupulous thugs than their contemporaries. The whole concept of royalty is a fundamentally illogical one - that one set of people should have the entitlement to be called things like "Your Majesty" and "Your Royal Highness" (just think about how totally absurd these forms of address are!) simply on the grounds of the viciousness of their ancestors.

And in fact the nonsense doesn't even stop there. Added to the ridiculous origins of their status, lets also examine the extremely dubious means by which it has been perpetuated.

This is done on the hereditary principle - you get the job because your dad, or occasionally mum, had it (or sometimes, as is the case with the queen, because your uncle couldn't be @rsed and wanted to marry Mrs. Simpson instead.)

But hang on a minute! The whole "logic" of this process kind of assumes that your "dad" really is your dad. Now, we all know how good your "royal" males are at putting it about and having several bits on the side. So why shouldn't the royal women be exactly the same? There is, in fact, a very serious question being asked about the legitimacy of Queen Victoria on the basis of the passing on of the haemophilia gene.

In that case we have absolutely no guarantee that the current lot aren't really the progeny of the butler or the groom or the footman or the Page of the Backstairs? (well maybe not that last one duckie!) In fact, all you need is one single female "indiscretion" through history, and this lot degenerate into the products of a bit of illicit legover in the stables.

[Johnboy]

Scurrilous nonsense, Charles...  :018:

You'll be telling us next that Prince Harry is a dead ringer for Major James Hewitt....

:023: