The Royal Family

[Charles Bannerman]

Scurrilous nonsense, Charles...  :018:

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

:023:

Surely not! You wouldn't be implying William Windsor and Harry Hewitt or anything like that would you?  :018:

I thought the recently concluded ITV drama series "The Palace" ran a wonderful storyline when the question was being asked if The King was actually the son of the previous King or of the Dowager Queen's erstwhile Bit on the Side? DNA testing ultimately showed that he was, but previous generations haven't had the benefit of DNA testing.

Short of a mass "dig up" in the Windsor Mausoleum (which I don't think they would ever dare risk) we'll never know, will we!  :003:

[Guest TinCanFan]

I heard once that the person who really should be "King of Britain and the Commonwealth" is a guy who lives in Adelaide called something Hastings.  Apparently he is a big wheel in the Australian Republican thing.  And imagine if someone today decided to come up with the new idea of a "Royal Family" who are going to be counted as better than everyone else. Everyone will think that it would be barmy. 

[Canada Bob]

Looks like the debate is warming up, grin...

As some what of an outsider {being by misfortune English} I can't get my head round the affiliation that some folks in Scotland have towards the royal family. Excepting for the addle minded Alf Garnet's and the Vera Duckworth's you don't see folks in the rest of England or Wales bowing and scraping at the mention of their name. I just can't figure out the origin or the rationale for the Scottish allegiance to this foreign house.

I don't know much about the history of Scotland, but I recall that Mary met with a ruthless fate, add to that the tens of thousands of folks {like you and me} who were put to the sword or worse, women and children included as these b*stards stole your land, your freedom and did their best to eliminate your heritage and culture.

Don't you listen to your Anthem ? you have something to be proud of in Scotland, I'm not talking about the beauty of the place, but the stock that you're bred from, men who overcame oppression, families who survived these atrocities, is your allegiance/regard/respect to them, or to the direct descendants of the bloody lot who if they could have would have subjugated you, or wiped you all off the face of the earth...

Amazing what propaganda can do, you start to think the way that the Establishment wants to think, they are so effectively/clever that you think "it's your own ideas or values".

Your pride should be in Scotland, and from that in yourselves, would any of you prefer to be English {let's say}, or Welsh, or Irish etc ? Stand on your own feet, proud of your Nation rather than have your allegiance usurped by those who wouldn't *iss on you if you were on fire...

Canada Bob.

[starchief]

I just can't figure out the origin or the rationale for the Scottish allegiance to this foreign house.

Probably James the VI of Scotland.

you don't see folks in the rest of England or Wales bowing and scraping at the mention of their name.

Nor in Scotland (or Canada for that matter) but to imply they've no real support across all strata of society (even though I'm not one of them - a supporter that is) is disingenuous.

Chris

[Canada Bob]

Nor in Scotland (or Canada for that matter) but to imply they've no real support across all strata of society (even though I'm not one of them - a supporter that is) is disingenuous.

Chris

[+dumpmaster]

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,

May by thy mighty aid,

Victory bring.

May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush,

Rebellious Scots to crush,

Lyrics from the national anthem another reason why I really love the Monarchy....

[Canada Bob]

Probably James the VI of Scotland.

Wasn't that the bloke who wrote the Trew Law ? "The Divine Right of Kings" the arrogant b*stard.

One thing he managed was to drink himself to death, pity the rest of them didn't follow suit, although

a few of them have tried hard enough...

Canada Bob.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Charles--thank you for reminding me of the progeny thing--the thought had never crossed my mind....... until you mentioned it.     

As for the rest of your comments--accurate and trenchant as ever. But why did you stop so soon when you were ahead?

And Canada Bob- you are being being very  nice !  :011:

Who in Canada knows anything about British history or the Royal Family? Most of them do not even know their own history and the only reason they have congregated en masse to see the Royal Family when they grace us over here with their presence is , as you say,  to experience a bit of "by association" .In some way Canadians  fulfil some inner dream of being rich and famous by gawking--harmless enough, but also somewhat meaningless.

And I just love the salacious gossip daringly put about by one of the above posters stating that up until recently Her Royal Gracious Highnessness had not paid any taxes, but in recent years  had grudgingly agreed to pay a pittance to placate a growing public opinion in the U.K. that they were insufferable parasites. If the Taxman decides to go back and charge her for unpaid taxes plus interest she will have to sell off half her properties and lands just to pay the bill--and where should he stop ...in 1066?  It's a pity the same unctuous grovelling deference, and forgiveness for the requirement to pay back taxes,  paid to these Icons of  Self-Indulgent Selfishness is not extended to the rest of  the common people isn't it?

Imagine the wealthiest woman in Britain getting an annual humungous stipend, along with half her family, from the poor British taxpayers , so that thay can eke out their fortunes to allow them to improve  the contents of their liquor cabinets from Ballantynes to 100 year-old Special Blend Chivas Regal or to enable her to get a better quality of hay for her multitudinous stable of  horses?

And please don't make the gross mistake of thinking that my above comments is just a case of  withering sarcasm--it's not withering at all, more like in full flood and increasing by the minute. :004:

And all Ex Patriot British pensioners still alive in Canada are still not getting an annual inflationary increase in their pensions , NEVER have and under current British Government dictates NEVER will. Soon, very soon, the poor old folks will have to give up their fags in favour of a crust of bread... :029:By the way that was not meant to be hunmourous.

Still, they are wistfully hoping that the rumour abroad at present that Their Royal Magnificent Highnesses are about to generously send them a couple of quid each for past services rendered to the glorious Empire is the only hope to which they can cling in so far as the fact that it will allow them to put a blob of  charcoal on their little fire at least once more before they die.

The Royal Farces are a blemish in history whose time has come for erasure...along with more than half the idle fox-hunting brigades of useless dinks.

Time to quit whilst I am ahead methinks. :012:

All comments gratefully invited ..

[Action Man]

Dear subjects, having viewed recent programmes on the BBC, visited various websites, and spoke to my Grannie, I can reveal to you all the surprising revelation that I am the real heir to the throne of Scotland.

As your King I demand only the same respect you afforded your previous monarchy................

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

On second thoughts......... :023:

[Guest couchpotato]

Plagerised from elsewhere but interesting and relevant to this discussion,any anti's care to respond?....

The queen is our ?Head of State? that basically means her work is largely ceremonial. She appoints the Prime Minister, dissolves parliament at the end of a term and grants bills that have been passed through parliament ?Royal assent? so that they become law/acts of parliament. Many people may consider this little more than a ?rubber stamp?, though there those who perceive her as far more than this; she stands as a safeguard against the government. Although nowadays the queen is thought to have little or no power, it must be remembered that, on paper at least, she is the head of the judiciary, head of the armed forces, and head of the government. This means that if the government was corrupt or not acting in the best interest of the people, in theory at least, she has the power to refuse bills royal assent, defying, or even dismantling the government. The army also pledges allegiance to the queen rather than to the Prime minister or the government. This is intentional, being as it protects the army from being used by the government in an abusive manner. It is by large, symbolic, but in the unlikely event of an undemocratic government ever forming in this country these safeguards have been put in place; whether they would prove effect or not is yet to be tested.

>

But the queen is only so well suited to these titles and able to act in such a way if necessary because she is both politically independent and neutral. It is also impossible for her to abuse these powers since she is un-elected, thus although she may have the ?power?, she does not have the ?authority? to use them. Should the queen decide tomorrow to dissolve the government no-one would stand for it, so it would never happen, except maybe in the event of a dictatorship ever securing power, the government becoming very corrupt, or perhaps if the country was ever reduced to a state of anarchy, it may be deemed appropriate for someone other than the government to intervene if possible. As far as I was concerned this has never happened, although a friend of mine from Australia assures me that it did once over there, when the government became so corrupt the queen acted on the recommendations of her advisers and dismantled the government.

So if you abolished the monarchy you would need to find someone who you could trust with such roles. The main argument against the queen is that she is un-elected, thus undemocratic. However, should you elect the head of state democratically, you risk losing these safeguards. A president that was directly elected (elected by the public) would wield a great deal of authority, so he/she would be far more likely than the queen to exercise their powers, as they would be democratically elected, and could claim they represented the public. This could give rise to conflict between the president and the government. Even if the Head of State weren?t directly elected, who would elect them? And more to the point, who would be elected? If the president was elected by parliament there?s no doubt they?d be politically involved and not neutral, and would be unlikely to hold the government as accountable. This is not to say these are issues that are insoluble, but could be viewed as unnecessary,

time-consuming, constitutional upheaval in the face of a system that works fine as it is.

Then there is the cost. The main reason the recent Australian referendum over the abolishment of the monarchy voted to keep the queen, was because after looking into the matter further, they realised that to change the system would not only cost millions to implement, but a presidency would cost a lot more to sustain than the monarchy, the US and French presidents are testimony to this. There is also the fact that the queen herself has made the monarchy more favourable to the taxpayer following criticisms over the royal family?s expenditure. She took most of her relatives off the civil list, now publishes her accounts and even pays income tax. Though the monarchy was estimated to be costing the British taxpayers a whopping ?60 million a year in 1994, it seems this is still far less than a president. It is also claimed that the money the Royal family brings into the country through tourism, more than covers their fee.

[The Mantis]

As some what of an outsider {being by misfortune English} I can't get my head round the affiliation that some folks in Scotland have towards the royal family. Excepting for the addle minded Alf Garnet's and the Vera Duckworth's you don't see folks in the rest of England or Wales bowing and scraping at the mention of their name. I just can't figure out the origin or the rationale for the Scottish allegiance to this foreign house.

I don't see where you get that idea at all Bob. I don't think it would stand up to scrutiny any more than if you were to say the Scots vote Tory more than the English  :015:

After all it wasn't the Scots who were having street parties to celebrate the Golden Jubilee or whatever they call it, but they had them all over England.

I've lived in Scotland all my life and I've never met anybody with a good word to say for them. But the BBC never tires of going out into the streets of London and getting vox pops of all the loyal subjects queueing up at Buck House every time there's a wedding or a funeral or one of them breaks wind.

[Charles Bannerman]

Plagerised from elsewhere... ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC,....., more than covers their fee.

Are you taking the p!ss by simply regurgitating all the weary, hackneyed, apologist cr@p that you used to read in the Sunday Post before it broke into the second half of the 20th century (and still do read in the Telegraph!)?

Most other countries seem to manage without this self perpetuating "elite" of dubious progeny and uncertain nationality who seem to expect to be referred to by ludicrous titles like "Your Majesty" and "Your Royal Highness".

And even most of those countries which have still persevered with royalty will find theirs cycling about the place. Now could you imagine any of our lot mixing it with the plebs on a bike!?    The problem is that, in addition to what I would suggest is a completely anachronistic function in modern society, our lot are among the most elitist in the world and in some strange way still seem to harbour delusions that they are better than the rest of us.

To quote Harry Enfield.... "Oi.... Windsor..... NO!!!!"

[Canada Bob]

Couch potato,

Here's my thoughts on the "Rights" of the Queen or whoever is holding the job down at the moment, on their right to dissolve parliament or to veto Laws passed by the Government of the day, no matter who they are.

What fekkin right is THAT ! "we the people" vote in the government that we want, they {are supposed} to govern in such a way as to reflect the wishes of the people, socialist or capitalist, that's OUR choice {supposedly}. Where would we be if the head of state could veto the wishes or direction of our democratically appointed government ! again this reflects nothing but a fekkin arrogance on behalf of the elitist b*stards who think the country belongs to them !

Thank gawd this royal ascent is nothing more than a lingering fetish between the establishment and those who seek to eventually join their festering ranks.

Canada Bob.

[Canada Bob]

As some what of an outsider {being by misfortune English} I can't get my head round the affiliation that some folks in Scotland have towards the royal family. Excepting for the addle minded Alf Garnet's and the Vera Duckworth's you don't see folks in the rest of England or Wales bowing and scraping at the mention of their name. I just can't figure out the origin or the rationale for the Scottish allegiance to this foreign house.

I don't see where you get that idea at all Bob. I don't think it would stand up to scrutiny any more than if you were to say the Scots vote Tory more than the English  :015:

After all it wasn't the Scots who were having street parties to celebrate the Golden Jubilee or whatever they call it, but they had them all over England.

I've lived in Scotland all my life and I've never met anybody with a good word to say for them. But the BBC never tires of going out into the streets of London and getting vox pops of all the loyal subjects queueing up at Buck House every time there's a wedding or a funeral or one of them breaks wind.

First of all regarding my comment on having the misfortune of being born English, I used to be proud of England, say until 30 years ago, then things started to change, change so much that I could see the writing on the wall, well, I thought I could, but it turned out to be worse than I could have dreamed of. The final straw for me {as a working bloke} was when Maggie Thatcher got in, life wasn't all that good in Wigan when Harold Wilson was in power, so I didn't think things would get better when the hard line Tories got in.

Within 5 years the industrial base of Wigan, Bolton, Preston, Chorley etc were devastated, within 5 miles of where I lived De Havilland Aircraft {where I worked} closed down with a loss 3,500 jobs, British Rail in Horwich closed down with a loss of 5,000 jobs, English Electric in Preston packed it in with a loss of around 6,000 jobs, Chorley ROF and Leyland Trucks lost about 10,000 jobs between them, and  their subcontractors were put on their knees, 25-30,000 engineering jobs down the drain in no time at all. Then Maggie closed the mines, then the Mills wrapped it up, and Wigan wasn't on it's own, places like Sheffield, Manchester, Derby, you name it finished up on the cobbles...

Since then the way of life in England, at least, {at least the England I knew} has changed dramatically, work isn't the norm now, dole is the norm, when I worked at De Havilland {a 6 year apprenticeship} there employed 400 apprentices, same with Horwich Loco, English Electric etc etc, thousands of young lads learning trades, and that was just in engineering, not to mention building trades etc, now thousands of young lads roam the streets making England / the UK the most violent society in Europe {and beyond}.

In my day a man took pride in being "working class" people stood on their own feet, if they needed help they got help, but they didn't make a career off living out of other peoples money, folks in those days were ashamed to take money "off the parish", now it's a way of life, generation to generation.

Oddly enough few people consider themselves to be "working class" now, fact is they'd swear blind {at you} if you told them they were, they now convince themselves that they are "middle class" yet in reality they suffer the worst standard of living in the western world ! {try telling them that though, they just don't want to know}.

Add to that, I don't know another country in the world where a young lass can get a free house as a reward for popping a few kids out, same thing with the riff raff that have never paid a stamp in their lives, yet they get priority over pensioners or others in genuine need of support. Along with the free houses goes the free cars, do you know that there's already 1 Million "Disability" cars on the road already, fair enough some folks are genuine, but 1 Million "disabled" folks out of a working population of around 30 Million !!! we had less disabled when Hitler was raining bombs down on us...

So we finish up with the working men and women having to fund the Elitist b*stards at the top of the tree and the idle b*stards who wouldn't work if you attached jump leads to them...

I've lived and worked in other countries and I've seen better systems, where the working class have dignity and are proud of their status, without the need to pretend association with r soles...

I come back to see England knackered on its feet, binge drinking, thuggery {by 14 year olds} violent crimes against old folks or others who are easy targets, 12 year olds pregnant {the UK has the highest teen and pre teen pregnancy rate in Europe}, no go areas, where it's enter at your own risk, 10% of drivers being either banned or without insurance, drug use at record rates, and the dumbest high school graduates the nation has ever seen...

I don't know who's doing the fiddling {maybe the whole fekking lot of them}, but my "Rome" is burning, and there's nowt I can do about it, except to not be there when the whole place goes up.

I no longer have any pride in "my country" and it sickens me to think what my father and his 4 brothers fought for, "A Land fit for Hero's to live in" now you have to be a Hero to live in it...

As far as my comment on the support I perceive of the royal family in Scotland, I'm not saying it's a high percentage by any means, I don't know the extent of it, but I rarely hear anyone in England or Wales with a good word to say for them.

One last word on the "ceremonial" positions held by the house of windsor, including the kilted greek, you don't think they wear the uniforms {or the medals} just because they like to dress up do you ? for every "ceremonial" position they hold they get the "wage packet" that goes along with it, no doubt that's fekking tax free aswell...

If you EVER get the chance, kick the bleeders out, appoint yer own King, {start off with Reef, he seems to know what's going on}, give him 6 months if he don't pan out pass it on to Clacher, give the young uns a chance...

Canada Bob.

Respect is EARNED not INHERITED !

[Charles Bannerman]

royal ascent

Outwith the day job, I'm not usually too publicly pedantic about spelling mistakes, but this one unfortunately conveys a meaning rather the opposite of what it should. I think Bob means "assent" rather than "ascent" although DESCENT would be more acceptable (and DECENT wouldn't!)

[Guest couchpotato]

Quite a few points to ponder there folks,I am not particularly pro royal or otherwise but do wonder what alternative would be better?  the article qouted seemed to ask the same question.To dismiss Royalty as a bunch of posh folk poncing off the state is kinda simplistic and an easy jibe at those not able to respond.Would George Bush or Nicolas Sarkozy be seen "cycling with the plebs" to qoute Charles,i doubt it,or any of our own democratically elected self important politicians with their noses in the trough **** on the man in the street any quicker than the silver spooned royalty,(unless their was gain in it for them)

I admire and empathise with Bob's empasioned and obviously from the heart piece on England but the demise of the last 30 years is surely laid at the feet of the democratically elected government of both hues and nothing whatsoever to do with having a monarchy or otherwise.

I ask again gents,and am genuinely interested in opinions not insults, what is a better alternative?

[Canada Bob]

Couch potato

Why do folks feel the need for an alternative ? if I went to the Dr's with a boil on me *** I'd just be happy to have him get rid of it without looking to replace it with a haemorrhoid..

The "better system" is to get rid of the folks who ride on the backs of the working man, and for me that covers the whole spectrum from the kilted greek to the idle sods who think they are entitled to a free ride through life at the expense of the tax payer. I don't blame any particular stripe of government, one is as bad as the other, nor do I lay the blame the monarchy, they are no more than symptomatic of the rot that will eventually sink the ship.

The Tories build up a MASSIVE civil service employing thousands of gobshytes who otherwise wouldn't be employable in the private sector, 40% of the UK workforce is now employed by one level of Government or another. From town hall to whitehall the land is flooded with pretenders who think they are worthy of the money that government {at one level or another} throws at them, not to mention the obscene pensions that the rest of us have to fund for them. This lot make up the core of the Tory support, {why bite the hand that feeds you}.

Remind me, those files/cd's that got lost in the post, listing the details of people receiving "benefits" of one kind or another, 20 Million folks was it ? 20 Million receiving benefits when the total working population is only around 30 Million folks ! these folks represent the core of New Labours support. As long as they get the hand outs New Labour will get their votes...

Either way one party or the other milks the working man, its not Taxation anymore in the UK its Confiscation. You work and pay income tax, you spend the money you pay VAT, you save the money you pay tax on the interest, you pay your stamps for a lifetime then pay tax on your pension, how fekking disgusting is that, a lifetime of contributions to qualify for a meager stinking pension that sees our old folks having to decide between eating and heating.

Unfortunately most of us have no {political} flag to rally round so we have no way to bring a halt to this madness, but all things come to an end, I just wish I'd be around to see it. At some point folks will realize that what masquerades as government is little more than a Mafia, if you want to run for Parliament you get vetted, if they think you might be a loose cannon you won't get selected, but if you fit their mold they'll bring you into the fold.

What truth do we have in government ? do they respect us at all ? or do they lie to us at the drop of a cap, think Mad Cow Disease {"get the burger down you"}, or the Iraq war, and lots of other situations where their lies cost innocent people their lives. They talk about "open government" yet right now they are fighting like buggers to stop us knowing how much they've been stealing out of the till.  I can't wait to see how much Ruth Kelly {our local MP / Minister of Transport} has been pocketing. I'll have a little side bet with you, I'll bet she's hived off more in "expenses" in the last 5 years or so than any of you have in the bank, no matter what your job is, or how long you've been saving.

How do we get folks like Kelly passing themselves off as "socialists" she'd fly her flag on any ship as long as it gained her wealth and influence, where did this woman come from, how the **** did Westhoughton voters fall for her without even knowing who she is, or anything about her background. Check the Google link on her...born in Limavady, to this day is an IRA stronghold, her grandfather a convicted and jailed senior member of the IRA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Kelly

Who passes these people off to us ? are we so dumb we don't know who we are voting for ! no wonder the Tories say that Wiginers will vote for a pig on a wall, if it's wearing a red rosette !

Have you ever listened to this woman ? born and bred in Ireland, but you'd never know it from her practiced "middle england" baritone tones, sounds like she's bigger balls than a pawn broker.

What sort of "socialists" are members of secret organizations {Opus Dei}, having the nerve to seek election by "us" then rather than represent the views of constituents decides to vote according to her conscience ! aren't they there to represent us, rather than {in the case of this stem cell thing} the church of Rome ?

What sort of a socialist is Tony B Liar, soon as he's had his fill of power he drops nicely into a Directorship of an International Bank {for starters} getting $5 Million a year from one appointment. When was the last time he dropped into a working men's club {yea, I know, just before the last election}. By the way, how long before you find out that Tony B converted to catholicism so that he could be inducted into Opus Dei, a further career move for him, when this comes out remember who told you first... By the way, if you're a catholic don't bother applying to join Opus Dei, yer not good enough for them, it's "invite" only, amongst the rich and powerful.

I've given up on England, it's too far gone to be turned around {in my lifetime}, but you are in a better position, being Scottish you still have your flag to rally round, try that in England and you're a racist, but more than than you have a stronger link to your heritage, what have I got ? hotpot and red cabbage and a nation so fragmented that they are all at each others fekkin throats.

If you asked almost any Englishman if he was proud to be English what do you think most of them would say ? {right now 700 people a day are leaving the UK, the vast majority from England}, on the other hand how do you feel about being Scottish !

You have the chance to go your own way, stand on your own feet, sort your own problems out, and free yourselves of the leeches that seek to hang on yer ***, go for it...

Canada Bob.

[Scarlet Pimple]

:clapping03: :clapping03: :clapping03: :clapping03: :clapping03:

[Onward and Upward]

I'm not a particular fan of the Royalty, but they do bring revenue into the country (tourism etc.).  The only thing I don't agree with is the amount of money the taxpayer has to shell out for them.  They are wealthy enough already, let them stand on their own two feet.

Are the current Monarchy responsible for the turmoil that was Scotland immediately before & after the battle of Culloden?  I'm not up on my English history, so I'm not sure if the Hanovarians were in charge at that point?

This topic really seems to have got the lefties dander up!  :004: :tic01:

[Alex MacLeod]

It is said that they bring tourists............but do you honestly believe the tourist industry in this country would dissolve if the monarchy disappeared?

[GATEPOST]

Canada Bob  :clapping03: :clapping03: :clapping03:

One question though, you say...

Couch potato

You have the chance to go your own way, stand on your own feet, sort your own problems out, and free yourselves of the leeches that seek to hang on yer ***, go for it...

How?

[Charles Bannerman]

Would George Bush or Nicolas Sarkozy be seen "cycling with the plebs" to qoute Charles?

Various US Presidents have made a habit of "jogging with the plebs". For most heads of state, any constraint is normally imposed by security. With this lot at Buck House there's the additional, major factor that they think they are better than the rest of us so shouldn't even think of mingling apart from PR exercises and even then we are expected to bow, curtsey and scrape and address them by these ridiculous titles.

What I object to is that these totally unelected people of questionable nationality and parentage should set themselves up as a sort of bunch of "SuperBrits" under the delusion that they are actually superior to the rest of us.

If a country is going to have an ultimate authority then that individual has to be elected and there merely for the function... and there is no place for his/ her relatives sponging off the state as an additional liability.

Oh, and by the way, my earlier query about the legitimacy of the Royals on the strength of who their female ancestors were having it away with applies equally to everyone whose status depends on heredity. In other words all your "aristocracy" (including Clan Chiefs with their boolinthegub accents) are of equally dubious foundation. And that's before you even begin to count the number of Dukes of this and that who owe their titles to the fact that they are simply the descendants of Royal ******** that we know about, because their "Royalty" came from the male side.

(By the way, you've maybe followed that I'm not a great fan of inherited rank and privilege.  :015:)

[Guest couchpotato]

Good point,well made Bob,do they still do ten pound tourist tickets? I'm oota here!

Whilst agreeing with the majority of yer post(you obviously hold our democratically elected political representatives in the same high regard  i do) Further to yer initial interesting analogy,suposing this boil was irritating but not fatal,and most of the associated pimples had been got rid of with treatment and said boil also brought interest from far and wide with many folk, (lets call them boilist's) so intrigued by it they were prepared to pay you for a look at it,would it not be worth suffering the discomfort and some embarresment to keep yer erse unique in a world full of erse lookers?

Charles , your surely not suggesting the jogging in central park pressidents are doing it for anything other than PR R U?,I,m sure we are fairly much in agreement regarding inherited rank and privelage,but where is the line drawn, would you stop inheritance within any family or just very rich annoying posh ones with titles?