Maria Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 I think I'd rather have a non political royal as head of state than the alternative (imagine President Blair!). I also think the alternative might cost a lot more too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprogsbloke Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 I have no problems with having a Royal Family. My problem is tht our Taxes pay for them even though they are stinking rich in their own right they should have to pay their own way and the taxes they get at the moment should goto better causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheplover Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 I don't know how I feel about the Royal Family tbh They do generate tourism - or maybe the buildings they own do, they are good ambassadors abroad, look at the work Diana did in raising awareness about AIDS, and various children's charities, being somewhat continued by her sons. I do agree that they have been brought up to know better though and some of their antics have been shocking, more so because of the priviledges they have been given. I think that Wills and Harry will bring the monarchy into the C21st and possibly win back a lot of respect and do a lot of good, atleast I hope. I would rather have our country's Queen and parliament over America's as has been said I wonder how much upkeep our taxes would have to fund if we did have President Blair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kathy40uk Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 I mean they cost alot, cause scandals left right and centre and aren't really good for anything? Or are they? I would like to know your views on that? ...................applies to most politicians doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greys mum Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 I'm a royalist. I would much rather have the royal family, than a lot of the so called heads of state around the world. Yes they cost money, (most wothwhile things do) but they bring in alot more than is spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurel n Hardy Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 they do generate income and investment into this country, in spite of the cost to the tax payer i don't think the UK would be the same without them. no other country in the world does pomp and ceremony like we do, the tourist trade benefits a lot from it too. all in all I would consider myself a royalist, as opposed to a roundhead (dare I mention Cromwell). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 I think any change would cost more. Yes, they live in big grand palaces and there are the Crown Jewels - but it's not like they would be allowed to sell them off and buy a Caribbean island instead if they wanted to. If we had a president, we'd need somewhere posh to stash him so he could have state dinner and things. And it is a good idea constitutionally to have a head of state who is not also the leader of a political party. And I quite like the historical continuity and glamour of having a monarchy. It makes us a bit different to your ordinary country. I quite like Prince Charles (known down here as the Duke of Cornwall). His woodland on my doorstep, is open for everyone to walk through, with a polite sign asking people to keep their dogs under control. That compares well with most of the smaller private landowners, whose signs all say 'private, no entry' and who close off footpaths if they think they can get away with it. Also, his biscuits are rather nice (if expensive!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anneski Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 <snip> I do agree that they have been brought up to know better though and some of their antics have been shocking, more so because of the priviledges they have been given. <snip> Ah come on though, we're always hearing about how rich and priviledged they are, but the flip side of the royal coin is that they're always on show, always on duty, aren't allowed to have a life of their own and are generally not free to choose what they want to do. The Queen and Prince Charles and the two young princes are always under scrutiny, and cannot do a thing without the media trying to report it. What priviledges do they get that they can actually enjoy, really? The Queen has so many functions to attend I doubt she can even have a headache in peace and quiet. Even her holidays usually involve state dinners and sitting for hours at functions that she probably can't wait to get away from. Yes, reckon the likes of Anne and Edward (and possibly Andrew) can do what they like pretty much, as they seem to manage to have lives of their own, but I doubt the Queen and Charlie boy do, really. I know I wouldn't like their lives. I admire the Queen greatly, though I think Charles could do with getting a backbone quite a few years earlier in his life. Then again, if he had, we wouldn't have William (and Harry I suppose). On the whole I don't mind most of the real royalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ailsas mum Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 Can't stand them, the only one I have any sort of respect for is Anne as she seems to be a grafter and not afraid of a bit of hard work. Just out of curiosity can anyone tell me why the queen is referred to as Elizabeth the 2nd, the UK has never had a queen Elizabeth before this one. England has but the rest of us haven't. Terri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 Ah come on though, we're always hearing about how rich and priviledged they are, but the flip side of the royal coin is that they're always on show, always on duty, aren't allowed to have a life of their own and are generally not free to choose what they want to do. The Queen and Prince Charles and the two young princes are always under scrutiny, and cannot do a thing without the media trying to report it. What priviledges do they get that they can actually enjoy, really? The Queen has so many functions to attend I doubt she can even have a headache in peace and quiet. Even her holidays usually involve state dinners and sitting for hours at functions that she probably can't wait to get away from. Yes, reckon the likes of Anne and Edward (and possibly Andrew) can do what they like pretty much, as they seem to manage to have lives of their own, but I doubt the Queen and Charlie boy do, really. I know I wouldn't like their lives. I admire the Queen greatly, though I think Charles could do with getting a backbone quite a few years earlier in his life. Then again, if he had, we wouldn't have William (and Harry I suppose). On the whole I don't mind most of the real royalty. I feel sorry for them too. Not only are they always on show, but they are brought up to have an exaggerated sense of their own importance and the protocols to be observed. They're just people like you and me. If they deserve our respect it's because of what they do and not because of an accident of birth. Personally I wouldn't cross the street to see one of them, but I do think the big occasions bring a bit of colour into the lives of those who appreciate them and I'd rather have a royal family than not, on balance. Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGAR Posted August 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 ...................applies to most politicians doesn't it? No, not really. Policticians are elected, the Royals are that by birth, regardless how useless they might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 I still feel Camilla should be sent to the tower. She was just one in a long tradition of mistresses and one should never marry staff. There has been a suggestion that Charles bought a small farm here so Camilla can graze with the other old cows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redditchlady Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 I still feel Camilla should be sent to the tower.She was just one in a long tradition of mistresses and one should never marry staff. There has been a suggestion that Charles bought a small farm here so Camilla can graze with the other old cows Don't hold back now will you Lesley I can take them or leave them myself. Kazz xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGAR Posted August 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 I still feel Camilla should be sent to the tower.She was just one in a long tradition of mistresses and one should never marry staff. There has been a suggestion that Charles bought a small farm here so Camilla can graze with the other old cows PMSL!!!!! I thought she was a Rottweiler.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boosboss Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 Just out of curiosity can anyone tell me why the queen is referred to as Elizabeth the 2nd, the UK has never had a queen Elizabeth before this one. England has but the rest of us haven't.Terri Terri, you've answered your own question I like the Royal family and doubt very much that I'd notice the difference in my pay packet if we weren't funding them! I seem to remember hearing somewhere that they cost each of us something like £8 per year. (Correct me if I'm wrong). God Save The Queen I like Camilla too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts