I shall say firstly that I love the Chariot and all that ride in here. I know I am a minority within the group concerning the monarchy, and I respect that most of you will object and disagree. However, it is my belief that the 3 founding members of this site stated we can say what we want here without personal reprisals, so here I go.
The royal family. An unnecessary requirement of a modern UK. Now, before you all switch over and curse me, please just read for a while, I may just make you re-look at your cemented ideas. A little. For a millisecond.
Due to the little gathering at Westminster Abbey later this week the topic of the royals is very much in the news. Fine by me as it allows some proper debate which blinkered royalists don’t enjoy. In earlier blogs when I have mentioned my republican leaning, I have been laughed at and dismissed as a heretic – mainly with the comments along the lines of:
“who’d you’d rather have, President Blair?”, or,
“What about all the money the UK makes from the tourists?”, or even more risible,
“she stops the government from doing anything extreme”.
I’m sure you can think of many other arguments that justify Auntie Liz (as some pro-royals call her – how disrespectful! If anyone called my Gran ‘auntie’ without knowing her, I’d be a tad annoyed), but I have spent some time gathering some counter-arguments.
I think we’d all agree that the head of state should be accountable to the people. A very relevant fact these days with all the middle east messes. Just how is QEII accountable to you? Not in the slightest. We (and I mean the UK for the sake of this argument) clamour for so-called democracy in the Middle East, Africa, China etc and yet don’t have it ourselves? Hmmm.
What’s the alternative? Not Pressie Blair – he and his ilk wouldn’t stand because they wouldn’t have any power. That would stay rightfully with Parliament. But whomsoever stood for the post would be accountable and would be voted out by the people if they didn’t do a good enough job. Simples.
The Windsors (not even their real name) are racist, offensive, bumbling, embarrassing and out of touch. Much like David Cameron, Clegg and Millibaby. But they’re accountable.
One argument in favour of a monarchy is that it gives the UK a neutral, impartial head of state. That is just naive and silly, as she is no more than a puppet of the PM. (see previous blog on who gets invited to the wedding). Isn’t it ironic that the most ‘powerful’ woman in the world is in fact completely powerless? The PM is the power, and he is elected by the people via a General Election (normally, I know not always – a case for another blog another time).
What about the money coming in from tourists argument? Where’s the evidence? Windsor Castle isn’t even the most visited place in Windsor for ucks sake! (Legoland is by the way)
Look at Prince Andrew and his choice of associates. Look at Fergie selling her wears to the highest bidder. Sophie, using her royal status as a PR company head. Prince Phillip enjoying the pleasures of young ladies to whom he’s not married. Charles being unfaithful before he even got married to someone he never loved in order to procreate. Beatrice and Eugenie getting rat-arsed everywhere they go. Harry doing his Nazi thing. Edward doing…..erm…nothing. Anne rides a horse and attends rugby matches in Scotland. Margaret and her alcohol fuelled Caribbean holidays. Queen mum and her gambling and drinking. Look back at 1936 – Edward VIII would have had us aligned with Germany given half a chance. History just shows gaff after gaff after stupidity.
Just what have the Royals ever done for you as an individual? (Cue John Cleese in the Life of Brian re the Romans)
At best the royals go round opening things, making speeches that are written for them about nothing (unless it’s Charles but who wants to listen to his hippy claptrap). Show me a charitable cause that couldn’t survive without royal patronage and I’ll show you a charity that should employ better marketing staff. Show me a head of state worthy type thing that they’ve ever done. Name one. Go on, I’ll listen.
The wedding this Friday: why? Now we all know love isn’t involved, William needs a brood mare like Charles did. But fair dinkum, that doesn’t bother me. But why all the money spent? Cameron said the budget for the big day was open-ended. That’s nice when people are getting laid off from jobs right left and centre. The policing costs alone could be used to far better use, like saving police officers’ pensions for starters. They’re the ones that come when you call 999 and who will protect the public from extremists like the muslims against crusades and EDL. I can’t see any Royal juming in between the two extremists, or even Poll Tax rioters.
July 11th 1981 was nearly 30 years ago and a very different world. I was a young man in a camp site in southern france wondering what the fuss was all about even then. Look how that turned out.
I say to you – where’s the argument FOR a monarchy? And I haven’t even mentioned the crassness of the hereditary principle.
Thank you for listening and I do give credit to the IoS for some of my research!
Boadicea's Chariot 
I’m glad you’re not afraid to express your views, cuprum. So I don’t need to be afraid to give my opinion that what you have written is rather confused nonsense.
Off with his head. 🙂
Sheona – please do elaborate! How so? In the same way as people with a religious faith dismiss non-believers you surely can’t just dismiss me with a wave of your hand without counter-arguments? What is the case FOR a monarchy?
I’m not making a case for a monarchy, cuprum. I’m just giving my opinion. Your post is too long for me to go through and deal with each point. Can I point out that you describe the monarchy as “an unnecessary requirement”. Well, it’s either unnecessary or it’s a requirement. That’s just for starters.
Ok, well blow me over with a feather. I plead guilty to poor grammar. I originally wrote “An unnecessary evil” but thought that would upset too many sensitive souls. You get my gist.
Crikey, I’d expect some abuse or at least counter views by now, or is being too long and boring the best way to win an argument? So I have learnt from the royals after all! 😀
C’mon charioteers, this is really quite tame compared to some blogs!
Cuprum buddy,
I know you like to say what you think, and the chariot is all the better for it.
Your opinion, your right. Knock y’self out chum.
I have the opposite point of view. I served my Queen, I drank to her continued reign at ever mess function. The politicos may have seized power and taken the reins but if for just one second, Aunty Liz had said “Can nobody rid me of this turbulent Blair/Bruin/Thatcher/ConDemNation” I and many of my brethren would have not hesitated.
” Delete as applicable.
I am a staunch royalist, I don’t care much for those waiting in the wings, I serve the monarch of the day. I am a loyal and thankful subject of Her Majesty and will probably continue to serve whom-so-ever as she sees fit to appoint as her successor.
Sorry if that jars with your sensibilities Cuprum but that is just the way it is and e’er shall be. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t share a beer with you. We simply disagree on this topic. I can live with it.
Keep on saying your piece mate, it is your birthright and bestowed upon you by Royal decree. As a sneaky parthian shot, parliament are doing their very best to deny you that right on a daily basis. Go figure. 🙂
Thank you Ferret, a perfect retort. And I’m sure, when I stop and think about it, this country is no doubt better for people like your good self. No jarring with me! But sadly you are one of the first to actually not condemn me for having the above views.
I’m certainly very aware of the parliament’s sneaky intentions…we have that in common I dare to suggest
And a beer sounds great!
But…..although what you say is fine by me (not that you need my approval of course), it doesn’t make a case FOR the monarchy. I’d just like to hear someone put a logical case forward so that I can see the reason behind it! 😀
I see chum,
I don’t need a reason or justification. I just like having a monarchy.
Oh ok!
I’ll get my coat!
🙂
It’s not poor grammar, cuprum, it’s a lack of logic. As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t won any argument. Why should we all agree that HM should be accountable to the people, since she is a hereditary constitutional monarch? And because of this fact, she is not the “most powerful woman in the world”. Her task is “to advise and warn” the PM of the day. He does not even need to pass on her words to the Cabinet if he does not feel so inclined. And where the Middle East “messes” come into this, I can’t work out.
Believe me, copper, you do not want one of my “essays in red ink” as my pupils used to call them.
Ferret, good on ya!
Me too.
Cuprum I have to say I agree with you, what good is a toothless monarchy. The Queen has no power other than that given by the state.
I would say though if I had to pick between a president and the Queen it would be the Queen, but if it were Charlie boy or a president then I am not so sure.
The family are a lot of misfits, comes from inbreeding (The Hills have eyes)and not being part of the real world, and every time I see that idiot Harry he looks more and more like captain Hewitt.
As for the wedding I am sick of seeing Katie did this or Katie did that every time I pick up a paper, the press will hound this girl into a tunnel as well just to get a story.. IT was bad enough with all the simpering and public grieve over the last one.
Good luck to the couple but for crying out loud let them get on with their lives in peace.
Yup Rick,
Wills can come back when his butt cheeks are a bit closer to the throne, until then let him get on with it like the rest of us.
And, we have had said hereditary constitutional monarchy in some form or other for centuries, with a short blip called the English Civil War, so although you may dislike it Cuprum, you haven’t really explained logically why you want to change it.
Nice rant though. 🙂
I’m not aiming to win an argument, just try and get involved in a debate. I haven’t claimed a victory, nor do I seek one. But you monarchists don’t seem to want to enter a debate as you can’t bear the thought of anyone criticising an ancient useless system.
Why wouldn’t you want a head of state that’s not accountable? Surely you must understand why some people find that hard to understand? And the relevance to the Middle East matters over heads of State in Egypy, Libya etc?
And thank you for your further patronising, I’m amazed you lowered yourself to even reply to the humble offerings of a commoner.
And it’s Cuprum, not copper, thank you Sheona. I believe a basic amount of common courtesy is expected on this site.
I always wondered why I hated having a teacher as a mother.
At least we agree to say good on ya Ferret, even with incorrect spelling requiring red ink.
But Cuprum,
Ar you suggesting that parliament is accountable?
Thank you Araminta, Rick, Ferret and Toc.
Apologies, I need to go to work now. I shall pop back in tomorrow. Have a lovely evening all. 😀
Ferret – well, it is meant to be! But that’s another story! ‘nite!
Nite chum,
Work for me in 8 hrs yawn.
At least Wills has got me a day off on Friday. I shall make the very best of it and avoid the wedding in every possible way.
Tee hee!
You should be honoured to have attracted Sheona’s academic attention, Cuprum. Don’t get rattled! By the way, do please note that in “… Fergie selling her wears …”, it should be “wares”.
Marshal your arguments, grow the necessary narrative as connective tissue, refine your grammar (including sequence of adjectives) and resubmit. Who knows, you may even get Sheona to address your points, rather than your unstructured presentational lapses.
Bear in mind that monarchists share many of the characteristics of religious devotees – ie. logic doesn’t work with them.
England’s constitutional monarchy has changed over the years, Araminta. If it is to work as effectively as it once did, Lizzie Windsor needs to be given back her teeth and her metaphorical Doc Martins. 😎
Oh Bearsy, harsh.
Some of us are too busy having life crises to do anything other than half baked wiki quote blogs….
😉
G’day Claire – rest assured that Cuprum will understand the humour of my comment. 😀
Indeed Bearsy it has changed, but for the better I would have said, although it would be interesting if she were to stamp her foot occasionally. 🙂
Absolutely, Bearsy. I am sure of it.
Ara: I was wondering whose foot we were talking about then for a moment. 🙂
It’s possibly of passing interest, Araminta, that our Governors-General (both State and Commonwealth) have performed so badly over the years that the office is now entirely ignored except when ceremonial pageantry is required. They fit a constitutional niche and fulfil their purpose, but they are disregarded in all other ways, except when they spend too much money jetting round the world and entertaining, which our current incumbent is very fond of doing. Have you even heard of her, I wonder? 😎
No, I haven’t heard of her, Bearsy but Her Maj is pretty well known, and rarely ignored.
I think the Royal Family with a few notable exceptions is pretty good value; I seem to remember something about she costs us each a couple of pints of milk and a CD, but that was four years ago. 😉
Quentin Bryce, a Queenslander, who is attempting to politicise the appointment and is making a pig’s ear of it.
One of Kevin’s less wise decisions, I fear.
Cuprum
Two thoughts come to mind when reading your ‘Rant”.
1. If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it, and
2. It’s always easy to tear something down, replacing it with something better is difficult.
To my mind, you haven’t made a case for removing the monarchy from the British Constitution. You have concentrated on criticising members of the Royal Family. It really makes no difference whether Charles is an eccentric, Anne only rides horses, Di, Fergie and Sophie were / are glory-seekers, Margaret was “the last Hanoverian Princess” and the Queen Mother was a gin-sodden drunk. They’d be no different if they were members of the Dukes of Wherever’s family and I don’t hear anyone screaming that we should dismantle all the Earldoms, Dukedoms, etc because the members of those families are eccentric, ride horses, seek glory, or are drunken bums…
The behaviour of members of the Royal Family has absolutely no relevance to the role of the monarch in the British Constitution. You need to put a case for dismantling the Constitution of Britain without reference to personalities. You can’t dismiss other people’s arguments because they bring in personalities like Blair, whilst relying on the same sort of arguments yourself…
What one does get with a monarch is someone who has been trained to be a figure-head with no power and accepts that role. What does a Constitutional monarch do that requires ‘accountability’? Very little that I can see.
The system works… and despite all your ranting about the Royal Family, you fail to show that it doesn’t.
If you want to convince people to your way of thinking you must first set out to show that the ‘system is broke’ and then offer suitable alternatives that would ‘mend it’.
At the moment it simply sounds as though your last comment:
… is your real gripe.
Well, Chairman Mao and Kim Il-sung were both staunch republicans, doesn’t mean that they did their countries a bit of good.
The question is what sort of country would a republican Britain, or for that matter Australia, Canada, and New Zealand be. As Mr Bear has already stated, the past few governors general have left much to be desired. All were effectively selected by their own governments as the Queen only appoints a GG on the advice of the PM. If these countries were to simply replace the monarch with a president, the quality of the head of state would be no better than the governor general, perhaps even worse. If a strong president, as is the case in the USA or France, is selected… Well, then it’s really over. The president will naturally have to rise through political machines and be beholden to so many interests that the president will not be able to serve anyone but her or himself and those to whom he owes personal favours. In short, no one would actually be better off and, as has often been the case, the chance is run that things will get even worse.
Apologies, cuprum. As I was typing, husband asked if I knew “cuprum” meant “copper”, which I didn’t, but it obviously stuck in my head and I typed it without realising.
Sheona, no worries, accepted, my apologies for biting too hard back.
A busy night shift, so please bear with!
Talking of bears, thank you Bearsy for your moderating comments. Yes, I have much to learn in relation to writing arguments in this format, and I agree my structure and presentation was a little amateur! I is only ickle and still learning! As for “wares”, chrome didn’t pick me up on that and onbe doesn’t really use that word much so I beg forgiveness!
Christopher – if Aus and NZ elected a president instead of a GG it wouldn’t be as weak as a GG as the people would have a say in the matter next time around. Both great countries seem to manage quite well without the Queen as anything other than a far away theory rather than a practical reality, so why have her at all.
Boadicea – as your intellictual inferior I shall not enter into too much discussion as I don’t have the ability to compete at your level. However, a point or two for clarification if I may.
1. Who says it ain’t broke. Not me, you do. I say the whole democratic system is broke, the monarchy being one of the great contradictions of the word democracy.
2. Don’t put it in the too difficult to repair box – that’s just defeatist. Where would we be if every great scholar, leader, scientist, explorer or revolutionary said – “aw shucks, I can’t think of anything better….let’s leave it”
3. Yep, get rid of the concept of aristocracy with titles and such forth in my humble opinion – it is very much part of the same principle.
I wasn’t actually trying to make a case to replace the monarchy with another system, I was just trying to point out to monarchists what it is they believe in without question. No-one yet has put forward an argument FOR the monarchy as I asked. Which is fine, but surprising.
Anyway, to bed!
cuprum, I think it would take someone with a far greater knowledge of constitutional history than I have to produce a logical argument for or against the monarchy. Complaining about the cost of policing the royal wedding just doesn’t do it, I’m afraid.
I’ll be glad when the bloody wedding is over. It’s depressing watching the country go into ‘Ruritanian” mode.
Cuprum
You’re right – I don’t think the system is broke and you do. It is not incumbent on those of us who are happy with the system to prove that it works or to even bother to think about an alternative.
It’s up to those who want to change the system to make their case. And just the idea that the whole idea of heredity is crap doesn’t wash. One wants to be very careful about tampering with the laws of inheritance as one or two English monarchs found out to their cost…
I will give you my reasons for retaining the monarchy – which you probably won’t accept. Firstly the system has evolved over many centuries and, secondly, it works.
The bit that doesn’t work is the Commons – and I’ll agree that that needs a major overhaul. But to replace a non-political head of State who has no need and no way of getting their sticky snouts into the common pocket with yet another politician seems to me to be a retrograde step – almost tantamount to voting in a Charles I with his notions of Divine Right of Kings…
Jazz
On the ‘Great Day” however many years ago it was I had the most wonderful time – in the Archives which were utterly deserted. No Public Holiday then… I had no interest in that wedding and have even less interest in this one…
It’s bad enough that it looks like our TV is going to be swamped with it – I’m delighted I’m not in the UK where I’m sure it will be far, far worse…
Commiserations 🙂
Boadicea, dear lady, with reference to your –
As you well know, the Australian 2000 Referendum failed because that’s precisely the system that the pollies wanted. But Bruce and Shelia were strongly in favour of the direct election of a non-politician – Rolf Harris or Kylie or Punter – a system which the pollies would not entertain.
Australia will not achieve the changeover to full and final independence until the people have their way on this.
In other words, your objection is a furphy! 😎
OK Bearsy – if you want to take me on in the public forum – so be it!
The Republicans here weren’t that smart – or perhaps they were still sufficiently idealistic to play straight.
Had the Politicians given the matter any thought they would have realised that once a system of ‘electing’ a Head of State was established it would not be too difficult to ensure that the election became politicised and only those ‘acceptable’ to the pollies in power would get on the voting list.
All elections become politicised in the end… Just look at how Campbell Newman will get into the Queensland parliament at the next election because that is what the Liberal / National Party want to happen.
Cuprum, words fail me!
What’s a furphy? And do you want to eat tonight/tomorrow, Bearsy?
A few years ago our German neighbour was sounding off about the British royal family and how we didn’t really need them and would be better off with a president like Germany has. Husband asked who was the current German president and there was an embarrassed silence, finally broken by me. (When you teach German, you’re expected to know about the country.) In fact it was the admirable von Weizsacker at the time. The current incumbent is Christian Wulff, of whom very few people outside Germany have heard. If you’re going to have a president, Bearsy, you might as well have Kylie, who is famous worldwide. Otherwise stick with the lady with the long dress and crown.
have a reason for retaining the Monarchy. It depends on what you see as the role of the replacement. A figurehead like the Monarchy? If that is the case, what is the point? Specifically, if the role would be a figurehead, what does ‘accountability’ have to do with it? What would you get to fill the role? Some past-it politician whose pals want to see pensioned off? Rumpey Pumpey or ‘baroness’ what’s her face? Neil Kinnock? Edward Heath? That’s all you’d get, innit?
Or did you have an executive Head of State in mind? In which case, would you then wish to go the whole hog and institute a system something like the US, with a properly elected upper chamber of Parliament? In which case you would need to write a whole new constitution to ensure that the proper checks and balances were in place, including something like the US Supreme Court to look after it.
Is that enough reason not to fix a something that ain’t broke?
PS. And who’s going to write the constitution? Hint. Compare and contrast the Lisbon constitreaty and the US Consitution – 1,000 + pages of BS compared to… (and one of those pages contains a sneaky little line about ‘criticising the EU…’
Sheona –
It’s my fortnight for doing the cooking! 😆
What you have not done is propose an alternative. At least our Head of State is a wise and well regarded lady of a certain age. When you consider some of the alternatives on offer, well, the mind boggles.
France: A poisonous man who is so worried about his lack of stature, he might well have been Napoleon (actually, by the standards of his time, Napoleon was not that small)
Italy: A crooked sex-maniac who controls the media.
Germany: A sour-faced Frau who still carries a lot of baggage since before the fall of the Wall
The US: A buffoon who seems intent on wrecking the country and is lost without his teleprompter
etc, etc….
Feeg, Spot on.
I couldn’t be bothered to read it all.
But off with his head.
Long live Liz II, Phil the Bubble and Chuck for that matter, although I’m not so sure about Gorilla, but, for the future, roll on the accession of Bill Five and Cath. And all republicans can go and kiss my hairy, frizzy tail. So there!
OZ
Yeah!
Wot OZ said! 🙂
PS. I also took my oath to HM and her heirs and successors, and those she saw fit to set over me. Don’t think a solemn oath to obey the lawful commands of some time-expired political hack or other jobsworth would carry quite the same weight 😀
Bravo – As far as I know here, you, Tocino and Ferret have taken the oath. I tried for the Crabs, pilot, but was knocked back for gammy eyesight. #2 son is in a sandy place, though, which gives me great pride. You are absolutely right that swearing allegiance to a “here today-gone tomorrow” politician would not carry anything like the same weight.
OZ
I took my oath of allegiance on January 8 1962 at Rochester Kent. For me it was a solemn occasion and was the start of a journey that was to last 21 years and 272 days and finish at Chichester West Sussex October 6 1983. During that time I toasted the Queen many, many times at various army functions around the world. For me, that oath remains as strong today as it did all those years ago.
Dear all,
I too have taken an oath to HRH and I serve the people of this country, not her or any political hack, with some pride and so far 17 years of dedication.
I accept I am lucky enough to be able to debate this with you all and I take the resounding defeat on the chariot with a wry smile, a shrug of shoulders and a cheery grin at some of the comments.
I didn’t set about to try and convince you of my way of thinking, apologies if it came that way, but to ask why monarchists are happy with the situation. I can see now I didn’t pose that question very well. Most of you clearly are happy but you haven’t convinced me of the error of my thinking at all I’m afraid. I still think a constitutional monarchy doesn’t work and isn’t morally right. I would be so bold as to say that saying we don’t have to justify it and it ain’t broke aren’t really arguments. But I know you’ll disagree with me there too!
I think we can all agree that the Political situation perhaps may need a whole wake up and shake up – at least we potentially have the power to do so.
Different generations perhaps? Thank you though for a healthy and interesting blog 😀
Bearsy: the inherent weakness in the republican movements in all Commonwealth realms is that there is a lack of agreement on what sort of republic should replace the current system, something which favours maintaining the status quo, especially since constitutional changes are never that easy to make.
Cuprum: that any president would be stronger than a governor general is wishful thinking. Germany’s president, Christian Wulff, is very, very weak and his election forced Merkel to really spent a great deal of her remaining political capital. You could always live in the United States for a while and see how a strong-president system works. Half the country always denies that the president is theirs, that’s always conducive to national unity. (I maintain that I am a German citizen so I have a Kanzler/in to stay out of it when it suits me)
General remark: republicanism is unfounded idealism, one which tries to put aspiration above the obtainable. In the United States politicians have seen to it that there is no more unity behind any president or general respect for Congress — the Democrats drew first blood when they refused to confirm the appointment of a highly qualified judge to the US Supreme Court on ideological grounds. Germany has a weak and generally useless president who does nothing for the country or its prestige. Many people in Germany don’t even know who the president is because it is that irrelevant.
Good for you, Toc. Being from Liverpool in the fifties, I was always proud to drink the Loyal Toast to ‘The Queen, Duke of Lancaster’, which you can’t do anywhere else in the country.
OZ
And the Red Queen has spoken.
I guess we all remember that day. I took my oath on the 14th of April 1967 in Dover and was given three days leave – and three days pay – and a rail warrant to Oswestry, (Where?) where I was to report on the fourth day.
What is the significance of 11th July 1981, please?
Typo Pseu, apologies, it should read 21st July 1981 – Charles and Di’s big day
Oh buggrit, 29th July 1981!
And I swore my oath on July 11th 1994. Still serving.
Cuprum 🙂
When Boadicea became an Australian citizen, she swore –
There was an alternative wording which replaced the reference to God with “I solemnly and sincerely promise and declare …”.
By the time I became a citizen, the oath had been changed to –
The “under God” is optional.
The “Queen of Australia” is a distinct position that is not the same, legally and constitutionally, as “the Queen of England … “. It just happens that Lizzie occupies both posts, but that is not immutable. Not a lot of people know that … 😎
Cuprum,
You have an opinion, it differs wildly to mine but it is yours all the same. Never apologise for posessing it. If we all thought the same way what a crazy fooked up life we would lead.
I am the puppy hereon it seems, I willingly took the shilling on the 20th Oct 1982. I remember my CIO (Careers Information Office) was a tri service malarky. I was in for an interview one day when a li’l lad no more than 8 wandered up to the PO on the Navy desk and said “My dad says, why aren’t you in the Falklands?”
Bearsy: the Statute of Westminster is a thing of beauty, innit?
Aha! I thought it couldn’t be right as 11th July is our anniversary and I would probably have known if our date was the same as theirs!
(Mine was 1997- a Saturday. So on which day of the week did you marry Cuprum?)
My oath to HRH was on a Monday (11th July 94), my oath to the first Mrs C was on a Saturday in October later the same year and the best by a country mile was on a Friday last May to the 2nd Mrs C who I thank every day for agreeing to suffer the rest of her life with me!
Bearsy – fascinating oaths! I couldn’t have done the first one without crossing my fingers! What’s the difference of the two positions with Queenie?
Cheers Ferret! Enjoy your beer and pool on Friday. I have a tee time booked for 1020 hrs!
Kwalitah Cupers,
Kick the rump out of it and you should be able to avoid the whole circus. 🙂
Damned if I can remember the wedding dates of previous models.
Bad enough trying to remember the current incumbent.
Fortunately he has a problem too remembering.
It’s a wonder we know who lives in the house!!!
Tina – it happens….with the passing years 🙂
On Monarchy I tend to agree more with Cuprum than with most of the others here, although I am for keeping it.
There are many good reasons for abolishing the monarchy and barely any for retaining it. I think our craving for an admirable leader is deep-rooted. It comes from the same part of our brain as the urge to lash out when we are provoked. But just as we have channeled our tribal warfaring instincts into sport, should we not just recognise that the whole todo about royalty is just a silly game, and not let ourselves get carried away too much? Let’s remove all political roles from the monarchy and bring its budget down to a sensible level.
Let Will and Kate have their wedding in style. Let Kate have a fancy frock, and put the whole show on TV.
But to spend £20 million on a party, just when the government is slashing important services to the poor, sick, elderly and handicapped? Is that not obscene?
Julie
I probably agree that the whole todo is a silly game – except people make songs and dances about all sorts of ‘celebrities’…
The problem with your idea of cutting the monarch’s budget down to size is that the taxpayer will still have to pay someone to act as Head of State, and to perform all the functions the present mob do. I’m not so sure that one will get someone to do it for the same money year in and year out – I think it’s about ten years since the Civil List was revised…
You might like to consider that the revenues from the Crown Estates (which do not belong to the country) were around 200 million pounds in 2006, and since 2001 the Queen has received 7.9 million per annum – most of that goes on entertaining all the boring old f**s you and I wouldn’t probably have time of day for.
Perhaps it might be a good idea for Her Maj and family to take back their possessions and let the country pay for an alternative Head of State…
… probably not as spectacular, I don’t fancy Blair, Cameron, or any of the rest of the political wannabe “Presidents of the UK” in satin and a tiara!
I do agree with you on the £20 million for a party – but in the scheme of what Britain owes it really is peanuts and sometimes one has to lift the doom and gloom with a little light 🙂
Julie,
Many millions of people will enjoy the wedding celebrations too, do their taxes not count? The treasury should help pay for the good stuff as well as essential services and in the grand scheme of it all 20M is peanuts.
If just 1 third of the UK tax paying public enjoy their day off, that works out at a pound per head. Looking at the websites where rooms in London and the surrounding are for let over the weekend, accomodation is in very high demand which suggests there may be one or two tourists about on Friday. Is this not a good thing.
I shall not be playing on Friday, but for crying out loud. In these times, the last thing I want to do is begrudge anyone a decent excuse for a piss up. Don’t be such a grumpy knickers.
I have not looked into the bill and where the funds are to be found because I honestly couldn’t care less. If you believe 20M on a national celebration is obscene in the face of service cuts. What I wonder, do you call the additional 450 Million Cambuffoon has pledged to invest in the Pakistani education system?
I think someone has been sucked in to the ‘moan about the minutae’ culture.
Hee Hee Boadicea,
Kinda snap!!!
🙂
Hee Hee Ferret
Definitely snap!
🙂
julietee, you say there are many good reasons for abolishing the monarchy, but you do not give any. Cuprum’s list of reasons seemed to amount to naming all those members of the royal family he dislikes and complaining about the money spent on policing the wedding on Friday. The monarchy has no political role, just a constitutional one. What are your good, valid constitutional reasons? Fergie’s toe-sucking doesn’t count.
Spot on, Sheona. Some people have plenty of opinions which turn out to be based on nothing but opinion.
Ferret and Boadicea shame on you, please don’t bring boring data into the argument – where’s the fun in that? But, just to keep the pot boiling, here’s some more:
From UK parliament communications:
…what is the annual cost of the Presidency of the European Council; and how it is met?
Answer by Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, Lord Astor of Hever: In 2010, the cost of the office of the President of the European Council, including staff, travel expenses and salary, is €6 million. The cost is being met this year from within the EU’s annual budget, using funds which had been previously allocated to other Council projects. The budget for the office of the President of the European Council in 2011, like all other EU institutions, is currently being decided as part of ongoing negotiations on the EU’s budget for next year.
Which is better value?
Meanwhile, ‘accountable’ (?)
?
Boadicea, I did say that I am for keeping the monarchy, albeit in a much diminished form, because I prefer it, however bumbling, to some megalomaniac.
One could argue that the Crown Estate, from which hereditary revenues are derived, is national and State property.
Ferret and Boadicea, £20 million is peanuts, is it? This sounds like double-think. Are you not among the first to complain when your hard-earned tax goes on something you don’t like? Could you stand in front of a group of geriatrics whose social and nursing services been reduced, and tell them to stop moaning about the minutae?
Ferret, the £20 million doesn’t cover the cost of the day off, which has been estimated at £5 billion. I am the last person to deny anybody a day off, excuse or no excuse.
Sheona, you want to hear the reasons for abolishing the monarchy. I’ll put them in a separate blog.