The Windsors

My mum always complained that I didn't wait 5 days longer to be born, then I would have been exactly the same age as Prince Charles. Why? Beats me?

I am looking forward to an extra days holiday next year. Anyone for a game of golf.....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
I can't believe there isn't a thread on here yet, .......QUOTE]

I can.

Stuck between The Adams Family and the UK meeja, with constant comparisons made with her partner's late mother. Plus Harry Hewitt for a brother-in-law. Her cup of joy truly runs over.

Joe

I couldn't care less.

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bibb:
Plus Harry Hewitt for a brother-in-law.

Joe

It would be fascinating to see a DNA test, just to know whether he has any claim to the throne. He's a spitting image, though.

The soap opera rolls on. Never mind all the real news, this tripe is all we'll get for months.

steve

The happy couple are planning a more 'modern' wedding, apparently...

Does that mean there'll also be an 'HRH third-in-line-to-the-throne' in the wedding photographs?... just a thought.

quote:

The happy couple are planning a more 'modern' wedding, apparently...

Bride in trackie bottoms, groom in baseball cap, a group of elderly aunts not talking to one another, dads dancing badly, best man shagging a drunk bridesmaid in the cloakroom, screaming kids running about and someone being sick in a potted plant maybe?

steve

It'll all be in Hello! and then they'll complain about their privacy being invaded.

I love the pageantry and history - I would like to see the full works and good luck to them both says I.

The country on it's knees, the general population being thrown on the scrapheap, wheel out the royals to do the honourable thing and have a wedding to take our attention off being 'royally' shafted !

WHO'S PAYING FOR IT ?

I think it's lovely, and don't begrudge chipping in my £1 towards the cost, which will net the UK much more than £50m through tourism, etc.

quote:

WHO'S PAYING FOR IT ?

Er, we are, but then we will receive all the extra income from increased tourism etc. Handled correctly the country should see a huge benefit form this.

Why doesn't somebody open up WindsorWorld and charge a fortune to go and gawk at them so those who want it can pay and leave the rest of us out of it.

And does anybody seriously think tourists would stop coming if there was no royal family? That's preposterous. The Palace of Versailles is one of the single biggest tourist attractions in the world and the French had the good sense to get rid of their monarchy over two hundred years ago.

I think Tom's point is interesting. Hereditary office is obviously absurd and indefensible and the tourism argument is the one most frequently put forward in its defence. Arguably there might be far more tourism opportunities if the palaces (at least the ones that aren't the personal property of the Windsors) were no longer private houses. I realise that there's a counter argument about the attraction of 'living history' etc, but it's certainly not guaranteed that there would be a significant loss of income.

quote:

and the French had the good sense to get rid of their monarchy over two hundred years ago.

Well let's face it they had to do something right eventually.


I'll agree with Tom and David, there's enough "dead" history to keep every body going.

Changing of the Guard etc can be kept going cos no one every sees an HRH, state opening of Parliament can be done without any HRHs too,IMO of course.

Changing of the Guard can't happen, because the Guards are HM's bodyguard.

How about "Changing with the Guards" where a bunch of minor celebrities march round with real soldiers each week and a military panel votes one off?

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
Changing of the Guard can't happen, because the Guards are HM's bodyguard.

Make them someone else's body guard then, or even rename them, they wouldn't all melt if she weren't about.

Well, I for one am quite happy to have the Royal Family and to pay my fair share for it.

It saves the cost and farce of electing a President every 4 or 5 years and keeps State visits and the like, separate from politics.

I've never seen a properly set-out account of the cost of the family set against their contribution to the economy, but my guess is it isn't as costly as some headline figures might suggest. And if a Royal wedding is all it takes to improve the wellbeing of half the nation - even better.

Cheers

Don

For me the cost of the Royals isn't the issue (not that I think the money is well spent - I don't). I just think the hereditary monarchy is absurd, archaic and - in a purely technical sense - degrading. I'd much rather be a citizen than a subject.

I really wouldn't want an American style presidency either - I'd want someone separate from government who did the state stuff that the queen does. I think the Irish presidency is like that?

And the German as well.

The trouble is that to change system in the Anglo-Saxon culture of Britain is likely to lead to an US style Presidency.

President Thatcher, Blair, or Mandelssohn? The thought is almost terrifying - no it is terrifying!

I was talking to my Norwegian aunt about the Norwegian Monarchy, and she thought it had run its course, and it is time for evolutionary change. But toward the German or Irish model of Presidency.

No doubt this will be regarded as a heresy, but I agree with her ...

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:
For me the cost of the Royals isn't the issue (not that I think the money is well spent - I don't). I just think the hereditary monarchy is absurd, archaic and - in a purely technical sense - degrading. I'd much rather be a citizen than a subject.

Exactly.

quote:

The trouble is that to change system in the Anglo-Saxon culture of Britain is likely to lead to an US style Presidency

Why do you say this George? What's different about Germany, Ireland and maybe even Norway?