PDA

View Full Version : What Is Your Opinion Of The Royal Family?


Stormbringer
27-07-2004, 12:06 PM
I don't live in England, but I was wondering what other people's opinion of the Royal family is.

Sarah
27-07-2004, 12:15 PM
Most people seem to get stressed about it and say ''I hate the royal family''. But I actually love the royal family. They do naff all and get paid. They live in nice houses, sorry mansions, and get treated like, well, royalty.

I actually feel sorry for anyone who marries into the royal family, because if you leave, you'll probably get murdered.

Everything in the royal family is just one big conspiracy. But I like them. I mean, jesus, if we didn't have a royal family, we'd have to have a president, and I really really really don't want that.

duckula
27-07-2004, 12:39 PM
Don't care.

MarkOB
27-07-2004, 12:54 PM
The royal family is the finest facet of our race. It has lasted for well over one millenium and still serves as a symbol of resilience and defiance. I don't know what it is that makes all these people want the leader of their whole nation to be a politician whose only concern is to be elected again in a few years' time.

For Britain especially to dump the monarchy for a republic, we would be pandering to all those who just want to look like everyone else.

Our monarchy is special and it makes us unique. We have no wish just to throw our identity away into the den of left-wing republican lions.

duckula
27-07-2004, 01:07 PM
The royal family is the finest facet of our race. It has lasted for well over one millenium and still serves as a symbol of resilience and defiance.

That is the funniest thing I've heard in weeks.

MarkOB
27-07-2004, 02:00 PM
That is the funniest thing I've heard in weeks.

Oh, don't worry, I've got more in me yet! :icon_icon

Sarah
27-07-2004, 02:05 PM
The royal family is the finest facet of our race. It has lasted for well over one millenium.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the royal family begin in 1066? Thats not a millenium yet.

MarkOB
27-07-2004, 02:27 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the royal family begin in 1066? Thats not a millenium yet.

If we're being strict we've had kings and queens since well before that. Before the Normans there was the House of Wessex. That takes us back to at least the early years of the ninth century. And you could even go well before that when you consider the rulers of the different kingdoms in the country.

Look at King Arthur, for example!! :)

Sarah
27-07-2004, 02:32 PM
If we're being strict we've had kings and queens since well before that. Before the Normans there was the House of Wessex. That takes us back to at least the early years of the ninth century. And you could even go well before that when you consider the rulers of the different kingdoms in the country.

Look at King Arthur, for example!! :)

King Arthur wasn't real... not really real.

MarkOB
27-07-2004, 02:52 PM
King Arthur wasn't real... not really real.

That's why I put the little smiley guy!

ChocolateMoose
27-07-2004, 03:28 PM
Our monarchy is special and it makes us unique. We have no wish just to throw our identity away into the den of left-wing republican lions.

Yes!!! I love the Royal Family for that very reason. Its a great symbol of the country and has exisited for a long, long time. We can't just abolish it. Its like the Euro/Pound. Just like the pound, our monachy makes us individual and stand out. :)

And I definatly, do not want a president.

Also, what would happen if we stopped having a Royal Family? I mean, what would the family do?

duckula
27-07-2004, 05:07 PM
You're right, it is just like the Euro/Pound thing accept we haven't adopted the Euro but we have taken on some European monarchs. May I present for your delectmant: The Norman Conquest (from Normandy, France!), The House Of Orange (from Holland), The House of Brunswick (from Hanover which is in modern Germany), The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (from Germany, again) and everyones favourite ruling family, The House of Windsor (from Germany, yet again).

This combined with all matter of intra-European royal copulation and matrimony has led us to have a long and distinguished line of monarchs who I would consider more European than British. It's alright to be proud, just make sure you are proud of the right thing for the right reasons.

MarkOB
27-07-2004, 05:39 PM
You're right, it is just like the Euro/Pound thing accept we haven't adopted the Euro but we have taken on some European monarchs. May I present for your delectmant: The Norman Conquest (from Normandy, France!), The House Of Orange (from Holland), The House of Brunswick (from Hanover which is in modern Germany), The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (from Germany, again) and everyones favourite ruling family, The House of Windsor (from Germany, yet again).

This combined with all matter of intra-European royal copulation and matrimony has led us to have a long and distinguished line of monarchs who I would consider more European than British. It's alright to be proud, just make sure you are proud of the right thing for the right reasons.

So is this an argument for anti-European xenophobia?

It's all well and good talking about the history of British monarch families. Even true Anglo-Saxons have a bit of the Celt, the German Saxon, the Danish Jute and the Norman French. Why do people always come back to this silly point when they hear arguments about British national identity?

duckula
27-07-2004, 05:46 PM
My argument is for us to embrace our European identity. I don't see national pride as a reason for keeping an outdated institution. I would prefer to see our nation headed by someone who has achieved something in their life rather than sitting around leeching of the public.

MarkOB
27-07-2004, 05:52 PM
My argument is for us to embrace our European identity. I don't see national pride as a reason for keeping an outdated institution. I would prefer to see our nation headed by someone who has achieved something in their life rather than sitting around leeching of the public.

Why do we always feel an impulse to embrace a new identity? We used to feel a very special local identity, then a regional identity. Now we feel a kind of national identity. Soon we'll be feeling a continental idea. And where next? Why do we always have to go looking for something new to cuddle up to?

And how has the Queen achieved nothing in her life? I agree it's a little unfair that someone is head of state because of their birth. But I'd rather our head of state was born that way than made their way there through dodgy deals and sleaze.

It's not as though the monarch wields any real power anyway. The monarch is a symbol, not a supervisor!

Why do we have to go trying to change who we are all the time?

duckula
27-07-2004, 06:03 PM
It's is called bettering yourself.

MarkOB
27-07-2004, 06:11 PM
It's is called bettering yourself.

'Bettering' implies you're getting better.

duckula
27-07-2004, 06:21 PM
Yep, and getting rid of an outdated aspect of our governance and embrassing a larger identity is a good thing. We don't have to stop being proud of our local, regional and national heritage but we can be proud of being European aswell.
As for the matter of her only being a symbolic ruler, that is true to a degree but she still retains some power (to delay if nothing else) and if we must have a symbol I would prefer it be symbolic of something other than the fact we can't be bothered to change things.

Dyce_Blue
27-07-2004, 06:41 PM
This is something that I have never been sure about. Does the royal family have any real power to affect the government? Can the queen make big decisions and whatnot? Also, who is the heir to the throne, is it Charles or William?

Sarah
27-07-2004, 06:44 PM
Charles, it goes in order. And they can make some decisions, the Queen recently banned a newspaper from revealing information about Buckingham palace or whatever it was.

Dyce_Blue
27-07-2004, 06:48 PM
Again, I'm just an ignorant American. Was Diana the one with the royal blood, or did she marry into the royal family?

Sarah
27-07-2004, 06:50 PM
She married into the royal family. She married Charles and they had 2 sons, William and Henry (or known to everyone as Harry)

MarkOB
27-07-2004, 06:52 PM
This is something that I have never been sure about. Does the royal family have any real power to affect the government? Can the queen make big decisions and whatnot? Also, who is the heir to the throne, is it Charles or William?

The monarch's only power is ceremonial. Technically the monarch is the one who passes all laws, but no monarch has rejected a law for a very long time (centuries, we're talking, I believe).

A lot of the powers that used to belong to the monarch - declaring war, etc. - are now largely handed to the Prime Minister under the 'Royal Prerogative'. Some people advocate many of those powers going to Parliament.

The case that one person mentioned about the Queen banning information about the palace being published: I don't know about that case in particular, but I would assume it was the decision of the courts. The monarch can't ban anything from being published. But she - like any of us - can go to the courts and seek an injunction to prevent something being published in the media. Especially if there's a security concern, as that might have been.

And on the question of who's the heir, technically it's Charles. But if there's enough popular feeling it could go to William. (More proof that the royals are actually very much in tune with the people.)

Sarah
27-07-2004, 06:54 PM
And on the question of who's the heir, technically it's Charles. But if there's enough popular feeling it could go to William. (More proof that the royals are actually very much in tune with the people.)

It won't. They have rules, you know.

Hazzle
28-07-2004, 12:43 AM
Charles, it goes in order. And they can make some decisions, the Queen recently banned a newspaper from revealing information about Buckingham palace or whatever it was.

Sorry, no, that's wrong. If you're referring to the undercover journalists who posed for jobs in the palace, they were injuncted in court under Breach of Confidence. I had to study this so if that's the incident you're referring to, sorry but that's not a royal power.

You could, for example, stop papers from publishing (if they had a reason to) your medical history, as the person who divulged it would be under a duty of confidence. And as wodnerful as you are, and a queen in my eyes ;) you're not technically a member of the royal family.

The queen has absolutely no de facto power...she hasn't refused to assent to a bill in ages, the queen's list is drawn up by the Civil Service (I recently applied for a job in that area...sadly didn't get it :(), and the names chosen by the Prime Minister...in fact basically the ENTIRE royal prerogative belongs to the Prime Minister who is, for all intents and purposes, "the crown".

alby
28-07-2004, 01:03 AM
I don't live in England, but I was wondering what other people's opinion of the Royal family is.

All the perks of royalty. Can't think of many who'd turn that down.

KRev
28-07-2004, 03:04 AM
Talking heads. About as useless US/Mexico border.

Kelsey
28-07-2004, 06:37 AM
I find the whole royalty thing fascinating. Although I do admit that as an American, my childhood views of princesses included fairy godmothers and white ponies. I wrote a screenplay loosely based on Charlotte Casiraghi, so I was really interested in all of it for awhile.

Sarah, why do you say it's all a conspiracy...and if one leaves the royal family, will they really get murdered? The little I know is based on Diana, so I'm not trying to be dumb or anything. I find that theory kind of interesting.

MarkOB
28-07-2004, 11:31 AM
I find the whole royalty thing fascinating. Although I do admit that as an American, my childhood views of princesses included fairy godmothers and white ponies. I wrote a screenplay loosely based on Charlotte Casiraghi, so I was really interested in all of it for awhile.

Sarah, why do you say it's all a conspiracy...and if one leaves the royal family, will they really get murdered? The little I know is based on Diana, so I'm not trying to be dumb or anything. I find that theory kind of interesting.

This is not to demean Diana's good work for charity, but she was a bit of a troublemaker. It is not difficult to see why the security services would try and find a way to silence her.

I once remember reading somewhere that, about a year before her death, Diana said to someone that she knew a lot more secrets about the royal family and was prepared to tell them.

I do think it's all very suspicious, but why not let sleeping dogs lay? It was a very long time ago and we're wasting a lot of time and money still trying to get to the bottom of the whole incident.

deviljet88
28-07-2004, 11:57 AM
They're just a really old family who used to have some power in England. Now as KRev said, they're as useful as the US/Mexico border. I live in a Commonwealth country, Australia, and really I don't see the Queen thinking about us.

Sarah
28-07-2004, 11:57 AM
Haz, oh ok, I didn't realise that. I was told that the Queen banned The Mirror from publishing stuff, so I'll stand down on that one, you're right. :)
--


Sarah, why do you say it's all a conspiracy...and if one leaves the royal family, will they really get murdered? The little I know is based on Diana, so I'm not trying to be dumb or anything. I find that theory kind of interesting.


Well I admit I was exaggerating that they'd get murdered, but I do feel that Diana's death wasn't an accident. It was too convenient for the royal family. They never liked her and once she left the royal family, they didn't want anything to do with her and they just needed rid of her. Thst the way I see it.

But its true that once you leave the family, you're treated like dirt. There are so many secrets with that family and I just feel that most things to do with them is a conspiracy.

MarkOB
28-07-2004, 12:01 PM
They're just a really old family who used to have some power in England. Now as KRev said, they're as useful as the US/Mexico border. I live in a Commonwealth country, Australia, and really I don't see the Queen thinking about us.

It's not as though the Queen can do much for any Commonwealth country either. Her hands are well and truly tied. I bet if she could she wouldn't have just given Zimbabwe a slap on the wrists.

Hazzle
28-07-2004, 04:19 PM
This is not to demean Diana's good work for charity, but she was a bit of a troublemaker. It is not difficult to see why the security services would try and find a way to silence her.

I once remember reading somewhere that, about a year before her death, Diana said to someone that she knew a lot more secrets about the royal family and was prepared to tell them.

I do think it's all very suspicious, but why not let sleeping dogs lay? It was a very long time ago and we're wasting a lot of time and money still trying to get to the bottom of the whole incident.

What he said...Diana did amazing work for charity but she wasn't the saint she's been painted out to be after her death...why do we insist on doing that to people after they die?