This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Tis a shame I wont be in London to see the what will be a spectacular flotilla of boats. I'm not royalist, not even that patriotic, but the whole celebratory thing is great. Damn, That will be something worth witnessing, a once in a lifetime extravaganza. No street party my way either. Instead have made plans to be at a beer festival along with Jools Holland. LOL
What will you be doing? Will you be besides,better still on the Thames?
What will you be doing? Will you be besides,better still on the Thames?
In reply to Blizzard: Ignoring it,as much as possible.
In reply to Blizzard: wondering what else we could be doing with the money saved if the monarchy was abolished. I'll assume the ÕP is trolling
In reply to Blizzard: hopefully in Provence by then, climbing and staying away from it all I hope.
My father took us into the Brecon Beacons for the last jubilee and the Royal weeding, sorry wedding, I'm taking his example, avoid if possible.
My father took us into the Brecon Beacons for the last jubilee and the Royal weeding, sorry wedding, I'm taking his example, avoid if possible.
In reply to Blizzard: flying to corfu
In reply to Blizzard:
The only thing I have planned for definite over the whole weekend is playing a gig in a pub.
We did discuss learning God Save The Queen - The Sex Pistols version, obviously - but never actually got round to it, as we got bogged down with AC/DC instead for a wedding gig a few weeks later, and the bride insists on it...
The only thing I have planned for definite over the whole weekend is playing a gig in a pub.
We did discuss learning God Save The Queen - The Sex Pistols version, obviously - but never actually got round to it, as we got bogged down with AC/DC instead for a wedding gig a few weeks later, and the bride insists on it...
In reply to The Big Man:
Spending it on Presidential Elections, and all the associated costs of having an elected Head of State, plus the irritation of potentially having to listen to the electioneering lies of candidates, and the waste of time of going out and voting for one of them who is the least objectionable by the tiniest of margins...
> (In reply to Blizzard) wondering what else we could be doing with the money saved if the monarchy was abolished.
Spending it on Presidential Elections, and all the associated costs of having an elected Head of State, plus the irritation of potentially having to listen to the electioneering lies of candidates, and the waste of time of going out and voting for one of them who is the least objectionable by the tiniest of margins...
In reply to Dominion:
We were asked to play ( for free ) at a local "fete" and I said we'd do if we could do Anarchy In The UK and God Save The Queen.
They never got back to me...............
We were asked to play ( for free ) at a local "fete" and I said we'd do if we could do Anarchy In The UK and God Save The Queen.
They never got back to me...............
In reply to Dominion:
Why does everyone assume of we get rid of the stupid royals we have to replace it with someone/thing equally stupid?
Let's just get rid of them, no replacements needed.
Why does everyone assume of we get rid of the stupid royals we have to replace it with someone/thing equally stupid?
Let's just get rid of them, no replacements needed.
In reply to JayPee630:
Why do you assume you are going to have any say in the matter, and that politicians won't do whatever they want to?
> Why does everyone assume of we get rid of the stupid royals we have to replace it with someone/thing equally stupid?
>
> Let's just get rid of them, no replacements needed.
>
> Let's just get rid of them, no replacements needed.
Why do you assume you are going to have any say in the matter, and that politicians won't do whatever they want to?
In reply to Blizzard:
Fancy dress for the kids and then a beach bbq and party. If the weather will be as good as this week it'll be glorious. Can't wait.
Isn't being huffy about it all just missing out on a good weekend?
Fancy dress for the kids and then a beach bbq and party. If the weather will be as good as this week it'll be glorious. Can't wait.
Isn't being huffy about it all just missing out on a good weekend?
In reply to Blizzard:
I'll be on the Thames, I have put together a flotilla of 56 boats - each carrying a different flag of the Commonwealth.
It's for the Sea Cadets and they'll be in diamond formation just after the rowers. Look out for us on telly.
I'll be on the Thames, I have put together a flotilla of 56 boats - each carrying a different flag of the Commonwealth.
It's for the Sea Cadets and they'll be in diamond formation just after the rowers. Look out for us on telly.
In reply to Blizzard:
Hiding down a big hole - gaping ghyll is the plan
Hiding down a big hole - gaping ghyll is the plan
In reply to Tony the Blade: I will. I'll be flicking the non-victory V's at you as well...
In reply to Dominion:
We do that already with prime minister elections. It's not all black and white.
> (In reply to The Big Man)
>
> [...]
>
> Spending it on Presidential Elections, and all the associated costs of having an elected Head of State, plus the irritation of potentially having to listen to the electioneering lies of candidates, and the waste of time of going out and voting for one of them who is the least objectionable by the tiniest of margins...
>
> [...]
>
> Spending it on Presidential Elections, and all the associated costs of having an elected Head of State, plus the irritation of potentially having to listen to the electioneering lies of candidates, and the waste of time of going out and voting for one of them who is the least objectionable by the tiniest of margins...
We do that already with prime minister elections. It's not all black and white.
In reply to Blizzard: Working!!! Cancer does not have a bank holiday..even by Royal decree!!!!
In reply to Blizzard:
In Wales, with no mobile reception, tv, Internet. Lots of climbing, drinking and relaxing. God bless you ma'am
In Wales, with no mobile reception, tv, Internet. Lots of climbing, drinking and relaxing. God bless you ma'am
In reply to Blizzard:
Wild camping, and whilst enjoying the relative silence raising a glass to Her Maj for the extra day off.
Wild camping, and whilst enjoying the relative silence raising a glass to Her Maj for the extra day off.
In reply to Blizzard:
I've been asked to be involved in the 21 gun salute as part of he village celebrations, other than that not much:
I've been asked to be involved in the 21 gun salute as part of he village celebrations, other than that not much:
In reply to Blizzard: Moving my buisiness from our current premises to new ones. Hopefully we will manage it over the 4 day holiday as all the staff are coming in to help.
In reply to Blizzard: Wild camping somewhere near Fort William. The last extra bank holiday we had was spent in near perfect weather in a bothy, so it would be rude to not keep up with tradition...
In reply to Blizzard:
I'm leaving the country in protest.
Well, I'm going to a conference in Stavanger.
I'm leaving the country in protest.
Well, I'm going to a conference in Stavanger.
In reply to The Big Man:
The Monarchy brings huge amounts of revenue to this country
> (In reply to Blizzard) wondering what else we could be doing with the money saved if the monarchy was abolished. I'll assume the ÕP is trolling
The Monarchy brings huge amounts of revenue to this country
In reply to Dominion:
Because we live in a democracy and my opinion counts?
Anyway, I'll be avoiding all things Royal by following the olympic flame for a couple of days... So replacing one pointless escapade with another. Please for the love of Queenie don't tell me that the flame goes past her royal lowness as part of the celebrations?
> Why do you assume you are going to have any say in the matter, and that politicians won't do whatever they want to?
Because we live in a democracy and my opinion counts?
Anyway, I'll be avoiding all things Royal by following the olympic flame for a couple of days... So replacing one pointless escapade with another. Please for the love of Queenie don't tell me that the flame goes past her royal lowness as part of the celebrations?
In reply to EZ:
Oh and obviously, I'll actually be doing the sensible thing and spending half of it with my other half and half climbing with my friends.
Oh and obviously, I'll actually be doing the sensible thing and spending half of it with my other half and half climbing with my friends.
In reply to fijibaby:
Agreed. We are getting an extra day off and the medium term weather forecast is OK - nowhere near as good as this weekend but then this weekend's weather was better than any I can remember, totally cloudless for three days for me with 25c to boot.
Whatever happens, do what makes you happy and dont worry about anarchy, dethronement and all that rubbish. Im no OK reading Royal loving mentalist, just an average bloke who thinks that we would be slightly worse off without the royals. i dont agree with all they do and represent but being purely mercenary about it, they do attract a lot of inward investment from foreign tourists. i also appreciate they probably spend a fair bit too, before anyone gets on that soapbox.
> (In reply to Blizzard)
> Fancy dress for the kids and then a beach bbq and party. If the weather will be as good as this week it'll be glorious. Can't wait.
> Isn't being huffy about it all just missing out on a good weekend?
> Fancy dress for the kids and then a beach bbq and party. If the weather will be as good as this week it'll be glorious. Can't wait.
> Isn't being huffy about it all just missing out on a good weekend?
Agreed. We are getting an extra day off and the medium term weather forecast is OK - nowhere near as good as this weekend but then this weekend's weather was better than any I can remember, totally cloudless for three days for me with 25c to boot.
Whatever happens, do what makes you happy and dont worry about anarchy, dethronement and all that rubbish. Im no OK reading Royal loving mentalist, just an average bloke who thinks that we would be slightly worse off without the royals. i dont agree with all they do and represent but being purely mercenary about it, they do attract a lot of inward investment from foreign tourists. i also appreciate they probably spend a fair bit too, before anyone gets on that soapbox.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
What a shame that so many people in this benighted country of ours can't see past narrow self-interest and narrow rationalism.
There are eccentric, illogical, historical curiosities to which the best attitude is one of respect, affection and warm support.
My granny is one. The monarchy is another.
Neither makes sense, but is that really the point?
What a shame that so many people in this benighted country of ours can't see past narrow self-interest and narrow rationalism.
There are eccentric, illogical, historical curiosities to which the best attitude is one of respect, affection and warm support.
My granny is one. The monarchy is another.
Neither makes sense, but is that really the point?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
It certainly makes sense if you are the eccentric illogical historical curiosity.
Your granny is allowed, by virtue of her grannyhood, to bake biscuits with you and to stop abruptly for no apparent reason outside the Post Office.
Your queen is allowed, by virtue of her queenhood, to own all of the land that makes up the country and to have access to sensitive political information that enables her to make huge investments that pay for massive palaces, huge regalia, foreign holidays, local holidays and generally not having to work for a living like her 'subjects'!
Both make perfect sense and that is the point.
It certainly makes sense if you are the eccentric illogical historical curiosity.
Your granny is allowed, by virtue of her grannyhood, to bake biscuits with you and to stop abruptly for no apparent reason outside the Post Office.
Your queen is allowed, by virtue of her queenhood, to own all of the land that makes up the country and to have access to sensitive political information that enables her to make huge investments that pay for massive palaces, huge regalia, foreign holidays, local holidays and generally not having to work for a living like her 'subjects'!
Both make perfect sense and that is the point.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Im not even sure i get where you are coming from. For the sake of clarity, I'm a self confessed Manorchy fence sitter. I quite like the Queen and i think Prince Philip is a comedy ace. I dont have much time for Charles and Camilla but I think William (Kate) and Harry and great Royal British advertisments and view them with affection and i suport them warmly. I think princess Anne does a great job, as do her offspring but her brothers are just posh royal baffoons IMO. I dont know enough about the 2nd tier royals to pass comment. As I said, some of the Royals add great value to the country, some less so. Should they be thrown out and we turned into a republic, iI dont think that would benefit our country. Would I be desperate if they were, not fussed realy.
Does this make me a gody or baddies because i struggled to understand what you meant?
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
>
> What a shame that so many people in this benighted country of ours can't see past narrow self-interest and narrow rationalism.
>
> There are eccentric, illogical, historical curiosities to which the best attitude is one of respect, affection and warm support.
>
> My granny is one. The monarchy is another.
>
> Neither makes sense, but is that really the point?
>
>
> What a shame that so many people in this benighted country of ours can't see past narrow self-interest and narrow rationalism.
>
> There are eccentric, illogical, historical curiosities to which the best attitude is one of respect, affection and warm support.
>
> My granny is one. The monarchy is another.
>
> Neither makes sense, but is that really the point?
Im not even sure i get where you are coming from. For the sake of clarity, I'm a self confessed Manorchy fence sitter. I quite like the Queen and i think Prince Philip is a comedy ace. I dont have much time for Charles and Camilla but I think William (Kate) and Harry and great Royal British advertisments and view them with affection and i suport them warmly. I think princess Anne does a great job, as do her offspring but her brothers are just posh royal baffoons IMO. I dont know enough about the 2nd tier royals to pass comment. As I said, some of the Royals add great value to the country, some less so. Should they be thrown out and we turned into a republic, iI dont think that would benefit our country. Would I be desperate if they were, not fussed realy.
Does this make me a gody or baddies because i struggled to understand what you meant?
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
not quite sure you get the idea of a hereditary monarchy. We dont get to vote for the one we want next.
> (In reply to Blizzard)
>
> William for King.......
>
> William for King.......
not quite sure you get the idea of a hereditary monarchy. We dont get to vote for the one we want next.
In reply to dissonance:
Very true. When is Charlie next in Paris....
To the OP:
Was meant to be on the flotilla but a security review put paid to numbers allowed on the boat. Will now be with the other gazillion on the banks watching the pageant. Not a royalist in any sense but it's a unique event and London is always fun(up to a point) during these sort of events.
Will be taking advantage of the 2 extra days though to disappear off into the wilds.
Very true. When is Charlie next in Paris....
To the OP:
Was meant to be on the flotilla but a security review put paid to numbers allowed on the boat. Will now be with the other gazillion on the banks watching the pageant. Not a royalist in any sense but it's a unique event and London is always fun(up to a point) during these sort of events.
Will be taking advantage of the 2 extra days though to disappear off into the wilds.
In reply to Blizzard:
I will be in work, not that we'll get many calls cos everyone will think we are closed or will be doing much more fun things like climbing.
I will be in work, not that we'll get many calls cos everyone will think we are closed or will be doing much more fun things like climbing.
In reply to dissonance:
******sigh****** doesnt even deserve a response.
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
> [...]
>
> not quite sure you get the idea of a hereditary monarchy. We dont get to vote for the one we want next.
> [...]
>
> not quite sure you get the idea of a hereditary monarchy. We dont get to vote for the one we want next.
******sigh****** doesnt even deserve a response.
In reply to Blizzard: i got no problem with the monarchy as people. But I do as a symbol that someone is inherently better or more entitled than me through an accident of birth.
And what does get my goat is all the dinners and functions that are thrown (at our expense) for the world's oppressors,dictators,tyrants and torturers all wearing their being and finery and costing up for group photos - this I find sickening.
And what does get my goat is all the dinners and functions that are thrown (at our expense) for the world's oppressors,dictators,tyrants and torturers all wearing their being and finery and costing up for group photos - this I find sickening.
In reply to Blizzard: The royals make a NET profit for country, let alone adding the tourism into the picture.
In reply to FreshSlate: post a reliable link proving this please.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Im should read I am or I'm
i should read I
Manorchy should read monarchy with a lower case m
i should read I
dont should read do not or don't
and great Royal should read are great Royal
i should read I
suport should read support
princess Anne should have a capital P
as do her offspring should be followed by a comma
dont should read do not or don't
royals could read Royals or not, but please make your mind up which it is and stick to it
we turned into should read we be turned into
il should read I
dont should read do not or don't
that would should read that that would
Would I be desperate if they were, not fussed realy. isn't a sentence and
realy should read really
gody should read goody
baddies should read baddie (singular) or baddy
i should read I
Honestly, if you are going to start throwing stones then get out of the greenhouse! hahaha
> ******sigh****** doesnt even deserve
being picked up for spelling and syntax errors just because> i struggled to understand what you meant?
But I'm going to! Hahahaha.Im should read I am or I'm
i should read I
Manorchy should read monarchy with a lower case m
i should read I
dont should read do not or don't
and great Royal should read are great Royal
i should read I
suport should read support
princess Anne should have a capital P
as do her offspring should be followed by a comma
dont should read do not or don't
royals could read Royals or not, but please make your mind up which it is and stick to it
we turned into should read we be turned into
il should read I
dont should read do not or don't
that would should read that that would
Would I be desperate if they were, not fussed realy. isn't a sentence and
realy should read really
gody should read goody
baddies should read baddie (singular) or baddy
i should read I
Honestly, if you are going to start throwing stones then get out of the greenhouse! hahaha
In reply to The Big Man:
and then please calculate how much tourism we would lose overnight if the monarchy was abolished!
Sam
> (In reply to Blizzard) wondering what else we could be doing with the money saved if the monarchy was abolished. I'll assume the ÕP is trolling
and then please calculate how much tourism we would lose overnight if the monarchy was abolished!
Sam
In reply to EZ:
Nor does that. Just typing far too quickly and couldnt be arsed to proof read.
The tomatoes are doing fine, by the way.
Nor does that. Just typing far too quickly and couldnt be arsed to proof read.
The tomatoes are doing fine, by the way.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
By the way, the spelling error was there on purpose. Did you spot it?
> (In reply to EZ)
>
> Nor does that. Just typing far too quickly and couldnt be arsed to proof read.
>
> The tomatoes are doing fine, by the way.
>
> Nor does that. Just typing far too quickly and couldnt be arsed to proof read.
>
> The tomatoes are doing fine, by the way.
By the way, the spelling error was there on purpose. Did you spot it?
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Slovenly is the word if you knew it was wrong and couldn't be bothered to make it right.
Slovenly is the word if you knew it was wrong and couldn't be bothered to make it right.
In reply to Blizzard: I'm going to travel back to 1984 to have a rap battle with Rick Moranis, then I'm going to have a jet ski race with the cast of police academy.
We're planning a red, white & blue themed Jubilympics* BBQ which may feature an egg & spoon race and a flaming torch to light he BBQ of course.
* http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/twenty_twelve/episodes/2/3/
* http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/twenty_twelve/episodes/2/3/
In reply to Sam Mayfield: do you go to Rome to see the pope or all the wonderful buildings.
London and Britain is a fabulous tourist mecca regardless of royalty.
London and Britain is a fabulous tourist mecca regardless of royalty.
In reply to EZ:
Is it dark up there?
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Slovenly is the word if you knew it was wrong and couldn't be bothered to make it right.
>
> Slovenly is the word if you knew it was wrong and couldn't be bothered to make it right.
Is it dark up there?
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Since it is at best a minor reason to visit and the crown estates would be more available.
Very little.
Just compare the visitor numbers of tower of London vs Windsor (the top royal palace)
> and then please calculate how much tourism we would lose overnight if the monarchy was abolished!
Since it is at best a minor reason to visit and the crown estates would be more available.
Very little.
Just compare the visitor numbers of tower of London vs Windsor (the top royal palace)
In reply to David Hooper:
And the crown estates don't count. As they don't belong to the royals
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo) post a reliable link proving this please.
And the crown estates don't count. As they don't belong to the royals
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
And yet you gave one even if content free
> ******sigh****** doesnt even deserve a response.
And yet you gave one even if content free
In reply to EZ:
Depends what your opinion is, it seems: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/27/activists-arrested-challenge-polic...
> Because we live in a democracy and my opinion counts?
Depends what your opinion is, it seems: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/27/activists-arrested-challenge-polic...
In reply to EZ:
Splendid
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> No mate... illumination is a bright and cheerful place!
>
> No mate... illumination is a bright and cheerful place!
Splendid
In reply to Hannah Montana: Watch out for all the summit top beacons the list is fairly extensive across all UK hill ranges!
In reply to Blizzard:
I will spend the day wearing my WW2 uniform and masturbating into my Jubilee mug.
I will spend the day wearing my WW2 uniform and masturbating into my Jubilee mug.
In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:
so situation normal then?
> (In reply to Blizzard)
>
> I will spend the day wearing my WW2 uniform and masturbating into my Jubilee mug.
>
> I will spend the day wearing my WW2 uniform and masturbating into my Jubilee mug.
so situation normal then?
In reply to dissonance:
not quite, i will make a bit of an effort and dust down my SS uniform.
> (In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King)
> [...]
>
> so situation normal then?
> [...]
>
> so situation normal then?
not quite, i will make a bit of an effort and dust down my SS uniform.
Can we not privatise the Monarchy?
You know, a lump sum for selling it, tax income, no loss of tourism, no more being a drain of taxpayers money, more efficient running, sponsorship opportunities...
You know, a lump sum for selling it, tax income, no loss of tourism, no more being a drain of taxpayers money, more efficient running, sponsorship opportunities...
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Something like http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/senorlopez13/TheQueen7.jpg
Something like http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/senorlopez13/TheQueen7.jpg
In reply to Fraser:
I'll be kayaking for the holiday weekend
> (In reply to Blizzard)
>
> Err...hopefully climbing! Is there any other sane answer?
>
> Err...hopefully climbing! Is there any other sane answer?
I'll be kayaking for the holiday weekend
In reply to Blizzard:
I will be replacing a defunct central heating boiler for a friend. Who will be away in the mountains. I don't think I got the best deal there!
I will be replacing a defunct central heating boiler for a friend. Who will be away in the mountains. I don't think I got the best deal there!
In reply to dissonance:
That's right, the Crown Estate administers the Crown lands in the UK. In return for not claiming profit from Crown land, the Royals get paid via the Civil List.
> And the crown estates don't count. As they don't belong to the royals
That's right, the Crown Estate administers the Crown lands in the UK. In return for not claiming profit from Crown land, the Royals get paid via the Civil List.
In reply to Blizzard:
I'll be working, both on it and off it (was going to be mostly on it, then I was rescued by a phone call this morning
I'll be working, both on it and off it (was going to be mostly on it, then I was rescued by a phone call this morning
In reply to tehmarks:
I figured there'd be some anti monarchy sentiment. Do you realise that The Queen generates more income than Tescos and M&S put together? approx 45 Billion. She is an industry. Why scrap something that actually works?- i.e. attracts visitors and money to our island. I will be wearing Union Jack Shorts, you have gotta get into it you know. Have a laff, and enjoy meself drinking Jubilee Ales. I'm not even patriotic.
You can climb anytime, a Jubilee doesnt happen that often ( does it?) As for flotillas on the thames, I wish I could be there. Thats once in a lifetime on a scale with the Death of Di ( and yes I was there for the euphoric outpouring on that day, never witnessed anything like it ever) . No disrespect intended incase you are the sensitive type.
I figured there'd be some anti monarchy sentiment. Do you realise that The Queen generates more income than Tescos and M&S put together? approx 45 Billion. She is an industry. Why scrap something that actually works?- i.e. attracts visitors and money to our island. I will be wearing Union Jack Shorts, you have gotta get into it you know. Have a laff, and enjoy meself drinking Jubilee Ales. I'm not even patriotic.
You can climb anytime, a Jubilee doesnt happen that often ( does it?) As for flotillas on the thames, I wish I could be there. Thats once in a lifetime on a scale with the Death of Di ( and yes I was there for the euphoric outpouring on that day, never witnessed anything like it ever) . No disrespect intended incase you are the sensitive type.
In reply to Blizzard:
It's a shame you'll not make it to the pageant you would absolutely love it! You don't have to be a royalist to enjoy this kind of spectacle, the flotilla will amaze and astound.
I'd especially say go see the 'Avenue of Sail' which will have lots of famous vessels docked downstream of London Bridge and surrounding the 'open' Tower Bridge. You'll even get to see Gypsy Moth IV (a favourite oldie of mine).
Regarding standing to watch the flotilla I really have no idea where to go (if anyone in UKC world is going that is), although I would suggest somewhere near Waterloo as there will also be large screen over the river. It will be incredibly busy wherever you go as I'm sure you're aware, due to the million bods expected... The best view, but not nearly as spectacular would be in front of your telly
Watch out for our 56 Sea Cadet Trinity 500's... that's my doing!
Have fun whatever you decide to do mate, I'll be on Westminster Bridge working hard.
(and I'm a Republican)
It's a shame you'll not make it to the pageant you would absolutely love it! You don't have to be a royalist to enjoy this kind of spectacle, the flotilla will amaze and astound.
I'd especially say go see the 'Avenue of Sail' which will have lots of famous vessels docked downstream of London Bridge and surrounding the 'open' Tower Bridge. You'll even get to see Gypsy Moth IV (a favourite oldie of mine).
Regarding standing to watch the flotilla I really have no idea where to go (if anyone in UKC world is going that is), although I would suggest somewhere near Waterloo as there will also be large screen over the river. It will be incredibly busy wherever you go as I'm sure you're aware, due to the million bods expected... The best view, but not nearly as spectacular would be in front of your telly
Watch out for our 56 Sea Cadet Trinity 500's... that's my doing!
Have fun whatever you decide to do mate, I'll be on Westminster Bridge working hard.
(and I'm a Republican)
In reply to Blizzard:
Ive hired some canons for a proper salute on sunday
> (In reply to teh_mark)
>
> I figured there'd be some anti monarchy sentiment. Do you realise that The Queen generates more income than Tescos and M&S put together? approx 45 Billion. She is an industry. Why scrap something that actually works?- i.e. attracts visitors and money to our island. I will be wearing Union Jack Shorts, you have gotta get into it you know. Have a laff, and enjoy meself drinking Jubilee Ales. I'm not even patriotic.
>
> You can climb anytime, a Jubilee doesnt happen that often ( does it?) As for flotillas on the thames, I wish I could be there. Thats once in a lifetime on a scale with the Death of Di ( and yes I was there for the euphoric outpouring on that day, never witnessed anything like it ever) . No disrespect intended incase you are the sensitive type.
>
> I figured there'd be some anti monarchy sentiment. Do you realise that The Queen generates more income than Tescos and M&S put together? approx 45 Billion. She is an industry. Why scrap something that actually works?- i.e. attracts visitors and money to our island. I will be wearing Union Jack Shorts, you have gotta get into it you know. Have a laff, and enjoy meself drinking Jubilee Ales. I'm not even patriotic.
>
> You can climb anytime, a Jubilee doesnt happen that often ( does it?) As for flotillas on the thames, I wish I could be there. Thats once in a lifetime on a scale with the Death of Di ( and yes I was there for the euphoric outpouring on that day, never witnessed anything like it ever) . No disrespect intended incase you are the sensitive type.
Ive hired some canons for a proper salute on sunday
In reply to Blizzard:
I'll be in Skye at Sabhal Mor Ostaig with my daughter, she's in a Gaelic quiz program and they've chosen that day to film. Actually a bit annoyed that I'm going to miss it as it sounds like Inverness is putting on a decent party. Personally not arsed about the Royals but I'll happily reap the rewards of any street parties that are put on
I'll be in Skye at Sabhal Mor Ostaig with my daughter, she's in a Gaelic quiz program and they've chosen that day to film. Actually a bit annoyed that I'm going to miss it as it sounds like Inverness is putting on a decent party. Personally not arsed about the Royals but I'll happily reap the rewards of any street parties that are put on
In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:
Are you going to have them pray for the Queen or use them to take pics of her?
> (In reply to Blizzard)
> [...]
>
> Ive hired some canons for a proper salute on sunday
> [...]
>
> Ive hired some canons for a proper salute on sunday
Are you going to have them pray for the Queen or use them to take pics of her?
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Also people don't actaully come to see the queen do they? or is there alot of very disappointed tourists out there...
> (In reply to The Big Man)
> [...]
>
> and then please calculate how much tourism we would lose overnight if the monarchy was abolished!
>
I never get this argument - people would still go to visit the palaces. Chatueaus in france seem to do OK for tourists... > [...]
>
> and then please calculate how much tourism we would lose overnight if the monarchy was abolished!
>
Also people don't actaully come to see the queen do they? or is there alot of very disappointed tourists out there...
In reply to Blizzard:
45 billion? Any evidence for that? What do you think would be the reaction of Henry V or Henry VIII if they could be put in a time machine and shown how their line would end up? Bigger than Tesco?
> (In reply to teh_mark)
>
> 'Do you realise that The Queen generates more income than Tescos and M&S put together? approx 45 Billion. She is an industry.'
>
> 'Do you realise that The Queen generates more income than Tescos and M&S put together? approx 45 Billion. She is an industry.'
45 billion? Any evidence for that? What do you think would be the reaction of Henry V or Henry VIII if they could be put in a time machine and shown how their line would end up? Bigger than Tesco?
In reply to Pekkie:
Perhaps its 39 billion. I read it in out well versed english press. Broadsheet. Its a fact. The Queen brand is apparently worth that much. Amazing isnt it?
Evidence. He he. I'm just well read, not a scientist. If the Telegraph says so, I tend to believe the bones of the reporting.
Perhaps its 39 billion. I read it in out well versed english press. Broadsheet. Its a fact. The Queen brand is apparently worth that much. Amazing isnt it?
Evidence. He he. I'm just well read, not a scientist. If the Telegraph says so, I tend to believe the bones of the reporting.
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Do you have a spare sofa bed? Are you offering a place to rest for the night if I travel down? ( very nice of you if you did) Perhaps I oughta go counchsurfing right now....
> (In reply to Blizzard)
>
> It's a shame you'll not make it to the pageant you would absolutely love it! You don't have to be a royalist to enjoy this kind of spectacle, the flotilla will amaze and astound.
>
>
>
> It's a shame you'll not make it to the pageant you would absolutely love it! You don't have to be a royalist to enjoy this kind of spectacle, the flotilla will amaze and astound.
>
>
Do you have a spare sofa bed? Are you offering a place to rest for the night if I travel down? ( very nice of you if you did) Perhaps I oughta go counchsurfing right now....
In reply to Blizzard:
clearly not very well read if you confuse the need for evidence with being a scientist.
> Evidence. He he. I'm just well read, not a scientist.
clearly not very well read if you confuse the need for evidence with being a scientist.
In reply to dissonance:
OK then. Apologies for not being a bloody detective or policeman. Evidence indeed. Did you read my reply?
OK then. Apologies for not being a bloody detective or policeman. Evidence indeed. Did you read my reply?
In reply to Blizzard:
which reply would that be? The one stating you believe what is written in the papers?
Especially a piece which reads like a regurgitated press release from a company who are name checked several times.
So while a nice example of PR dressed up as news I am confused to what you think the relevance is?
> OK then. Apologies for not being a bloody detective or policeman. Evidence indeed. Did you read my reply?
which reply would that be? The one stating you believe what is written in the papers?
Especially a piece which reads like a regurgitated press release from a company who are name checked several times.
So while a nice example of PR dressed up as news I am confused to what you think the relevance is?
In reply to dissonance:
Here you go. http://www.taxpayertreasurehunt.com/index.php/The_Cost_of_the_British_Monar...
Cost of £90,000,000
Income of £211,000,000 almost exclusively from the Crown Estate.
In this article http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/ROYAL32.htm they list an extra £5,000,000 income from other royalty.
So all in all, if the CE income is not 'allowed' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate )then the net balance is for the populace £85,000,000 out of pocket.
Here you go. http://www.taxpayertreasurehunt.com/index.php/The_Cost_of_the_British_Monar...
Cost of £90,000,000
Income of £211,000,000 almost exclusively from the Crown Estate.
In this article http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/ROYAL32.htm they list an extra £5,000,000 income from other royalty.
So all in all, if the CE income is not 'allowed' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate )then the net balance is for the populace £85,000,000 out of pocket.
In reply to Blizzard:
Hahaha, how on earth could you see my post as offer of a bed for the night?
Afraid I'll be sleeping with the Royal Marines this weekend, I'm working away from home at RMR London. Sorry
> (In reply to Tony the Blade)
> [...]
>
> Do you have a spare sofa bed? Are you offering a place to rest for the night if I travel down? ( very nice of you if you did) Perhaps I oughta go counchsurfing right now....
> [...]
>
> Do you have a spare sofa bed? Are you offering a place to rest for the night if I travel down? ( very nice of you if you did) Perhaps I oughta go counchsurfing right now....
Hahaha, how on earth could you see my post as offer of a bed for the night?
Afraid I'll be sleeping with the Royal Marines this weekend, I'm working away from home at RMR London. Sorry
In reply to BelleVedere:
Please read above, I think people really do come as we have a royalty and someone has quoted figures to back up my comments!
Sam
> (In reply to Sam Mayfield)
> [...]
> I never get this argument - people would still go to visit the palaces. Chatueaus in france seem to do OK for tourists...
>
> Also people don't actaully come to see the queen do they? or is there alot of very disappointed tourists out there...
> [...]
> I never get this argument - people would still go to visit the palaces. Chatueaus in france seem to do OK for tourists...
>
> Also people don't actaully come to see the queen do they? or is there alot of very disappointed tourists out there...
Please read above, I think people really do come as we have a royalty and someone has quoted figures to back up my comments!
Sam
In reply to Tony the Blade:
It's a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, so shhhhhhh.
> (In reply to Blizzard)
> [...]
> [...]
>
> Afraid I'll be sleeping with the Royal Marines this weekend,
> Afraid I'll be sleeping with the Royal Marines this weekend,
It's a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, so shhhhhhh.
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Who has? Blizzard quoted a PR puff piece.
If we take VisitBritains own figures visiting any royal palace, including the most popular one which is the tower of London (eg no current usage), it just about beats a full English breakfast for some countries tourists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1578941/Royals-low-on-must-list-for-...
> Please read above, I think people really do come as we have a royalty and someone has quoted figures to back up my comments!
Who has? Blizzard quoted a PR puff piece.
If we take VisitBritains own figures visiting any royal palace, including the most popular one which is the tower of London (eg no current usage), it just about beats a full English breakfast for some countries tourists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1578941/Royals-low-on-must-list-for-...
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Sorry, but *I think* people would still visit Buckingham palace/Holyrood/Tower of London etc
It's a pretty building with some history - something to while a way a day. It's not like vistor number are zero in Ex-royal habitations is it?
> (In reply to BelleVedere)
> [...]
>
> Please read above, I think people really do come as we have a royalty and someone has quoted figures to back up my comments!
>
> Sam
> [...]
>
> Please read above, I think people really do come as we have a royalty and someone has quoted figures to back up my comments!
>
> Sam
Sorry, but *I think* people would still visit Buckingham palace/Holyrood/Tower of London etc
It's a pretty building with some history - something to while a way a day. It's not like vistor number are zero in Ex-royal habitations is it?
In reply to Blizzard: Not in the least interested, especially with the National Anthem that will be sung to death which talks of "Rebelious Scots to Crush"
There should be a special tax code for those who DO want to contribute, and a opt out, for everyone else.
Whatever is then collected each year by those who want to give money to (Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha) and her hangers on, will be the cash that she has to work with, and she can then cut her cloth accordingly.
There should be a special tax code for those who DO want to contribute, and a opt out, for everyone else.
Whatever is then collected each year by those who want to give money to (Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha) and her hangers on, will be the cash that she has to work with, and she can then cut her cloth accordingly.
In reply to Blizzard: I remember the Siver Jubilee as a really good day, spent on Stanage with Gabriel Regan, I think it was so warm we gave up in the afternoon and went down to the outdoor pool in Hathersage, though in truth that might have been a different day, much better than watching all the fripperies on TV.
In reply to Al Evans: I'll be in Mayo, away from all the Queen stuff. What a shame : )
In reply to Mr Lopez:
I guess the answer would be that the revenue would still be there even if it was managed by the state, however I think providing they are not costing us all money then it is a nice link with history to still have a monarchy that can be traced back to Victoria and the British Empire, I think it's a good thing for the whole world to have a modern day link with heritage.
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> Here you go. http://www.taxpayertreasurehunt.com/index.php/The_Cost_of_the_British_Monar...
>
> Cost of £90,000,000
> Income of £211,000,000 almost exclusively from the Crown Estate.
>
> In this article http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/ROYAL32.htm they list an extra £5,000,000 income from other royalty.
>
> So all in all, if the CE income is not 'allowed' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate )then the net balance is for the populace £85,000,000 out of pocket.
>
> Here you go. http://www.taxpayertreasurehunt.com/index.php/The_Cost_of_the_British_Monar...
>
> Cost of £90,000,000
> Income of £211,000,000 almost exclusively from the Crown Estate.
>
> In this article http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/ROYAL32.htm they list an extra £5,000,000 income from other royalty.
>
> So all in all, if the CE income is not 'allowed' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate )then the net balance is for the populace £85,000,000 out of pocket.
I guess the answer would be that the revenue would still be there even if it was managed by the state, however I think providing they are not costing us all money then it is a nice link with history to still have a monarchy that can be traced back to Victoria and the British Empire, I think it's a good thing for the whole world to have a modern day link with heritage.
In reply to Al Evans:
The floatilla is the first in 350 years. It seems a shame to miss such a one off, day in history. I might be tempted to catch the train Sundayy, just to see it for a couple of hours, then come back. How manic do you think London will be ?
The floatilla is the first in 350 years. It seems a shame to miss such a one off, day in history. I might be tempted to catch the train Sundayy, just to see it for a couple of hours, then come back. How manic do you think London will be ?
In reply to David Hooper:
Absolutely - the "it's ok because they bring in tourist revenue" is missiing the point - Paris and New York do ok for tourists as far as I know.
The Monarchy argument should not be about 'profitability', revenue, cost etc, but about the antiquated and undemocratic notion that our Head of State is not elected, does not *have* to work a day of their life (after all, openign buildings and entertaining international tyrants is presumably optional) and sits in a position inherited through accident of birth.
I'll be at work, I can re-use the days some other time. I'll be glad to be nowhere near a TV.
> (In reply to Sam Mayfield) do you go to Rome to see the pope or all the wonderful buildings.
>
> London and Britain is a fabulous tourist mecca regardless of royalty.
>
> London and Britain is a fabulous tourist mecca regardless of royalty.
Absolutely - the "it's ok because they bring in tourist revenue" is missiing the point - Paris and New York do ok for tourists as far as I know.
The Monarchy argument should not be about 'profitability', revenue, cost etc, but about the antiquated and undemocratic notion that our Head of State is not elected, does not *have* to work a day of their life (after all, openign buildings and entertaining international tyrants is presumably optional) and sits in a position inherited through accident of birth.
I'll be at work, I can re-use the days some other time. I'll be glad to be nowhere near a TV.
In reply to Fraser:
Going to the TT obviously
jk
> Err...hopefully climbing! Is there any other sane answer?
Going to the TT obviously
jk
Amazing!
Did you see the Sea Cadets? We were heading the Queen's flotilla and apparently there was plenty of TV coverage.
I watched it from a vip area (yeah, I know) and the diamond formation looked fantastic!
Now hoping the press took lots of fots.
In reply to Blizzard:
The Queen stood throughout the whole trip down river. Amazing stamina for an 86 year old!
The Queen stood throughout the whole trip down river. Amazing stamina for an 86 year old!
In reply to Blizzard: Watched it all the way through. Great spectacular. Who but us Brits can stage anything like that let alone have reason to. I think the reason the repubs get so agitated over it is envy, pure and simple.
In reply to Trangia:
> (In reply to Blizzard)
>
> The Queen stood throughout the whole trip down river. Amazing stamina for an 86 year old!
Absolutely. At twenty years her junior she has my greatest admiration>
> The Queen stood throughout the whole trip down river. Amazing stamina for an 86 year old!
In reply to Blizzard:
L
I celebrated by going for an MRI scan.
L
>
> What will you be doing? Will you be besides,better still on the Thames?
> What will you be doing? Will you be besides,better still on the Thames?
I celebrated by going for an MRI scan.
In reply to Blizzard: This was a great display...i dont normally bother with these things but the excitement was infectious...crackin stuff!
In reply to mypyrex: I'm Twenty one years her junior and my back would be killing me after 20 minutes. Also Prince Philip was ramrod straight at 90. Obviously enjoying it too.
In reply to Tony the Blade: It looked magnificent, made me proud to be British! Well done!
In reply to J Brown: You sound incredibly bitter, twisted and sad. What a shame you cannot simply enjoy something like that without such obvious envy and malice.
Does not the fact that you are almost alone in your opinion tell you heaps?
Does not the fact that you are almost alone in your opinion tell you heaps?
In reply to cragtaff: Why does being anti-Monarchy make one bitter and sad? And could you point out the malice in his statement?
I for one can't wait to you see you sycophantic, derferent lot fawning over Charlie when he gets in.
I for one can't wait to you see you sycophantic, derferent lot fawning over Charlie when he gets in.
In reply to J Brown:
It's estimated that 1.5 million people lined the Thames to watch the pageant. 9,000 applications for street closures to celibrate the jubilee. Approx 100 anti monarchy protesters in London today. Doesn't that suggest something to you about the popularity of the monarchy?
It's estimated that 1.5 million people lined the Thames to watch the pageant. 9,000 applications for street closures to celibrate the jubilee. Approx 100 anti monarchy protesters in London today. Doesn't that suggest something to you about the popularity of the monarchy?
In reply to Trangia:
Not really no. it doesnt taken more than a couple of seconds to figure that the people might have been there to watch the pageant regardless of whether the queen was there or not.
I nearly bimbled up there but couldnt be arsed in the end due to the weather (since main reason would be to take pics) and i loath London crowds. The presence or not of the queen didnt enter the equation.
Its like saying the sale of the olympic tickets shows how well liked the IOC are.
The lack of bunting etc in this area, including the posh part i strayed into yesterday, is quite startling. Do have to wonder how selective the papers have been searching for peeps who put any up.
> It's estimated that 1.5 million people lined the Thames to watch the pageant. 9,000 applications for street closures to celibrate the jubilee. Approx 100 anti monarchy protesters in London today. Doesn't that suggest something to you about the popularity of the monarchy?
Not really no. it doesnt taken more than a couple of seconds to figure that the people might have been there to watch the pageant regardless of whether the queen was there or not.
I nearly bimbled up there but couldnt be arsed in the end due to the weather (since main reason would be to take pics) and i loath London crowds. The presence or not of the queen didnt enter the equation.
Its like saying the sale of the olympic tickets shows how well liked the IOC are.
The lack of bunting etc in this area, including the posh part i strayed into yesterday, is quite startling. Do have to wonder how selective the papers have been searching for peeps who put any up.
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
As a tourist to the UK, I can assure you that I had not the slightest interest in seeing any Royalty. I went and saw Buckingham Palace as I thought it'd be a pretty building. My pull to the UK was most definitely not the fact that the Queen was there. None of my fellow housemates had an inclination to attempt to see them either. I think people are more likely to go to somewhere like Holywood if they want to see famous people.
I'm Australian, so I guess she's my queen also, but I despise the idea of a class system. Why is someone, through the luck of the draw, automatically able to run the Commonwealth?
So all this money the Queen pulls in comes from revenue of land. Could the land not be given to the government if the monarchy was dissolved? Genuine question as I'm not overly familiar with British laws.
>
> Please read above, I think people really do come as we have a royalty and someone has quoted figures to back up my comments!
> Please read above, I think people really do come as we have a royalty and someone has quoted figures to back up my comments!
As a tourist to the UK, I can assure you that I had not the slightest interest in seeing any Royalty. I went and saw Buckingham Palace as I thought it'd be a pretty building. My pull to the UK was most definitely not the fact that the Queen was there. None of my fellow housemates had an inclination to attempt to see them either. I think people are more likely to go to somewhere like Holywood if they want to see famous people.
I'm Australian, so I guess she's my queen also, but I despise the idea of a class system. Why is someone, through the luck of the draw, automatically able to run the Commonwealth?
So all this money the Queen pulls in comes from revenue of land. Could the land not be given to the government if the monarchy was dissolved? Genuine question as I'm not overly familiar with British laws.
In reply to Andrewmorts: I like your way of thinking, if only it could be the case!!!
In reply to dissonance:
Well can you not see that if the Queen had NOT been there it would not have happened.
> (In reply to Trangia)
>
> [...]
>
> Not really no. it doesnt taken more than a couple of seconds to figure that the people might have been there to watch the pageant regardless of whether the queen was there or not.
> I nearly bimbled up there but couldnt be arsed in the end due to the weather (since main reason would be to take pics) and i loath London crowds. The presence or not of the queen didnt enter the equation.
>
> Its like saying the sale of the olympic tickets shows how well liked the IOC are.
>
> The lack of bunting etc in this area, including the posh part i strayed into yesterday, is quite startling. Do have to wonder how selective the papers have been searching for peeps who put any up.
>
> [...]
>
> Not really no. it doesnt taken more than a couple of seconds to figure that the people might have been there to watch the pageant regardless of whether the queen was there or not.
> I nearly bimbled up there but couldnt be arsed in the end due to the weather (since main reason would be to take pics) and i loath London crowds. The presence or not of the queen didnt enter the equation.
>
> Its like saying the sale of the olympic tickets shows how well liked the IOC are.
>
> The lack of bunting etc in this area, including the posh part i strayed into yesterday, is quite startling. Do have to wonder how selective the papers have been searching for peeps who put any up.
Well can you not see that if the Queen had NOT been there it would not have happened.
In reply to Blizzard: Hats off to the London Philarmonic Orchestra and the Choir who played/sang on despite atrocious weather. To see them standing there singing Land of Hope and Glory in the pouring rain; they were brilliant.
In reply to mypyrex:
What, who can get a load of boats to float down a river you mean? Or get some old people to stand up on a boat floating down a river? Hardly comparable with the Rio Carnival, is it? And I'm pretty sure the organisers of that aren't Brits.
Or maybe because it's a ridiculous antiquated belief that one family is superior to all others simply due to their lineage.
Or maybe due to the link with religion, in what should be a secular society.
Or maybe the fact that she holds massive personal wealth, while at the same time claiming money from the taxpayer to fund her family's lavish and privileged lifestyles and to finance and maintain her many estates and properties (which some might say is a little excessive for one family claiming state benefit).
Or maybe the fact that she refuses to allow greater access to these properties, which could actually bring in some revenue from tourists (as opposed to the ridiculous notion that tourists come to England simply because the royal family are present).
Or maybe because until recently she thought it acceptable not to pay income tax, and STILL won't pay inheritance tax on her estate - £50million tax-free from her mother remember. One rule for the 'Windsors' and one for everyone else (though it will be interesting to see what happens when this one goes).
Maybe because Republicans don't just believe as fact everything the royal family's multi-million pound PR re-branding campaign reports about them being 'value-for-money' and 'good for tourism or trade', which are the only positives they seem able to come up with.
It has absolutely nothing to do with envy. There are far more fabulously wealthy people than the royal family to be jealous of. But it has everything to do with the continued notion that one family holds a privileged position above all others in the country simply due to their lineage, and as such enjoy special allowances and exemptions that all her subjects are not entitled to. Even if you could prove 100% that the royal family's presence in England is directly linked to the claimed boosts in tourism and trade, I would quite happily sacrifice that money to live in a society which stands by its claim that all citizens have equal status.
> Great spectacular. Who but us Brits can stage anything like that let alone have reason to.
What, who can get a load of boats to float down a river you mean? Or get some old people to stand up on a boat floating down a river? Hardly comparable with the Rio Carnival, is it? And I'm pretty sure the organisers of that aren't Brits.
> I think the reason the repubs get so agitated over it is envy, pure and simple.
Or maybe because it's a ridiculous antiquated belief that one family is superior to all others simply due to their lineage.
Or maybe due to the link with religion, in what should be a secular society.
Or maybe the fact that she holds massive personal wealth, while at the same time claiming money from the taxpayer to fund her family's lavish and privileged lifestyles and to finance and maintain her many estates and properties (which some might say is a little excessive for one family claiming state benefit).
Or maybe the fact that she refuses to allow greater access to these properties, which could actually bring in some revenue from tourists (as opposed to the ridiculous notion that tourists come to England simply because the royal family are present).
Or maybe because until recently she thought it acceptable not to pay income tax, and STILL won't pay inheritance tax on her estate - £50million tax-free from her mother remember. One rule for the 'Windsors' and one for everyone else (though it will be interesting to see what happens when this one goes).
Maybe because Republicans don't just believe as fact everything the royal family's multi-million pound PR re-branding campaign reports about them being 'value-for-money' and 'good for tourism or trade', which are the only positives they seem able to come up with.
It has absolutely nothing to do with envy. There are far more fabulously wealthy people than the royal family to be jealous of. But it has everything to do with the continued notion that one family holds a privileged position above all others in the country simply due to their lineage, and as such enjoy special allowances and exemptions that all her subjects are not entitled to. Even if you could prove 100% that the royal family's presence in England is directly linked to the claimed boosts in tourism and trade, I would quite happily sacrifice that money to live in a society which stands by its claim that all citizens have equal status.
In reply to Pete_Robinson: Yaaawwwwwn
In reply to Pete_Robinson:
Not just a load of boats, but a load of boats representing a proud heritage.
All interesting points but according to MORI (May 2012) not endorsed by 87%* of the British public.
* That includes 13% of "Don't knows" - so 80% are in favour of retaining the monarchy
> (In reply to mypyrex)
> [...]
>
> What, who can get a load of boats to float down a river you mean? Or get some old people to stand up on a boat floating down a river? Hardly comparable with the Rio Carnival, is it? And I'm pretty sure the organisers of that aren't Brits.
>
> [...]
>
> What, who can get a load of boats to float down a river you mean? Or get some old people to stand up on a boat floating down a river? Hardly comparable with the Rio Carnival, is it? And I'm pretty sure the organisers of that aren't Brits.
>
Not just a load of boats, but a load of boats representing a proud heritage.
> [...]
>
> Or maybe because it's a ridiculous antiquated belief that one family is superior to all others simply due to their lineage.
>
> Or maybe due to the link with religion, in what should be a secular society.
>
> Or maybe the fact that she holds massive personal wealth, while at the same time claiming money from the taxpayer to fund her family's lavish and privileged lifestyles and to finance and maintain her many estates and properties (which some might say is a little excessive for one family claiming state benefit).
>
> Or maybe the fact that she refuses to allow greater access to these properties, which could actually bring in some revenue from tourists (as opposed to the ridiculous notion that tourists come to England simply because the royal family are present).
>
> Or maybe because until recently she thought it acceptable not to pay income tax, and STILL won't pay inheritance tax on her estate - £50million tax-free from her mother remember. One rule for the 'Windsors' and one for everyone else (though it will be interesting to see what happens when this one goes).
>
> Maybe because Republicans don't just believe as fact everything the royal family's multi-million pound PR re-branding campaign reports about them being 'value-for-money' and 'good for tourism or trade', which are the only positives they seem able to come up with.
>
> It has absolutely nothing to do with envy. There are far more fabulously wealthy people than the royal family to be jealous of. But it has everything to do with the continued notion that one family holds a privileged position above all others in the country simply due to their lineage, and as such enjoy special allowances and exemptions that all her subjects are not entitled to. Even if you could prove 100% that the royal family's presence in England is directly linked to the claimed boosts in tourism and trade, I would quite happily sacrifice that money to live in a society which stands by its claim that all citizens have equal status.
>
> Or maybe because it's a ridiculous antiquated belief that one family is superior to all others simply due to their lineage.
>
> Or maybe due to the link with religion, in what should be a secular society.
>
> Or maybe the fact that she holds massive personal wealth, while at the same time claiming money from the taxpayer to fund her family's lavish and privileged lifestyles and to finance and maintain her many estates and properties (which some might say is a little excessive for one family claiming state benefit).
>
> Or maybe the fact that she refuses to allow greater access to these properties, which could actually bring in some revenue from tourists (as opposed to the ridiculous notion that tourists come to England simply because the royal family are present).
>
> Or maybe because until recently she thought it acceptable not to pay income tax, and STILL won't pay inheritance tax on her estate - £50million tax-free from her mother remember. One rule for the 'Windsors' and one for everyone else (though it will be interesting to see what happens when this one goes).
>
> Maybe because Republicans don't just believe as fact everything the royal family's multi-million pound PR re-branding campaign reports about them being 'value-for-money' and 'good for tourism or trade', which are the only positives they seem able to come up with.
>
> It has absolutely nothing to do with envy. There are far more fabulously wealthy people than the royal family to be jealous of. But it has everything to do with the continued notion that one family holds a privileged position above all others in the country simply due to their lineage, and as such enjoy special allowances and exemptions that all her subjects are not entitled to. Even if you could prove 100% that the royal family's presence in England is directly linked to the claimed boosts in tourism and trade, I would quite happily sacrifice that money to live in a society which stands by its claim that all citizens have equal status.
All interesting points but according to MORI (May 2012) not endorsed by 87%* of the British public.
* That includes 13% of "Don't knows" - so 80% are in favour of retaining the monarchy
In reply to mypyrex:
A well-reasoned and thoughtful response. I concede.
A well-reasoned and thoughtful response. I concede.
In reply to Trangia:
> Not just a load of boats, but a load of boats representing a proud heritage.
A proud heritage of what? Colonialism and slavery? If so then I agree, but maybe not so proud.> All interesting points but according to MORI (May 2012) not endorsed by 87% of the British public.
A testament to how well the PR campaign is going. If the royal family really were that popular simply for their intrinsic value and for everything they represent then why would they be so desperate to keep re-branding themselves and spend so much cash on PR? In reply to Pete_Robinson:
> (In reply to Trangia)
> [...]
> A proud heritage of what? Colonialism and slavery? If so then I agree, but maybe not so proud.
Like other "antis" you are only capable of seeing the bad aspects of Empire and ignore the fact that Britain pioneered the abolition of slavery. BTW you also convenently overlook the aspects of slavery involving many other nations and that it was rife millenia before there was even any suggestion of a British Empire.> [...]
> A proud heritage of what? Colonialism and slavery? If so then I agree, but maybe not so proud.
In reply to Pete_Robinson:
Of course everything you've written is correct and incontrovertible. And, of course, you received the immature "yawn" reply.
That's because even the most ardent of monarchist apologisers either base their support on conservative and reactionary banalities of the 'let's just leave things as they are' / 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' variety.
Or their support is based on trivialities such as enjoying bell and shiny whistle parades. Of the kind they could enjoy - and pay for themselves - if they went to Disney land.
So the 'yawn' response is probably as intelligent and considered as the pro-monarchist argument can be.
Of course everything you've written is correct and incontrovertible. And, of course, you received the immature "yawn" reply.
That's because even the most ardent of monarchist apologisers either base their support on conservative and reactionary banalities of the 'let's just leave things as they are' / 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' variety.
Or their support is based on trivialities such as enjoying bell and shiny whistle parades. Of the kind they could enjoy - and pay for themselves - if they went to Disney land.
So the 'yawn' response is probably as intelligent and considered as the pro-monarchist argument can be.
In reply to Pete_Robinson: Do you honestly believe that the estimated 1.5 million people who lined the banks of the Thames yesterday felt compelled to go or had been brainwashed in some way. I am mindful of the images that came out of North Korea recently where it was pretty obvious that the crowds were "bussed in" and the whole farcical performance of the "audience" was stage managed and orchestrated.
In reply to Pete_Robinson:
I would quite happily sacrifice that money to live in a society which stands by its claim that all citizens have equal status.
Because of course this Utopia would be the result of becoming republic?
Some of the most equal and fair societies in the world (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands) have Royal families, while some of the least so (the USA, China) don't. Whatever your views on having a Royal family, obsessing about the fact they are hereditary is absurd.
I would quite happily sacrifice that money to live in a society which stands by its claim that all citizens have equal status.
Because of course this Utopia would be the result of becoming republic?
Some of the most equal and fair societies in the world (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands) have Royal families, while some of the least so (the USA, China) don't. Whatever your views on having a Royal family, obsessing about the fact they are hereditary is absurd.
In reply to mypyrex:
So in these enlightened times of equal rights and a strive towards social mobility would you mind running me through the arguments for a Monarchy enjoying special rights and privileges, above and beyond those of the regular citizens?
> Like other "antis" you are only capable of seeing the bad aspects of Empire
Not at all. But this is not really an argument about the Empire, and I was merely questioning how proud we should be about our heritage relating to maritime dominance and the colonising of other countries.So in these enlightened times of equal rights and a strive towards social mobility would you mind running me through the arguments for a Monarchy enjoying special rights and privileges, above and beyond those of the regular citizens?
In reply to Pete_Robinson:
I don't think there were many former slavers in the flotila, I was thinking more of the Dunkirk little ships, the various man powered vessels, and above all the sheer joy of the occasion. Maybe you didn't notice, but most of the participents and spectators were smiling and happy in spite of the weather?
As for British public opinion, isn't failing to listen to it, even if it doesn't concur with your own views, arrogance? The Queen learnt this, over her actions immediately following Diana's death, and I suspect this is the answer to your last question. It seems to have worked as the British public have forgiven and she is now more popular than ever.
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned life under her successor. Again British public opinion is a powerful tool, and I don't believe it would tolerate a bad monarch for long which could bring about the constitutional crisis you crave. We live in changing times, but I see no point in vilifying a good incumbent who is doing an excellent job and is giving the nation a much needed feel good factor.
I don't think there were many former slavers in the flotila, I was thinking more of the Dunkirk little ships, the various man powered vessels, and above all the sheer joy of the occasion. Maybe you didn't notice, but most of the participents and spectators were smiling and happy in spite of the weather?
As for British public opinion, isn't failing to listen to it, even if it doesn't concur with your own views, arrogance? The Queen learnt this, over her actions immediately following Diana's death, and I suspect this is the answer to your last question. It seems to have worked as the British public have forgiven and she is now more popular than ever.
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned life under her successor. Again British public opinion is a powerful tool, and I don't believe it would tolerate a bad monarch for long which could bring about the constitutional crisis you crave. We live in changing times, but I see no point in vilifying a good incumbent who is doing an excellent job and is giving the nation a much needed feel good factor.
In reply to Blizzard:
I don't care much for the Royals but love the way they wind up various lefties/crusties/class warriors.
For this reason alone I'm up for keeping them.
I don't care much for the Royals but love the way they wind up various lefties/crusties/class warriors.
For this reason alone I'm up for keeping them.
In reply to Blizzard:
Just had a cracking 160 mile bimble on the Duc over Derbyshire and Staffordshire, back by 1:30. Red wine open, old friends coming to stay over, loads of beers in the fridge and a lovely home cooked lasagne and garlic bread ready to go in the oven with a lovely fresh mozzarella and tomato with verde dressing to accompany. If only all days were like this.
God Save the Queen!!!!
Just had a cracking 160 mile bimble on the Duc over Derbyshire and Staffordshire, back by 1:30. Red wine open, old friends coming to stay over, loads of beers in the fridge and a lovely home cooked lasagne and garlic bread ready to go in the oven with a lovely fresh mozzarella and tomato with verde dressing to accompany. If only all days were like this.
God Save the Queen!!!!
In reply to Pete_Robinson:
You dont see may Germans worrying about their history which is somewhat more iffy than ours. They just carry on, being a proud and thriving manufacturing economy with a vast array of world class companies. Whether we like it or not, they are the powerhouse of Europe.
Forget the Empire and the past, lets concentrate on being a thoroughly good country for the future.
You dont see may Germans worrying about their history which is somewhat more iffy than ours. They just carry on, being a proud and thriving manufacturing economy with a vast array of world class companies. Whether we like it or not, they are the powerhouse of Europe.
Forget the Empire and the past, lets concentrate on being a thoroughly good country for the future.
In reply to Blunderbuss:
+1
> (In reply to Blizzard)
>
> I don't care much for the Royals but love the way they wind up various lefties/crusties/class warriors.
>
> For this reason alone I'm up for keeping them.
>
> I don't care much for the Royals but love the way they wind up various lefties/crusties/class warriors.
>
> For this reason alone I'm up for keeping them.
+1
In reply to Blizzard: As much as I have respect for(most) of the senior members of the Royal family I was a bit disgusted to see Prince Edward(he who chickened out of the Royal Marines and otherwise has never served in the armed forces) wearing the insignia, I think, of a rear admiral together with several medals. By what right? At least Andrew, for all his faults, has been front line.
In reply to mypyrex: I saw said royal in training, he did not chicken out It was just not for him, that's the way It is, some can, some can't but I sure there's lots of things he does better than myself..
In reply to dale1968: Fair enough.
In reply to mypyrex:
because he is a prince. Now can you keep your envy and bitterness to yourself?
> (In reply to Blizzard) As much as I have respect for(most) of the senior members of the Royal family I was a bit disgusted to see Prince Edward(he who chickened out of the Royal Marines and otherwise has never served in the armed forces) wearing the insignia, I think, of a rear admiral together with several medals. By what right?
because he is a prince. Now can you keep your envy and bitterness to yourself?
In reply to dissonance: I've been working and will now waste an hour or two on here and then go to the pub, as for tomorrow, repeat.
Luckily I'm getting 3 days TOIL later in the year.
Luckily I'm getting 3 days TOIL later in the year.
In reply to paul-1970: believing that any country in the world can ever be classless and democratic at the same time is unelievably naive! There isn't one and there never has been. Do any anti-monarchists actually believe that any elected head of state would not be in the pay of either big business, trade unionists or a potective military force? Do any anti-monarchists actually believe that an elected head of state would not be privileged? Do they really believe the elected head of state would be apolitical?
Get real!
I would rather have an inherited familial head of state than most political world leaders anyday. And so would any intelligent citizen.
Get real!
I would rather have an inherited familial head of state than most political world leaders anyday. And so would any intelligent citizen.
In reply to cragtaff:
with such a well thought out argument what can anyone say.
Are you happy by the way with the exception to the FOI and veto ability on any laws affecting the Duchies of Lancashire and Cornwall (eg pretty much any law)?
> I would rather have an inherited familial head of state than most political world leaders anyday. And so would any intelligent citizen.
with such a well thought out argument what can anyone say.
Are you happy by the way with the exception to the FOI and veto ability on any laws affecting the Duchies of Lancashire and Cornwall (eg pretty much any law)?
In reply to cragtaff:
By the short and curlies of St.George!This man is talking sense.Yes of course we prefer our beloved apolitical monarch reigning over us all in this second age of Elizabethan greatness.Rather her than that unelected parasite who removed Gough Whitlam from office all those years ago.
Whats great about this celebration, especially around our city, is the almost complete absence of butchers aprons on diplay.And very few houses seem to be adorned with royal kitch. Maybe, just maybe, people are beginning to become immune to the propaganda. After all, why should the 99% endure austerity imposed on behalf of the bankers and the city, whilst they carry on as normal?
> (In reply to paul-1970) Do they really believe the elected head of state would be apolitical?
>
> Get real!
>
> I would rather have an inherited familial head of state than most political world leaders anyday. And so would any intelligent citizen.
>
> Get real!
>
> I would rather have an inherited familial head of state than most political world leaders anyday. And so would any intelligent citizen.
By the short and curlies of St.George!This man is talking sense.Yes of course we prefer our beloved apolitical monarch reigning over us all in this second age of Elizabethan greatness.Rather her than that unelected parasite who removed Gough Whitlam from office all those years ago.
Whats great about this celebration, especially around our city, is the almost complete absence of butchers aprons on diplay.And very few houses seem to be adorned with royal kitch. Maybe, just maybe, people are beginning to become immune to the propaganda. After all, why should the 99% endure austerity imposed on behalf of the bankers and the city, whilst they carry on as normal?
In reply to ruckman:
... in this second age of Elizabethan greatness.
First Elizabethan age in Scotland
... in this second age of Elizabethan greatness.
First Elizabethan age in Scotland
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...