UKC

As my contribution to the current Royal family discussion here is a section from a pub quiz I wrote a few years ago. All statements are silly - but six are true and six are false. Can you tell which ones?


1.In the 1960s Pablo Picasso was asked to paint the queen’s portrait. He turned the commission down when he realised that he was expected to do it without payment

2.Prince Phillip says he hopes to be re-incarnated as a deadly virus so that he can help reduce overpopulation

3.Prince Harry has a third nipple

4.Prince Charles insists on a white leather toilet seat being installed wherever he needs to go to the toilet

5. Princes Margaret once described Harold Wilson as 'that bolshevik'

6. The Queen Mother was an early supporter of the rights of mentally ill people

7.The queens uncle liked to have his photo taken with Adolf Hitler

8.At school Princess Diana gained no academic qualifications at all but did win an award for best kept hamster

9.Camilla Parker Bowles enjoys playing Super Mario

10.The queen claims that she knows how to change a carburettor

11. Every morning a servant squeezes the toothpaste onto Prince Charles's tooth brush

12. The Duchy of Cornwall has investments in a North Korean arms manfacturer

PS Now, bearing in mind that 6 of these statements are true, ask yourself whether you still want to pay your taxes to keep this dysfunctional shower in the lap of luxury

In reply to colin struthers:

You've missed out how many boiled eggs does Prince C have done in the morning to see which one he likes!

In reply to colin struthers:

I'll guess that 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 are correct.

In reply to colin struthers: Is "4" a correct one? Wasn't it established that it was a myth?

In reply to colin struthers: I reckon 1,5,8,10,11 not sure about the 6th

In reply to MG:

I guess 6 refers to the Queen Mother's nieces who were in a hospital for 40 years or so.

In reply to colin struthers:

10 is true

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-serves-as-a-mechanic-...

Can't see a problem with 1,3,5,6,8,9 or 10.

Really, would you think that someone having a third nipple makes them a dysfunctional shower? Or someone supporting the rights of the mentally ill?

Says a lot about you and your prejudices.

In reply to colin struthers:

I am pretty sure that No 2 is true, no doubt he has something more like cholera in mind, rather than syphilis.....

In reply to colin struthers:

2,6.7,10,11

All but 12 sound believable

The Royal birth has stimulated a load of Republicans to come out from under the woodwork.

The arguements against the monarchy seem to be based either on a) they cost a lot of money, and b) they are undemocratic.

Do Republicans really think that maintaining a presidential office is going to be much cheaper than maintaining the royal family?

And if we elected a head of state, who could you see taking the job? Beckham? Blair?

In reply to Owen W-G:

Fixed that for you.

In reply to teflonpete:


Fixed that for you.

In reply to Owen W-G:


Yes, much cheaper... but would we need one? That's the first question to answer.


It could be anyone, although as there would need to be conditions over candidature - deposit, a number of signatures, or something or other only serious candidates would stand. Also, apart from assuming one is needed, you are also assuming he or she would be elected by universal franchise, in some countries the president is chosen by indirect election, designation by assembly, other solutions are quite possible.

It would probably need several ukc threads to make the decision.

In reply to teflonpete:


"They" didn't "achieve" it though, did they? They got purely by being born.

In reply to teflonpete:

I find it really quite offensive that people choose to pretend that genuine concerns about, our constitution, democracy and egalitarianism is society, are really about jealousy.

Sorry got all serious for a moment then!

In reply to The New NickB:


It's probably a bit of an exaggeration in most cases but then constantly being told that being happy with the monarchy means I am fore-lock tugging, subserviant, deluded and any number of other things is also quite offensive and certainly a huge exaggeration.

In reply to Owen W-G:



No, I imagine that it would be a more expensive. However, an elected head of state with a real governmental role would be a far more cost-effective use of taxpayer money in my opinion.

As it stands, we have a head of state who (theoretically at least) has a lot of power, but no democratic authority to use it. This leaves us with just the office of prime minister, who (once elected) can do almost what they want.

In reply to MG:

Perhaps you could take that up with them! By them, I probably mean Bruce!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Mmh don't be so sure about that. The annual cost of the French presidency is estimated at 90 M€ p.a. (though nobody really knows...), I think it is around 20M€ in Germany and 10M€ in Austria. I believe the cost of monarchy is 33M£ here. The exact numbers don't really matter, they are all quite high.

Funnily enough the French royalists use the same argument, a monarchy would be cheaper than a Republic.

Not funnily enough when people become presidents in France, they are already rich; and after that, they are even richer.

We choose our moron-in-chief, but he's still a moron (primus inter pares). On the other hand, there are holidays for royal weddings in the UK. And you have ponies and similar funny stuff.

In reply to The New NickB:

Apologies Nick, it was only meant in jest.

Mind you, you republicans are a bit snappy today.

In reply to teflonpete:


ermm, Scaramanga?


that may just be a subtle reference to how certain members of her family were treated.

In reply to dissonance:


Maybe, but if you look at the way mentally ill people were treated half a century ago, standing up for their rights in general, or even just those of mentally ill relatives isn't exactly a damning indictment of a person.

In reply to teflonpete:


From the various reports though she doesnt seem to have stood up for her nieces. Which I think is the point of mentioning her patronage vs those in her actual life.

In reply to dissonance:

Fair enough, burn the witch.

It's home time and sunny outside. :0)

In reply to teflonpete:


i know cos I am sitting outside with just enough shade so i can read my laptop screens.
I like home working

In reply to MG:


Offensive, possibly, but it also happens to be true!

In reply to drolex:


But the French President runs the country! He's not just a figurehead, under the 5th Republic the President has most of the power. You can't compare the cost of government with a hand waver.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Nope, the prime minister does. The president talks loudly but have no effective power (except for starting a nuclear war, that is). It becomes obvious when the PM and the president are from different parties (Chirac-Jospin or Mitterrand-Chirac). In any case one of them is redundant (PM/president) and they both cost about the same.

>He's not just a figurehead, under the 5th Republic the President has most of the power. You can't compare the cost of government with a hand waver.

In most of Republics, the president is exactly that (Italy, Germany, Austria).

In reply to drolex:


Sorry but that's not the case, the PM is appointed by the President, and sacked as he wishes, and although the PM theoretically forms a government in reality it is the President who decides as he is the one in charge.

The actual way this is put into practice depends on the president, Sarkozy was very hands on, others let the PM have a little more responsibility, but even today with a fairly weak, colourless President the PM is even more floppy, his public image as depicted in cartoons and by imitators is that of someone who is asleep most of the time.

Under the 4th Republic it was different, then the President was a figurehead and wasn't even elected directly by the people.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: You can't teach me things like that, I have a béret.

In reply to drolex:

Really? And there was me thinking you might be French