Ceri

Hardly. I call it invasion. If England want to keep it's royal family, so be it. I resent the mongrels of royalty.
We did not have any choice to have an English family taking titles that are not theirs.

Sooner we get the vote back home the better, or is that too democratic, vote on the issue?? ... ooh never heard of such thing - at least Aus did have a vote, yes I know it was rigged, choose the queen or choose a president that would be selected by the pollies ( I was here) - But at least here they had a vote, more that I can say for the countries in the UK. It is undemocratic to have no say, no vote on the issue, to pay taxes to a family who we did not put there - Britain has a cheek calling itself democratic.

bondipom

In your opinion.

I'll be celebrating when it comes to it. The Royals have done jack for me except leech taxes. At least the Queen has dignity but Phillip is a goofy mouthed idiot and Charles lives with the fairies. The family is in desparate need of some genetic diversity.

Scossie

English!!!!!! Since when have they been English????

The inbred parasites of the House of Sax Coburg Gotha, only changed thier name to Windsor cos they were forced to during World War 1.

The Government of the day made them change it so that Germany's Royal house didn't have the same name as the UK's!

I suppose they serve a purpose as a tourist attraction etc., but all this bowing and scraping nonsense is ridiculous.
If I ever met one of them, there would be none of this, "Sir or Maam", guff!!
"How you doin' mate?", is all I would say.

I don't see why they should demand respect from other human beings, purely because of an accident of birth!

The aristocracy of Britain are now a dying breed, and looked upon as an outdated joke. The Queen is the pinnacle of the aristocracy!
Need I say more??

The Royal Family are no better or worse than any other person on the planet, and if they want respect they should earn it, not expect it.

......Climbs down from his soap box......

Cheers... John....

Ceri

read again - I said if England want to keep it's royal family, so be it.
I did not say they are of English breed - also read the title

Scossie

Sorry Ceri....

It wasn't meant as a dig at your post.
I just felt like a bit of a rant, and quoting that bit of text seemed like a good way to start it off.
I think we're thinking along the same lines, as far as the subject of the thread is concerned anyway...

No offence taken, I hope.......

Cheers.... John.....

Ceri

None taken

PommieLeague

There not English, they are British, England hasnt been a nation for the past 300 and odd years....

bondipom

Depends how you define a nation. England, Scotland, France etc will all be regions of the EU. Not sure that it matters too much either.

diddy

C'mon, there must be more pro-royalists out there who want to defend her majesty, or is it just the that we've all accepted how weak your arguments are?

Paul.

OzTennis

Alistair

I'm not a great monarchist but to be fair to Charles he wasn't saying that people should accept their station in life as in the class system; he was referring to the unrealistic expectations poured upon many young people in schools and the effects of too many thinking they can achieve things above their capabilities (not their station in life). It is fine to have dreams and aspirations but keep them realistic is what I took the gist of Charles' statement to be FWIW - meritocracy not aristocracy.

OzTennis

kirsty&al

OK - I stand corrected. I guess it lost something in translation by the time it got down here.

I would still not rather have him as a King though.

Cheers
Alistair

SteveBannister

OK, I've sat on the sideline too long. You ready to have your myths blown apart, Shellfish?

Surely we are not expected to believe that British people would stop supporting charities that help the neediest people in the world simply because they don't have royal patronage? Would people really stop giving to those concerned with cancer or heart disease that have killed close friends and relatives?

Does anyone actually imagine that having a member of the royal family as a charity's patron adds anything to its overall effectiveness? When people consider giving to a charity, aren't they more concerned with the work it does than with who its patron is? The level of charitable giving in other countries shows that it doesn't depend on royal patronage. It would be a sad reflection on people if that were so. Some of our best -known and most respected charities, like Oxfam and the Salvation Army, have no royal patronage and this has caused them no obvious disadvantages. It would be the case for other charities.

The monarchy is under great stress because of the amount of time that they devote to supporting charities. Indeed, the great quantity of royals we pay for is often justified by their charity work. Some people argue that the end of the monarchy would see a massive decline in giving to charities which have royal patrons. Quite the reverse is the case. Freed from the demands of public office, the Windsors would have even more time to devote to charity work. Also, without the snobbish social pressures arising from a royal family, more charities would feel free to choose patrons purely on merit.

In 2002 a research estimated Elizabeth Windsors personal wealth and the wealth she enjoys as the head of state to be worth around £20 billion. That is £20,000,000,000! Who exactly owns some of the property and art treasures, etc (the monarch or the nation) is uncertain. The research estimates the queens personal wealth at only £1.15 billion. However, she has the use of £13 billion worth of paintings (7,000 of them) and other treasures, e.g. silver, gold, clocks, furniture, ornaments, (700,000 of them!), £60 millions worth of jewellery and medals, £61 million worth in vehicles, and so on.

Our nation (and in particular our politicians) is mad to put up with this. These public assets are ours as a nation to do with as we best see fit. What is certain is that if we pensioned Mrs Windsor off with her £1.15 billion and used the remaining £19 billions worth in some way for charitable purposes, the charities would be massively better off.

Also in 2002 Mrs Windsor avoided paying about £20 million in death duties on her mothers estate. This tax should have gone to pay for things like schools and hospitals.

Finally the cost of providing security and helicopters, bullet-proof cars and so on for the Windsor family's charitable activities is almost certainly more than any extra amount they might raise. What sense does this make? As well as being the patrons of numerous charities, members of the royal family are also major beneficiaries of charity themselves for example the lavish apartments provided virtually rent-free at Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle. Not for nothing has this been described as 'the country's best housing benefit system.'

So actually the Windsor family itself is a very expensive charity that every subject of the queen ends up paying for. We should demand a refund!



It may be a bit on 'cut and paste', but way re-word it when somebody else has already done a good job of it.