How about you elaborate on about how she hasn't worked a day in her life. The Royal Diary says different. I'm sure you'd love to spend every week of your life travelling around the country to be paraded in front of people. Or maybe it would get a bit tiresome after 50 years of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for his figure of 52p per person in tax for the upkeep of the royal family to equal 100 million pounds, there would have to be 192 million taxpayers in this country. More than 3 times the number of people, let alone taxpayers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Engage your brain before posting.

 

Haha, do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice reply, care to elaborate? Like providing some evidence. Unless you're about to tell me you're actually a personal friend of the Queen and you know the in's and out's of her itinery?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parabola pretty much summed up my ideal response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The figure of 52p was acually a hazy recollection, it's actually 62p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you think because they live in large palaces that it's all rosy and easy for them then you're very naive. I wouldn't trade places with her really for a second.

You only replied to half of my post. You failed to mention anything about the fact that Britain as a democracy needs a Royal Bloodline.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Working is travelling now? Getting to travel all around the world regularly visiting new places and people is hard work? What are you talking about being "paraded", its not like she is coerced into doing any of it, as the Queen she can do whatever she likes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even though that article is two years old I see that 37 million pounds is apparently not alot nowadays, you're saying 37 million couldn't be spent elsewhere? Also with the amount of property the Royal Family has I'm sure if they were removed from power there would be hundreds of millions of pounds available.

Sorry if this is offensive but isn't the whole Royal Family inbred from back in the old days where to be royal you have to breed with other royal families? And they were the only royal family in England or something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to repeat his question. Are they actually still inbred? How have they not succumb to genetic diseases?

How do you feel about the Queen of England and the Royal Family as a whole? Do you think she's a symbol of Britain and an important figure, or do you think she is a complete waste of time and money and that Britain has it's own sufficient enough (though lacking) government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW you can also discuss other Royal Families as well, Norway, Sweden, etc. So you can use this as general Royal Family thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last time I checked, the amount of tourism and generated money the queen brings in is tremendous.

 

 

 

I'd really like to know where you get off being judgemental and outright on countries other than your own, so often, Viktor. You can pretend to be as trans-continental as you like, but everything you've ever indicated, to me just underlines how little you actually know.

 

Sorry if this is offensive but isn't the whole Royal Family inbred from back in the old days where to be royal you have to breed with other royal families? And they were the only royal family in England or something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to repeat his question. Are they actually still inbred? How have they no succumb to genetic diseases?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They actually have haemophilia running through a lot of the family, which was most likely given to Queen Victoria towards the end of her reign by an alien werewolf

 

 

Sorry if this is offensive but isn't the whole Royal Family inbred from back in the old days where to be royal you have to breed with other royal families? And they were the only royal family in England or something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to repeat his question. Are they actually still inbred? How have they no succumb to genetic diseases?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They actually have haemophilia running through a lot of the family, which was most likely given to Queen Victoria towards the end of her reign by an alien werewolf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks alot, made me choke badly. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As long as there is a parliement and it's actually used well I see no problem with a monarchy, it gives the nation a sence of commonality, nationalism ect. However it won't work in some nations like America. Can you imagine an American monarchy? (By the way, the second presidant, John Adams, suggested that the US should have a monarchy).

You only replied to half of my post. You failed to mention anything about the fact that Britain as a democracy needs a Royal Bloodline.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Working is travelling now? Getting to travel all around the world regularly visiting new places and people is hard work? What are you talking about being "paraded", its not like she is coerced into doing any of it, as the Queen she can do whatever she likes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even though that article is two years old I see that 37 million pounds is apparently not alot nowadays, you're saying 37 million couldn't be spent elsewhere? Also with the amount of property the Royal Family has I'm sure if they were removed from power there would be hundreds of millions of pounds available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have to disagree here. The Queen does work. This is not to say I support the system of monarchy, nor do I think it's right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact of the matter is, the Queen's role as a figurehead is quite unique and does indeed have the ability to effect society in a variety of manners. Many in society idolise or view her as "something special" - thus where she goes, what she says, what she does are extremely important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is why I disagree with your opinion. Yes, her travelling is working. I don't know about you, but I'm sure the novelty of travelling and seeing places would wear off once you've seen everything at least 10 times - which I can probably safely say she has, having travelled extensively in her long [half a decade even] reign.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, her every action is scrutinised. She is expected to be the rolemodel for society - regardless of who or how some people view her, this is indeed the case. Thus, she has to moderate what she does every day of her life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I call that work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Queen can't do "anything" she likes. Indeed, she probably isn't coerced into doing what she does - but conversely, I'd wager the ramifications for her not doing so would be rather bleak.

 

 

Sorry if this is offensive but isn't the whole Royal Family inbred from back in the old days where to be royal you have to breed with other royal families? And they were the only royal family in England or something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to repeat his question. Are they actually still inbred? How have they no succumb to genetic diseases?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They actually have haemophilia running through a lot of the family, which was most likely given to Queen Victoria towards the end of her reign by an alien werewolf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:shock: :-k .

 

 

 

Alien Werewolf? :lol:

Obscure Doctor Who reference :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, i'm cool. :XD:

wasn't there a vote recently which showed like 75% of the England liked the Royal Family..?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i'm all for it as long as we don't get some dictator king / queen

She's alright although I wouldn't know enough to pass an educated judgement. As it stands I can't really see any harm being done by having a monarchy and the commonwealth rules, too (mainly because Australia own at the commonwealth games :P ).

This is why I disagree with your opinion. Yes, her travelling is working. I don't know about you, but I'm sure the novelty of travelling and seeing places would wear off once you've seen everything at least 10 times - which I can probably safely say she has, having travelled extensively in her long [half a decade even] reign.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can say that, but in reality she owns several palaces gets to be refered to as 'Your majesty' has millions of pounds for herself. Stop making out she leads a difficult lifestyle she is waited on hand and foot. If it was really that tough she could hand her reign down to someone who could 'handle all the work'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last time I checked, the amount of tourism and generated money the queen brings in is tremendous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As 1_man_army said, when you go on holiday to England do you actually ever meet the Queen? No. I think we should still respect the History of the English Monarchy but to be honest I think the human race has grown out of the need for a Monarchy.

Don't forget, the Queen didn't have it easy. She took the crown at an incredibly young age and quite against the expectations. Originally, she was only third in line. The task was thrown upon her in her early twenties and yes, I do believe she had a difficult life, maintaining her position and guiding the old-fashioned monarchy through the many changes in the 20th century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may not like the concept of a monarchy, but I don't see how anyone could not respect such a woman.

 

Last time I checked, the amount of tourism and generated money the queen brings in is tremendous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As 1_man_army said, when you go on holiday to England do you actually ever meet the Queen? No. I think we should still respect the History of the English Monarchy but to be honest I think the human race has grown out of the need for a Monarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess I regard the monarch as more than just one person, but the entire tradition, the history, the crown jewels, the palace and so on and so on. That's why I said the Queen generates the income, because without this monarchy that tourist appeal would not be there, if you follow.

In the past Royalty were only allowed to marry other Royals which means that most of the Royals are linked in some way. Royals have played a very important part in our History and it is a tradition in Britain that we have a Royal Family and a King and Queen who "rules" us. I respect that tradition and think that even though they might not do much they are part of History and tradition and you can not really get rid of that.

King and Queens throughout the ages have had thousands of people executed in the name of treason, religious backgrounds, skin colour etc. If you have ever studied some of the British Monarchs you would understand how brutal some of them were. But whoopee its all about tradition, ignorance is bliss, am I right?

King and Queens throughout the ages have had thousands of people executed in the name of treason, religious backgrounds, skin colour etc. If you have ever studied some of the British Monarchs you would understand how brutal some of them were. But whoopee its all about tradition, ignorance is bliss, am I right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, cos that current queen, she's always having people's heads knocked off, am I right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a stupid statement, just because there were brutal monarchs in the past (there were also very good ones) that doesn't mean the current monarch who doesn't have that kind of power should be removed for those reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's an important ceremonial position, like it or not. Even if countires don't have a monarchy, they often have a similar kind of position that goes to an elected official who acts as a kind of travelling ambassador. I'd say the Queen was a lot better than that.

King and Queens throughout the ages have had thousands of people executed in the name of treason, religious backgrounds, skin colour etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what? Those things happened under many other sorts of leaders too, presidents, governors, ministers - it doesn't mean a thing. The Queen doesn't act like that so it is not a sleight against her or her position. You should take your ignorance and irrelevance elsewhere.

Last time I checked, the amount of tourism and generated money the queen brings in is tremendous.

 

 

 

I'd really like to know where you get off being judgemental and outright on countries other than your own, so often, Viktor. You can pretend to be as trans-continental as you like, but everything you've ever indicated, to me just underlines how little you actually know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole idea of this thread followed a very long discussion about it with a woman from Wales. :wink:

Don't bring me into it! My gripe is about the National Anthem, rather than the Queen herself.

Don't bring me into it! My gripe is about the National Anthem, rather than the Queen herself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However it was, I was just trying to show that I do not make blind judgments.

Don't bring me into it! My gripe is about the National Anthem, rather than the Queen herself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im curious, what is your gripe with "God Save The Queen"?

I hate our national anthem....

 

 

 

Its just so kiss-assy, and boring. A national anthem should be stirring, to make you want to sing it, and that's why I adore the song Jerusalem, and fully support any attempts to make that the official one.

Im curious, what is your gripe with "God Save The Queen"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, I like a National Anthem to be about the country. Plus, I don't like the tune to "God Save The Queen". It's like a funeral dirge.