The British Monarchy

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks

What do you think of them?

Love 'em!
0
No votes
Integral part of our history - great ambassadors for the UK
4
11%
They're good for the tourist industry/Charities etc
2
6%
Don't give a monkeys
3
8%
A piece of history but not much else - taxpayers burden
5
14%
We should get rid of them and become a Republic
14
39%
Burn them and start the Revolution!
8
22%
 
Total votes: 36

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 23546
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

The British Monarchy

Postby Toby » 15 May 2012, 19:30

The Queen is to celebrate the 60th anniversary of her accession to the Throne next month. Although it would be foolish to think that the Monarchy was seriously threatened at any time, it is perhaps doing better in terms of PR with the rest of the population than it has ever done - especially in light of the 90's when the problems with Charles and the death of his wife threatened to really overshadow them.

Liz 2 is 86 and yet looks unflappable, Charles is now happily married with his new wife (who appears to have shrugged off a lot of dislike) and of course we have William and Kate who seem to be the very definition of the hot almost hollywood couple replete with a grand wedding, but one that seems a bit more grounded in real life than the unreality that surrounded Diana. Then there's Harry as well, who is looking more and more like a central part of a remarkable PR offensive that, in a time of the worst economic recession in recent history, seems to be working very well.

What do you think of them? Are you for or against?

I don't really have a problem with them to be honest. I recognise that the utopian ideal is a Britain without an aristocracy and would like that deep down, but short of a very bloody revolution it won't happen in my lifetime. It's calculated that the average cost to the UK taxpayer for the civil list is a whopping 50p a year and whilst the everyday benefits of the Royal Family to me seem negligible, the legacy and powerful history that the royal family have with this island is inextricably entwined, even if they are just a part of a wider European network of noble families.

It's difficult to see what sort of tangible effect a symbolic sovereign and her extended family has, but somehow they remain widely popular. Is it an aftereffect of the centuries of class system?

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 67293
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby Diamond Dog » 15 May 2012, 19:53

I think burning them is far too decent a departure for them.

I'm desperately trying to get out of the country for this Jubilee celebration shit - it really fucking irks me.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
"Don't be seduced into thinking that which did not make a profit is without value"
"'Seize the moments as they fly, know to live and learn to die'."

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32783
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby Goat Boy » 15 May 2012, 20:06

I'm against the whole thing as a matter of principal obviously. Charlie is a wooly headed fud. If he wasn't a member of the royal family he'd be hanging around bus stops trying to talk to strangers. The Duke of Edinburgh is just awful. I know some people will like him for his candour but he's still an offensive prick. Harry is a the worst kind of smug, toff fuck. The prick would throw something at you then hide behind his minder giggling like a naughty schoolboy whilst flipping you a finger. I would have rejoiced if his mate in the army, 'paki', had accidentally put a bullet in his head. Edward is a waste of cock and balls. Awful, awful cunt. Andrew has that toothy toff face I'd never tire of smashing with a mace. William seems alright. I don't mind him actually and the Queen herself doesn't offend me like the rest.


I'm all for an armed revolution myself. I want to play football with their fucking heads.
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.


Copehead wrote:we have lost touch with anything normal

User avatar
Nikki Gradual
nasty, brutish and short
Posts: 20751
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:59
Location: Marineville

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby Nikki Gradual » 15 May 2012, 20:09

My views on the matter are well known, and the poll options not severe enough. Although I do think that before slaughtering them a few years of the Sue Townsend solution – making them live on food stamps in a Coventry council estate - might make them understand why someone called Goat Boy wants to play football with their heads.
"He's thrown a kettle over a pub; what have you done?"

User avatar
Billybob Dylan
Bonehead
Posts: 31807
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: in front of the telly

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby Billybob Dylan » 15 May 2012, 20:18

Why the enmity?
"I've been reduced to thruppence!"

User avatar
Polishgirl
Posts: 9144
Joined: 21 Dec 2009, 22:06

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby Polishgirl » 15 May 2012, 20:23

C*** LONDON wrote:?

I don't really have a problem with them to be honest. I recognise that the utopian ideal is a Britain without an aristocracy and would like that deep down, but short of a very bloody revolution it won't happen in my lifetime. It's calculated that the average cost to the UK taxpayer for the civil list is a whopping 50p a year and whilst the everyday benefits of the Royal Family to me seem negligible, the legacy and powerful history that the royal family have with this island is inextricably entwined, even if they are just a part of a wider European network of noble families.


I think this is really well put. Obv, in an ideal world, they would have been done away with ( not in a bloodthirsty way, though) but given that it's not an ideal world, I can't get too exorcised about it.

On a more personal level, Princess Anne is patron of the charity that I work for and she seems to do a pretty good job promoting the work we do, and understanding it. I've seen her talk at our national things and she's also visited our office within the last couple of years and spent far longer with us than she was meant to, showing what seemed to be a genuine interest in what we do and how we do it. I think we probably do benefit from having her in this role.
echolalia wrote: I despise Prefab Sprout. It will be decades before “hot dog, jumping frog, Albuquerque” is surpassed as the most terrible lyric in pop history. That fucking bastard ruined all three things for me forever.

The Modernist

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby The Modernist » 15 May 2012, 21:04

C*** LONDON wrote: It's calculated that the average cost to the UK taxpayer for the civil list is a whopping 50p a year and whilst the everyday benefits of the Royal Family to me seem negligible


So we're told, but I wonder who does the calculating. Their wealth is obscene.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 67293
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby Diamond Dog » 15 May 2012, 21:20

TopCat G wrote:
C*** LONDON wrote: It's calculated that the average cost to the UK taxpayer for the civil list is a whopping 50p a year and whilst the everyday benefits of the Royal Family to me seem negligible


So we're told, but I wonder who does the calculating. Their wealth is obscene.


It was like the farce of that wedding last year. The month afterwards we were all told retail had picked up because of it - though no one ever quite explained exactly what segment of retail increased. Did we all go and buy a Battenburg cake for breakfast, or suchlike ? - but then, of course, someone pointed out that, in fact, that wasn''t the true picture because we'd all had a day off doing fuck all and that meant we'd actually seen a decrease that month, in reality.

Who gives a fuck anyway. The economic arguments are a crock of horseshit. It's what the fuckers represent that's obscene, not their fucking wealth.
Last edited by Diamond Dog on 15 May 2012, 21:27, edited 1 time in total.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
"Don't be seduced into thinking that which did not make a profit is without value"
"'Seize the moments as they fly, know to live and learn to die'."

The Modernist

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby The Modernist » 15 May 2012, 21:27

K wrote:It's not the wealth, it's the land they own!


And continue to buy. They were the biggest investors in property in London throughout the eighties and nineties. So much of their wealth is hidden off-shore as well that it's impossible to know how much they're worth.

User avatar
souphound
World Class Ignoramus
Posts: 25006
Joined: 27 Oct 2003, 19:49
Location: Tralfamadore, with Montana Wildhack

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby souphound » 15 May 2012, 21:28

Doesn't the Queen also own all the wild birds in England as well or somesuch? I seem to remember that. Can anyone clarify please?
Footy wrote:Last week, I discovered that the cordless drill I bought about 5 years ago is, in fact, a cordless screwdiver.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 67293
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby Diamond Dog » 15 May 2012, 21:29

TopCat G wrote:
K wrote:It's not the wealth, it's the land they own!


And continue to buy. They were the biggest investors in property in London throughout the eighties and nineties. So much of their wealth is hidden off-shore as well that it's impossible to know how much they're worth.


If that's in Luxembourg, it's actually closer to home for them, than it would be here.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
"Don't be seduced into thinking that which did not make a profit is without value"
"'Seize the moments as they fly, know to live and learn to die'."

User avatar
Polishgirl
Posts: 9144
Joined: 21 Dec 2009, 22:06

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby Polishgirl » 15 May 2012, 21:33

Souphound wrote:Doesn't the Queen also own all the wild birds in England as well or somesuch? I seem to remember that. Can anyone clarify please?


The swans, maybe?

Edit: From wiki answers:


British Common Law contains the notion of Royal Prerogative which includes such important powers as the dissolution of Parliament, calling an election, declaration of war, the awarding of honours and many others.
Under Royal Prerogative, only the Monarch has the power to do these things, although as a constitutional monarch they are almost always done under the advice of the Prime Minister.
There are some historical quirks of this, one of which is that the Monarch owns all wild swans living in open water - of the species called 'mute' swans. Other species of swans, and those owned by individuals are not owned by Her Majesty
echolalia wrote: I despise Prefab Sprout. It will be decades before “hot dog, jumping frog, Albuquerque” is surpassed as the most terrible lyric in pop history. That fucking bastard ruined all three things for me forever.

User avatar
souphound
World Class Ignoramus
Posts: 25006
Joined: 27 Oct 2003, 19:49
Location: Tralfamadore, with Montana Wildhack

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby souphound » 15 May 2012, 21:57

Polishgirl wrote:
Souphound wrote:Doesn't the Queen also own all the wild birds in England as well or somesuch? I seem to remember that. Can anyone clarify please?


The swans, maybe?

Edit: From wiki answers:


British Common Law contains the notion of Royal Prerogative which includes such important powers as the dissolution of Parliament, calling an election, declaration of war, the awarding of honours and many others.
Under Royal Prerogative, only the Monarch has the power to do these things, although as a constitutional monarch they are almost always done under the advice of the Prime Minister.
There are some historical quirks of this, one of which is that the Monarch owns all wild swans living in open water - of the species called 'mute' swans. Other species of swans, and those owned by individuals are not owned by Her Majesty



Ta.
Footy wrote:Last week, I discovered that the cordless drill I bought about 5 years ago is, in fact, a cordless screwdiver.

The Modernist

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby The Modernist » 15 May 2012, 21:58

Polishgirl wrote:
There are some historical quirks of this, one of which is that the Monarch owns all wild swans living in open water - of the species called 'mute' swans. Other species of swans, and those owned by individuals are not owned by Her Majesty


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-18003489

If this is the case, given that owners of dangerous dogs that attack are prosecuted, shouldn't we prosecute the queen for the violent and anti-social behaviour of some of our swans?

User avatar
brotherlouie
AKA Number 16 Bus Shelter
Posts: 23132
Joined: 03 Oct 2004, 18:24
Location: In a library, probly.
Contact:

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby brotherlouie » 15 May 2012, 22:00

Diamond Dog wrote:I think burning them is far too decent a departure for them.

I'm desperately trying to get out of the country for this Jubilee celebration shit - it really fucking irks me.


I'll be in Berlin. But then it struck me that they are German, after all.

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 35609
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby yomptepi » 15 May 2012, 22:01

TopCat G wrote:
If this is the case, given that owners of dangerous dogs that attack are prosecuted, shouldn't we prosecute the queen for the violent and anti-social behaviour of some of our swans?



:roll:

Really G?
You don't like me...do you?

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 63784
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby sloopjohnc » 15 May 2012, 22:04

Diamond Dog wrote:I think burning them is far too decent a departure for them.


As the king of BCB, I thought you'd have more tolerance towards their ninny-headed subjects.

In other words, you can relate.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!

User avatar
C
Robust
Posts: 50725
Joined: 22 Jul 2003, 19:06

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby C » 15 May 2012, 22:04

Parasites




.
fange wrote:OOOOF! Full of music!

Nice tubs. Good lad!

The Modernist

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby The Modernist » 15 May 2012, 22:12

yomptepi wrote:
TopCat G wrote:
If this is the case, given that owners of dangerous dogs that attack are prosecuted, shouldn't we prosecute the queen for the violent and anti-social behaviour of some of our swans?



:roll:

Really G?


They're a menace M!

User avatar
harvey k-tel
Long Player
Posts: 40267
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:20
Location: 1220 on your AM dial

Re: The British Monarchy

Postby harvey k-tel » 15 May 2012, 22:19

If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here.