Well put it this way - The US Embassy in London is on land owned by The Grovesnors in a square named after the Grovesnors. That’s serious real estate.
(p.s The London embassy is one of the few first world US Embassies that’s on land not owned by the US Govt. The Duke of Westminster has always said that he’ll give them the land it’s on when they return the land seized from his family after the US revolution - ie Manhattan!)
Although Mr. Stretchingtime and I have differing political philosophies :eek: , he is right on the money here.
The Monarchy is indeed a beloved tradition and the present Queen is completely non-controversial. (Although one of the wealthiest women in the World asking for funds to rebuild one of her castles was a blemish!)
I think there are slight signs of discontent (people don’t stand for the National Anthem at the end of films anymore; gossipy stories of life at t’Palace regularly surface), plus there may well be an upsurge of distaste when a known adulterer inherits both the throne and the Head of the Churh of England.
But the end of the Monarchy is not in sight.
Tourists will still come to see Buckingham Palace et al even if there isn’t a Royalty there to leech off the state.
Nobody here in the UK really makes a pro-monarchy arguement on the basis of tourist money - believe me, most of us would be deleriously happy if LESS foreigners were standing on the left on the tube escalators all bloody summer in their dayglo clothes and unfortunate haircuts.
However ouitside a few leftie firebrand cock-chafers (the one’s who have been on the losing side of every serious arguement in the last 40 years) there really is absolutely no desire to see the back of the Monarchy - it costs something like 10p a day and you just know that President Blair (now, THERES a thought) would cost much much more.
I quite like the fact that when a foreigner (apart from a few scandiwegians) says “the Queen” or “the Royal Family” it’s taken as read that they mean the British/Canadian/ Australian/New Zealand/Jamaican/Bermudan etc etc one.
I think most of the issues regarding the Royal Family centre around the royals who are nowhere in line for the throne but live in luxury for very little effort. A streamlined royalty ( to coin a phrase, downsized) would I think be quite popular, but I imagine most Brits see the Queen as a conscientious head, and worth whatever she costs. However as glee has said it might be a different matter when His Royal Adulterer takes over.
I think it’s rather difficult to assess whether it is any more or less expensive to have a monarch as the head of state rather than a president (or the two captains, or whatever - incidentally, do they ever fight on San Marino pay-per-view?).
After all, the palaces are already built, the wealth already invested in the Bank of England, and the land has got to be owned by somebody. One could certainly argue for cutting back on who gets the pampered lifestyle, but those elections are themselves vastly expensive. Is it really accurate to call a monarch a leech but a president not?
How difficult would it be to adjust our legal and political system to one with no monarchy?
Well, in a certain kind of modern parliamentary democracy. If I recall correctly, the French president is more powerful than the prime minister.
Saxony (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha).
Victoria was the last Hanoverian.
Philip Battenberg’s family is Hessian.
So, who is next in line for the throne?
Click on the link and find out:
http://www.chickenshop.co.uk/acatalog/mask25.html
Which would be not at all ironic or hypocritical considering that no previous British monarch or Defender of the Faith has ever been a known adulterer.
Oh wait.
Let’s start with the founder of the Church of England, Henry VIII, who according to this site anyway “is believed to be the only British monarch to have more wives than mistresses.”
Elizabeth I: Dudley.
James I: Publicly known bisexual with multiple liaisons
Charles II: 14 illegitimate children; at least 13 mistresses, four of them pretty much publicly known (here and here.
James II: Catharine Sedley.
William III: Elizabeth Villiers.
George I: Ehrengard Melusina von Schulenberg and Charlotte Sophia Kielmansegge.
George II: numerous, including Amalia Sophie Marianne von Walmoden and Henrietta Howard.
George IV: numerous, including Maria Fitzherbert, Harriet Wilson, and Mary “Perdita” Robinson.
William IV: Dorothea Jordan (10 illegitimate children).
Edward VII: numerous, including Lily Langtry, Alice Kepple (ancestor of Camilla Parker-Bowles), Lady Brooke, Princess de Mouchy, and Princess de Sagan.
George V: numerous, including, perhaps, the mother of Sir Anthony Blunt
Edward VIII: numerous, including Winifred “Freda” Dudley Ward, Viscountess Thelma Furness, and Wallis Simpson
Come on, “adultery” is practically in the definition of “monarch.”
Yes, your research is sound!
But attitudes have changed since then.
The Monarchy used to be mysterious and revered.
Now we have stories about their day to day life (why ex-royal butlers even appear on ‘I’m a celebrity - get me out of here!’), and the Royals have even started paying taxes.
It used to be a death sentence to tamper with the Royal breeding (if you see what I mean). Now it’s just a question of which European newspaper will publish the scurrilous story first.
My personal view of Prince Charles is that he is unfit to inherit. The job, money and numerous titles simply require him to behave well.
If he wants to resign and marry Camilla, fine. As a private citizen, that’s his business. But I think he’s too greedy for the power and money to do the decent thing.
Yeah, so now that a monarch effectively has no power at all and is obligated to spend most of his or her time engaged in nothing more interesting than public relations appearances, he or she also has to submit to the hypocritical and self-righteous scrutiny of the public who feel free to make judgments about his or her private character. So while politicians, business executives, and regular people commit adultery and screw up their marriages …
Of course, not being British myself, my opinion doesn’t matter, but I believe that, yeah, Charles is a blockhead when it comes to personal relationships and he royally screwed up his marriage, and he’s a stuffed shirt and an arrogant bastard (none of which is surprising considering the characters and personalities of his father, Philip, and his mentor, Lord Mountbatten). However, these characteristics could describe the majority of those who hold power in government, commerce, and the church. They’re largely a bunch of assholes and they always have been, including the sainted Diana (who was dumb as rocks but was blessed with being relatively less horse-faced than her in-laws, which earned her the undying adoration of practically everyone in the world).
On the other hand, Charles strikes me as more educated, more intelligent, more thoughtful, and more cognizant and sensitive to the issues affecting the public than any British monarch or potential monarch since, I don’t know, ever. Of course, that might also be a negative in the eyes of the public, because, heaven help us if a monarch ever expressed an opinion about anything.
Ah. Well indeed I am against hypocrisy myself.
Of course we can vote politicians out of office. Indeed some of them resign over matters of honour (e.g. David Blunkett).
The shareholders can sack business executives.
Monarchy is for life (and there are no tests for qualifications or ability).
Regular people do not inherit two serious high profile jobs, a multi-million pound estate and a job description that basically just asks them to set an example and produce a legal heir.
As I said, if regular citizen Mr. Charles Windsor wants to commit adultery, that’s not my business. But if the future Monarch and Head of the Church of England wants both the glory and to be an adulterer, I consider him unfit (and hypocritical!).
I would be interested to see your cites for the above.
In any case, two wrongs don’t make a right - we can certainly do better than Charles.
He certainly walked into University with inadequate qualifications. (I think his parents arranged it!)
I am puzzled by how you know he is intelligent and thoughtful. Cites?
It is also unlikely that he knows anything about issues affecting the public. The man has a massive inherited income, servants for every conceivable role and stays in a tight social circle.
“…the number of staff working for Charles has risen to 100. These include two assistant valets, subordinate to a valet and head valet, and nine staff to tend the prince’s garden at Highgrove.”
Under our present constitution, the Monarch is supposed to maintain a dignified silence. It’s so they remain impartial. Personally I think it’s to keep secret how out of touch they are!