Personally, i think that the Kennedys are overhyped myself, but it brings up an interesting point. If the US, as a country who has traditionally shunned royalty, needed to to invent a “royal family”, then what is so wrong about other countries that have traditionally embarced the royal family having one?
that’s me in the corner
thats me in the spot…light
losing my religion!
Actually, if I understood a comment earlier in this thread, the UK has debarced their royal family.
(Have they actually scrapped the Britannia? Couldn’t they sell it to Fayed or one of his cronies? My memory was that it was built dual-purpose to be a small/medium hospital ship. No agency could be found to accept it in that role?)
Tom~
Actually, I believe that both the Queen and Prince Chuckles have been paying taxes, too, for several years now.
As for HRH getting money from the state:
The Queen’s personal income, as for any other individual, is a private matterivate matter; however, the Lord Chamberlain said in 1993 that estimates for her investment portfolio of £100 million and upwards were ‘grossly overstated’. The Queen’s personal income
is taxable, as for any taxpayer.
Her Majesty owns Balmoral and Sandringham, as well as the West Ilsley Stables, and Sunninghill Park, home of The Duke of York and the stud at Sandringham. The Queen owns no property outside the United Kingdom.
The Queen, as Sovereign, receives a private income from the Duchy of Lancaster (a landed estate held in trust for the Sovereign since 1399). This amounted to £5.70 million before tax for the year to 31 March 1998. Although the income is private, The Queen uses the larger part of it to meet official expenses incurred by other Members of the Royal family.
The Queen does not receive a salary from the State. Parliament provides a sum known as the Civil List to meet official expenses, such as the salaries of staff working directly for the Queen as Head of State and official entertainment (for example, State Visits
and Garden Parties). The Civil List is provided in exchange for the surrender of The Queen’s hereditary revenues for the duration
of her reign (in 1997/98, £113.2 million was paid to the Government’s Treasury). The Civil List is set by Parliament as a fixed annual amount of £7.9 million for a period of up to 10 years.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/faq/wealth.htm
As for the “leadership” efforts of the Kennedys, puh-leeze don’t tell me Jackie O and Caroline are/were admired for their dynamic political accomplishments…
But don’t get me wrong—I’m not a huge Royals fan. I just can’t see comparing one country’s useless famous rich folk against another country’s useless famous rich folk. We each have our own form of “royalty”.
By the way, what, exactly, is Scotland? I mean, what’s it called? An Autonomous Republic? A Province? A State? Wales is a Principality; Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man are Bailiwicks; what’s Scotland? And what’s Northern Ireland these days, while we’re on the subject?
Heck is where you go when you don’t believe in Gosh.
I believe that particular piece of vitriol was aimed at those who use Britain and England interchangeably, completely unaware of what they’re saying. I still couldn’t give a toss about “Britain” for the reasons stated in that thread.
Aaah the “West Lothian Question”. Personally, I couldn’t agree more. The thing is, England does not have an English Parliament, so, technically, there is absolutely nothing wrong, morally, politically or otherwise, with a Scot voting on an English matter because it is still the “British” parliament. And it is the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, not the Scottish Labour Party or the Scottish Conservatives you are talking about. It would be a discriminatory practice to exclude Scottish or Welsh Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem members from voting on any matter brought before the parliament of Great Britain. Either you legislate the British parliament out of existance, thus creating 4 autonomous governing bodies (messy) or we have an English parliament sitting alongside it’s British big bro. What I will say is that I don’t agree with being a member of Scottish Labour AND the Labour Party proper, allowing you a thumb in all the pies and indeed I don’t know if that is permitted (I’m a political wasteland, so sue me :))
Well, jeez ya stumped me 
Sweeping aside all the political guff and setting aside my own opinions for a second…
In matters of international significance the “country” we refer to as the UK (technically the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) comprises the nation-states England ,Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has it’s own legal system, education system, banknotes and coinage as well as a pretty cool accent, Ewan McGregor notwithstanding To the best of my knowledge Wales pretty much follows the English lead with these things but then a large percentage of the Welsh population speak an entirely different language, moreso than the Scots. A similar question (although you may not think to ask it) is “What exactly is England?”. The UK is a funny beast.
Disclaimer: I always think of Scotland, England, N. Ireland and Wales purely as countries so my understanding of the situation could be, ahem, skewed. Correct at will TomH
MadHun,
That’s not the West Lothian Question. The WLQ was the one raised by android when he said
My point is an ancillary one: a Scottish voter has more an influence on English matters than an English voter does.
NTG,
None of the constituent parts of the UK is a “nation state”. That would imply political autonomy.
Northern Ireland is a Province.
Wales is a Principality.
England and Scotland are countries, but are referred to in the Act of Union as “the two kingdoms of Scotland and England”.
Well it’s heading that way Thanks for the clarification.
Sorry, my reply was directed towards Android. Quoted you by mistake.
Jeez, MadHun!! Here I am, trying to draw you into a wild flame war, and you respond calmly and reasonably. You are no fun. No fun at all.
Analogy: White man says ‘nigger’.
Among her ‘achievements’ Prices Di is famous for not having gained any O-levels(don’t know what grade this would be.16 years old).
This is quite an achievement considering that she went to a private fee paying school whose standards are considered to be extremely high but she was reasonably well matched with Chuck who’s grades at school were not good enough to get him to the university he finally went to, or at least if I’d got them I certainly would not have been enrolled…Ho-Hum privelidge eh!
I’d rather not annoy Madhun and I can sympathise at his unwillingness to be called a ‘subject’ but his ancestors were not ruled by kindly ,benevolent leaders themselves,I’d imagine that his status in such a society would either be oppressor or oppressed.
Anyway why does the OP believe that we English have any more love for the idle rich than any hardworking American has?
I’ve been given sod all by anyone I really have come from the absolute lowest layer of society and risen all the way to mediocrity which is for my background one hell of an achievement ,and boy, do I hate the denial of education opportunities the nepotism of mindless incompetants and the arrogant assumption of superiority of the idle inherited rich .
If you think I’m offended by your naive notion that I give a witches tit about the health and welfare of the Royal Leeches you are right!
By the way I’m not a communist they are wankers too.I don’t mind parents ensuring their children get every chance they can.I don’t mind millionaires we need movers and shakers but birthright privelidge? no
Among her ‘achievements’ Prices Di is famous for not having gained any O-levels(don’t know what grade this would be.16 years old).
This is quite an achievement considering that she went to a private fee paying school whose standards are considered to be extremely high but she was reasonably well matched with Chuck who’s grades at school were not good enough to get him to the university he finally went to, or at least if I’d got them I certainly would not have been enrolled…Ho-Hum privelidge eh!
I’d rather not annoy Madhun and I can sympathise at his unwillingness to be called a ‘subject’ but his ancestors were not ruled by kindly ,benevolent leaders themselves,I’d imagine that his status in such a society would either be oppressor or oppressed.
Anyway why does the OP believe that we English have any more love for the idle rich than any hardworking American has?
I’ve been given sod all by anyone I really have come from the absolute lowest layer of society and risen all the way to mediocrity which is for my background one hell of an achievement ,and boy, do I hate the denial of education opportunities the nepotism of mindless incompetants and the arrogant assumption of superiority of the idle inherited rich .
If you think I’m offended by your naive notion that I give a witches tit about the health and welfare of the Royal Leeches you are right!
By the way I’m not a communist they are wankers too.I don’t mind parents ensuring their children get every chance they can.I don’t mind millionaires we need movers and shakers but birthright privelidge? no
Apologs for the double post but I got sooo worked up.
This is not a good analogy.
[availing herself of the fact that this is in the pit]
What the hell are you talking about, you moron?
[/availing herself of the fact that this is in the pit]
Please explain the logic behind your analogy.
casdave wrote
Well, truth is I was just in the mood to pick an unfair fight. Sorry for the offense.
Actually, I really don’t know what the true pulse is of the English. Do they generally support the existance of the Royal family? Is there any call for it’s abolishment? Is your statement fairly representative of Enlish attitude?
I can tell you that I’d be pissed if I were English and an Upper class existed and was recognized (and honored) by the government that I could never enter.
Word.
Billie,
Personally I reckon that the overwhelming majority of Brits don’t really care; the Royals don’t make a difference to our daily lives. It’s the vocal minorities of pro/anti-monarchists that make all the fuss, what with arguments of tourism vs Civil List monies and so on. I think there’s an age split too; the younger you are, the less sense they make. At 24 I don’t wish any harm on the Royals, but I’d be more than happy for them to fade away gracefully and help lose the embarrassing post-imperial hangover that a lot of Brits seem to cling on to (“Join Europe? Never! We used to rule the world, don’t you know?”)
Britain is much less “class driven” than it has been; witness Tony Blair’s drive to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords (leaving mostly life peers, who in theory are appointed for their experience in specialist areas and whose offspring do not inherit the title or role). I remember one author saying that a lot of the attachment towards the Royals is down to “vicarious splendour”, i.e. something sparkly to look at from the cesspool of one’s own life (!). As the middle class grows (and grows, and grows) and the sections of society polarised by wealth become smaller minorities (although, sadly, I doubt they’ll disappear) I think people will care less and less for a tag-team of ageing inbred political nobodies.
Hopefully.
I could insult your mother if it makes ya feel better Maybe I should change my name to TheCalmAndActuallyQuiteReasonableHun. Naaaah!
I don’t really see the relevance of my/our ancestors beeing bloodthirsty warmongering oppressors. My point was simply that the monarchy is now obsolete, as is the notion of a monarch under which there are loyal subjects. It’s positively pagan.
What would you rather, catholic???