I don’t know if this is worth a new thread, BUT…
if Prince Charles ever gets promoted, do you think he will be Charles III or will he choose another name?
I remember the Silver Jubilee in 1977. Lots of gobbing going on and people with green hair with safety pins through their noses as well.
Well done Lizzie! For the record, this UK-raised Yank thinks she’s an asset. You have the Queen, we have Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. 
His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, and he has indicated that he would use the last of those, making him George VII.
But he can always change his mind, up until he is crowned.
And the Jubilee in 2002. I thought Diamond was 75 years. When did that change?
How boring. Charles III would be great.
Geez, threadshit much?
Long Live the Queen!
BTW Charlie’s not getting even a sniff of that throne!
My dad told me about seeing her in her youth outside a hotel. He was indeed impressed with her “tracts of land”, but I think “enormous” is a bit of an exaggeration. Left an impression nonetheless.
It’s not a “threadshit” to express an opinion. Having a queen in 2012 is fucking ridiculous. If someone were to start a thread on the wonders of witch-burning, I’d also expect a few differing opinions to pop up.
Sorry for the hijack, but I can’t let these slide…
I agree, the tourism argument is fairly weak for monarchists and republicans.
I don’t think you quite understand how the monarchy is financed.
The only ones who receive taxpayer’s money are the Queen and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh. All others only receive reimbursements for services they do for the state – and even then the Queen stumps that up for them. Otherwise, they have to find the money themselves.
There are plenty of republics where the Head of State has numerous residences on taxpayer’s money – in fact many which outdo the British monarchy in terms of residences. France and America come to mind.
They are only parasites in the same manner in which the Presidents of Germany or Italy are parasites, i.e. they get money for doing the same job as the Queen (more in fact – the Queen doesn’t get a salary!)
Irrelevant, and subjective.
Again, your opinion, I think? Overall the Brits seem to think she’s done spectacularly well. And as for her family, they’ve done no worse than anybody else would have done.
Could you provide a link for this? In any case, I can provide links to certain liberties taken by many presidents 
Nasty; but predictable. 25 posts. Took longer than I expected. Only a C-, I’m afraid.
Yes, I do. I understand it perfectly, thanks.
They, in turn, give it to other members of their family. Whether you give 20 parcels of £1m to 20 people or one parcel of £20m to two people who then share it with their family doesn’t make much difference to the taxpayer.
So what? I am not arguing that the situation in some republics you refer to is right. I am arguing that the Queen and her family of parasites have done nothing to earn the vast wealth given to them by the British taxpayers. Also, while you can cite exceptions, most non-monarchical heads of state have to actually do something to achieve that status, such as win an election, and they can also be deposed. The Queen has never had to win an election nor can we get rid of her. This is also why the ‘she does ever such a good job’ argument is weak and irrelevant - we’d be stuck with her even if she didn’t.
You are trying to obfuscate the issue, but not very successfully. Presidents are generally not presidents through hereditary principle, which means they to do something to attain their status. As for the ‘Queen does not get a salary’ argument, I have never suggested she does. A salary is something you have to earn, and something that can be stopped if you turn out to be incompetent. She receives a Civil List payment of many millions of pounds and also receives income through ownership of land.
Which Brits? I’m one, and I don’t think she’s done well, and I know many more who feel exactly the same way. How many Brits have you discussed this with?
It is true that opinion polls in the UK consistently show a majority in support of having a monarchy. However, this isn’t the same as saying the current Parasite In Chief has done a good job. It’s possible to be in favour of the institution without necessarily thinking the current Monarch is any good. Nor does it explain or justify why the monarchy needs to be as expensive as it is nor why these people need to have vast wealth bestowed upon them. They haven’t done anything to earn it or to deserve it. What’s wrong with the idea that if someone wants to be paid a lot of money they should have to do some work to earn it?
There is no way of ascertaining if this is true or not, so it’s a meaningless assertion.
Well, I could use Google to find the relevant press coverage of the story, but you can do that for yourself just as easily.
As above, I am not discussing any presidents or justifying their actions or behaviour. I am expressing my opinion that the Queen is a disgusting and anachronistic parasite who soaks up vast amounts of money that could be better spent elsewhere, and on people who deserve it, and that she doesn’t even do her job well.
[quote=“ianzin, post:51, topic:611896”]
Yes, I do. I understand it perfectly, thanks.
Do you have evidence for this?
We can get rid of her quite easily – Parliament simply passes an instrument declaring her no longer monarch.
And the absence of her election is the whole point – as someone earlier pointed out, the alternative is vicious attack ads and elections to a largely ceremonial role. There is a reason most countries don’t elect such a position.
You’re right – presidents generally don’t inherit. But as the job is largely ceremonial, why bother electing it? Instead, people in general prefer having the position inherited to prevent the squalid competition and appeal to the lowest common denominator that election entails.
I can ask you the same question – who have you been talking to? You’re quite correct, of course, that you can like/hate the institution while liking/disliking the office-holder, but the general consensus is that Elizabeth has on the whole handled the position rather well.
They don’t – any more than the President of Germany gets vast wealth bestowed upon them. Their personal wealth is theirs and is not supported by the taxpayer. It comes from personal investment portfolios.
This gets into the messy question of whether elections are meritocratic
I could say the same in response to you…
I’m afraid a cursory scan hasn’t shown up terribly much, so unless I’m inept with Google I’ll have to ask you kindly to provide a link.
And yet you are by the sidelines justifying their behaviour while holding the Queen to a different standard: you claim she soaks up money better spent elsewhere, and yet haven’t demonstrated what she doesn’t do that the President of Germany does. There wouldn’t be any cost saved, as the cost of maintaining the Head of State would be the same under a republic.
And please stop saying it’s anachronistic. It doesn’t impress me. Just because something is old does not make it a bad thing.
Am I mistaken to think that Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, could step down at any time, if she wanted to? I thought she could.
Did Edward (the abdicator, Duke of Windsor, etc.) go to his brother’s (George VI’s) coronation?
Well, there’s, you know, the rule of law.
She could, but there’s very little possibility of it happening. ‘Abdication’ is a dirty word for the British royal family.
No - he high-tailed it to southern France. He was never really welcome back in Britain ever again, and only ever came back in exceptional circumstances, such as his last days when he was rushed to hospital in London.
The then-Duke of Windsor was ASSIGNED to France as a military attache. When his alleged Nazi Sympathies came to light he was sent to the Bahamas as governor.
It’s often forgotten that Edward has a lot of personal issues aside from Wallis Simpson; he was almost universally regarded by everyone who knew him as a flake and an impulsive, immature doofus, and members of their own family expressed regret that Albert (George VI) hadn’t been born first - including, I should note, by his own father, King George V, who loved his children and all, but wasn’t stupid. It was remarked of Edward many times that he seemed to remain a teenager his whole life. An interesting bit of trivia is that he defied long custom by not have his portrait on coinage face the opposite way of his predecessor; George V faced left, so he should have faced right, because he didn’t like the way it made his hair look.
When he abdicated a lot of people were extremely relieved; frankly, a lot of them were glad he’d met Wallis Simpson. As to whether or not he was a Nazi he wasn’t really (although he was a casual racist.) The truth is that he was just a complete buffoon. A moron. Stupid as a rock. Fascism found an admiring ear in Edward in large part because it’s simple and doesn’t require a lot of thought, and Edward was very simple indeed.
Anyway. Her Majesty isn’t going to abdicate, ever, because to her that means being like her idiot uncle, and not like her grandfather and father, whom she adored (the feeling was mutual) and who set the example of service she seems to feel is her responsibility. Abdicating would be an awful betrayal.
For the same reason, though, Charles will not step aside; he’d be betraying his mother. He’ll take the throne if he’s 85 and can wear it for just a few years, just because he’s probably afraid his mother will come back from the dead to kill him if he abdicates.
I’d assume that the opinion polls that reflect support for the monarchy are supporting the current monarch. All of those younger than 60 years and two days have only known one monarch.
Why do you not believe that she has not done a good job as Head of State?
You don’t speak for all of us.
Ditto but vice versa. Ain’t anecdotal evidence grand?
If enough people in the UK were interested in overthrowing the monarchy and creating a republic, surely some political party would be running with abolitionism as part of its manifesto.
This doesn’t seem to be the case. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but the only actual republican party I’ve ever heard of who had members elected to Westmister were Sinn Fein. Stood to reason for them, obviously. But they don’t get elected to there any more, of course.
Is there a credible political British republican movement that I’ve just not heard about?
This, plus the note upthread about how consorts do not generally attend coronations…I wonder if these customs and traditions are remnants of a general uneasiness about usurpation. It’s been a while since the War of the Roses, and Bonnie Prince Charlie et al…but there may still be a general uneasiness amongst the royals about having more than one potential claimant to the throne around at the same time.
(Most of my knowledge of British royalty comes from movies and PBS documentaries. I noticed in The King’s Speech, how on the death of George V, the first thing his survivors did – including his grieving widow – was to make obeisance to the new king.)