[cite]Posted By: KBslittlesis[/cite]The buildings/architecture that tourists come to see in the UK are very much based on Royal history. The Tower of London would not exist if it were not for a need to keep the masses in check.
Our country has a huge amount of history, which still continues to the present day. When I visit Versailles and the Colloseum I can only dream of what life was like back then.
I watched a part of the Lord Mayors show the other day and I loved the pomp and ceremony. Kids all waving flags and having a great time.
I'm no Royalist by any stretch. But only a few get money these days. I know for a fact the charity work that if Charlie boy didn't put his name to would get didly squat.
Two people are getting married. Good on em. If we get a day off, brilliant. If those who make money from selling tshirts, mugs etc make a few bob. Fantastic. If it takes some peoples mind of their shitty everday life cos the government are taking their last penny. Fill their boots.
If you don't care. Don't by the papers/magazines & switch you're blooming tv off.
You've just spent a weekend remembering those who died in WW1 & WW2. They cared about the monachy. They died for King & country. Are we now so different? I wish i could ask one of them how they would feel about it all.
Not exactly a wide representative sample but my Grandfather fought in WWI in North Africa and he was a lifelong Republican.
He always told us that his reason for joining up were because he felt his country was in dire threat of invasion from the Germans and he wanted to defend the country from the Nazis.
Nothing to do with the monarchy whatsoever and to claim that all of the armed forces in WWII "cared about the monarchy" is drawing a long bow, their prime concern was the defence of their country, not the monarchy.
Indeed, my Grandfather, a lifelong Labour man, had immense respect for the way that Churchill held the country together during the war and always said that Churchill rather than the King was the rock that held Britain together in its darkest hours.
Of course, many in the forces would have been monarchists but that is not to say that this was their primary reason for fighting.
never have been a royalist as such but then it makes the Guardianistsas go into total FreakWankMyselfToDeath mode that --- well--- they cant be to bad after all these Royals.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]never have been a royalist as such but then it makes the Guardianistsas go into total FreakWankMyselfToDeath mode that --- well--- they cant be to bad after all these Royals.
Because "Guardianstsas" are such huge nationalists? I think you got the wrong paper mate.
[quote][cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]I think you'll find that most people who join the British armed forces do so to protect the nation but mostly because it's a job and not because an in-bred half German and half Greek member of the royal family is their colonel-in-chief.[/quote]
I agree with you completely, however 'reason for joining' was not my point.
I think you underestimate the positive effect a colonel in chief has on a unit. I am sorry you dismiss the view that there is a chance they have a positive effect.
I'm not interested, nobody I know has mentioned it and nobody here gives a toss. Yet there's wall to wall coverage in the papers, with souvenir papers etc etc. All the papers lead on it with most having 12+ pages plus 16 page pull outs
You've got to assume the papers know their audiences but I just can't help thinking that some of them (espcially the broadsheets) maybe overestimating their readers' interest in this.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]Many European capitals have royal families. I don't believe it's the clincher for tourists.
That said, I don't believe a single penny would be saved by abolishing the monarchy.
Why not - we'd have to replace them with a President - how expensive are they? Surely cheaper than the royals and at least then every UK citizen would in theory have a chance of reaching that high office - haven't seen any elections for the next King.
I haven't seen any elections to the European Commission which both costs UK taxpayers far more and adversely affects their lives if democratic accountability is your gripe why don't the Grauniad mafia moan about that?
Well they do have elections. I have an elected Member of the European Parliament and I even know his name - Claude Morales
Just seen this.
the European Parliament is a sham. It has never rejected European Commission legislation nor called it to account for the fraudulent accounts that auditors have refused to approve for 16 years.
Actually the European Parliament did raise a protest once about corruption amongst Commissioners, including that paragon of virtue Kinnock, and the Commission resigned en bloc. After a short interval they all skulked back to exactly what they were doing previously!
If the EU is so democratic why does it force individual nations to vote again if it doesn't like the result of referendums?
the European Parliament is a sham. It has never rejected European Commission legislation nor called it to account for the fraudulent accounts that auditors have refused to approve for 16 years.
Actually the European Parliament did raise a protest once about corruption amongst Commissioners, including that paragon of virtue Kinnock, and the Commission resigned en bloc. After a short interval they all skulked back to exactly what they were doing previously!
If the EU is so democratic why does it force individual nations to vote again if it doesn't like the result of referendums?
I see what you are saying - I pointed out that you do have elected representatives in the European Parliament, but what you are saying is that the European Parliament is not able to control the unelected European Commission. If what you claim is true (and you do cite evidence to support your claim), this would seem to be a serious problem - they should be no more than civil servants! We need to elect MEPs who will fight this the next time we have an opportunity.
I think the Commission is the executive as I understand - therefore not just civil servants, more like unelected Ministers. Whether the parliament has power which I believe it has, and whether it uses it to bring the commission to account is another question, perhaps for your MEP to answer?
The Euro Parliament elects the President of the Commission, but the 27 Commissioners are nominated by each of the EU member states.
The Commission is the EU Government in most ways. It is the only body which can iniatiate legislation but it relieson the European Council (which is basically the national governments) plus the Parliament to pass it. Power has leaked away from the Commisison to the national governments in the last few years, especially since Lisbon (ironically since anti-Europeans were against Lisbon and vice versa).
The EU definately has a democratic deficit. It was never created as a democratic body and its institutions reflect that - the EU Parliament was only set up in 1979, for example. It is generally becoming more democratic but its an uphill struggle since EU beuarcrats don't like giving up power and anti-Europeans are against giving the EU any legitimacy with the power that arises from such legitimacy.
[cite]Posted By: Jints[/cite]I'm not interested, nobody I know has mentioned it and nobody here gives a toss. Yet there's wall to wall coverage in the papers, with souvenir papers etc etc. All the papers lead on it with most having 12+ pages plus 16 page pull outs
You've got to assume the papers know their audiences but I just can't help thinking that some of them (espcially the broadsheets) maybe overestimating their readers' interest in this.
Im afraid to tell you that people are intrested.
And all you on here whinging about it being constantly on the telly and in the press etc. im afraid you are going to have to get on with it.
Me, i shall look forward to watching the big spectacle and hopefully on a week day.
phrases are used on the news such as "the wedding everyone has been waiting for" are simply abosolute tosh
you are right that a large number of people are interested, but there are quite a few who aren't, I guess its like the world cup for non footballing folk
Nice couple, seem like best friends, in love, good looking, what's not to like, as long as they don't choose 3rd September next year, I'm very happy for them!
I'm fairly neutral about the royals on the whole. I think they ought to come a little cheaper but I'd rather pay them and get some 'trickle-down economics' than waste the money on benefit scroungers (for example). I think that despite what people say, economically the country does benefit from them but it's something that's pretty hard to measure. What really does get my goat is when people idolise them purely because they're royals. My girlfriend and her Mum both think that they're all marvellous yet they don't even know them. I prefer to save my adulation for people whose talents are more easily recognisable. Like Izale McLeod for example ;o)
[cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]Thats a good way of puttig it HH. Neither here nor there really but dont oppose them.
Hopefully we wont have a year long of vitriol spouted by some of the queens on here.
I'm pretty much this, I would just rather that the media didn't bombard us with every inane detail of this wedding and would forget the topic until the day it happens. I know that'll never happen but we can hope...
''look the silly greek c&&t does nothing for morale wake up!!! ''
Nolly You are entitled toy our opinion. It would carry more weight if you could back it up in any meaningful way.
I know of many, many soldiers who would rather have the continuum of tradition having any member of the royal family ( why do you refer to ;the greek'? - not mentioned by me) as their patron rather than some fly by night transient meaningless politician. So I have my opinion too, thanks anyway for your wake up call!
I find your terminology un-necessarily disgusting.
Comments
The last time a royal wedding took place at Westminster Abbey, we won the FA Cup.
We're already through to the 2nd round. Exciting stuff, eh.
Not exactly a wide representative sample but my Grandfather fought in WWI in North Africa and he was a lifelong Republican.
He always told us that his reason for joining up were because he felt his country was in dire threat of invasion from the Germans and he wanted to defend the country from the Nazis.
Nothing to do with the monarchy whatsoever and to claim that all of the armed forces in WWII "cared about the monarchy" is drawing a long bow, their prime concern was the defence of their country, not the monarchy.
Indeed, my Grandfather, a lifelong Labour man, had immense respect for the way that Churchill held the country together during the war and always said that Churchill rather than the King was the rock that held Britain together in its darkest hours.
Of course, many in the forces would have been monarchists but that is not to say that this was their primary reason for fighting.
Because "Guardianstsas" are such huge nationalists? I think you got the wrong paper mate.
I agree with you completely, however 'reason for joining' was not my point.
I think you underestimate the positive effect a colonel in chief has on a unit.
I am sorry you dismiss the view that there is a chance they have a positive effect.
excellent stuff jimmy ... it's obviously our year ;-)
Where did Princess Margret and Charles and Diana get married?
You've got to assume the papers know their audiences but I just can't help thinking that some of them (espcially the broadsheets) maybe overestimating their readers' interest in this.
Charles and Diana St Pauls. Not sure about Anthony Armstrong Jones and wife.
Just seen this.
the European Parliament is a sham. It has never rejected European Commission legislation nor called it to account for the fraudulent accounts that auditors have refused to approve for 16 years.
Actually the European Parliament did raise a protest once about corruption amongst Commissioners, including that paragon of virtue Kinnock, and the Commission resigned en bloc. After a short interval they all skulked back to exactly what they were doing previously!
If the EU is so democratic why does it force individual nations to vote again if it doesn't like the result of referendums?
So although there was a royal wedding there in 1947, there have been several there since.
Ah hah! So I was right!
I see what you are saying - I pointed out that you do have elected representatives in the European Parliament, but what you are saying is that the European Parliament is not able to control the unelected European Commission. If what you claim is true (and you do cite evidence to support your claim), this would seem to be a serious problem - they should be no more than civil servants! We need to elect MEPs who will fight this the next time we have an opportunity.
The Commission is the EU Government in most ways. It is the only body which can iniatiate legislation but it relieson the European Council (which is basically the national governments) plus the Parliament to pass it. Power has leaked away from the Commisison to the national governments in the last few years, especially since Lisbon (ironically since anti-Europeans were against Lisbon and vice versa).
The EU definately has a democratic deficit. It was never created as a democratic body and its institutions reflect that - the EU Parliament was only set up in 1979, for example. It is generally becoming more democratic but its an uphill struggle since EU beuarcrats don't like giving up power and anti-Europeans are against giving the EU any legitimacy with the power that arises from such legitimacy.
Im afraid to tell you that people are intrested.
And all you on here whinging about it being constantly on the telly and in the press etc. im afraid you are going to have to get on with it.
Me, i shall look forward to watching the big spectacle and hopefully on a week day.
you are right that a large number of people are interested, but there are quite a few who aren't, I guess its like the world cup for non footballing folk
:@)
More chance of pigs flying than it being on a weekday.
Hopefully we wont have a year long of vitriol spouted by some of the queens on here.
LOL
I'm pretty much this, I would just rather that the media didn't bombard us with every inane detail of this wedding and would forget the topic until the day it happens. I know that'll never happen but we can hope...
It had Kate Middleton topless & legs akimbo showing her red drawers, in the back of a car I think ?
Nolly
You are entitled toy our opinion.
It would carry more weight if you could back it up in any meaningful way.
I know of many, many soldiers who would rather have the continuum of tradition having any member of the royal family ( why do you refer to ;the greek'? - not mentioned by me) as their patron rather than some fly by night transient meaningless politician. So I have my opinion too, thanks anyway for your wake up call!
I find your terminology un-necessarily disgusting.
its a poxy wedding, it means sod all in the grand scheme of things, put your oliver cromwell costume away and get on with life