Most definitely!!!
Does England Need The Royals?
by Englishman 17 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
iiz2cool
I don't mind England having the Royals, but why the hell do we need 'em in Canada?
Get their faces off my money!
We could put my frowning face on our money instead.
Walter
-
Whiskeyjack
I'm not sure about the "people" but the governement certainly does (otherwise, all those tabloid reporters will switch their focus towards their antics and families). The traditional kings of England were elected which kept most of them from getting too "uppity". Even those Scandinavian-Frogs who pervaded the nobility afterwards put themselves "on the line" at wartime (unlike the anonymous American plutocrats!). It represents a more honest relationship between the "quality" and the plebes at least compared to the illusion of equality in the American republic.
It's a delightful holdover for a bunch a slightly wacky islanders (though I'd prefer a more "English" House over House Windsor) and will probably remain for some generations to come.
W.
-
fleaman uk
Most definitely!!!
Ha ha so what your saying valis is that we need them ....my Arse!! I wouldnt take too much note of what Peter Hitchens says.Very Right wing and very much the little Englander.
-
Whiskeyjack
Walter.,
Do you really want a picture of Brian Mulroney or Jean Chretien on our twenty-dollar bills? Ugh! A monarchy reminds us of personal relationships in society as opposed to corporate ones (with the greater degree of impermanence these structures are prone to).
As far as power and relevance, I always thought that a Brit Royal would be perfectly positioned to act as an "Arch-Hero" (as described by Dr. Saul, our Governor-General's Consort) in societal upheaval and at the very least, as a radical (saul Alinsky style). The Queen should have some fun making the government of the day squirm (most "futurists" predict a lot of social turmoil the middle of this century as our economic system runs out of gas). Maybe their day will come again?
W.
-
the_classicist
No England does not need royals. Sure, its good for history and tradition, but what's the point of having something around when it's become completely obsolete? You're right, the Queen doesn't do anything except spend taxpayers money and travel, oh wait.. she gives speeches too. It might be good for the economy with all the people going to see the pomp, but why can't you have that with an elected head of state. Buckingham Palace... the place where a Queen used to live; just think, you'd be able to tour it too.
BTW, I don't think Camilla could become Queen because she was born Catholic and the bigoted Act of Settlement forbids it. Edited to read: Wait, she's Anglican now.
-
Angharad
No we dont need them!
You're right, the Queen doesn't do anything except spend taxpayers money and travel, oh wait.. she gives speeches too. It might be good for the economy with all the people going to see the pomp, but why can't you have that with an elected head of state. Buckingham Palace... the place where a Queen used to live; just think, you'd be able to tour it too.
Tourism would not suffer if they went, people come to see the castles, palaces and art work - that would all still be there. The history would still be there. You can tour Buckingham Palace already, and pay an arm and leg for the "pleasure"
-
Brummie
When I was a JW I didnt appreciate any form of royalty except for the book of "Kings" in the bible! lol.
After leaving and forming my own opinons I am all for keeping the Royal family. They have added to Englands identification and they are our heritage, keep them. When I used to hear my grandparents talk obout "the king" it was odd to hear since I could only relate to having a queen, but he helped difine their era just as our queen will be a defining piece in ours (along with Punk/mods/riots/global warming/terrorism and Madonna ..)
;.)