Is The Monarchy Worth Keeping?

[QueenMaharet]

{removed response to deleted post - Elspeth}

I feel that here in the U.S. there isn't the connection with history that there is in England, and I feel that the BRF offer that continuous connection.

I'm reminded of something I was taught in my psychology class....children need stability, permanence/ their lives tend to be better with it than without it. This can also apply to adults, in that humans are creatures of habit. With a President that is only around for 4-8 years....there is no permanence, whereas with a RF, you always know that there is someone there, someone constant that you can depend on, in the sense that their image will constantly be there. In a 4-8 year time span, that consistency does not have much time to set in, and new policies are being implemented...does he have enough time for this....what is he going to do about this now...etc. Yes, I know, there have been times where royals have only lasted a short while, but overall, there is someone there for a potential lifetime. Also, yes, I know that positions in Parliament do change, but there is still that constant almost reassuring presence of a Monarch that will still be there (usually) even when the next crisis is over, or the next prime minister is elected.

Does that make sense?

The Monarch is a reminder that even though there may be many an issue today, tomorrow, and even years afterward, those things are all short term, and will be resolved, or not, but no matter what (barring a decision by the British People) there will be a constant force that has come straight out of history, resides with us in the present and expectantly looks towards the future.

~QM

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

You make perfect sense, QueenMaharet. The other disadvantage of the US presidency compared to the British monarchy is that the US president, by virtue of being elected, relies on the political tides. He/she needs votes to gain/keep the office. This makes the office fickle in itself because it is unstable, relying on the ever-shifting party rivalries for public opinion. More than a bit like a nuclear reaction.

The US President also has crucial responsibilities. As does the British prime minister.

I like how you put it. The royal family, indeed, stands above and beyond politics, a permanent fixture. Since The Queen has been... The Queen, there have been eleven(?)* British prime ministers and eleven US presidents. When she became Queen on her father's death, Josef Stalin was still Big Cheese of the Soviet Union, albeit practically on death's doorstep. By the time of her so-called "annus horribilus" the USSR had ceased to exist. It could go on and on.... but it all furthers the point that people come and go, as do extremist political regimes. Still standing: The British Monarchy.

*I'm counting in my head: Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown (missing someone?)

 

[Verde Esmeralda]

An article by Stephen Moss, published in The Guardian today, claims that the British Royals are probably the rudest of all. Mentions various examples of royal gaffes of the BRF or unappropiate responses given by them, tagged as 'rude':


[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Who is the rudest royal? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Stephen Moss[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Tuesday November 13, 2007[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The Guardian[/FONT]

Kings and queens once had a divine right to be obnoxious, but regal rudeness has declined in the past few centuries as monarchs have felt the pinch. So hats off to King Juan Carlos (above), who at a summit in Santiago on Saturday lost his temper with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and said: "Por qué no te callas?" ("Why don't you shut up?") Chavez had interrupted the Spanish PM's speech and called a previous holder of the post a "fascist".

This outburst will not, however, win the Spanish king the crown as rudest royal. Britain's prickly princelings, holding out against the tide of monarchical civility, still rule the waves. Prince Charles is rude about "monstrous carbuncles" and anything else more recent than, say, 1640. Prince Andrew once referred to a group of VIPs welcoming him at a school in Wales as "shiny arses". Princess Michael of Kent was said to have told a noisy table of New York diners to "go back to the colonies". Princess Anne called a woman who presented her with a basket of flowers "ridiculous", told the residents of Cumbernauld she wanted to escape from the town "as soon as possible", and berated the bailiff of Guernsey recently when he tried to help her to her feet after she had tripped. "I'm perfectly capable of getting myself up," she told him.
But even she has to bow the knee to her father, Prince Philip, a man who seems unaware the French revolution ever happened. He asked Aborigines in Australia if they "still throw spears", congratulated a student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea on not having been eaten, said Hungarians were "pot-bellied" and Chinese "slitty-eyed", asked a driving instructor in Oban "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them past the test?", and called a parking attendant who failed to recognise him a "bloody silly fool". Majestic.

 

[Skydragon]

asked a driving instructor in Oban "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them past the test?",

I have to admit I often wondered that, having passed my test in London, until a native of Oban told me that you just make sure the examiner is as drunk as you!

 

[Al_bina]

Well ... members of the Royal families are not exactly paragons of etiquette and tact. This often implies that the above individuals tend to demonstrate their human side to their subjects by offending them unintentionally, at least in case of the British Royal family.

 

[Skydragon]

Well ... members of the Royal families are not exactly paragons of etiquette and tact. This often implies that the above individuals tend to demonstrate their human side to their subjects by offending them unintentionally, at least in case of the British Royal family.

You are right, in every aspect of life, some people can take offence at the slightest thing, while others see it for the joke it was meant to be.

Some people took offence at Phillips remark, most IMO thought it was funny, as it was meant to be!

 

[Picmajik]

long live the pound

Mind you, I'm as curious as BeatrixFan about why the world's fifth largest economy is allegedly so inconsequential.

I am glad that the UK hasn't switched to euros myself. I prefer competitive, thriving economies instead of a one world order homogeneous system. Strong US, strong UK, strong Japan and Germany--works for me. Yes, there aren't as many superpowers as there were in WWII but I still don't think any one country is that inconsequential. If you have a strong government and economy it will boost other countries as well. Think any one is not important? Let that country fail and watch the dominoes fall--recessions end up affecting us all.

As for "is the monarchy worth keeping?" I would say that is up to the taxpayers involved. I love keeping up with the traditions and goings on but as I do not pay UK taxes I can't say what is best for those of you that do. Should the monarchy be phased out I would learn to adapt as would anyone else in time.

Also note to Beatrix Fan--I may not always agree with you 100% but you are always well spoken and entertaining. Carry on!

 

[Picmajik]

BeatrixFan you always come through

The King and Queen did nothing during the war other than look pretty. It was Churchill who did the majority of the work.

I agree--Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt basically ran the show for the allies.

The Duchess of York was an embarrassment who had titles and tiaras coming out of her armpits but she still didn't make as great an impact on our world than Marie Curie who had no titles.

Thank you for that image!!!!! Best laugh today

 

[Elspeth]

The King and Queen did nothing during the war other than look pretty. It was Churchill who did the majority of the work.

I agree--Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt basically ran the show for the allies.

If you read Sir Alan Lascelles's memoirs which cover the war, you'll see that although Churchill, as the head of the elected government, was doing most of the work, the King was doing significant work also.

BeatrixFan, to characterise George VI's wartime contributions as nothing but looking pretty is to put ideology way ahead of established fact.

 

[Al_bina]

I dare to assume that it does not really matter who did run the show during the World War II. These times have been long gone. The key question right now is that whether British Royal Family will be capable of uniting extremely diverse subjects to address current issues of high importance.

 

[Bella]

Having known some Brits who were young men and woman at the time of WWII, from what they've said I believe the BRF was a symbol of unity and perserverence not even Churchill could achieve. Yes, Churchill was the military mind behind the British involvement, a true statesman, but it was the King & Queen, I've been led to believe, who were the calming force. I think they did alot for morale. And probably for the first time in a very very long time, I think the British people could actually relate to the King & Queen as Londoners, parents and citizens whose futures were also precariously being jeopardized.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

British royalty and the history of the family and the fact that the history is alive in the current royals is the main reason people visit the country.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Is it? I don't believe that for a moment. The majority of tourists never see a member of the RF when they come and if they do manage to shlep over to Windsor or Buck House then it's only to see the bits the Queen has lowered herself to let the plebs see.

 

[BeatrixFan]

If you read Sir Alan Lascelles's memoirs which cover the war, you'll see that although Churchill, as the head of the elected government, was doing most of the work, the King was doing significant work also.

BeatrixFan, to characterise George VI's wartime contributions as nothing but looking pretty is to put ideology way ahead of established fact.

I disagree. The King and Queen may have kept patriotism bubbling over which is extremely helpful in a war situation but I can't see that George VI was more important to the war effort than the Prime Minister. In my view, it was the elected official who got Britain through and certainly not the unelected one who simply gave the Vera Lynn songs a pleasant backdrop.

 

[Bella]

British royalty and the history of the family and the fact that the history is alive in the current royals is the main reason people visit the country.

I don't think this is true. History is def. a draw, but if the RF were to be entirely abolished tomorrow, I think ppl would still visit GB. The country has alot more to offer than just royalty.

 

[Al_bina]

I agree with Bella and BeatrixFan that tourists visit countries for a host of various reasons: history, culture, and new experiences. For instance, tourists enjoy visiting France with its Louvre, Russia with the Winter Palace, or China’s Forbidden City. The absence of royalty does not necessarily translate into decrease in tourism.

 

[BeatrixFan]

If anything, the absence of Royalty brings more tourists because they get to see the real palaces!

 

[Elspeth]

I disagree. The King and Queen may have kept patriotism bubbling over which is extremely helpful in a war situation but I can't see that George VI was more important to the war effort than the Prime Minister. In my view, it was the elected official who got Britain through and certainly not the unelected one who simply gave the Vera Lynn songs a pleasant backdrop.

I didn't say he was. I took issue with your dismissal of his contributions as just "looking pretty."

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well what exactly did he do? He waved and visited bomb sites. He rubber stamped other people's orders. I don't see that as particularly fantastic.

 

[TheTruth]

Well what exactly did he do? He waved and visited bomb sites. He rubber stamped other people's orders. I don't see that as particularly fantastic.

But he showed he was there and not trying to find an escape or give up his people and that's fantastic because how many countries in the world during WWII resisted to the Nazis ? Just a few. And England did it because the King was close to his people and that played a large part in the war.

 

[BeatrixFan]

So he stayed at home. I do that when I don't have a date, I'm not a hero for it. If Britain ever got really close to invasion I've no doubt he would have dissapeared, the whole "Oh he stayed where he was" claim is because he didn't have to leave like the others did. At the end of the day, the people of Britain fought because they were told to. People battled on the Home Front because they had to. It was a matter of survival, not a matter of a man in a uniform telling them he'd get his jollies if they kept their chins up.

 

[TheTruth]

So he stayed at home. I do that when I don't have a date, I'm not a hero for it. If Britain ever got really close to invasion I've no doubt he would have dissapeared, the whole "Oh he stayed where he was" claim is because he didn't have to leave like the others did. At the end of the day, the people of Britain fought because they were told to. People battled on the Home Front because they had to. It was a matter of survival, not a matter of a man in a uniform telling them he'd get his jollies if they kept their chins up.

Yes but remember what happened in France. General Pétain told France to cooperate with the nazis, imagine George VI doing that ? The whole Europe would be under this regime today. And if the people wouldn't have been supported as warmly as they were, their state of mind would have been much more pessimistic and everyone knows how it can change a situation.

 

[Bella]

Yes but remember what happened in France. General Pétain told France to cooperate with the nazis, imagine George VI doing that ? The whole Europe would be under this regime today. And if the people wouldn't have been supported as warmly as they were, their state of mind would have been much more pessimistic and everyone knows how it can change a situation.

While I know what you are trying to get across, I will remind you that Petain only issued those order AFTER France was invaded. And he did it not out of any love of the Nazis but because he didn't want the populace taking up arms in a battle they could not win and thus putting themselves and their families in more danger. England was never occupied by the Germans so there was no need for HM or anyone to make such a statement. But I do agree that TM were a symbol of morale for the British people and I think their remaining in London did mean something.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Yes but remember what happened in France. General Pétain told France to cooperate with the nazis, imagine George VI doing that ? The whole Europe would be under this regime today. And if the people wouldn't have been supported as warmly as they were, their state of mind would have been much more pessimistic and everyone knows how it can change a situation.

Faced with death or co-operation, I'm sure there'd be quite a few people who would have collaborated. Remember, quite a large chunk of the British aristocracy actually quite liked Hitler and his policies. It was really an accident that Britain got involved in WW2 and a matter of luck that we ended up on the winning side. People support what they're told to support and just as propaganda told people to support King and Country, it could just have easily told people to support King, Country and Fuhrer.

 

[TheTruth]

Faced with death or co-operation, I'm sure there'd be quite a few people who would have collaborated. Remember, quite a large chunk of the British aristocracy actually quite liked Hitler and his policies. It was really an accident that Britain got involved in WW2 and a matter of luck that we ended up on the winning side. People support what they're told to support and just as propaganda told people to support King and Country, it could just have easily told people to support King, Country and Fuhrer.

But still they refused that regime and that's something British can be proud of like France can be proud of her resistants.

 

[BeatrixFan]

They refused to lose their power, they didn't refuse that regime at all. Anyone who thinks that the war was over ideology is severely mistaken. It was about the Third Reich rivalling the British Empire - plain and simple.

 

[Russophile]

Natural resources and power.

 

[Empress]

Russophile, perhaps you would like to elaborate on that statement rather than leaving it hanging there like it is some sort of revelation?

 

[TheTruth]

They refused to lose their power, they didn't refuse that regime at all. Anyone who thinks that the war was over ideology is severely mistaken. It was about the Third Reich rivalling the British Empire - plain and simple.

And how do you explain that England is one of the country of the world with the most ethnies if people were so afraid of everything other than the aryan race?

 

[BeatrixFan]

England wasn't multi-cultural in the 30s and 40s. Indeed, anti-semitism and racism were rife. For example, when internees were freed from Japanese PoW camps after the war, the British government gave them all an allowance whilst they were being re-patriated. But the order ensuring they'd get that allowance contained a line that said "Monies paid to non-white Britons may be lowered at the officer's discretion". That was a Government policy. England was extremely Aryan and proud of it - it's only now that we're multi-faith and multi-cultural and society is learning to accept it. In those days, alot of people would actually have been quite agreeable to the idea of giving preference to Aryans. But remember, this was of the time. The institutionalised racism that we shun today was just natural for that era and so the King certainly wouldn't have been out of the ordinary to support the idea of a strictly Aryan race, whether he did or he didn't we don't know.

The point I'm making (badly) is that England is ethnically diverse now but back then, it certainly wasn't and the majority were opposed to it being so. As Russophile said, the King sanctioned war because the Third Reich was a threat to natural resources and world power. Remember, Britain had a flourishing relationship with the USSR and turned a blind eye to the gross human rights abuses, anti-semitism and ethnic cleansing that went on. Why? Because Stalin played ball and didn't encroach on our dominions whereas Hitler did. That's why we went to war and that's why the King was happy to be used as a propaganda tool - because it secured his personal situation.