Is The Monarchy Worth Keeping?

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

The poor man would have had a sip of Whisky too many and tragically slipped down the stairs. Whilst the country lapses into electing another leader of the ruling party and the opposition calls for an election, I would play on the shock I have had and go for the sympathy vote.

I have always loved a practical woman.

Tell me this then, because it occurs to me that people of your social class are in a unique position to have some real, palatable influence.

Say for instance the case of Prince Andrew, Sky, is it not possible for you and those similarly situated to be polite, superficially cordial and respectful and yet clearly register your concern with him, to the point that he is uncomfortable? I have this feeling that if you chose, you could sit next to me at dinner, smile, we could have a conversation and when I left I would still know that you really despised me and yet could not point to one thing to illustrate that contempt. Do you think that is accurate?

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

OK, I am open to that, how do you that and achieve real, practical, measurable results? How do you in a practical way require, dictate or enforce such change?

George V started. Quite simply, slim the Royal Family down, end the Catholic ban, give equal succession rights, seperate Crown and Church, make the money a little fairer. All it'd need would be a few pieces of legislation - very easy.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

George V started. Quite simply, slim the Royal Family down, end the Catholic ban, give equal succession rights, seperate Crown and Church, make the money a little fairer. All it'd need would be a few pieces of legislation - very easy.

OK, how does that translate into requiring any behaviors or behavioral changes from the RF?

If the UK did everything you have just stated, how do you compel Prince Andrew and his daughters for example to conform their conduct to that which is expected? You could limit recognition as far as taxpayer support to the sitting Monarch and heir apparent I would suppose?

You can legislate that X is required if tax money is forthcoming but you cannot dictate how within the RF private money is used, can you?

[BeatrixFan]

Well we'd cut off them off. All we really need is the King, Queen and their immediate family. Beatrice and Eugenie could get proper jobs and earn a living as Zara and Peter have done whilst Charles and Camilla, William and Harry do the Royal stuff. Andrew, Anne and Edward can carry on as they are until their demise and all we do is water the Royal Family down so that it isn't as big as it is now. I'm not sure where tax comes into but a financial investigation into what is theirs and what is ours would not come a-miss. And I think thats coming anyway tbh.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well we'd cut off them off. All we really need is the King, Queen and their immediate family. Beatrice and Eugenie could get proper jobs and earn a living as Zara and Peter have done whilst Charles and Camilla, William and Harry do the Royal stuff. Andrew, Anne and Edward can carry on as they are until their demise and all we do is water the Royal Family down so that it isn't as big as it is now. I'm not sure where tax comes into but a financial investigation into what is theirs and what is ours would not come a-miss. And I think thats coming anyway tbh.

See BF, here is the rub to that.

Take Beatrice and Eugenie, their mother is independently wealthy in her own right and you cannot dictate what she does with her money. If she chooses her daughters can party 16 hours a day and sleep 8 hours a day for the rest of their natural life, whatever anyone else's expectations are. There is no doubt that neither the British public or government has any control whatsoever over Sarah, is there? There is nothing that you can do to require any of them to get a job or do anything, all you can do is cut off taxpayer money.

Having a financial investigation makes great sense to me, are you prepared for the potential outcome of such an investigation and the possible practical results?

[BeatrixFan]

I agree. Let Beatrice and Eugenie live off of Sarah's money. Suits me. Get them out of the way, fine. Fabulous.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

Skydragon

Are you saying that British young people, TODAY, die for Queen Elizabeth and NOT the nation of and people of the UK? Really?

Maybe not so much young people today, although I've lived away from the country for so long that I can't say for sure. However, "for Queen and Country" has been a motto of the armed services for a long time.

When I first came to the USA, I was really surprised by the reverence the American people had for the flag - how there'd be pretty much a national convulsion if there were news photos of someone burning a flag in protest, and how children in school every day were expected to stand up and pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. But the flag is the symbol of national unity for you in a similar way to how the Queen is the symbol of national unity for us. It might not make a lot of sense to you, but you won't find many British people understanding how painful it is to Americans if someone is seen treating a flag disrespectfully.

I believe another poster pointed out that the Queen could always take back her private income property and give up the Civil List payments, correct? She would certainly get an increase in income if she did that, right?

I have a feeling it would need a law to be passed, it wouldn't just be the personal preference of the monarch.

Explain this to me please, the Monarchy is based on birth, lineage. It is literally a family, how does a people control that and the individual personalities involved? If I take your example of Prince Andrew as being lazy and not earning his keep, in a practical sense, what do you do about that? You can suggest that he give up his HRH, but in a concrete way, how do you make that happen? Because the Monarchy is based on birth and not election, it is not subject to change via political processes.

Things have changed in the monarchy over the last few decades. The number of royals supported by the Civil List has been greatly reduced; royal events are more inclusive and informal; senior Household members are being recruited from among ordinary people as well as the nobility and armed services; the Queen is paying taxes; Prince Edward's children aren't using their HRH styles; there's talk about shrinking the royal family in the future to something smaller along similar lines to the Euopean royals. This isn't happening just because the royals or their advisors have decided on a new tack for the sake of it; it's happening because they realised that the public were seeing the minor royals as freeloaders and believed that the Queen was too detached.

It isn't just a black-and-white case of letting the royals do whatever they like or getting rid of them. The shades of grey are less obvious, but they're happening.

[diamondBrg]

Elspeth

First as regards the American flag, you are correct, but I must plead ignorance because I have never felt that way. It is a piece of cloth, nothing more and it represents a political entity not the heart and soul of the American people. But the majority of Americans do feel quite differently than I do on this issue.

I agree with you about the shades of grey, that makes good sense to me. What does not is that there is an expectation of any kind of those minor royals as you describe them when they are cut loose as you say?

I find this a fundamental issue of human rights. One cannot require that another person live their life for their benefit, neither can a group and not give then any choice other than expulsion and exile. That is fundamentally unfair on the face of it.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

I agree with you about the shades of grey, that makes good sense to me. What does not is that there is an expectation of any kind of those minor royals as you describe them when they are cut loose as you say?

Well, there sort of isn't. However, a lot of people don't really appreciate the difference between a senior royal, a minor royal, and a close relative of the royals who doesn't happen to be royal. I know quite a few people back in the UK who don't understand that Princess Anne's children and Princess Margaret's children aren't royal or that the current Duke of Kent is royal but the next Duke of Kent won't be.

So when someone like Marina Ogilvy makes headlines for being pregnant out of wedlock and giving interviews to the tabloids about what ogres her parents are, and lets them publish the letter she sent to the Queen to plead her cause, the headlines are all about the scandal in the royal family and a lot of people don't realise she isn't royal. They just think, "there goes our tax money, being wasted on a worthless hanger-on who doesn't do anything to deserve it." The fact that Marina Ogilvy has never received Civil List money doesn't enter the equation because for most people it's enough that she's a royal relation, and so the rest follows as far as they're concerned.

Even though these non-royal relations aren't expected to perform royal duties and aren't given money from the Civil List or from the Queen, their actions still reflect on the royal family. For one thing, it makes better headlines that way. So I assume there's a certain amount of pressure on them to not make too many unfavourable headlines because of the wider damage they can do. After her antics at the time of her marriage, Marina Ogilvy wasn't welcome at royal family functions for a long time. I think Edward and Sophie's wedding might have been the first time she was invited to a royal family occasion since her marriage (I'm sure people who follow the Kents more closely will correct me if I'm wrong about that).

I find this a fundamental issue of human rights. One cannot require that another person live their life for their benefit, neither can a group and not give then any choice other than expulsion and exile. That is fundamentally unfair on the face of it.

Well, royalty is in the position of receiving extraordinary privileges, and with those privileges come some fairly major responsibilities. If royals, especially senior royals, are perceived to be revelling in the privileges and shirking the responsibilities, it can be very damaging because it gives the impression that they're no better than spoiled rich celebrities but without the talent (or whatever) that made the celebrities rich, just with the luck to have been born in the right family. People start thinking they're being played for fools by these idle royals who are sucking up tax money and doing nothing in return. The actions of Edward VIII show what sort of damage can be done when a senior royal appears to not be holding up his side of this bargain.

Individual royals do have the choice of renouncing their positions as Royal Highnesses and can step out of the line of succession, but then they become ordinary private citizens, as Edward VIII did and as Princess Margaret would have to have done if she'd married Peter Townsend. The thing which is very damaging to the image of the royal family and the monarchy as a whole is the case where a royal, especially a senior one, is happy to accept the privileges but refuses to shoulder the associated responsibilities. It's somewhat like a person wanting to draw a salary but not do any work for it.

[diamondBrg]

Elspeth

I can go along with everything you have said, as long as there is a real choice there.

I agree, one cannot expect to receive the extraordinary privileges, benefits, perks for nothing. The resentments that would be forthcoming would be astronomical and rightly so.

Perhaps that privileges, benefits and perks need to be well defined, because I am not so sure that all of HM's children enjoy them?

I remain confused as to for example Prince Edward, the fourth child and third son of HM. For all practical purposes, he is never going to be King, his children do not have the HRH. IF he chose to go to mother and say "I don't want this for me or my family, I want out, I want an ordinary life." I do not understand what the problem with that would be, I honestly don't. The Monarchy remains intact. He leaves behind any benefits, he assumes a normal life. I just don't see a problem here.

To implicitly say that even if a Royal leaves and gives up everything that for some reason that person must be punished socially forever? That is cruel.

When HM abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson, he was for all practical purposes exiled to France to his death, why? His brother assumed the throne, the Monarchy continued?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

Elspeth

I can go along with everything you have said, as long as there is a real choice there.

I agree, one cannot expect to receive the extraordinary privileges, benefits, perks for nothing. The resentments that would be forthcoming would be astronomical and rightly so.

Perhaps that privileges, benefits and perks need to be well defined, because I am not so sure that all of HM's children enjoy them?

Well, as in all aristocratic families, the eldest son has the lion's share of the property, but generally speaking, the younger children are provided for out of legacies and trust funds. For example, Earl Spencer (Diana's father) said at one point that he'd invested a lot of money for Harry - the expectation being that William, like Charles, will get his income from the Duchy of Cornwall and so the younger son is the one who needs financial help from family. Also, when George V's will was read, it showed substantial legacies to his younger children but not to the Prince of Wales - again, because as King, the eldest son would have the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster as well as all the other property and income of the Crown.

I remain confused as to for example Prince Edward, the fourth child and third son of HM. For all practical purposes, he is never going to be King, his children do not have the HRH. IF he chose to go to mother and say "I don't want this for me or my family, I want out, I want an ordinary life." I do not understand what the problem with that would be, I honestly don't. The Monarchy remains intact. He leaves behind any benefits, he assumes a normal life. I just don't see a problem here.

His children do have the HRH, they're just being styled as the children of non-royal Earls. However, there would be nothing wrong with his going to his mother and saying that he wanted out and wanted an ordinary life. Whether that would involve giving up his HRH and becoming just plain The Earl of Wessex or whether he'd have kept his HRH like the Duke of Windsor did, I don't know. But I don't think Mummy would have bought Bagshot Park for him if he was just going to be an ex-royal, and I don't think he'd have been included in royal (as opposed to family) occasions.

Although he attempted to get a regular job after leaving university and giving up on the Marines, I don't think there was really any serious talk about him leaving the royal family.

To implicitly say that even if a Royal leaves and gives up everything that for some reason that person must be punished socially forever? That is cruel.

That depends on the nature of the leaving. For example, Princess Patricia of Connaught relinquished her HRH on her marriage because she wanted to take the same social status as her husband. She wasn't ostracised from the royal family, but she also didn't do royal duties or take part in royal events as a royal.

When HM abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson, he was for all practical purposes exiled to France to his death, why? His brother assumed the throne, the Monarchy continued?

The given reason was that George VI needed time to grow into his role without his extremely popular elder brother hanging around. I believe the real reason was vindictiveness and revenge, especially on the part of the Queen Mother. They did have the upper hand, though, because the Duke of Windsor was granted an annual income from the Crown, and I think his place of residence was part of the conditions for his continuing to receive the income.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

I have always loved a practical woman.

Tell me this then, because it occurs to me that people of your social class are in a unique position to have some real, palatable influence.

Say for instance the case of Prince Andrew, Sky, is it not possible for you and those similarly situated to be polite, superficially cordial and respectful and yet clearly register your concern with him, to the point that he is uncomfortable? I have this feeling that if you chose, you could sit next to me at dinner, smile, we could have a conversation and when I left I would still know that you really despised me and yet could not point to one thing to illustrate that contempt. Do you think that is accurate?

Andrew is no different to any other individual and would probably take umbrage at any suggestion that he is not earning his title. He is the sort, IMO, who if he doesn't want to listen to complaints or answer a question on his expenses, would throw a ducky fit and stomp out. That sort of thing is best left to his advisors, civil servants or HM.

I was going to answer your 'feeling' with, don't be so silly, I would be a perfect dinner companion, until my friends (with whom I am staying at the moment) collapsed in a heap of laughter and pointed out that, yes, I am always pleasant, but they certainly know if they have 'upset' me without me doing or saying anything specific!