advertisement


Prince Charles

I don`t doubt that the Queen works very hard, particularly for someone of her age and you wouldn`t wish being pawed by Trump on anyone but I question how much of what she does matters to more than a very few people.
 
which monarchy are you describing? Your ideas seem to vaguely based on something on TV that was set in? 1700 ish ?

The current Monarch works a 10 hour day on our behalf, and has for 70 years. Of course they are wealthy, she’s the queen FFS.
As to your other post and the insights into who loves a monarchy, I can’t agree there either. A bit simplistic and very rude to so many. Maybe you didn’t mean to be patronising and dismissive, but it sure comes across as though you do. There are more than three shades of grey in the world, and a little thought would perhaps have allowed you to see that.
You seem to live in a fantasy world, having papers passed to her to sign and make unnecessary commentary upon, is not 'work'. And at that price is vastly overpaid as a dilettante activity which has absolutely no bearing on how laws will be enacted . Furthermore this:
Rockmeister said:
Of course they are wealthy, she’s the queen FFS
Is a prime example of circular reasoning. I did mean to be dismissive, royalists are chiefly moronic flag-wavers or people on the gravy train or hoping to be on it.
 
I think there's a third group of Royal supporters; people who view them as a real-life soap opera, with all the usual stuff about who will marry whom, new babies, messy divorces, second wives/husbands, people you can love to hate, etc etc. This isn't a particularly new phenomenon, either, the Edward & Mrs Simpson saga gripped and divided the nation in the 1930s.

I haven't done any research on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if many more women than men 'follow' the various Royal doings.
 
Safe to say that none us know how much the Monarchy makes or loses (a strangely capitalist take by some on the left here btw). Only a few Royals, government officials and intermediaries have access to the accounts. That aside, the Monarchy does play a pivotal and positive role in the nation’s psyche (Diana being a good example) - it not only binds the nation together (quite useful these days), it also ensures Britons sleep more soundly at night. Comments promoting its abolition only play into the hands of Putin. They also display a fundamental lack of understanding of what the majority of the country wants and what it means to be British (Labour take note). Even the Republic-loving Aussies are on-board.
 
One thing that did baffle me was a recent newspaper report that Prince Philip's will would be kept sealed for (I think) 90 years 'to spare the Queen from embarrassment'. Why, I wonder? Money left to ex-mistresses/love children? Bequests to dodgy charities? He only left £50 having blown the rest at Ladbrokes?
 
Hazlitt described the condition well

"Man is a toad-eating animal. The admiration of power in others is as common to man as the love of it in himself: the one makes him a tyrant, the other a slave. It is not he alone, who wears the golden crown, that is proud of it: the wretch who pines in a dungeon, and in chains, is dazzled with it; and if he could but shake of his own fetters, would care little about the wretches whom he left behind him, so that he might have an opportunity, on being set free himself, of gazing at this glittering gew-gaw "on some high holiday of once a year."

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Hazlitt,_Political_Essays_(1819).djvu/205
 
That aside, the Monarchy does play a pivotal and positive role in the nation’s psyche (Diana being a good example) - it not only binds the nation together (quite useful these days), it also ensures Britons sleep more soundly at night.

Diana is a particularly weird example to choose, as her extra-marital affairs, divorce and the aftermath of her death were seriously damaging to the Royal Family. I can't say the Royal Family helps me sleep more soundly; why would it?
 
which monarchy are you describing? Your ideas seem to vaguely based on something on TV that was set in? 1700 ish ?

The current Monarch works a 10 hour day on our behalf, and has for 70 years. Of course they are wealthy, she’s the queen FFS.
As to your other post and the insights into who loves a monarchy, I can’t agree there either. A bit simplistic and very rude to so many. Maybe you didn’t mean to be patronising and dismissive, but it sure comes across as though you do. There are more than three shades of grey in the world, and a little thought would perhaps have allowed you to see that.
Other European countries who have monarchies have managed to retain their services on a salary commensurate with their role. In the UK that would be the equivalent of the higher ranks in the Civil Service. Job descriptions and objectives would be agreed. Appropriate accommodation would be provided and all income from the Crown Estates would go to the Treasury.
 
Other European countries who have monarchies have managed to retain their services on a salary commensurate with their role. In the UK that would be the equivalent of the higher ranks in the Civil Service. Job descriptions and objectives would be agreed. Appropriate accommodation would be provided and all income from the Crown Estates would go to the Treasury.

Wondering who would conduct Brenda's annual PDR...
 
'And where do you see yourself in ten years' time?'

Actually there was a funny cartoon in Private Eye some weeks back:

Bloke doing PDR interview 'So where do you see yourself this time next year?'

Interviewee: 'On a stag do in Estonia. It's all booked'.
 
Does she? What is she does that makes her worth a thousand times more than a nurse or a dustman who also work on our behalf?
I exaggerate the case now ofc. She was known for long hours, and I think you already knew that the 350 million you mention is not actually her personal salary. The monarchy is quite a big affair and employs lots and lots of other people across properties and businesses all over the UK. I haven’t looked up the actual figure but I imagine it might come to 5000 or more people maybe more, and the running of 20 or so properties and et cetera et cetera et cetera.
 
You seem to live in a fantasy world, having papers passed to her to sign and make unnecessary commentary upon, is not 'work'. And at that price is vastly overpaid as a dilettante activity which has absolutely no bearing on how laws will be enacted . Furthermore this:

Is a prime example of circular reasoning. I did mean to be dismissive, royalists are chiefly moronic flag-wavers or people on the gravy train or hoping to be on it.
Well thank you for clearing that up. I had read your posts up to that point thinking that you might have an interesting point to make. Being bigoted, even for the left, does not make you very readable in my opinion.
 
Diana is a particularly weird example to choose, as her extra-marital affairs, divorce and the aftermath of her death were seriously damaging to the Royal Family. I can't say the Royal Family helps me sleep more soundly; why would it?

I was referring to her connection with the people and the nation's psyche.

The Royals confer a sense a stability and order - i.e. less chaos. Helps people sleep at night.
 
I think there's a third group of Royal supporters; people who view them as a real-life soap opera, with all the usual stuff about who will marry whom, new babies, messy divorces, second wives/husbands, people you can love to hate, etc etc. This isn't a particularly new phenomenon, either, the Edward & Mrs Simpson saga gripped and divided the nation in the 1930s.

I haven't done any research on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if many more women than men 'follow' the various Royal doings.

The ones that puzzle me are Americans who are obsessed with the Royal Family, and the members of the press who cater to them.
 
Well thank you for clearing that up. I had read your posts up to that point thinking that you might have an interesting point to make. Being bigoted, even for the left, does not make you very readable in my opinion.
Sometimes the facts are unpleasant. I'm wounded you don't find me readable, but I think I can soldier on.
 
Well don't worry. I'm just a monarchist, either moronic of praying for wealth, so clearly you have me pegged. Stop replying! Why waste all this bit of your life on a moron?
 
One thing that did baffle me was a recent newspaper report that Prince Philip's will would be kept sealed for (I think) 90 years 'to spare the Queen from embarrassment'. Why, I wonder? Money left to ex-mistresses/love children? Bequests to dodgy charities? He only left £50 having blown the rest at Ladbrokes?
All royal wills remain sealed for at least that long
 


advertisement


Back
Top