Isnt it disgusting that UK still has Queen as head of their state religion?

[Liberty4eva]

I'm not religious but it's a bit rich of some people here to call the US "backwards" for being more religious than most. Isn't the Queen supposed to be like the head of the UK's official state religion? From what I understand she is, in theory, supposed to get her power to govern the peasants by the will of god. Until you guys scrap this disgusting royal family (with all its wealth that it never earned) it's a bit hypocritical for you to bemoan the US for not being atheist enough or call us "backwards". At least we don't maintain and take pride in a system that belongs in medieval times.

I'm proud to say the United States was founded by deists, the 18th century equivalent of atheists. All the founding documents were written by and the first few presidents were secularists. Thomas Jefferson practically defines what America is supposed to believe and he was one of the most skeptical of religion and certainly was not a Christian.

[MTVN]

I'm not religious but it's a bit rich of some people here to call the US "backwards" for being more religious than most. Isn't the Queen supposed to be like the head of the UK's official state religion? From what I understand she is, in theory, supposed to get her power to govern the peasants by the will of god. Until you guys scrap this disgusting royal family (with all its wealth that it never earned) it's a bit hypocritical for you to bemoan the US for not being atheist enough or call us "backwards". At least we don't maintain and take pride in a system that belongs in medieval times.

I'm proud to say the United States was founded by deists, the 18th century equivalent of atheists. All the founding documents were written by and the first few presidents were secularists. Thomas Jefferson practically defines what America is supposed to believe and he was one of the most skeptical of religion and certainly was not a Christian.

The Monarchy is only really symbolic these days though, it exercises no real political power, you can't say the same for Religion in the States

[Liberty4eva]

The Monarchy is only really symbolic these days though, it exercises no real political power, you can't say the same for Religion in the States

Your Queen owns more land than any other human being on the planet. I'd venture to say she is merely "symbolic" is a bit of an understatement. If all that land was converted into money at market value, she'd make Bill Gates look like a pauper. It seems to me she has more influence and power than people in the UK would like to admit. I remember that during the last royal wedding people who planned to protest (peacefully) the royal family were preemptively arrested before even going there.

[Liberty4eva]

For those who say that the Queen has no political power...
when the Prime Minister and Queen meet, who bows down to who? That's a pretty good litmus test on who has power.

[Crimson Dynamo]

For those who say that the Queen has no political power...
when the Prime Minister and Queen meet, who bows down to who? That's a pretty good litmus test on who has power.

Its called decorum and not something you will understand

[lostalex]

Its called decorum and not something you will understand

it's called antiquated classist/racist/homophobic tradition. Stop trying to defend a system that is obviously unfair and undemocratic.

[Liberty4eva]

Having a Queen in the 21st century? :laugh2: Come on. Time to get with the times and scrap this family. You oughta dissolve the Queen's vast, vast, vast land estate and give it to the poor and needy. Who wouldn't want that?

[MTVN]

For those who say that the Queen has no political power...
when the Prime Minister and Queen meet, who bows down to who? That's a pretty good litmus test on who has power.

That doesn't prove anything, yes the Queen is technically above the Prime Minister in the hierarchy of power but as I said it's all symbolic and theoretical

[MTVN]

You'd think UK was the only country with a constitutional Monarch, what about Norway and Sweden, two of the progressive and prosperous nations in the world yet both also still have a King

[Shaun]

-agrees-

except for the Robin Hood diatribe at the end. Sounds nice but it's unrealistic - there're more needy than there is to give out :laugh:

[Mystic Mock]

Tbf having a Queen is good for this country at the moment otherwise we would be ****ed for tourists.

[MTVN]

Hmm I'll move the posts from the other thread to here to save two discussions on the same thing in seperate threads

[Liberty4eva]

Tbf having a Queen is good for this country at the moment otherwise we would be ****ed for tourists.

Does the fact that Egypt no longer has Pharaohs stop tourists from visiting Egypt and the pyramids?

[MTVN]

Ok well that made things a bit confusing because now the OP is the 7th post in :laugh:

[Shaun]

I think people exaggerate the tourism factor. I'd say more come to see Westminster, St. Pauls, the TATE or Madame Tussauds than they do Buckingham Palace. Is there even anything to do there that makes direct revenue? :conf2:

[Niall]

Having a Queen in the 21st century? :laugh2: Come on. Time to get with the times and scrap this family. You oughta dissolve the Queen's vast, vast, vast land estate and give it to the poor and needy. Who wouldn't want that?

You don't understand it though do you? The Queen may cost us money, but she isn't that much of an expense when you break it down per person.

Also she's a massive source for tourism. Hell you yourself live in the US (?), and you lot went bananas over the royal wedding in April. You lot were worse than us most of the time in terms of the coverage. The amount of money the royal family attract in terms of tourists is very significant, and something that would probably diminish greatly should we abolish them.

Its a necessary evil in my opinion.

[Niall]

For those who say that the Queen has no political power...
when the Prime Minister and Queen meet, who bows down to who? That's a pretty good litmus test on who has power.

Thats nothing more than a ceremony. The Monarch is nothing but a figurehead for the Government. Proof of that can be seen in the way that the Monarch never actually writes the speech (which is called the "Queen's/King's Speech") that marks the beginning of a new session in Parliament, but rather his/her government does it for her.

[MTVN]

To some extent the Royal Family does contribute to tourism, attractions like the Changing of the Guard for instance wouldn't exist without it, and the Royal Wedding drew huge amounts of worldwide interest, especially in America and Germany. But I'm not sure the tourism industry would suffer as much as people make out, because we still have plenty of other attractions like Shaun mentioned and Buckingham palace could probably still be a point of interest even without the Queen.

In principle I'm against the Monarchy but in practice I'm pretty indifferent, they don't do all that much these days and it isn't hugely costly to the taxpayer either so I find it something hard to care about

[lostalex]

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

[Marsh.]

I think people exaggerate the tourism factor. I'd say more come to see Westminster, St. Pauls, the TATE or Madame Tussauds than they do Buckingham Palace. Is there even anything to do there that makes direct revenue? :conf2:

It makes revenue for the local businesses. Hotels, cafes, shops etc. If we get tourists coming to see the landmarks and famous spots then they spend money while here.

[Marsh.]

I don't know why the OP is using "you" as though we on this forum could do anything. Lol. If anyone British has said anything about the US it's hardly the opinion of the entire country.

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

Again, that's you. There's lots of people that would like to look at the palace and other landmarks.

Just like I'm sure plenty people spend money to see the White House in Washington.

And as another poster said, the Queen harnesses no "real" political power.

[Niall]

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

Thats just your opinion though.

Lots and lots of people do turn up to see the Queen. I live on the outskirts of London and I've been up to see the changing of the guard at the Palace more times than I can remember and it does draw a big crowd, with a large percentage of them being tourists.

[Scarlett.]

And lets not forget all the merchendise

[Mystic Mock]

Does the fact that Egypt no longer has Pharaohs stop tourists from visiting Egypt and the pyramids?

No but London is the only interesting place in this country for tourists to visit because of its royal family background.

[Omah]

I think people exaggerate the tourism factor. I'd say more come to see Westminster, St. Pauls, the TATE or Madame Tussauds than they do Buckingham Palace. Is there even anything to do there that makes direct revenue? :conf2:

What about the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10794577

Royal historical sites attract millions of visitors

Overseas tourists spent more than £500m visiting attractions associated with the history of the Royal family last year, a report by VisitBritain found.

Of the 30 million tourists in 2009, 5.8 million visited a castle, another five million went to a historic house, while 6.4 million saw a religious monument.

The top tourist spots were the Tower of London, the National Maritime Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace were also among the most visited sites.

'Monarchic heritage'

The Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 could be a "bonanza" year judging by the popularity of the monarchy among tourists, the organisation said.

The Tower of London was most popular and welcomed about 2.4 million tourists last year, an increase of 11% on 2008.

About 2.37 million tourists visited the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich - part of which is housed in the Queen's House, a former royal residence.

And 2.27 million people went to the Victoria and Albert Museum.

About 987,000 people visited Windsor Castle - a rise of 6.3%, while 402,000 tourists saw Buckingham Palace in 2009, up 2% in a year.

Of 25,000 potential foreign visitors surveyed by VisitBritain, 60% said they would like to see places associated with the Royal Family and several others said they would send home a postcard of the Queen.

VisitBritain chief executive Sandie Dawe said: "This fascinating research shows Britain's monarchic heritage draws foreign tourists to just about every corner of the country from Scotland to Cornwall.

[Tom4784]

Americans put too much weight on the 'power' of the Royal Family, any power they possess is purely symbolic and like others have said in the thread the royals are merely figureheads for tourists to go mad over. The Queen's titles haven't had any significant meaning since long before we were all born.

You can't really bemoan us for an old system that has lost all relevance in today's world when in America for someone to stand a decent chance of getting elected President they have to be Christian. I'd say that's more of an issue then a figurehead institution.

[lily.]

I'm personally not a fan of the Royals.

I'm not a fan of anything to do with religion either, so a lot of things would change in both countries if it were up to me.

[arista]

I'm not religious but it's a bit rich of some people here to call the US "backwards" for being more religious than most. Isn't the Queen supposed to be like the head of the UK's official state religion? From what I understand she is, in theory, supposed to get her power to govern the peasants by the will of god. Until you guys scrap this disgusting royal family (with all its wealth that it never earned) it's a bit hypocritical for you to bemoan the US for not being atheist enough or call us "backwards". At least we don't maintain and take pride in a system that belongs in medieval times.

I'm proud to say the United States was founded by deists, the 18th century equivalent of atheists. All the founding documents were written by and the first few presidents were secularists. Thomas Jefferson practically defines what America is supposed to believe and he was one of the most skeptical of religion and certainly was not a Christian.



But if you were here
you would know she is not active as a Leader of the Church.


And in any case
There is no God .

[Omah]

No but London is the only interesting place in this country for tourists to visit because of its royal family background.

Totally untrue :

Heritage Cities in England
Bath: A spa town, famous for its Regency architecture and crescents, and also for its Roman baths.
Brighton: Brighton is a seaside resort which includes two piers, West Pier and Brighton Pier, and is home to the Royal Pavilion.
Bristol: Brunel's The Clifton Suspension Bridge is a famous landmark, and the ship, the SS Great Britain is another of Brunel's famous constructions, which is now in dry dock in Bristol.
Cambridge: A famous university town.
Canterbury: Renowned for its cathedral.
Dover: A major port with access to the continent. Also well known for its white cliffs, and to a lesser extent for its castle, Dover Castle.
Haworth: where the Brontë Sisters lived, is very popular with Japanese tourists, as Wuthering Heights has a cult following in Japan.
Lincoln: A medieval city, home to the very ornate Lincoln Cathedral and to Lincoln Castle, where a copy of the Magna Carta is kept.
Liverpool: The 2008 European Capital of Culture, a major port and World Heritage Site, home to two cathedrals and houses more listed buildings, museums and art galleries than any other city in the UK outside of London. The home of Liverpool F.C, a world-famous football club. Is also famous for The Grand National, and its musical, maritime and sporting heritage.
Oxford : A city known for its university, the University of Oxford.
Nottingham : The city and Nottingham Castle are famed worldwide for their links with the legend of Robin Hood. Sherwood Forest is nearby.
Portsmouth: Portsmouth is a naval dockyard, and has some famous ships on display, including the Mary Rose, and HMS Victory, all within its Historic Dockyard. Also home to Gunwharf Quays retail centre, with its iconic Spinnaker Tower.
Salisbury: Salisbury cathedral is very well known, and has the tallest spire in the country. Nearby is the pre-historic site of Stonehenge, which is administered by English Heritage.
Stratford-upon-Avon: The birthplace of William Shakespeare is probably the most visited place in Stratford.
York: Famous for the York Minster cathedral. Also the location of the National Railway Museum and a wealth of preserved medieval streets and buildings, such as the Merchant Adventurers' Hall and the Shambles.

Other places in England are also of historical interest. The city of Manchester is the second most visited city in England after London.[1] Many foreign tourists also visit the neighbouring countries Scotland and Wales – see tourism in Scotland and tourism in Wales.

Domestic tourists, and foreign tourists who have specific interests in art, music, history etc., also visit the following:
Birmingham: A major city, with an orchestra, major exhibition venues (NEC, ICC) and art galleries. Of historical interest for its significant role in the industrial revolution, the childhood home and inspiration of Tolkien, noted for its shopping and boasting the longest stretch of nightclubs in England.
Hadrian's Wall: The Roman wall built in Northumberland by order of the Emperor Hadrian.
Hereford: A cathedral city, famous for the chained library in the cathedral, and the Mappa Mundi
Ironbridge: The cradle of the industrial revolution and the site for the legendary Iron bridge.
Manchester: A major city, famous for the Hallé orchestra and many museums and art galleries, a classic example of Victorian era architecture. Also well known for the Manchester Ship Canal. The city is home to the world famous Manchester United F.C., and Manchester City F.C. - the world's richest football club. The host city of the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Manchester is also known for being the world's first industrialised city, and is well noted for its shopping, cuisine and nightlife.

See also :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_England#Most_visited_cities_by_Internat ional_visitors

[lostalex]

Americans put too much weight on the 'power' of the Royal Family, any power they possess is purely symbolic and like others have said in the thread the royals are merely figureheads for tourists to go mad over. The Queen's titles haven't had any significant meaning since long before we were all born.


umm, then what's the point of it all?? we're just waiting to hear an explaination...???

[Tom4784]

umm, then what's the point of it all?? we're just waiting to hear an explaination...???

There isn't really a point to it, it's just there out of tradition really and because the Royals are a profitable business.

[Marsh.]

umm, then what's the point of it all?? we're just waiting to hear an explaination...???

Tradition. The Royal Family no longer have the power they once had in years gone by but are still there as tradition and symbolism.
And can I ask, why enter into a debate like this when you have no idea of the facts? If you needed an explanation you should have asked for it in the first place.

On another note, I'll be all for abolishment if Charles becomes King and takes that Camilla woman as Queen. lol

[SoBig]

I actually agree with the OP. No point in having the Royal Family anymore. They have no real power. Its like having a moving statue.

[lostalex]

Tradition. The Royal Family no longer have the power they once had in years gone by but are still there as tradition and symbolism.
And can I ask, why enter into a debate like this when you have no idea of the facts? If you needed an explanation you should have asked for it in the first place.

On another note, I'll be all for abolishment if Charles becomes King and takes that Camilla woman as Queen. lol

but what does it symbolize and what is the tradition based on if you really ackowledge history?

The idea that some people are genetically superior to others? Surelly you see how that is offensive to some people. The first born male, First of all it's racist, because everyone of the royals is white, Second, it's homophobic because if any royal male falls inlove with another man, they'd have to abdicate the thrown, Third, it's prejudice against religions, because the royal is REQUIRED to be the head of the Anglican church.

So an institution that is so discriminatory on SO many levels, how do they get away with it?? It's incredible.

[Marsh.]

I actually agree with the OP. No point in having the Royal Family anymore. They have no real power. Its like having a moving statue.

Except the OP's point wasn't that the Royal Family was pointless but religious. She/He got confused over how powerful the Royals are. Comparing it to the US President, who has to be a Christian.

[lostalex]

Except the OP's point wasn't that the Royal Family was pointless but religious. She/He got confused over how powerful the Royals are. Comparing it to the US President, who has to be a Christian.

Well the Queen is the equivalent of the US president.

The Prime Minister of the UK is not equivilent to the President of the USA, the Equivelent in the USA to the Prime Minister is the Speaker of the House of Representitives, which at this time is John Beohner. He is the leader of the majority party in the House of Representivites(the republicans), just as David Cameron is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons(the conservatives). ...yes i know he has a coalition, but i don't need to explain that complex arrangement, do I???

Obama is equal to the Queen, not the Prime Minister.

[arista]

"Well the Queen is the equivalent of the US president."


She can not Fire Nukes
like your Leader can.


You have it Wrong
if you were here - you would know

[Marsh.]

but what does it symbolize and what is the tradition based on if you really ackowledge history?

The idea that some people are genetically superior to others? Surelly you see how that is offensive to some people. The first born male, First of all it's racist, because everyone of the royals is white, Second, it's homophobic because if any royal male falls inlove with another man, they'd have to abdicate the thrown, Third, it's prejudice against religions, because the royal is REQUIRED to be the head of the Anglican church.

So an institution that is so discriminatory on SO many levels, how do they get away with it?? It's incredible.

Most religious people tend to inherit their beliefs or religion from family. So, if the Royals are a part of the Church of England then their children will be raised with it.

On homophobia, there's been rumours about certain people's sexuality in the royal family lol but if they abdicate the throne passes down. Monarch's have abdicated in the past, such as Edward when he fell in love with a divorced woman. That was against the "rules" so he gave up his position. That's how the current Queen came to the throne.

I think the "first born male" rule is changing, so it would be eldest child. The most you could say is sexist, not racist.

The Royals are all white because if white people have sex you tend to have white children.

[lostalex]

"Well the Queen is the equivalent of the US president."


She can not Fire Nukes
like your Leader can.


You have it Wrong
if you were here - you would know

can the PM fire nukes then in the UK? a PM like Gordon Brown who was never even elected to be the PM???

Let's take a time out now to think about all of the PM's in UK history who were not elected by the people, but have so much power. They were only CHOSEN by their own cronies in their own parties. Is that democracy??

No one in the UK ever elected Gordon Brown as yur PM, but he was your PM for years.

[lostalex]

Why should someone have to abdicate the throne just because they are homosexual? Why can't an adoptive child be part of the family?

[arista]

can the PM fire nukes then in the UK? a PM like Gordon Brown who was never even elected to be the PM???

Let's take a time out now to think about all of the PM's in UK history who were not elected by the people, but have so much power. They were only CHOSEN by their own cronies in their own parties. Is that democracy??

No one in the UK ever elected Gordon Brown as yur PM, but he was your PM for years.

Brown was just a temp Stooge - he was doomed


Yes David can Fire from his Nuke Subs
if needed

[MTVN]

can the PM fire nukes then in the UK? a PM like Gordon Brown who was never even elected to be the PM???

Let's take a time out now to think about all of the PM's in UK history who were not elected by the people, but have so much power. They were only CHOSEN by their own cronies in their own parties. Is that democracy??

No one in the UK ever elected Gordon Brown as yur PM, but he was your PM for years.

If Obama died then Joe Biden would be President, who elected him?

[Marsh.]

Why should someone have to abdicate the throne just because they are homosexual? Why can't an adoptive child be part of the family?

Can be a part of the family, but not inherit the throne.

That's like grabbing someone off the street and saying "You want to be Queen?". It's called a "blood" line for a reason.

[lostalex]

If Obama died than Joe Biden would be President, who elected him?

The American epople knew Joe Biden was his VP when they Elected Obama, it's not a surprise.


The VP IS ELECTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST LIKE THE PRESIDENT, WHICH IS WHY OBAMA WON PARTLY, opps, caps, sorry, but yea, part of the reason Obama won is because Sarah Palin was McCains's VP and Americans were scared of the idea of her taking over since McCain was so old.

[lostalex]

Can be a part of the family, but not inherit the throne.

That's like grabbing someone off the street and saying "You want to be Queen?". It's called a "blood" line for a reason.

so you believe the Windsor bloodline is superior to everyone elses bloodlines?? seriously???

That is by far the most racist thing ive ever heard anyone say.

[Marsh.]

so you believe the Windsor bloodline is superior to everyone elses bloodlines?? seriously???

Superior? It's inherited.

Would you rather your grandmother's house and belongings passed down to her descendants or was put up for auction for other's to take.

[MTVN]

The American epople knew Joe Biden was his VP when they Elected Obama, it's not a surprise.


The VP IS ELECTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST LIKE THE PRESIDENT, WHICH IS WHY OBAMA WON PARTLY, opps, caps, sorry, but yea, part of the reason Obama won is because Sarah Palin was McCains's VP and Americans were scared of the idea of her taking over since McCain was so old.

Mmm so Americans had a lot of choice over who would be Obamas Vice President did they? He was only elected to that role by default after being picked by Obama himself

[Marsh.]

That is by far the most racist thing ive ever heard anyone say.

That word is so misused it's untrue. It's not "racist" in the slightest. This is Britain, we're all British. One race.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but racism is the wrong description.

And it's not an issue in the modern world because the Royal's don't have the power they once did. If they did, then I'm sure some would take issue.

[lostalex]

That word is so misused it's untrue. It's not "racist" in the slightest. This is Britain, we're all British. One race.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but racism is the wrong description.

And it's not an issue in the modern world because the Royal's don't have the power they once did. If they did, then I'm sure some would take issue.

If they don't have power then what's the point? You say they are just tourist attractions like Mickey mouse at disney world, so what makes them qualified to be entertainers? The propaganda is also ridiculous, watching the british media drool over prince william in a helicopter, ,looks more like russian propaganda over Putin. It's disgraceful.

[arista]

Superior? It's inherited.

Would you rather your grandmother's house and belongings passed down to her descendants or was put up for auction for other's to take.


You are Real Kind
Spending Time giving out
Education and History Lessons.



10 Outta 10 for 08marsh

[lostalex]

You are Real Kind
Spending Time giving out
Education and History Lessons.



10 Outta10 for 08marsh

If my Grandmother stole her house from peasants and she lived her life steaing her income from poor people, then i'd want her house auctioned off to the highest bidder, and the money goes to all the people she stole from.

That is what the royals have done. all of their wealth comes from STEALING from the people of the UK.

[SoBig]

That word is so misused it's untrue. It's not "racist" in the slightest. This is Britain, we're all British. One race.


No. British is not a race.

[Marsh.]

If they don't have power then what's the point you say they are just tourist attractions like Mickey mouse at disney world, so what makes them qualified to be entertainers? The propaganda is also ridiculous, watching the british media drool over price william in a helicopter, ,looks more like russian propaganda over Putin. It's disgraceful.

I'd say the worldwide press are more positive about the Royals than the British ones. That's more "fans" like any other "celebrity" for doing his charity work etc. But as for worldwide coverage that's part of their role, to keep British relations with other countries.

You say qualified? They are in the Royal bloodline dating back through history.

Except as the years have passed their importance is diminishing, I don't think the Monarchy will last another 100 years or less they'll be completely abolished come that time.

[Marsh.]

No. British is not a race.

Neither are separate family lines. As I said to lostalex, race isn't the issue.

[Pyramid*]

I don't understand this idea of "the royals bring tourists"

The last thing i'd want to do if i went to London is go on one of those cheesy tours. I'm more interested in the nightlife and the shopping.

Perhaps for this to be answered, you might want to pose the question on an American forum to your fellow Americans. After all: most of them can't get enough of anything connected to British Royalty.

As for this comment below: no one mentioned 'superior'. The important and crucial word was 'bloodline', and there is nothing racist about it. Good try though ;)



so you believe the Windsor bloodline is superior to everyone elses bloodlines?? seriously???

That is by far the most racist thing ive ever heard anyone say

[Marsh.]

If my Grandmother stole her house from peasants and she lived her life steaing her income from poor people, then i'd want her house auctioned off to the highest bidder, and the money goes to all the people she stole from.

That is what the royals have done. all of their wealth comes from STEALING from the people of the UK.

The Royal Family had a lot of fortune and property taken away from them in the 1700s known as the "crown" estate and the government agreed to pay them a set amount of money towards the upkeep of their properties, wages to staff and grants for transportation and security. But they had the majority of their power taken away. They don't really have personal "salaries" per se but a vast personal fortune from the Queen's self owned palaces which are run like businesses to earn them money. The Queen also pays money back into the state which outweighs the grants that are paid to them.

The monarchy were "punished" sort of for the wealth stolen in having this "crown" estate seized by parliament and having a lot of their power taken away. They came to a truce to allow them to retain the head of state position and also power over our armed forces, who serve "Queen and country".

I've come to the conclusion I use "" too often. lmao.

[Bollo]

Perhaps for this to be answered, you might want to pose the question on an American forum to your fellow Americans. After all: most of them can't get enough of anything connected to British Royalty.



This is true, I saw so many Americans interviewed on the news when the Royal wedding was on that had flown over to the UK specifically to watch it first hand, some had spent thousands on flights & hotel rooms!

[Pyramid*]

The Royal Family had a lot of fortune and property taken away from them in the 1700s known as the "crown" estate and the government agreed to pay them a set amount of money towards the upkeep of their properties, wages to staff and grants for transportation and security. But they had the majority of their power taken away. They don't really have personal "salaries" per se but a vast personal fortune from the Queen's self owned palaces which are run like businesses to earn them money.

Doesn't the Queen and others in the Royal Family also personally own the expensive gifts bestowed upon them by other Head of State, that are also included in their personal wealth? (I'm not sure myself), just a thought after reading your post.

[lostalex]

This is true, I saw so many Americans interviewed on the news when the Royal wedding was on that had flown over to the UK specifically to watch it first hand, some had spent thousands on flights & hotel rooms!

you saw how many Americans out of 300 million? so yur coming to a conclusion based on 1% of the american population? get real. The same americans who loved the royal wedding were the same ones who loved the Kardashian wedding.

[Marsh.]

Doesn't the Queen and others in the Royal Family also personally own the expensive gifts bestowed upon them by other Head of State, that are also included in their personal wealth? (I'm not sure myself), just a thought after reading your post.

Yes, I'm not 100% but I would think that would come under personal wealth that is for them alone.

[Marsh.]

you saw how many Americans out of 300 million? so yur coming to a conclusion based on 1% of the american population? get real. The same americans who loved the royal wedding were the same ones who loved the Kardashian wedding.

You couldn't understand why tourists would be interested in the royal family for it to earn our country money as you said you were more interested in nightlife and shopping.

They used an example to how that there's plenty people in the world including some of your fellow Americans who do come over for the tours of Buckingham Palace etc. Everyone's different, so people should stop generalising.

[Marsh.]

i never said British is a race, stop putting words in my mouth. Quote me if you can.

Ok...

so you believe the Windsor bloodline is superior to everyone elses bloodlines?? seriously???

That is by far the most racist thing ive ever heard anyone say.

How is it racist?

[lostalex]

Ok...



How is it racist?


umm, saying someone's bloodline is worthy of royalty is racist, it's the most obvious form of racism ever.

It obviously implies that every one else's bloodline is not good enuf to be royalty.

Exclusion based on your family bloodline is obviously racist.

[Marsh.]

umm, saying someone's bloodline is worthy of royalty is racist, it's the most obvious form of racism ever.

It obviously implies that every one else's bloodline is not good enuf to be royalty.

Again, that can be deemed as discrimination, NOT racism.

And, again, it doesn't really matter anymore. Their power has been significantly diminished and they inherit mostly their own family's wealth and fortune so why would they give it to someone outside the family? Hence my comparison to your grandmother's house.

[Pyramid*]

umm, saying someone's bloodline is worthy of royalty is racist, it's the most obvious form of racism ever.

It obviously implies that every one else's bloodline is not good enuf to be royalty.

Exclusion based on your family bloodline is obviously racist.


The fact that someone already part of the Royal Family gives birth, that child then by way of blood, also becomes part of it.

It seems the words 'hereditary' and 'bloodlines' may possibly be ones that you don't quite understand if you aren't able to grasp that they are nothing to do with racism.

Looks like this is just another Bash The Brits thread from our fellow fms across the Pond.

[Livia]

Talking of bloodlines and dynasties, let's not forget the USA's own bloodlines and dynasties: the Kennedy family, the Bush family... What makes them dynasties is money, whereas what makes our own is culture, tradition and history. Which is better....? You decide.

[lostalex]

The fact that someone already part of the Royal Family gives birth, that child then by way of blood, also becomes part of it.

It seems the words 'hereditary' and 'bloodlines' may possibly be ones that you don't quite understand if you aren't able to grasp that they are nothing to do with racism.

Looks like this is just another Bash The Brits thread from our fellow fms across the Pond.


How is it bash the Brits??

Britain is not the only country with a hereditary Monarchy, I'd say the same thing about any monarchy, not just the British one, so i'm not singling out Brits.

[Pyramid*]

How is it bash the Brits??

Britain is not the only country with a hereditary Monarchy, I'd say the same thing about any monarchy, not just the British one, so i'm not singling out Brits.

Your churlish attempts to infer that the Royal Family are racist, that's what I'm referring to. I did not state you were singling out the Brits, but you are on a UK forum therefore it is pertinent.

[lostalex]

Your churlish attempts to infer that the Royal Family are racist, that's what I'm referring to. I did not state you were singling out the Brits, but you are on a UK forum therefore it is pertinent.
I never said the individual royals are racist, i said the institution is racist.

The system is racist, not the people. IN MY OPINION.

can't a boy have an opinion around here? christ almighty!:rolleyes:

[Pyramid*]

I never said the individual royals are racist, i said the institution is racist.

The system is racist, not the people. IN MY OPINION.

Actually, you did.


Originally Posted by lostalex http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/blue/viewpost.gif (http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4857649#post4857649)
so you believe the Windsor bloodline is superior to everyone elses bloodlines?? seriously???

That is by far the most racist thing ive ever heard anyone say.


A bloodline is not a system. A bloodline involves PEOPLE not systems. ;)

[lostalex]

Actually, you did.



A bloodline is not a system. A bloodline involves PEOPLE not systems. ;)

it INvolves people that doesn't make them THE SYSTEM though. Government involves people to, that doesn't mean people ARE the government system. It's a system.

this is pathetic semantics. Google it, i'm not gonna play dictionary for you.

[seanraff07]

The Monarchy is almost pointless and worthless, they hardly do anything.

[Bollo]

you saw how many Americans out of 300 million? so yur coming to a conclusion based on 1% of the american population? get real. The same americans who loved the royal wedding were the same ones who loved the Kardashian wedding.

You said that you didn't understand the idea that the Royals bring tourists, so I was giving an example of how they do, which included your fellow country people. Also I have quite a few American friends and relatives who when they stay here go and visit Buckingham Palace, Tower of London, Hampton Court etc and they most certainly do not like "The Kardashains"

[lostalex]

You said that you didn't understand the idea that the Royals bring tourists, so I was giving an example of how they do, which included your fellow country people. Also I have quite a few American friends and relatives who when they stay here go and visit Buckingham Palace, Tower of London, Hampton Court etc and they most certainly do not like "The Kardashains"

I understand the concept of celebrity, so why can't the royals be elected and be celebrities?

Plenty of people come to washington DC to go to the white house, and capitol building, and we don't have a monarchy, all of the people in those buildings are there based on elections.

the idea of a bloodline living off of their parents celebrity is repulsive, just like Paris Hilton. people should not be judged based on their parents status.

[Marsh.]

I understand the concept of celebrity, so why can't the royals be elected and be celebrities?

Plenty of people come to washington DC to go to the white house, and capitol building, and we don't have a monarchy, all of the people in those buildings are there based on elections.

the idea of a bloodline living off of their parents celebrity is repulsive, just like Paris Hilton. people should not be judged based on their parents status.

Except this is very different to Paris Hilton.

If you genuinely believe that is a valid comparison then this discussion ceases to be serious.

[Pyramid*]

it INvolves people that doesn't make them THE SYSTEM though. Government involves people to, that doesn't mean people ARE the government system. It's a system.

this is pathetic semantics. Google it, i'm not gonna play dictionary for you.

No one is asking that you play semantics. Sticking to the reality of the situation would be helpful thought, rather going off on a tangent and trying it infer something that is not there.

The Government has nothing to do with how the Royal Family chose to breed and with whom. That's their choice, not the Government's.

[Bollo]

Except this is very different to Paris Hilton.

If you genuinely believe that is a valid comparison then this discussion ceases to be serious.

This. If you are going to compare hundreds of years of british history and ingrained culture to some vacous Hotel chain billionaire then you cannot be reasoned with. And I'm not even a royalist

[Harry!]

One's Queen is staying! Thanks!


On homophobia, there's been rumours about certain people's sexuality in the royal family lol but if they abdicate the throne passes down. Monarch's have abdicated in the past, such as Edward when he fell in love with a divorced woman. That was against the "rules" so he gave up his position. That's how the current Queen came to the throne.


Shameless plug but M's new movie W.E. will cover this from Wallis point of view, in cinemas soon!

[MTVN]

I've locked this to delete some posts, it's been derailed by personal clashes

[MTVN]

Ok deleted the bickering and off-topic post, keep it on topic

[lostalex]

so all of my responses were deleted, and Pyramid get's the last word? doesn't seem fair to me. i totally pwned him, and yu deleted it all, and made it seem like i had nothing to respond with.

[MTVN]

I deleted any posts which involved personal arguing or which were generally off topic, feel free to respond to Pyramids post as long as you stick to the topic and don't use insults

[Pyramid*]

so all of my responses were deleted, and Pyramid get's the last word? doesn't seem fair to me. i totally pwned him, and yu deleted it all, and made it seem like i had nothing to respond with.

If you look you will see that another 2 posters have posted since the last post of mine - so how that's me having the last word, god knows. I am a 'she' not a 'he'.



You made reference to 'if you want to know about history, go speak to the Scots'.

You are speaking to a Scot, therefore it would appear that since you feel the Scots have more to say on the matter, it would therefore appear that given that I am Scottish, that you would agree with my Scottish points of view.

Why does what happen in the UK as far as our Monarchy concern you so deeply?

[lostalex]

Why does what happen in the UK as far as our Monarchy concern you so deeply?

Ohhh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize this was a British only section of the bus. Sorry, maybe you can tell me which water fountains are for Brits and which are for every one else. i didn't realize this forum was segregated.

My bad, i thought everyone was free to participate in any discussion despite their nationality.

[Scarlett.]

The American epople knew Joe Biden was his VP when they Elected Obama, it's not a surprise.


The VP IS ELECTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST LIKE THE PRESIDENT, WHICH IS WHY OBAMA WON PARTLY, opps, caps, sorry, but yea, part of the reason Obama won is because Sarah Palin was McCains's VP and Americans were scared of the idea of her taking over since McCain was so old.
We knew Brown would take over at some point when we elected Blair the third time, Brown was there for three terms too, trust me no one was shocked when Brown became PM

[Pyramid*]

Ohhh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize this was a British only section of the bus. Sorry, maybe you can tell me which water fountains are for Brits and which are for every one else. i didn't realize this forum was segregated.

My bad, i thought everyone was free to participate in any discussion despite their nationality.

I did not suggest it was segregated or not open so no need for such sarcasm. What about the other part of my comment that related to you saying, 'talk to the Scots'. I am one.

I asked why you are so deeply concerned about the UK and it's monarchy. Given that this is very much the topic of the thread, it is a valid question given your opposition to it - I'm wondering why you feel so deeply about it when it doesn't have a direct impact on you. That is not me saying you have no right to discuss it, that's me simply wondering why you have such an interest and opposing view on something that has no effect on you personally in any way.

[Marsh.]

Yes, and he obviously knew very little facts on the subject. Which is fine as he asked for explanations but he was very opposing to something he didn't really understand.

Plus, the thread was about the Queen being head of Church of England so I think it got derailed 3 and half pages back. lol

[lostalex]

I did not suggest it was segregated or not open so no need for such sarcasm. What about the other part of my comment that related to you saying, 'talk to the Scots'. I am one.

I asked why you are so deeply concerned about the UK and it's monarchy. Given that this is very much the topic of the thread, it is a valid question given your opposition to it - I'm wondering why you feel so deeply about it when it doesn't have a direct impact on you. That is not me saying you have no right to discuss it, that's me simply wondering why you have such an interest and opposing view on something that has no effect on you personally in any way.

I was obviously saying it as a generalization. I'm sure some Scots are anglophiles, just as some Americans are anglophiles.

Obviously what i was talking about doesn't apply to you, don't take everything i say so personally, geesh, this is why MTVN had to censor our convo, because you take everything to personally,
obviously we are talking in generalizations.

You think everything is a compettion we're talking about history, ity's not a personal attack on you, sorry if you felt personally attacked, i didn't mean anything i said to be a personal attack on you.

[lostalex]

Yes, and he obviously knew very little facts on the subject. Which is fine as he asked for explanations but he was very opposing to something he didn't really understand.

Plus, the thread was about the Queen being head of Church of England so I think it got derailed 3 and half pages back. lol

"he" has a name, If you wanna talk about me, try talking to me, and you're talking about me not be able to address people directly for questions?? wow, now who doesn't get irony??

[spitfire]

"he" has a name, If you wanna talk about me, try talking to me, and you're talking about me not be able to address people directly for questions?? wow, now who doesn't get irony??
Off topic, again.:nono:

[Marsh.]

"he" has a name, If you wanna talk about me, try talking to me, and you're talking about me not be able to address people directly for questions?? wow, now who doesn't get irony??

Now, who's taking things personally?

I did not say you don't address people directly for questions, I was actually trying to stick up for you on that matter. If you actually read my post you'll see I said that you didn't know a lot of facts on the Royal Family so actually asked for explanations on things you weren't clear on.

I then said that you were very opposing about the Royal Family considering you seemed to not know an awful lot about it.

So, I fail to see any "irony", and I've been "talking directly to you" all through the thread. Well, until you made the comparison to Paris Hilton.

[Glenn.]

umm, saying someone's bloodline is worthy of royalty is racist, it's the most obvious form of racism ever.

It obviously implies that every one else's bloodline is not good enuf to be royalty.

Exclusion based on your family bloodline is obviously racist.

Not really the case. The next (Should Charles abdicate) Queen would have come from a working class family. With William being King of course.

[Omah]

Talking of bloodlines and dynasties, let's not forget the USA's own bloodlines and dynasties: the Kennedy family, the Bush family....

Too right !

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/4354461/Hillary_Clinton_and_American_dynasties/

Since the Founding Fathers so ostentatiously renounced monarchy in 1776, dynasties have frequently flourished in the Land of the Free. By the time America's second president John Adams died in 1826 his son, John Quincy Adams, was occupying the White House.

Presidents Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt were, of course, cousins. Only a relentless campaign of assassination prevented the institutionalisation of the Kennedy dynasty. If Hillary Clinton had won this year (2008), by the end of her first term in 2012 the United States would have been governed by alternating members of the Clinton and Bush dynasties for 24 consecutive years. The illness of Senator Edward Kennedy signals the demise of another American quasi-royal line.

Anomaly is no stranger to the US constitution, which George III might legitimately have denounced, in American terminology, as a "crock". The egalitarian rhetoric of 1776 was shamelessly bogus, full of rhodomontade such as Patrick Henry's operatic declamation: "Give me liberty or give me death!" To appreciate the extravagant cynicism of the joke you have to bear in mind he owned 66 slaves.

:rolleyes:

[Omah]

Ohhh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize this was a British only section of the bus. Sorry, maybe you can tell me which water fountains are for Brits and which are for every one else. i didn't realize this forum was segregated.

AFAIK, there has never been "segregation" in the UK, unlike the USA, where it persisted until 1968 .....

[Marsh.]

Not really the case. The next (Should Charles abdicate) Queen would have come from a working class family. With William being King of course.

Exactly. ^^^^

[joeysteele]

No but London is the only interesting place in this country for tourists to visit because of its royal family background.

Absolutely,and also just a rumour that a Royal may be passing anywhere has tourists lining the streets for hours just to catch a tiny glimpse of them.

The Monarch is the designated head of the Church of England, she still holds the title 'defender of the faith', it may sound antiquated to some but it's a continuance and symbolism that has still a strong part of the UK tradition and its values.

While it is true the Monarch has no real power as such as to the politics of the Nation, the Monarch does still have a major role to play especially if there were difficulty in forming a govt of the country due to fragmented parties or unclear election results.
The Monarch can in extraordinary circumstances,call for elections to be held for instance.

Long may the Monarchy continue and I feel sure it will.

[Shasown]

Seems to me, our American offspring are jealous of our history and traditions, is all.

Pointing out what they see as irregularities in our state and constitution whilst totally ignoring the blatantly obvious ones in their own.


Is the word "titular" not in the abbreviated dictionary they are taught from?

[Glenn.]

Seems to me, our American offspring are jealous of our history and traditions, is all.

Pointing out what they see as irregularities in our state and constitution whilst totally ignoring the blatantly obvious ones in their own.


Is the word "titular" not in the abbreviated dictionary they are taught from?

Yeah this. :thumbs:

[Liberty4eva]

Seems to me, our American offspring are jealous of our history and traditions, is all.

Pointing out what they see as irregularities in our state and constitution whilst totally ignoring the blatantly obvious ones in their own.

Is the word "titular" not in the abbreviated dictionary they are taught from?

The consensus among most historians and political experts is the US Constitution was and still is the best blueprint for government that man has ever put to paper. :hmph:

[Omah]

The consensus among most historians and political experts is the US Constitution was and still is the best blueprint for government that man has ever put to paper. :hmph:

OTOH, the consensus among most historians and political experts is the US Constitution was and still is the worst blueprint for government that man has ever put to paper, since it has, as its main aim, the eradication, control or corruption of the rest of the world.

:eek:

[Marsh.]

OTOH, the consensus among most historians and political experts is the US Constitution was and still is the worst blueprint for government that man has ever put to paper, since it has, as its main aim, the eradication, control or corruption of the rest of the world.

:eek:

Yes, you only have to look what's happening to the world now.

[MTVN]

The UK is the same in that respect though

[Alf]

God save the Queen
rule britannia

[Shasown]

If my Grandmother stole her house from peasants and she lived her life steaing her income from poor people, then i'd want her house auctioned off to the highest bidder, and the money goes to all the people she stole from.

That is what the royals have done. all of their wealth comes from STEALING from the people of the UK.

Totally silly idea, but lets run with it.

Wasnt the area that is now New York bought for some blankets and bangles?

Bit unfair that eh? I dont think any court in the US would allow such unfair trading to be legally binding nowadays. So you do in fact advocate forcing everyone out of the area and allowing the descendants of the original natives to take control of it.

What about areas of land where the Native Americans were just forced out as opposed to being swindled?

Where on earth are you going to force all those displaced US citizens? Would any country want to take them in?