[arista]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Who the hell gives two ******s?

Seriously wish England would end it's obsession with the Royal Family, they're irrelevant.

No Pat - young youtube movie maker
Its a Industry
Billions of mugs are standing by for printing
From UK to China.



Look at the Big Picture - for a change

[CaudleHalbard]

It had been said the Royal Family is one of the UK's profitable businesses. Why would we want to get rid of it?

[Sam:)]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

It had been said the Royal Family is one of the UK's profitable businesses. Why would we want to get rid of it?

Because everyones sick of listening to stuck up ***** going on about how they're outdated monarchy is amazing, nobody with a brain gives a flying ****. Honestly if you're excited about someone you don't know, whos done absaloutly nothing having a baby you need to sit down and have a long hard luck at your life

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by Sam

Honestly if you're excited about someone you don't know, whos done absaloutly nothing

Indeed, so we watch Big Brother instead...........

.............. oh, wait......... !

[LikeABoatOnWater]

[Sam:)]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

Indeed, so we watch Big Brother instead...........

.............. oh, wait......... !

Big Brothers a tv show, you get to know the people where as you know nothing about the royals and once BB is over you pretty much forget them.

[CaudleHalbard]

I don't spend any time at all thinking about the royal family.

A lot of it is media-driven.

[Sam:)]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

I don't spend any time at all thinking about the royal family.

A lot of it is media-driven.

Sorry, I wasn't aiming it at you. I was talking about in general. Btw shouldnt this be in celebrity news

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by Sam:)

Sorry, I wasn't aiming it at you. I was talking about in general. Btw shouldnt this be in celebrity news

I know you weren't. What I meant is that the public's interest in them is, to a significant extent, media-driven.

[MTVN]

Or is the media interest public driven? Look at the thousands of people who turned up at the various jubilee events last year, support for a republic has never been so low in recent decades as it is now

[CaudleHalbard]

In the year Diana died the monarchy was so unpopular, people were saying it wouldn't last beyond the current monarch.

They have made an amazing recovery from that. The media has played its part.

Originally Posted by MTVN

Or is the media interest public driven? Look at the thousands of people who turned up at the various jubilee events last year, support for a republic has never been so low in recent decades as it is now

Pure speculation on my part, but couldn't that be linked to the financial state of the country? Just as the nationalistic right always does well in times of hardship, maybe patriotism also does well?

I'd prefer a republic, and just as an impotent monarchy is better than a ruling one, no monarchy is better than an impotent one.

[jackc1806]

Why are Sky News talking to people in an NHS ward, they'll have a massive private room with a whole team of people whilst they have a bed with a curtain and one midwife who visits every so often

[Ryan57]

Originally Posted by MTVN

What would that truth be then?

Sharnt derail the thread but just Google for something like 'truth about the Royal Family'.

You'll see a lot of information. Well written, might I add.

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

no monarchy is better than an impotent one.

I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the queen on prime ministers who have had to go and explain themselves to her every Tuesday........ for the last 60 years!

She had a wealth of experience and, from what I have read, these meetings are not just a formality. She is obliged to remain politically neutral, which no politician ever is.

Logically there is no justification for people holding positions by reason of birth. But it happens in many spheres of life, including business. The system works, which is why there is little appetite for changing it.

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the queen on prime ministers who have had to go and explain themselves to her every Tuesday........ for the last 60 years!

She had a wealth of experience and, from what I have read, these meetings are not just a formality. She is obliged to remain politically neutral, which no politician ever is.

Logically there is no justification for people holding positions by reason of birth. But it happens in many spheres of life, including business. The system works, which is why there is little appetite for changing it.

I would. Politicians wouldn't give a **** about explaining themselves to the queen. They're more worried about explaining themselves to their lobbyist paymasters.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

Pure speculation on my part, but couldn't that be linked to the financial state of the country? Just as the nationalistic right always does well in times of hardship, maybe patriotism also does well?

I'd prefer a republic, and just as an impotent monarchy is better than a ruling one, no monarchy is better than an impotent one.

Well I'd say it's a bit different, it could be linked to it but only really in that Royal events provide a welcome distraction in the same way that things like major sporting events do, whereas the nationalist right makes gain because of disillusion with conventional politics and people looking for alternative governance

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Ryan57

Sharnt derail the thread but just Google for something like 'truth about the Royal Family'.

You'll see a lot of information. Well written, might I add.

Oh Jesus please don't tell me you're referring to things like this:

http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot....ish-royal.html

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

I would. Politicians wouldn't give a **** about explaining themselves to the queen. They're more worried about explaining themselves to their lobbyist paymasters.

Politicians of all parties have said how nervous they are about these meetings.

You can always choose another paymaster (as Blair did) but you can't choose your queen!

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

Politicians of all parties have said how nervous they are about these meetings.

You can always choose another paymaster (as Blair did) but you can't choose your queen!

Of course thats what they've all said. You can't exactly turn around and tell everyone how irrelevant she is. Politicians should have to justify their actions to the least in society, not to those who've enjoyed the most privilege.

[Ryan57]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Oh Jesus please don't tell me you're referring to things like this:

http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot....ish-royal.html

About 5% of that particular site.

Edit: Just to add, the sites that are like this, as in not a major news outlet, aren't always bull****ting. The media don't tell us the full story.

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well I'd say it's a bit different, it could be linked to it but only really in that Royal events provide a welcome distraction in the same way that things like major sporting events do, whereas the nationalist right makes gain because of disillusion with conventional politics and people looking for alternative governance

Yeah, you could be right. I suppose from my own biased republican ideals, I just find it difficult to understand why anyone would be a monarchist.

The nationalistic right also makes gains by separating groups and denigrating "the other" in society. My point was more linked to the queen/royal family being a symbolic figurehead for people to rail behind that is more of a subtle nationalism.

I think it's pure speculation on my part though, and as you said republicanism had been declining for decades, that sort of pisses on my chips.

[Lee.]

Originally Posted by Ryan57

About 5% of that particular site.

which 5%?

[Ryan57]

Originally Posted by Lee.

which 5%?

Actually, now I've skimmed through it, the part I was referring to, isn't actually in that article.

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

Of course thats what they've all said. You can't exactly turn around and tell everyone how irrelevant she is. Politicians should have to justify their actions to the least in society, not to those who've enjoyed the most privilege.

Ultimately the queen can veto legislation.

The power may not have been used in 300 years but it is still there and is a safeguard against a government which decides to act despotically because it had a majority in parliament, despite only getting 35-40% of the vote. The existence of the power is more important than the exercise of it.

For now, anyway, we are happy for a monarch to have that ultimate power. Things may change in the future and we may want to give the power of veto to a politician. I don't see that happening any time soon.