God Save The Queen......or Blair!

Busman747 · 02-03-2005, 23:16

Am I a Royalist?

In the past, I have been the first to stand up and say that our country has something that is respected and admired throughout the world, The royal Family draws in huge amounts of revenue and is admired by many countries and their people.

My first doubts concerned the "hangers on." the Queens cousins, umpteenth in line to the throne that were living a high life like leeches on tax payers money and not putting anything back into the economy. Recently, I have considered the Queens close family..........and they are becoming an expensive embarassment!

Charles, expecting the rights of old to have a mistress even though he was married,
Andrew,...enough said!.....
Anne, tried to turn herself from a bitch to a princess but not succeeding,
What a family.......

Many people have said to me how wonderful the Queen is.....but is she really????
She acts like a demi-god, no one must touch her, all should do her bidding, she is surrounded by protocol.......and she has NO IDEA how her "subjects" think or live. How touching, that Christmas when she admitted that she had an "anis bloody 'orriblis" year, GET A LIFE!! We have all had sh** years, it's part of living!!!
I have tossed around my thoughts now in my head for a couple of years and today found this announcement......

Geri Snubs the Queen
Ex-Spice Girl is late for royal party

Geri Halliwell delivered a royal snub when she turned up 40 minutes late to meet the Queen.

The former Spice Girl was invited to a reception at BuckinghamPalace to celebrate the British music industry.

The 500 celebrity guests began arriving an hour before their due time.

But with the Palace doors closed and officials believing she had decided not to attend, Halliwell swept in 40 minutes late and made no apology to the doorman for her late arrival.

By that time the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were already 40 minutes into greeting guests, who included Eric Clapton, Charlotte Church, Cilla Black, Roger Daltry, Robert Plant and Dame Shirley Bassey - all of whom arrived on time.

I don't particularly like Geri H, but I found myself thinking: "good on yer girl" So she turned up late for a party we have all done it, (although I try to turn up early if there are free drinks )

I think that I have finally come to the conclusion that I have lost my respect for the royal family totally!!! and that includes the Queen.

Is there an alternative? Chief Blair? I have no answers, This is (or should be) a democratic country, If I have lost faith, then many others have also. but I feel that several years down the line, we will be looking at the American way of running the country..........

It will be interesting to see what proportion of Accyweb members agree with me or whether there are still people that can convince me that the royal family should prevail in the U.K.!!!

chav1 · 02-03-2005, 23:37

the royal family may well bring in revenuse from tourists but...

how much do they cost us

they get a wage for basicly waving out of a window

maintainence of their castles and stately homes , gardens etc

staff wages liek butlers , cooks and bum wipers

god knows how many more expenses they get plus tax rebates on what they actuakty spend out of their own pockets

time to sell some of the family jewels if you ask me

rockrabbit · 02-03-2005, 23:40

People in the past have said its because im young but ive never had respect for the royals apart from bringing a few tourists over what else do they do besides give the country a bad name . The lot of them dont know the meaning of a days work or anything about real life . I couldnt see the big attraction with diana lets face it she was a tart . Have they ever found out how many blokes she actually went with behind charles back ? yet this women supposedly deserved respect . Theres no way i d bow to any of them the only half decent one died the queen mother . As the saying go s you ve to earn respect to gain it and none of the royals have done and then again neither has tony blair

chav1 · 02-03-2005, 23:44

what did the queen mother ever do..

made headlines with the occasional broken toe and her death

granted she lived over 100 years i believe but when you dont do jack s**t for a living , eat the best foods and recieve the best medical care its no wonder she lives so long

now if i manage to live to be 100 that will be a damn miracle

rockrabbit · 02-03-2005, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

what did the queen mother ever do..

made headlines with the occasional broken toe and her death

granted she lived over 100 years i believe but when you dont do jack s**t for a living , eat the best foods and recieve the best medical care its no wonder she lives so long

now if i manage to live to be 100 that will be a damn miracle

according to what ive been told off a few she was meant to help out quite a bit during world war 2 in the hospitals i maybe wrong and if so then she was as bad as the rest

chav1 · 02-03-2005, 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockrabbit

according to what ive been told off a few she was meant to help out quite a bit during world war 2 in the hospitals i maybe wrong and if so then she was as bad as the rest

ordinary nurses saved lives and helped out in ww2 as well so wheres their easy life of luxury

yeah pretty nice of her to do it but nothing extraordinary theres plenty of other people did their bit as well

anyway i thought ww2 was about keeping the germans out of england , if they wanted to help with that they should have left the country lol

rockrabbit · 03-03-2005, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

ordinary nurses saved lives and helped out in ww2 as well so wheres their easy life of luxury

yeah pretty nice of her to do it but nothing extraordinary theres plenty of other people did their bit as well

anyway i thought ww2 was about keeping the germans out of england , if they wanted to help with that they should have left the country lol

Its still a damn sight more than any of the others have done .They are all a disgrace to there ancestors and im damn sure with the tax money we d save from paying for them to go on holiday and there luxury homes and estates we could build other attractions to bring a lot more tourists here
As for the german phillip he s quite amusing at least he s entertaining lol

Busman747 · 03-03-2005, 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockrabbit

the only half decent one died the queen mother . As the saying go s you ve to earn respect to gain it and none of the royals have done and then again neither has tony blair

In the last 20 years of her life, the Queen Mother was made out to be the "perfect" ...but was known in the 50's/60's as "tug boat Annie!" She had many affairs but they were "hushed" at the time because it was disrespectful! For those that had to deal with her, she was as bitchy as they come!

For someone so famous, can anyone tell me where she was born?? Only the Royal Family could hide such a thing! I have three answers, but in all this time, none have been confirmed-------I am a poor man..but will give 5000 ackers to the person that can come up with the three possible answers (not one!)

I will let you know later....

chav1 · 03-03-2005, 01:01

belgium , france or america

they are pure guesses

Acrylic-bob · 03-03-2005, 06:03

Speaking personally, I would prefer to retain the monarchy. There are many who deride members the Royal Family and criticise them for displaying character flaws common to us all. It strikes me that in having to bear the indignities of a lothario for a husband and the failed marriages of three of her children, HM actually provides quite an accurate mirror of a dysfunctional nation.

Every nation needs a figure head, whether this is an elected Head of State or, as in the case of Britain, an heriditary monarchy, the end result is more or less the same. We would have a person who commands respect and deference due, in prime, to their position and occaisionally to their personality.

The position of Head of State must inevitably be an expensive one to maintain. Such a person cannot help but have a family, who would, equally inevitably, benefit by association.

In the last presidential election in the United States a figure well in excess of 1 billion dollars was expended by the two main political parties in the attempt to get their candidate elected. Forty million dollars was spent on a ten minute ceremony to swear him in to office. Do we really want to see similar sums spent here every five years, in addition to what is required to maintain the head of state once elected and in addition to what is spent to elect a new parliament?

Given the current public disenchantment with politicians of all flavours and the consequent disinterest in politics in general - who among you can name the current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or knows what position in government Jack Straw occupies? - can anyone seriously claim that a constantly changing Head of State would be an improvement on the current system? In the person of the monarch, no matter what you might think of her relatives, we have enjoyed over fifty years of stability at the very highest level of government.

Think about that. And then think about the examples of other republics. Think about France and the scandals which surrounded De Gaulle, Giscard d'Estaing, Mitterand and Pompidou when they were in office, and worse, once they had left office! Think about Austria, which elected the former Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldhiem. Think about any country in Africa or the third world who are unable to elect anyone, to any position, without astonishing loss of life!
And then think about the good ol' US of A. Ronald Reagan, who for most of his second term in office wasn't really certain where he was. Or Bill Clinton, the serial philanderer. Or the two George Bush's, who regard the presidency as a license to print money. Or Richard M. Nixon, who's aqaintance with the truth was strained to say the least.

And then think about The Queen, she has been in the job for fifty years and not one breath of scandal has attached itself to her personally. She has managed for all that time to walk the fine line of honourable conduct and devotion to duty, without complaint and almost without putting so much as one foot wrong.

And anti-monarchists advocate an elected head of state...
Would President Blair and first lady Cherie really be an ornament to the country? A President who lies to parliament and has neither the grace nor humility to admit it and apologise when he is found out, but instead fully expects the country to return him to office for another five years. And a First Lady whose appetite for inappropriate friendships and dodgy property speculations appears unbounded, and whose eldest son, despite being under the legal age limit, was found face down in Leicester Square - Dead Drunk! Or maybe you would prefer President Straw, who's son was apprehended dealing drugs? Or perhaps President Blunket? He would certainly get the sympathy vote, being blind, but he certainly would not win any medals in the sexual continency contest, and could you really say with your hand on your heart that you were voting for him and not for his dog!.

garinda · 03-03-2005, 08:44

I beleive we should have an elected head of state, the present Queen could stand and if she was elected, l would respect that. l can't respect a system that beleives the Monarch is appointed by God. Like A-b said before, the current Queen is only there through the twists, and the illegitimate births of many of ancestors. l saw a programme recently, were the true heir to the throne was a sheep farmer in Australia.
l was supposed to stand once for Princess Michael of Kent, and l'm happy to report out of 10 people l didn't. l mean what on earth is all that cow towing about, just because she married the head of States cousin? Her Mum was a hairdresser in Oz, and her father a Nazi.
Vive la Revolution!

WillowTheWhisp · 03-03-2005, 09:07

I'm not sure that I'm a royalist. By that I mean I don't make a fuss about the royal family. I wouldn't get over excited if any of them came to Accy and I wouldn't stand in line in the hope of seeing one........... BUT......... I wouldn't like to abolish the monarcy.

Yes Mrs Windsor does often seem to be out of touch with reality but what can you expect? Most people in the public eye with a bob or two in the bank are out of touch with reality. I find all the fuss and bother made over who can and cannot be referred to as HRH to be a bit tiresome. "Stripping" Diana of that title after the divorce was petty in the extreme. Whatever happened she was the mother of two people who are heirs to the throne. Nothing could change that. She gave birth to them.

Yes she had "gentlemen friends" but I think she was probably out of her depth and floundering. If she'd have had more support from within it might have helped. The ongoing affair between Charles and Camilla began before the wedding and Diana probably went into that blindfold.

There may well be many irritating things about the royal family but I don't believe they sit around not doing anything all day. They aren't all paid by us not to do it either. I do think they are a tourist attraction even when not there. How many foreigners would mill around Buckingham Palace if the Queen didn't live there? I'd be interested to see if there are any calculations regarding how much revenue they bring into the country.

As for wives and mistresses and odd behaviour etc - hasn't that been the same throughout history?

Not sure about that Ozzy sheepfarmer being the rightful heir to the throne. It's possible to manipulate genealogy enough to show some very impressive results if you only pick out the links to support your theories. I have "proved" that Diana was more royal than Charles and that we should have had a King Winston (I'll leave you to work out who that was) but that wasn't the way history worked out.

I would hate this country to be a democracy like the USA with all the fuss and palaver that goes to electing a President. Not only didn't Ronald Raegan know where he was half of the time I'm not even sure he knew who he was! But that wasn't his fault.

I could say a lot more, but I've things to do and I need to check if the snow has melted yet or not.

garinda · 03-03-2005, 09:21

The 'they bring in lots of money from tourists' argument doesn't stand up. Tourists still go to France to see Royal heritage. Perhaps we'd make more money if they could go inside Royal Palaces, rather than just a couple of rooms at Buck House a short time each year.

fibi · 03-03-2005, 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busman747

In the last 20 years of her life, the Queen Mother was made out to be the "perfect" ...but was known in the 50's/60's as "tug boat Annie!" She had many affairs but they were "hushed" at the time because it was disrespectful! For those that had to deal with her, she was as bitchy as they come!

For someone so famous, can anyone tell me where she was born?? Only the Royal Family could hide such a thing! I have three answers, but in all this time, none have been confirmed-------I am a poor man..but will give 5000 ackers to the person that can come up with the three possible answers (not one!)

I will let you know later....

I'll go for Germany...

garinda · 03-03-2005, 09:49

1/ Glamis Castle.
2/The Earl of Strathmore's London House.
3/In crate on the banks of the Clyde?