General Chat

Just Two Remarks on this subject. )1) Lesley,Princess Diana,s Family has more claim to royalty than the ones we have,including Camilla. (2) Guinevere. We already have one,Including the Wicked Witch, who exploits Childrens Charities and takes advantage of the fact she,s married to the Village Idiot. Hal.

Sorry badly expressed. I am sure you know what I mean - I will return on this later bit busy at mom !

The House of Lords is the Queen?

I agree with everything youi have said Paul - and as for Blair running the country Daniel, you should bear in mind that there are two Houses in Parliament and Blair dont always get his way, even he has to depend on the House of Lords i.e., the Queen. As for being without the Royal Family you only have to look as close as France where they onl;y wish that they had the Royals too despite their revolution which was way back - and I bet that any French person knows more about our Royals Family than you do - same goes for the Americans and I guess most other countries. With the abolition of the Monarch we would probably also see the end of the Commonwealth and where would we be then ?.

Hi Alternative to what? The Queen's main functions are a) signing Acts of Parliament. Since if she refused to sign she would cause a constitutional crisis, in practice this is a rubber stamp exercise and could be abolished. b) opening various things, making speeches All manner of people can open things and make speeches. I know that she is supposedly able to advise, consult and warn the current Prime Minister, but since the PM is under no obligation to take any notice and whatever she advises and warns could equally be advised and warned by others in politics etc, I can't see this is much use. I don't believe that the Queen has any real political or constitutional power now. Any purely ceremonial functions could be taken over by a president, or a token person drawn by lots, or an elected celebrity, if indeed we need all these ceremonial functions. I', not a great fan of fuss, flummery and fanfares myself. nell

Many other countries manage pretty well without a Monarch and I think your two examples just show examples of bad Government. Even if they had Liz as we have, do you really think she would have a clue what she was doing? Nope. She would let her Primeminister try and sort it. Many Brits move abroad every year, can't be all great in merry old England and her merry old Queen.

Parasites in my view. I'd rather my head of state be an elected idiot than someone who was born in the right bed. Gwynne

well as i said dan mate i value your opinion. its wrong, but i value it.

Well if you look back I did say that we should keep them for decoration and tradition, but I am under no illusion that they are otherwise quite useless. We don't really live under a Monarchy. We have a Monarch. That is all.

but only because we say he can dan. and i repeat to you what i said to nell, whats the alternative? i do value the opinion of those who disagree. but surely thats what this country means isnt it? freedom of speech etc. fought for by kings and queens of days gone by. i think if you want to live under a president then move to france, 40% unemployment. or america, huge recession. or zimbabwe, racist murdering dictator. im quite happy being a brit with the monarchy thanks.

You could argue that Blair runs the country? Well of course he does. It's his job. The Queen's job description dissappeared way back.

The Queen does pay her taxes now though xx

so whats the alternative then nell?

Regarding tourism, I guess some people come for the Trooping of the Colour etc, though I can't believe that would be their only reason for visiting London. The Queen isn't exactly on display at all times, only certain events. Most people visiting Buck Palace etc wouldn't see the family members. But even if they do bring in money, they cost a lot in upkeep and for all the goodwill, Prince Philip's many notorious gaffes have probably created a lot of ill will. nell

Most eloquently stated Paul Nell obviously no intellegence test that goes without saying lol

to me the royal family are part of what makes me british. they bring in millions in tourism and are ambassadors for us when they go elsewhere. fair enough the tourists would still want to see castles etc, but im not having that after a few years we would get as many visitors without the royals. and werent the commonwealth games good? in my opinion they are a british institution that i was proud to serve under. what would you rather have - someone like bush? president blair/brown? you could argue that blair runs the country anyway but i for one want the queens head on my post. in my humble opinion. paul.

For goodness sake! The reason someone became king years ago is because he fought his way there. We've either had kings imposed on us (William the Conqueror) because they invaded and fought, or because we've chosen a specific person because they weren't Catholic (George I) etc. As it says in Monty Python you know who the king is because he's the only one not covered in sh*t. There's no DNA test to check that heirs to the throne are genuinely of royal blood; no intelligence test; no aptitude test; no psychometric tests. Naturally the press will complain about their behaviour and suitability. The Royals are now just fodder for the tabloids. nell

A very valuable asset. You never know the value of something till it,s gone - so be warned. Happy days

lol lesley i saw that programme too, but if i rememder rightly he said he didnt want to claim his throne and was happy where he was...dont blame him

I watched that too. Good but he said he wouldn't come and make a claim. He was the Earl of somewhere but was happy being Mr. Ordinary in Aus. I was surprised there wasn't more publicity over it.