Kate and Williams Baby

[Zoraptor]

I never said it was wrong for them to have money but its different because their sources of income were not optional to the payer as they are when a person purchases a product or service.

They're part of the government, and at one point were the whole of it. Governments do not define what they 'offer' as products or services as a company would, but as obligations. I'm obligated to pay for the roads, even if I have no car. I'm obligated to pay for defence, even if I think we have no enemies. I'm obligated to pay for ludicrous self voted benefits for politicians, even if I regard most of them as utterly worthless. And if I decide not to pay for it? Well, they won't lop my head off and distribute bits of my corpse to the four corners (or leave a horse's head in my bed), but I simply do not have the option to refuse.

 

Queenie is awesome because as a consequence I don't get President John Key/ Helen Clarke/ John Minto/ John Banks/ Kim DotCom/ Richie McCaw/ Judy Bailey/ Tim Shadbolt/ Jim Bolger. And thank god for that.

[Nonek]

Most of the treasures of the English crown are held in perpetuity by the monarchy for the people, such as most of our museum exhibits, a goodly number of stately houses and so and so forth. If these were figured into the Queens holdings she'd probably be considered the richest woman on earth.

 

I don't particularly mind paying for her majesty's upkeep, however Charles is another matter, the man's a spendthrift.

[Gorth]

Do they actually consider the royal family "English" these days? It used to be the norse Normans, the french Angevins, the scottish Stuarts, the dutch Oranje, the german Hannovers (I seem to remember a funny anecdote about name changes during WWI because it wasn't fashionable to be German in England at the time)... what are they these days?

[Raithe]

Well, it's a bit of a mix. The Windsor's as the House of Windsor is relatively recent. They were originally the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but changed the name around WWI due to the germanic aspect. But it's not as if they've really been marrying outside the country that much for awhile.

 

Queen Victoria was of the House of Hanover, and she married Albert who was of the Saxe-Coburg's..  So yes, there's a heavy mix of German in there.

George V's mother was danish, and he married Mary of Teck, an English lady.

George VI was married to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, another English Lady. You'll mostly remember her as the Queen Mum.

Queen Elizabeth II married Philip and he's of Greece and Denmark.

 

But yes, they're pretty much considered English.

[Calax]

Technically Raithe, 300 years ago wasn't George's monarchy, it was William and Mary after James II got run out due to being Catholic. And I think a lot of the money you probably consider "seed" money for the royals is actually money generated after the Kings lost royal authority (as that's part of the reason for the English Civil War in 1600's).

[ManifestedISO]

I like the pomp of royal--smart uniforms, if nothing else. Kate is just wonderfully elegant, easily a match to Diana. 

[Zoraptor]

Technically Raithe, 300 years ago wasn't George's monarchy, it was William and Mary after James II got run out due to being Catholic. And I think a lot of the money you probably consider "seed" money for the royals is actually money generated after the Kings lost royal authority (as that's part of the reason for the English Civil War in 1600's).

George I was 1714, so it's only a year out. William III and Mary II were both dead and Anne was queen in 1713.

 

Oddly, Charles II actually got most of the royal powers back after Ollie's rebellion though he didn't do anything much with them, but that was how James II was able to turn much of the country against him by trying to reestablish absolutism. Ironically it was at Bill III's accession that most were lost, though a few persisted even through to Victoria's time. Check out the entries for Bill of Rights (English) and Act of Settlement if you're interested.

[Calax]

Well, in order to get the throne, William and Mary had to make a pretty big compromise to push a lot of the power back into parliament while the Stuarts fled to France.

[Monte Carlo]

I haven't the time to explain the benefits of Constitutional Monarchy right now, but when I do I shall scribble down a few words.

 

Suffice it to say our Head of State isn't a pygmy like Francois Hollande, a chancer like Berlusconi or a student activist like Obama.

[BruceVC]

I haven't the time to explain the benefits of Constitutional Monarchy right now, but when I do I shall scribble down a few words.

 

Suffice it to say our Head of State isn't a pygmy like Francois Hollande, a chancer like Berlusconi or a student activist like Obama.

 

The good news Monte is that Raithe has done an excellent job representing the advantages of the Monarchy

[GhostofAnakin]

They should have given the kid some weird, Hollywood-esque name to really stir the pot.  Screw tradition.

[Walsingham]

I didn't subscribe to it formally, but I learned last year that I am a believer in the 'vacuum' theory of politics. There HAS to be someone at the top of the pyramid.

 

Assuming this to be true, I rather like that that notional authority is a person weakened by our long history and traditions, and their own lack of perceived authority.

 

A wholly democratic authority would inevitably begin waving their mandate around and attempting all sorts of 'changes' (power grabs).

 

Even if the royal family aren't a net wealth creator I think their function is well worth the expense.

[Walsingham]

Apologies for double post:

 

Royal Gift Incinerator at maximum capacity.

[Meshugger]

I think that Britain wouldn't be 'Britain' without the royal family, just like USA wouldn't be 'USA' without the rebellion, the constitution and the bill of rights.

 

That is all.

[Walsingham]

Actually if I'm honest, roughly 30% of my support for the Royal Family is based on them annoying the sh** out of people I was brought up to believe are jealous peasants.

 

Or maybe they're just more like scones. Hard to justify objectively, but quite pleasant.

[Malcador]

I haven't the time to explain the benefits of Constitutional Monarchy right now, but when I do I shall scribble down a few words.

 

Suffice it to say our Head of State isn't a pygmy like Francois Hollande, a chancer like Berlusconi or a student activist like Obama.

Surely there's more benefit than that, a dignified figurehead isn't all that much to crow about

[AGX-17]

Who? Oh, right, England. No entiendo el Inglés.

 

I didn't subscribe to it formally, but I learned last year that I am a believer in the 'vacuum' theory of politics. There HAS to be someone at the top of the pyramid.

 

Assuming this to be true, I rather like that that notional authority is a person weakened by our long history and traditions, and their own lack of perceived authority.

 

A wholly democratic authority would inevitably begin waving their mandate around and attempting all sorts of 'changes' (power grabs).

 

Even if the royal family aren't a net wealth creator I think their function is well worth the expense.

It's the natural state of human social organization. It's an inevitability, whether libertarians and marxists like it or not. Even purely "democratic" societies choose/chose leaders (i.e. ancient Athens.)

 

But technically speaking, the British royal family is not at the top of any proverbial pyramid, is it? Excepting the 24/7 news media/celebrity gossip pyramid and the international recognition of families whose fame is derived from archaic forms of thought and government. They might be worth the expense for the royal kitsch industry, I don't know about the UK government.

Edited July 25, 2013 by AGX-17

[Gorgon]

The only thing that is inevitable is that power tends to consolidate onto itself. The secret to the success of any monarchy with only the apperance of power and significance is pagantry, tradition and a powerful patriotic association, a wining combination. It's not there because we need it. It's there because it has played this game of careful consolidation for centuries and has gotten really good at it.

[Walsingham]

The queen chooses the government, and is head of the Armed Forces. It's very hard to sumarise how this can be both completely untrue and completely true at the same time.

 

If you can understand how cricket is a sport then you will be on the right track.

[alanschu]

The only thing that is inevitable is that power tends to consolidate onto itself. The secret to the success of any monarchy with only the apperance of power and significance is pagantry, tradition and a powerful patriotic association, a wining combination. It's not there because we need it. It's there because it has played this game of careful consolidation for centuries and has gotten really good at it.

 

 

It definitely appeals as a source of nationalistic pride.  Honestly you can probably equate it somewhat with firearms in the US.

[Enoch]

As an American, I feel completely justified in mocking Brits for letting this particular crowd of clowns mince about in the public eye and with the public fisc.

 

But it's a good-natured kind of mockery.  Like how you would make fun of a friend who develops a premature bald spot-- you don't actually think ill of the guy, as it's just the way he is. Were I British, I'd probably regard the Monarchy as an indulgence, but an acceptable one as an homage to the nation's history.  "Sure she's a weird ol' gal, and her heir is a dimwitted ponce, but we sing 'God Save the Queen' because that's what proper British folks do, dammit."

[Longknife]

 do you care

 

 

Lol no.

[Walsingham]

But it's a good-natured kind of mockery.  Like how you would make fun of a friend who develops a premature bald spot

 

*Burst of laughter*

[Meshugger]

As an American, I feel completely justified in mocking Brits for letting this particular crowd of clowns mince about in the public eye and with the public fisc.

 

But it's a good-natured kind of mockery.  Like how you would make fun of a friend who develops a premature bald spot-- you don't actually think ill of the guy, as it's just the way he is. Were I British, I'd probably regard the Monarchy as an indulgence, but an acceptable one as an homage to the nation's history.  "Sure she's a weird ol' gal, and her heir is a dimwitted ponce, but we sing 'God Save the Queen' because that's what proper British folks do, dammit."

 

You mock your friends that are getting a bald spot? What is the matter with you? 

[Morgoth]

Will the new royal brat bring his British serfs another century of tyranny, like a proper monarch?

 

 

 

"Rejoice or else!"

 

 

Or will he just turn out to be another punk who dresses like a Nazi at parties?

 

 

"I didn't know what that swastika meant, mate. Honest!"

Edited July 26, 2013 by Morgoth