Topic: It's a joke from the Sun right?

[Antares]

If it is true (and I seriously doubt it) that the government, the military and the church would fall into chaos without the Royals, then they are built on a much weaker foundation than I had ever imagined!  Image is one thing, but the practicality of life in the U.K. cannot seriously be so fragile as to disintegrate because the Royals disappear.

I have to agree with you on this one. Jon's scenario kind of reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's description of slavery, he said slavery was like holding a wolf by the ears, you don't like it, but you dare not let it go.

For crying out loud! Do you really think that you are more "Free" than I am? That I don't have the same opportunities as you do? You seem to be basing your view on the idea that you are free and I am not, but I cannot think of one tiny example how that is actually applied. The irony is, America is built on the idea that anyone can be whatever they choose, but there's absolutely nothing different to the UK in that.

Except of course, someone like Richard Nixon would have had his card marked a damn sight earlier.

And the biggest joke of all is that as I said in previous message, 70%+ of us are very happy, thank you very much, and we'll keep being happy while all you American's keep buying our Royal Wedding junk! 

You're are misinterpreting what I wrote. I am saying that you've become so comfortable with the monarchical system that you are afraid to let it go. I did not mean that you were slaves to it, nor that you were slaves in general. It was just meant to describe your weakness in eradicating it.

[Najemikon]

Fair enough. But please note, we are not afraid of letting it go, because we like it. We don't want to let it go and it's mildly offensive to suggest it's nothing more than a pantomime that we're all putting up with. I speak as the perceived majority, of course, but most of them were lining the Mall and cheering like hell because someone they like was getting married to someone else they like and they're looking forward to what they do next. There is healthy number of people avoiding the "vulgarity" of the occasion and wondering how much of their tax has been spent on it, but we are not as a whole walking the streets in gloom because we don't like them.

[Kathy]

I am politically ignorant in regards to the monarchy. Plus, I am probably one of the least romantic person I know.

I tried to ignore most of the news leading up to the Royal Wedding. But, I did turn the news on to watch this noteworthy event.

It was fun watching the pomp and circumstance showcasing the obvious love between the future King and Queen of England.

The news highlight so many gloom and doom stories, it was nice to see something positive and joyous on the news for once.

But, an hour or so was enough for me. I won't be turning on the TV anymore today because there can be too much of a good thing.

[Najemikon]

That's exactly how I feel, Kathy. I didn't watch the ceremony, just clips on the BBC website and it's good to see something pleasant. And to show how William is that little bit different, did they show the couples final appearance on your news? They'd got married, then gone back to Buckingham Palace to do the balcony bit and then the crowds waited for them to go back to Clarence House. After a while they appeared out of the Palace gates with William driving his dad's Aston Martin, complete with an 'L' (learner) plate! It looked brilliant and a real crowd pleaser for the last moment.

[hal9g]

I absolutely disagree with that. Diana was not the Saint many people assumed her to be and had she have lived, marriage to Dodi would have either damaged her reputation more then the Monarchy, or it would have been taken in the stride of everyone involved. I don't subscribe to the idea that her death was convenient for anyone. It's awful to suggest that Charles could have actually thought, "thank goodness the mother of my children is dead".   Anyway, Diana had no focused objective to bring them down, because of her kids. She wanted William and Harry to take the Monarchy forward, without losing their own identity, in the way she had been marginalised.

And you know what? She succeeded, despite her death. William has an incredible attitude and is a perfect example of Britishness. We couldn't have asked for a better ambassador. Whatever Diana would have done or not, William was always waiting in the wings and he is the real future of the Monarchy. I heard one commentator say earlier actually that today is the first day of the 21st century for the Royals, William is that important to them.

And no, not that the government etc would fall into chaos without the Royals, but the Royals are the face of the constitution. That's why I said that most people who criticise the monarchy do so because of the attention they get for the superfluous stuff, like today. If there was a decision taken to end the Monarchy and England become a Republic, it would be a very slow process to make sure everyone knows what they are doing and are fully aware of the impact, not to mention the other countries that recognise our Queen as their head of state and are very happy about it. Think about it from the religious perspective. Queen Elizabeth I invited war because she told the Pope to get stuffed (in not so many words) and formed her own Church, which is now established with the Monarchy at its head. I'm not religious, but who takes it over if we stick Liz mark II in a nursing home? CoE recognises the Queen or King as being it's head. You can't say, "we're not doing that any more". That's a Civil war method and the damage to our countries reputation and ability to deal would be irretrievable.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I never said or implied that the Royals had anything to do with Diana's death, or wished for it in any way.  I certainly never claimed or ever thought that Diana was a "saint"; clearly she wasn't.  That's exactly why she had become such an embarrassment to the Royals.  Of course, Charles had as well, but he was "blood" after all!

Regarding the bolded part of your post above.  Obviously the former Catholic Church in England survived quite well when Elizabeth I dethroned the Pope as the head of the church; why would you fear a "Civil war" if the King or Queen were dethroned as the head of the Church of England?  I don't follow that logic at all.

Jon, don't misunderstand me.  I am not anti-Royal in any way.  As I stated in my original post, I find the whole thing rather entertaining.  I  view them as a comfortable crutch that has become nothing but a prop for someone who's broken leg healed years ago, but they simply have grown terribly attached to it; kind of like Linus and his blanket.

[Najemikon]

Obviously the former Catholic Church in England survived quite well when Elizabeth I dethroned the Pope as the head of the church; why would you fear a "Civil war" if the King or Queen were dethroned as the head of the Church of England?  I don't follow that logic at all.

Hold on... we're getting wires crossed!  Earlier today when you thought I was implying the loss of Royalty would cause chaos, I said no it wouldn't because it would have to be a very gradual process. The only way we would have chaos is if Republicans decided they wanted it overnight, in which case they would have to resort to Civil war, which of course would be utterly impossible in the foreseeable future.

Basically, forget civil war.

Yes, the Catholic Church survived Liz I forming her own Church, but she had grown up as a Protestant, practising her father's religion, and as such was imprisoned following his death. Mary had become Queen, supported by the Pope, because she was Catholic, but could never bring herself to put Elizabeth to death. When she took power, she didn't so much form her own church as simply legalise Protestants.

This is why Liz I formed Parliament to run the country. She took religion out of the equation for Government. It was a very clever move, castrating the Pope's influence, keeping absolute power and letting people practice whichever religion they wanted because it had no bearing on the how the country was run and England wouldn't have to fight other peoples wars.

So all I was intending to say was that for nearly 500 years, the Church of England has recognised the Monarch as its head and so it becomes part of their religion. Look at the language used in the 1953 Coronation Oath:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/Historic%20speeches%20and%20broadcasts/CoronationOath2June1953.aspx

Surely, because it was before God and Christians kind of see these things as important, you would have to have a 'de-oathing'? How would you do that? "Sorry God, we're not doing it like that anymore." As I say, I'm not religious, so maybe I'm wrong and they'll just let the Arch-Bishop run it all, but it seems to me that taking the Monarch out of the loop is too fundamental a change to how a lot of people see their Church. I'm just trying to demonstrate what I mean next:

I  view them as a comfortable crutch that has become nothing but a prop for someone who's broken leg healed years ago, but they simply have grown terribly attached to it; kind of like Linus and his blanket.

That is what I don't like. The view that the Monarchy is not important and we only need it because we haven't grown out of our "blanket"? It's absurd. I can understand someones view that the traditions of how they go about things can be viewed as a novelty, but to undermine their importance in England's identity and culture is going too far and is almost patronising.

[northbloke]

That is what I don't like. The view that the Monarchy is not important and we only need it because we haven't grown out of our "blanket"? It's absurd. I can understand someones view that the traditions of how they go about things can be viewed as a novelty, but to undermine their importance in England's identity and culture is going too far and is almost patronising.

I completely agree. Yes the idea of a monarchy may seem strange or quaint to a society that doesn't have one, but that's no reason or excuse to say that it's a "prop" or that we're "afraid of change" or that it's a sign of "weakness". I find those statements highly offensive.
There's been a form of monarchy for over 1000 years in these Isles, and it works for us. If it stops working, we'll change it but until then we're quite happy with it. I'd rather swear my allegiance to a living, breathing figurehead than a piece of cloth!  

[hal9g]

So all I was intending to say was that for nearly 500 years, the Church of England has recognised the Monarch as its head and so it becomes part of their religion. Look at the language used in the 1953 Coronation Oath:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/Historic%20speeches%20and%20broadcasts/CoronationOath2June1953.aspx

Surely, because it was before God and Christians kind of see these things as important, you would have to have a 'de-oathing'? How would you do that? "Sorry God, we're not doing it like that anymore." As I say, I'm not religious, so maybe I'm wrong and they'll just let the Arch-Bishop run it all, but it seems to me that taking the Monarch out of the loop is too fundamental a change to how a lot of people see their Church.

Thanks for the history, however, the Pope was the head of the Church for 1500 years before the Church of England was established, and the country survived that transition reasonably well.

I  view them as a comfortable crutch that has become nothing but a prop for someone who's broken leg healed years ago, but they simply have grown terribly attached to it; kind of like Linus and his blanket.

That is what I don't like. The view that the Monarchy is not important and we only need it because we haven't grown out of our "blanket"? It's absurd. I can understand someones view that the traditions of how they go about things can be viewed as a novelty, but to undermine their importance in England's identity and culture is going too far and is almost patronising.

Well, I certainly did not intend to be patronizing (note correct spelling  )  I just find it hard to believe that the Royals actually have that much of a direct impact on people's day-to-day lives (especially outside of Great Britain) to the point that it would disrupt the society as you describe if it were dissolved.  I have a healthy respect for history and tradition, however, the whole concept of a monarchy is a concept that promotes a form of a caste system, which I  just don't think has a place in today's world.  It is in direct opposition of one of the fundamental principles of our constitution; that all men are created equal.

Please do not take any of this personally.

[hal9g]

I'd rather swear my allegiance to a living, breathing figurehead than a piece of cloth!  

And that's the fundamental difference between us.  I will swear allegiance to no other man by virtue of their ancestry.  They are far to fallible.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd rather swear my allegiance to a living, breathing figurehead than a piece of cloth!  

It's usually not the piece of cloth, but the idea it stands for that someone pledges allegiance to.

Being a German I can tell you some things about swearing allegiance to a living, breathing figurehead. We had this here from 1933 to 1945, I guess that noone wants us to repeat this.

[Najemikon]

Thanks for the history, however, the Pope was the head of the Church for 1500 years before the Church of England was established, and the country survived that transition reasonably well.

In retrospect, the change was a necessary one. I heard a historian once say that England at the time was suffering violence in the same way Northern Ireland did in recent years, because of the same Protestant vs Catholic sentiments.

To get this back to movies for a moment, Elizabeth is pretty good if you have any interest in the period.

Well, I certainly did not intend to be patronizing (note correct spelling  )  I just find it hard to believe that the Royals actually have that much of a direct impact on people's day-to-day lives (especially outside of Great Britain) to the point that it would disrupt the society as you describe if it were dissolved.  I have a healthy respect for history and tradition, however, the whole concept of a monarchy is a concept that promotes a form of a caste system, which I  just don't think has a place in today's world.  It is in direct opposition of one of the fundamental principles of our constitution; that all men are created equal.

Please do not take any of this personally.

Don't you think we should be using the Queen's English in this thread?   I don't take it personally. There are strong arguments from people in this country who do want to see the Monarchy phased out, who probably share many of your points, but I'd stress the same things to them.

As to day-to-day stuff, personally, I appreciate their work with the armed forces for a start. The Princes are efficient soldiers themselves and use their status to bring a focal point to the men and women who fight, plus the charities that support them. Harry is planning to climb Everest with one group and his involvement brings worldwide attention to the essential work they do. Regardless of opinions on why we were there at all, Harry's attempt to stay on the front-line in secret was a fantastic piece of spin and William is a pilot with an RAF search and rescue squadron, so their work gets a leg up too.

We can also see genuine daily benefits in business. If his ex-wifes Fergie's complete cock-up last year did anything positive, it's making people realise how hard Prince Andrew works on behalf of UK companies. He and other Royals are like our Managing Directors for the country. He carries with him an instant respect regardless of where he is in the world. They worked hard as well to secure the Olympics for us and William almost got The World Cup too. I hate football, but it would have been great for the country.

I completely agree. Yes the idea of a monarchy may seem strange or quaint to a society that doesn't have one, but that's no reason or excuse to say that it's a "prop" or that we're "afraid of change" or that it's a sign of "weakness". I find those statements highly offensive.
There's been a form of monarchy for over 1000 years in these Isles, and it works for us. If it stops working, we'll change it but until then we're quite happy with it. I'd rather swear my allegiance to a living, breathing figurehead than a piece of cloth!  

Whether you intended it or not, this statement following as it did our talk of blankets, was quite brilliant!  

And that's the fundamental difference between us.  I will swear allegiance to no other man by virtue of their ancestry.  They are far to fallible.

That's interesting. Because I'm sorry to say that when Bush and Blair were getting accused of war crimes (rightly or wrongly), America's global reputation nosedived with some thinking that maybe if the majority of American's voted for him, they must share Bush's sentiments. Therefore it was America at fault. I think Blair got away lightly because he wasn't Commander in Chief and there was a naive sense that if he pulled on the leash too hard, the Queen could cut his head off!

Silly, maybe, but we do have a democracy. Our leaders act for us, just like yours do. It's just our leaders have the backup of a great institution with a proven track record. Yours have... erm... more elected officials who might have sworn on a Bible once?  When you elect a leader, you commit to his reputation and his alone for several years, whether you like it or not. We've always got the trump card of a lady who has been in power for almost 60 years and has built up England's reputation as an ideal, not just a country. You imply she is fallible; in what way? She can't take direct action without the PM, and he can't run a Government without her say so. It's an interesting balance of power that keeps both in check.

[Jimmy]

Being a German I can tell you some things about swearing allegiance to a living, breathing figurehead. We had this here from 1933 to 1945, I guess that noone wants us to repeat this.

and before 1918 also, since you have a "monarchy" too that ended with the end of the first World War.

[Najemikon]

I'd rather swear my allegiance to a living, breathing figurehead than a piece of cloth!  

It's usually not the piece of cloth, but the idea it stands for that someone pledges allegiance to.

Being a German I can tell you some things about swearing allegiance to a living, breathing figurehead. We had this here from 1933 to 1945, I guess that noone wants us to repeat this.

That's democracy for you. Germany's people had suffered a lot since the previous war though, so it gets very complicated. Of course, Willhelm could be blamed somewhat for WWI, but Europe was a very different place to what it is now.

[Jimmy]

Anyway most of the European and Asian countries had a form of monarchy in their past and England isn't the only one to always had one. For us it's different since we were colony or always are even if in theory we aren't (our country being the perfect exemple, as long as the Queen is the Head of the State we will continue to be one. In theory she can overthrown any canadian elected governement)....

[hal9g]

That's interesting. Because I'm sorry to say that when Bush and Blair were getting accused of war crimes (rightly or wrongly), America's global reputation nosedived with some thinking that maybe if the majority of American's voted for him, they must share Bush's sentiments. Therefore it was America at fault. I think Blair got away lightly because he wasn't Commander in Chief and there was a naive sense that if he pulled on the leash too hard, the Queen could cut his head off!

Yes, of course, the country at large gets blamed for the decisions/positions of its leaders.  That's human nature.  The problem is that once they are elected, they are not answerable to anyone until the next election comes along!

Silly, maybe, but we do have a democracy. Our leaders act for us, just like yours do. It's just our leaders have the backup of a great institution with a proven track record. Yours have... erm... more elected officials who might have sworn on a Bible once?  When you elect a leader, you commit to his reputation and his alone for several years, whether you like it or not. We've always got the trump card of a lady who has been in power for almost 60 years and has built up England's reputation as an ideal, not just a country. You imply she is fallible; in what way? She can't take direct action without the PM, and he can't run a Government without her say so. It's an interesting balance of power that keeps both in check.

Yes, of course, you have a democracy....with the trappings of a monarchy dangling on.  The difference is that we have a mechanism to remove our President through impeachment if they commit "high crimes" against the country.  Does the parliament have a mechanism for removing the King/Queen?  All humans are infallible (except for the Pope on matters of Church doctrine, if you believe in such).  Government works when the "balance of power" you refer to is working properly, however, it is possible to undo all of that given the right circumstances and ambitions.  There are numerous examples of "democratic" governments going haywire.  I'm not suggesting that it would happen in the U.K., just that it is possible, just as it is possible in the U.S. (I'm not sure that it's not happening at this very moment).

I also acknowledge all the great work the Royals do for various causes and their dedication to the military.  That is all most commendable.  But you don't have to be a Royal to do those things.  Would you get the same level of attention to these causes without the Royals, probably not, but I don't think anyone could argue that the U.S. is not among the most generous in the world where charity is concerned, without needing Royals to accomplish it.

I do not own Elizabeth, but will definitely be getting it as I am very interested in all things to do with the history of Britain.  I find it quite fascinating.