Why haven't you Brits killed the royals yet?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

To quote PSB - "How can you expect to be taken seriously?" Really. "But the tourists!" Right, they're staying away from Rome and Paris until the bring Napoleon and Caesar back.
I have this suspicion that palace will remain unstormed because the 'subject' mentality (not to mention class system) is too handy a crutch, justifying the hopeless fatalism that translates into incompetence and pettiness. Don't you think everything wrong with this country would be solved overnight if all their heads were on stakes, for the symbolic value if nothing else?

― dave q, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Us Brits? What about them Dutch, Belgians, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Spanish, all of whom have constitutional monarchies as well? We don't have a subject mentality and we see no need to remove someone who poses no threat to our freedom. The Russians and French were far from free at the time of their respective revolutions. What's wrong with this country anyway? What problems do we have which don't also exist in every country in the world? Are the likes of Clinton and Bush such great role models to us that we feel inclined to abandon the monarchy in favour of a presidency? Ok, so you might say that we needn't have a US style presidency - look at Eire and Germany. But the greatest fear is the fear of the unknown. How could we be sure that a Britsish presidency would end up like the European ones, rather than the US one?

― MarkH, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

We tried killing them back in 1649 - didn't work out.

But yes, get rid of them. God yes. The Jubilee next year is going to be just embarrassng - that might help do the job.

― Tom, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Also Mark - Blairite brandocracy is very near a presidential model ANYWAY.

― Tom, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

We killed Diana and look at the furore after that!

― Emma, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

that's my name don't waste it

― lady die, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

having a monarcy is severely embarrassing for this country. and the amount of money wasted on them is obscene. at least, say, the norwegian monarchy isn't so expensive and horrible.

the 'they bring money in thru tourism' argument is rubbish too, if they were gone, tourists could see inside Buckingham Palace etc, rather than having to peep through the railings

― gareth, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

WHy would they want to look at Buck House if the Queen didn't live there. I note that the stock in trade of castle visitors isn't huge.

I think the monarchy is silly, but we need to know where we are going before we put all their heads on spikes. The Danish or Norwegian model is quite cool. I certainly do not think the monarchy are the root of all evil in this country though.

― Pete, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Best thing I've heard all morning is that Queen Mum is moments from door'o'Death and the vibe is all about keeping the meter running through the weekend. I will not be here to have the shit bored out of me by Royals arsewipers on telly, am going to a chateau in Burgundy to write (seriously).

― suzy, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

taking royal sides: head on spikes or bottoms on bicycle seats?

― mark s, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Spikes. I have two words to describe what happens to 'working' Royals: Ardent Television.

― suzy, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Excessive and nauseating press coverage of royal weddings, marital breakups, jubilee, and every birthday, toe-stubbing and faint headache of Queen Mother: dud. However, I'm not entirely against the concept of monarchy in general (although could be and have in the past been persuaded against it fairly easily), but I have very little patience for the current royal family and I suppose I do resent the money they have and the huge divide between them and their subjects.

But I did more or less agree with Stephen Fry's argument that the monarchy is something we like to focus on as if it were the root of all problems in our society and getting rid of it would only serve to remind us that it wasn't, that it was a mere cosmetic change that made no meaningful difference whatsoever and that we remain not noticeably behind or ahead of the rest of western Europe in any important respect (very clumsy paraphrasing; apologies if it's not accurate). If they didn't seem so rich and, well, *separate*, and the press stopped obsessing about them and their private lives in that love/hate sort of way (this is more a complaint about the press than the royals themselves), then fair enough.

From what Fry says and from points elsewhere on this thread, the Norwegian royal family seems fairly classic: no huge fuss, not seen as vastly different to rest of population, and acts as a demonstration that having a monarchy does not imply being stuck in the dark ages as far as civil rights are concerned. However, since I have (for complicated reasons - I didn't buy it or wave it, I've never been there) a Norwegian flag bought specifically to be waved at the King in a huge crowd of loyal flag-waving subjects and "gee, ain't it quaint"-murmuring tourists as said King went past, I'm not sure that I entirely believe the "no fuss" thing. Still, I've seen tv footage supposedly of the Queen of Norway wandering around Oslo without thousands of bodyguards and without being pestered or waving patronisingly every three steps, so I don't know.

Yes, it's very comfortable up here on this fence, thank you.

― Rebecca, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

When we Americans finally manage to get rid of the Bushes, then we can criticize the British for not getting rid of the Windsors.

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

(on edit: I'm not suggesting the "Romanov treatment" for the Bush Family. Pu-leaze. That's against my beliefs and besides I don't want the Secret Service crashing my joint. Just don't pull the lever for Wee George, Jeb, or any other member of that awful clan next time, OK?)

:-)

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This is a good point - America, politically, is a country riddled with warring dynasts.

― Tom, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Continuing my theme of having no ideas of my own (hence few recent posts and vast parts of last post being nicked from Moab Is My Washpot), a barely-remembered quotation of Jeremy Hardy on G W Bush (approximate quote, can't find the original): "I thought the whole point of having a republic was that you didn't get the idiot sons of previous heads of state in power when they hadn't even been elected by a majority."

My mother suggested that Queen Ma had already snuffed it and was rigged up muppet-style with strings etc so footage of her waving happily from hospital could be broadcast to adoring subjects on her birthday. I do enjoy these "Queen Mother has been a robot / played by [insert name of vastly inappropriate actor]/Lord Lucan since death many years ago" conspiracy theories, you know. Abolishing those would be a shame.

And as for dave q's "hopeless fatalism of subject mentality" point, getting rid of the royals certainly won't cure that for me, being stuck in a horrifyingly safe Tory seat watching the Labour govt I longed to see gain power for many years going against almost every principle I ever believed they would stick to if they did, rigging internal elections in favour of spineless unknowns rather than having someone popular and capable but with dangerous socialist principles and conscience in positions where they might be able to change anything, bending over backwards to stay on the right side of Bush no matter how ridiculous this makes their position or how many other European countries are willing to stand up to him, etc etc. The royal family may be annoying but it has no real say in what happens in this country; on the other hand, get rid of it and I still see very little reason to feel anything other than "hopelessly fatalistic" about the system in place. If I may borrow Dan's catchphrase, GRR.

― Rebecca, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well the fact it's been a bit sunny recently almost did the Queen Mother in (or to use her correct title, The Queen Mum Gawd Bless 'Er Daaan't It Make You Praaad) but unfortunately, even our weather is too gutless to finish the job off properly.

― jamesmichaelward, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

>We don't have a subject mentality and we see no need to remove >someone who poses no threat to our freedom.

Ah, but the Westminster system is no guarantee of freedom. Basically, there's nothing to stop future monarchs dissolving the parliament on a whim. Cue lots of boring constitutional shite re: Australia 1975, where the Queen's rep.(a drunken buffoon rumoured to be working for the CIA) SACKED the democratically elected (Left) government, after the upper house threatened to block supply, sack the entire public service etc. Not even 100 years of democratic convention could prevent him from behaving illegally: w/o a codified republic, this sort of action could be effected anytime by the Queen or her representatives.

Final result of governor general's manoeuvre: ultra timid Oz Labor Party, wary of pursuing radical policies, went Blairite 15 years before Blair in consequence of the doltish Australian public's rejection of progressive policies & embrace of antidemocratic conniving Right opposition in '75. Sigh...

― charles, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

> Ah, but the Westminster system is no guarantee of freedom. Basically, there's nothing to stop future monarchs dissolving the parliament on a whim. Cue lots of boring constitutional shite re: Australia 1975, where the Queen's rep.(a drunken buffoon rumoured to be working for the CIA) SACKED the democratically elected (Left) government, after the upper house threatened to block supply, sack the entire public service etc. Not even 100 years of democratic convention could prevent him from behaving illegally: w/o a codified republic, this sort of action could be effected anytime by the Queen or her representatives.

That's all well and good ... but our having a Constitution for 200 years and no monarchy (well, not an official one) didn't prevent our home-grown right-wing bastards from acting illegally and stealing an election, either.

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

us ozzies have been thinking aboiut this for years, but then in 99 we (well not me, but this nation of idiots) actually voted in favour of retaining the monarchy - fycking wackass fuckers.

― Geoff, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I thought that was because the alternative on offer was even worse than the shambolic bunch you (and we) have at the moment?

― Emma, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well, I tore up four copies of the Sun today, if that's any help.

Seriously, I echo Rebecca's every word on the Labour government. I am horrified by Blair licking Bush's arse so enthusiastically, championing economic globalisation so unquesioningly, and furthering his love affair with PPP. I'd love to see the royals go, but there are deeper cancers and sicknesses. But all this leads to another question ...

― Robin Carmody, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

In Canada there isnt even a cohesive rebulican movement. It sickens me.

― anthony, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The country is not in a position for the Royals to be particularly an issue. Ecept perhaps for symbolists who might see their presence as one of the dying eeffects of a time when Britain was Proud, or the last vestiges of the aristocracy. Yes, they take up huge amounts of wealth that could be put to a thousand better uses; but one must also remember that Britain is mostly comfortable to wealthy. There aren't sufficient numbers being cheated to lead to any well organised wealth- redistribution movement.
The symbolic value of the removal of the royals would count for nothing until the economic meritocracy was rearranged such as to provide for the poor. Leave them until there's real change.

― matthew james, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

How about being against monarchy on principle? That is, that there's no valid philosophical justification for it any more (if ever)? Why should the descendents of the nastiest, most ruthless warlord from several centuries ago have any right to run a country, based on no other reason than they are descendents of said long-dead warlord? That's not to say that the long-dead warlord was all that legitimate, either, but his rule while he was alive was more justifiable (i.e., I killed the other sons-of-bitches, etc.) than his descendents, who haven't necessarily done anything special to merit being monarchs and whose competence to run things is highly contingent anyway. That would cover not only the Windsors (and the Bushes, for that matter), but also "benign" monarchs such as the monarchs in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Thailand. I mean, just because the current King/Queen is a good guy/gal doesn't mean that his/her kid is going to be worth half a shit, so just junk it altogether.

Sorry to get Poli. Sci. 101, but I'd like to think that one can be opposed to monarchy on principle.

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

We said yay hedz-on-sticks, and you said it was AGAINST YOUR BELIEFS! Where's the fun in that? I don't want a quite eviction with the Queen Mum wheeled out in a tin bath plastered, I want a hilarious Nepalese- style bloodbath. We have paid good money: entertain us, feudal relics!!

― mark s, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Roberto Calasso is quite good on being in favour of monarchy on principle, in The Ruin Of Kasch. Unfortunately now I come to try and summarise him he comes across as being too loony for even the maddest traditionalist newspaper, so I may have to admit that "quite good" actually means "writes rather elegantly".

― Tom, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

> We said yay hedz-on-sticks, and you said it was AGAINST YOUR BELIEFS! Where's the fun in that?

If you think that having your home ransacked by the Secret Service (or the British equivalent of the Secret Service) is "fun," then have yerself a blast.

(I suspect that dave q. is playing me for a chump, tho') :-o

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

One of the tiny far-left UK revolutionary parties — sadly I forget which, esp. as I may even be (sort of) making this up — was forced to disband in the late 70s when it was discovered that NONE of its 10 or 12 members were not MI6 double agents!!

― mark s, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I thought that was because the alternative on offer was even worse than the shambolic bunch you (and we) have at the moment?

-- Emma It was - but heaps of us voted for it because any republic would have been better than no pub - mind you, if prince willie becomes king of england, I am hoping he'll choose me to be queen, so I may become a monarchist after all.

― Geoff, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I'm hoping for some Nepalese-style bloodbath too, preferably one of the corgis goes apeshit with a machete and kills 'em all. Who'd expect that, eh? Homicidal corgis aside, I just want rid of them by any means necessary. I hate them, except Prince Charles who should be made World President so he can annoy the best part of 6 billion people every time he opens his mouth, rather than a few journalists.

― DG, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i think the windsors should be dealt with. however if you brits can't replace them with posh and becks then i don't wanna be part of your stinking commonwealth.

― lady die, Friday, 3 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What if the Bush family is genetically predestined to rule?

― dave q, Friday, 3 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Money does nott equal gentic destiny

― anthony, Friday, 3 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

If anything happens to make the Queen hand over the job to jug ears think how bad that would be!!having to look at that smug mug and having a bag lady shoved down our throats.Mind you for looks they are about even he looks like a hideous plastic mask and she could be a hammer horror!!!!

― David, Sunday, 5 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh the Royal family, they've got no real power, they don't bother me. If there was another civil war I'd be on the cavaliers side just coz I like to be contrary. Hate the smugness of having a republic, President Blair, please God no! Anyway, there'd be no financial saving from getting rid of the royal family, the tax revenue would go to paying for the presidency and recouping losses to the tourist industry (yes tourists are money! Britain ain't the same as Italy with it's classical ruins, we don't have that! We sell images of the royal family, they are a product.

Hopeless fatalism? Whatever!

― jel, Sunday, 5 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I dunno about tourism taking the dive if y'all get rid of the Windsors. There are enough dumb Americans who will go see any old burnt-out London slum if you call it "Ye Olde Englishe Something-or- Other" or claim some connection to Charles Dickens or Winston Churchill or John Lennon; or if some rundown Welsh mining town renamed itself with some fifty-word jibberish-word (Llangothellawymollygollymandingollanfair, for instance); or the Scots could find some other disgusting part of a slaughtered animal to fry up and serve while prancing in kilts and blowing bagpipes and tossing telephone polls.

Lord knows you Brits have the advertising know-how -- it's just a matter of will in applying it to sucker foreign chumps out of their money!

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Monday, 6 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

When young I thought said Welsh town name was genuine. I remember this fact as a sign of my innoculation from the plotting of 80s heritage culture: I was *precisely* the kind of sucker they intended to fool.

― Robin Carmody, Monday, 6 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Actually, Robin, I made up "Llangothellawymollygollymandingollanfair," which is just Welsh- sounding jibberish I concocted. I think the town name you're thinking of is Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwll- llantysiliogogoch, which apparently means "the church of St. Mary in the hollow of white hazel trees near the rapid whirlpool by St. Tysilio's of the red cave."

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Tuesday, 7 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

That was indeed the one I was thinking of. Should have made myself clearer.

― Robin Carmody, Tuesday, 7 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

four years pass...

http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/
it's fun to agree hourah!

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 3 November 2005 17:36 (twenty years ago)

dave q otm, still.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Friday, 4 November 2005 10:01 (twenty years ago)

six years pass...

Yeah, I gotta ask:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 31 August 2012 16:56 (thirteen years ago)

three years pass...

I'm watching a fella, presumably a well paid fella, presumably taxpayer paid to at least some extent.

His job, right, his job is shaving the tits on the queens cattle. He

He shaves the tits of the queens cattle.

― Saoirse birther (darraghmac), Wednesday, 20 January 2016 22:26 (ten years ago)

The guy whose job it is

presumably taxpayer etc

whose job it is to light the queens fifes

seems even more stupid than youd think

wait wtf they let Philip drive

― Saoirse birther (darraghmac), Wednesday, 20 January 2016 22:29 (ten years ago)

This was a demotion after he gave a mediocre blowjob to her son in Clarence House.

― calzino, Wednesday, 20 January 2016 22:47 (ten years ago)

Poster at work y/day accidentally used the phrase"rulers and the ruled", lol real talk

― No stage school training, natural talent and attitude by the shed (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 20 January 2016 22:52 (ten years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.