Brits...

[xer0s]

Is the royal family as big of a joke to you as it is to the rest of the world? Or is it just a part of your culture that you embrace and enjoy? I think it's safe to say most of us don't understand the fascination...

[losCHUNK]

If you think the Queens a joke you should see our PM

Being Welsh means I could have a different view to an English one but I know more than a few that'd be willing to dig you her grave. I have no problems with them tho, they bring attention to some pretty worthwhile subjects and provide some entertaining literature in the rag, plus they keep David on his toes.

[xer0s]

You are a hoot!

[phantasmagoria]

The monarchy exists, now, purely in order to promote tourism.

[phantasmagoria]

Also, Prince Philip is brilliant

In Scotland

One of his most notorious remarks was made during a small town visit in Scotland. In a brief conversation with a driving instructor, he asked, "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the (road) test?"

When touring a Scottish factory, he came upon an old-fashioned fuse box and commented, "It looks like it was put in by an Indian."

Also in Scotland, after the tragic 1993 crash of a Pan Am jumbo jet that also killed eleven townspeople in Lockerbie, the Prince said to a person who lived near the crash, "People usually say that after a fire it is water damage that is the worst. We are still trying to dry out Windsor Castle."

In China

The Prince's most publicized example of foot-in-mouth disease came during a visit to China. Upon meeting a group of British students, he said, "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed."

Even though this last remark was made in 1986, the reputation of any high profile American politician or public figure would never survive anything even remotely similar. Witness the storm of controversy around Senator George Allen's "macaca" slur, which became a true career bomb.

Another one of the Prince's most famous Asian slurs: "If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an airplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."

In Australia

In a 2002 visit to Australia, Prince Philip asked an Aborigine, "Still throwing spears?"

In the Islands

He once told a group of deaf children standing near a Jamaican steel drum musician, "Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf."

On a visit to the Cayman Islands, he asked an islander, "Aren't most of you descended from pirates?"

[scared?]

That guy rocks...

[losCHUNK]

Another one of the Prince's most famous Asian slurs: "If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an airplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."

fucking lol

[losCHUNK]

Indeed, succeeded by Arry and I'd be quite happy to get rid of parliament all together.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Hey xer0s, is the United States as big of a joke to you as it is to the rest of the world? Or is it just a part of your culture that you embrace and enjoy? I think it's safe to say most of us don't understand the fascination...

[xer0s]

Of course it is!

[seremtan]

the royal family - like all royal families (seen the Dutch one? fucking lol) - is pure 100% Renaissance festival Lord of the Rings fairytale bullshit. believing that someone should be a sovereign (even if in name only) just because they fell out of the right vagina at the right time is tantamount to believing in unicorns and wizards. heads of state should be elected, period

/republican

[MKJ]

truth.
dutch monarchs have no power tho, but they do get (too many) extra perks.

[Don Carlos]

They are quality

[seremtan]

sure, if the definition of the word 'quality' has recently been changed to 'intrinsically retarded oxygen-wasters' and no one told me

[Don Carlos]

Meh - they do a lot for the country and make us more than they cost us.

[seremtan]

not only is that a unsubstantiated cliche (how much do they make for country exactly?), it's also a shit reason for having a monarchy. they're heads of state, not fucking Chessington World of Adventure

[plained]

soo fucking funny

[losCHUNK]

not only is that a unsubstantiated cliche (how much do they make for country exactly?), it's also a shit reason for having a monarchy. they're heads of state, not fucking Chessington World of Adventure

How much does our own government do ?. Not sure the stats are accurate but they cost us approx 30-40mil each year ?, not even a Fernando Torres lol and most of this cost is spent on travel, things like their jets, boats, cars that are also needed by the British cabinet, whereby the yanks have a 300+ million quid Jet. 1 million was spent on the Queens jubilee, 1/10th of what it took to stuff a witch in the ground n all.

I'd also be willing to wager that they're more popular and lucrative to tourists than the Olympics that was just hosted at a 1 time cost of billions, along with their roles in trade or ambassadors. It just doesn't justify the moaning especially when the people we elect seem to be full of more shit whilst doing half as much.

[seremtan]

Welcome to Britain! Now twinned with the Magic Kingdom!

if you want to keep them for tourists, how about just put them all in a big theme park called Royaltyland, where people can come and look at them through glass like giant pandas, before wandering off to get ice cream and ride on the miniature train. we could have rides in which animatronic kings and queens single-handedly destroy Papists, Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Adolf Hitler to the tune of Rule Britannia. the possibilities are endless

that way we can satisfy Daily Mail readers and live in the fucking 21st century. win-win!

[losCHUNK]

This is the 21st century, hence they have no power and seeing as you're still not convinced in their role as a tourist attraction I managed to find figures of how much her estates manage to bring to the country per year -

The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £7.6 billion, with urban properties valued at around £4 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £240.2 million, as at 31 March 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate (I fact checked with a telegraph article)

That's paid directly to the British treasury and their personnel income is worked off this. In the tax year ending in 2012 they earned around 35mil, of which they 'only' received 8mil where the rest was spent on the upkeep of the crown estates, for the tourists, that personnel figure of 8mil also goes towards upkeep of their transport so you could argue they fund themselves, our cabinet and our country. Unless you want to discuss how the crown estates become Brit possession when their ancestors released control of the country to parliament ?.

Why I don't think it's worth moaning about cos you can pick any number of people that have inherited shit because essentially that's all they have done. Even if they weren't a tourist attraction they would still be entitled to the perks they receive otherwise we would be in breach of 'our' side of the deal and return all their estates in the process, cutting our nose to spite our face and instead of being poor heads of state in name only they'd be a rich bunch of arseholes.

or does this upset the Guardian readers too much ?

[seremtan]

you're missing the point. i don't have a problem with royals being tourist attractions; i have a problem with them being heads of state

also, the 'no power' argument isn't entirely plausible: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/2 ... ce-charles

For almost three decades Charles has developed a reputation as, in his own words, "a meddling prince" who has waded into issues including farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture.

Given the inherently political nature of such topics, the prince has established a network of 20 charities as a key tactic for circumventing the convention that the royal family, especially the heir to the throne, should stay neutral.

[losCHUNK]

you're missing the point. i don't have a problem with royals being tourist attractions; i have a problem with them being heads of state

I get you and agree with you a little bit, but thought it's worth mentioning the alternatives under the assumption that they have no power. I don't mind them being called heads of state especially if they bring us a boatload of money. Titles havn't meant shit for years nor does it make a difference imo.

also, the 'no power' argument isn't entirely plausible: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/2 ... ce-charles

For almost three decades Charles has developed a reputation as, in his own words, "a meddling prince" who has waded into issues including farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture.

Given the inherently political nature of such topics, the prince has established a network of 20 charities as a key tactic for circumventing the convention that the royal family, especially the heir to the throne, should stay neutral.

I would'nt say they have no influence, prince Will would'nt be head of the FA otherwise and could be due being the largest estate holders in the UK, we all know beardy Branson and Sugar tits give the media goosebumps for having money. I also agree with him lol mordern buildings suck arse. You're right though, he shouldn't be involved with shit like this especially if the local authority granted permission to the Arabs. Someone should have given him a slap, fine, removed his charities. He's paid to be impartial.

Bear in mind that the royals do also have charities for good causes, Diana was obviously very popular for this and apparently the 2 sons are following in her footsteps. Not sure it's relevant but it's not all bad, just overstepping the mark perhaps ? :P

[seremtan]

Titles havn't meant shit for years nor does it make a difference imo.

if titles mean nothing then why is the head of state a Queen and the upper house of the legislature full of Lords?

[seremtan]

I get you and agree with you a little bit, but thought it's worth mentioning the alternatives under the assumption that they have no power. I don't mind them being called heads of state especially if they bring us a boatload of money. Titles havn't meant shit for years nor does it make a difference imo.

Take into account the concepts of royalty, dukedom and exalted ancestry in general being as outmoded as sungods and jeebus; and recognised as a similar load of nonsensical old bollocks. And all bollocks must fall.

this

if people want a World of Ye Olde Fake Bullshitte to visit on Bank Holiday weekends, then fine. if they want that World constitutionally endorsed, they can fuck right off

[losCHUNK]

I get you and agree with you a little bit, but thought it's worth mentioning the alternatives under the assumption that they have no power. I don't mind them being called heads of state especially if they bring us a boatload of money. Titles havn't meant shit for years nor does it make a difference imo.

Take into account the concepts of royalty, dukedom and exalted ancestry in general being as outmoded as sungods and jeebus; and recognised as a similar load of nonsensical old bollocks. And all bollocks must fall.

But these titles mean shit, it's outmoded and nonsensical as the royal families influence was inherited through the wealth of their lands, which were taken in a kind of 'trade' with those outside the aristocracy. It's pretty ironic calling them heads of state as through money they're controlled by the state.

Titles havn't meant shit for years nor does it make a difference imo.

if titles mean nothing then why is the head of state a Queen and the upper house of the legislature full of Lords?

The Queen has no power innit, clean your ears out ;p. Lords aren't necessarily appointed by birthright either and is now considered outmoded too. Nor can they stop a bill from progressing through the house from the commons.