Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Colin Cameron — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:54:16 GMT

[quote user="bob lehner"]

'Consoderation' ? - Is this a novel term for thinking about someone you don't particularly like ?

[/quote]

Or is it a novel verb to mean being conned by a sod ?

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

bob lehner — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:37:04 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]As for Mr Blair (who brought him into consoderation? [/quote]

'Consoderation' ? - Is this a novel term for thinking about someone you don't particularly like ?

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Colin Cameron — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:32:20 GMT

Me too !

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:30:40 GMT

Quite right! Please forgive me for wandering off topic; 'tis a topic I love. ;)

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Colin Cameron — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:54:13 GMT

The numbering of current monarchs seems to stem from one of the 25 Articles of 1707 which stated the succession to the throne of Great Britain would follow that which had been settled previously for the Crown of England. So although Charles would be the first Charles of Great Britain his numbering would follow the English succession as Charles the Third. A minor point in the grand scheme of things, which gets up a lot of Scottish noses, but one which was actually agreed to by the then Scots powers that be. All this may be of historical interest but has very little bearing on the nation enjoying a celebration and having a bit of time off our labours. As I said before, a little bit of sunshine in drab, grey world. One other thought........ even if we all pay a bit towards the day, most of it will be filtering back into the economy and making someone a profit I don't expect they will be complaining.

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:30:02 GMT

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]

Prince Charles should succeed as Charles 1 of Great Britain ( I believe) or am I mistaken again?

[/quote]

Me again! :p The Prince of Wales would most likely ascend as Charles III. This is not ironclad, however. Queen Victoria intended her son to reign as King Albert Victor. He refused, and history remembers good King Edward VII. Another Prince Albert (1936) never thought he'd be king. After his brother Edward VIII abdicated, he took the name George VI to establish a confidence-building reminder of his father George V.

The current common name, however, would be Charles III. His son William would be William V. Should anything happen to him before he had an heir, his brother would be Henry IX.

I need a hobby. :p

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:35:44 GMT

Malcolm Total agreement on TBs general unpleasantness-thankfully I've never had anything to do with him-but from what I've read, he's a slimy so-and so !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I brought him into the discussion toshow how much worse things could be

Wynne

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Vikki Halliday LLB — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:24:41 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]Vive la republique![/quote][quote user="Malcolm Ness"]By the way, it was Vikki who branded me a republican [/quote]

I beg to differ!

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:03:49 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Who exactly said that Republicans are so left-wing they should be imprisoned, or shot [/quote]

I am confident that a brief trawl through the letters page of the Express or the Mail would yield a few names.

By the way, it was Vikki who branded me a republican - it is not a claim I would make for myself. If you read what I have written (rather than what people assume I have been thinking) you will see that I advocate taxing the Royal family out of priviledge not out of position. Indeed, I think I mentioned my admiration of our constitutional monarchy as an effective and durable (thus far) political solution which, though rather eccentric, stands comparison - on grounds of efficacy at least - with anything else out there.

As for Mr Blair (who brought him into consoderation? it certainly wasn't me), he is almost gone and that is almost satisfactory. Some of the earlier shenanigans of what would become New Labour were acted out in and around these parts so I have known for longer than many what a deeply unpleasant group of people he and his friends are.

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:33:53 GMT

Malcolm Who exactly said that Republicans are so left-wing they should be imprisoned, or shot ? I've looked, and can't find who it is. On the other hand some Republicans have advocated shooting or hanging the Royal family !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the Queen has done nothing else throughout her reogn than keep out a permanent President Blair-then she's worth every penny ! You can't deny he tried to reign without Parliament by sending our troops to war in Iraq without firstly a debate,and then a vote in Parliament. When that attempt at dictatorship was thwarted, he lied to secure the vote-not a big step from that to suspending elections,and making himself a permanent dictator !!!!!!!!

Wynne

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:15:53 GMT

Good point! James I was indeed King of the Scots. For some reason, however, Charles II's honors are listed as King of Scotland, not King of Scots. King of Scots was a recognized title until 1707, so I don't know why this is.

Idi Amin claimed he was King of Scotland, but let's not go there. :p

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Wren — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:13:58 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]The Queen of England [/quote] After the union of crowns in 1603 did this title not cease, along with the Scottish crown, to exist and became the crown of Great Britain?

[/quote]

Yes I think so but it just doesn't have the same ring to it! (Appologies to all the Scots, Welsh and Irish) A bit like when they changed East Yorkshire to Humberside, I ignored that as well!

[/quote]

Fear not, North Humberside appears to have become East Yorkshire once more.

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Colin Cameron — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:35:20 GMT

Well! There we are then. Must check my history again. Was James not actually King of Scots, not Scotland or was this only Robert the Bruce, King of Scots and likewise Mary Queen of Scots. Please correct me if I am wrong

Have checked and I was not completely correct ! James only assumed the title off his own back but was unable to convince either parliament . The 1707 Act appears to have been the last of several attempts to truly unite the crowns. That said it does confirm that the English and Scottish crowns ceased to exist to become that of Great Britain and my previous comment that the present Queen is in fact Elizabeth of Great Britain ( strictly speaking Elizabeth 1 of Great Britain, and Prince Charles should succeed as Charles 1 of Great Britain ( I believe) or am I mistaken again? All this is very interesting but can we still get together as a nation and ENJOY the occasion as a bit of sunshine in a dull grey world

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:29:46 GMT

Re: Queen of England

Not entirely. James VI of Scotland became James I of England, forming a so-called personal union of the crowns. So he was de facto King of Scotland and King of England, not King of Scotland and England. James certainly called himself King of Great Britain, but Great Britain was not legally formed until the 1707 Act of Union. Therefore the first legal sovereign of Great Britain was actually Queen Anne.

Strange but true!

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Colin Cameron — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:29:28 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Yes I think so but it just doesn't have the same ring to it! (Appologies to all the Scots, Welsh and Irish)[/quote]

Ah , 'tis a better ring to the Scots than the sharp and grating " Queen of England" !!! These things matter, laddie! So there! Now can we get back to enjoying the occasion

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Mark Holmes — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:40:00 GMT

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]The Queen of England [/quote] After the union of crowns in 1603 did this title not cease, along with the Scottish crown, to exist and became the crown of Great Britain?

[/quote]

Yes I think so but it just doesn't have the same ring to it! (Appologies to all the Scots, Welsh and Irish) A bit like when they changed East Yorkshire to Humberside, I ignored that as well!

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Colin Cameron — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:37:35 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]what they actually cost[/quote]

Do you mean the nett cost taking apparent expenditure less crown estate revenues and taxes paid by the family? Such a figure would be interesting but I have no idea what it might be, perhaps you have.

And anyway must it always come down to cost?

Has the Royal Family not recently been reported to be paying the lions share of the wedding costs, which should defeat many of the moaning minnies decrying the proposed celebrations.

Why can't this country actually enjoy something for a change.

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Colin Cameron — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:25:59 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]The Queen of England [/quote] After the union of crowns in 1603 did this title not cease, along with the Scottish crown, to exist and became the crown of Great Britain?

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Mark Holmes — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:22:07 GMT

I would agree if it were only countries we haven't heard of, but it isn't. Surely there is relatively more value in the support of new markets than just servicing old ones, and he may have more personal interest in the development of new markets than old. He does a lot in the middle east where the "Prince" bit opens more doors than "Mr" and whilst you may not value the Royal Family, there are many societies that place alot of emphysis on hereditary status and it is likely that he can acheive more than a mere diplomat could.

He has also served time in the armed forces and fought with the airforce in the Falklands, so he is due respect on many levels.

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:59:43 GMT

We have a diplomatic corps who do a really good job, do it full time and are there largely on merit.

If Andrew is such a big hitter, why send him to countries that most of us haven't heard of?

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Mark Holmes — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:20:17 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"](Do you really believe that UK inc would suffer at all if Prince Andrew was forced out of his grace and favour job?). [/quote]

YES, who else would do it and would they do it cheaper? He carries status, by birth yes but status non the less. He is a bit of the country's bling. If you send a politician to do his job, or a prominent business leader or the royal family. The royal family shows we take or international relations seriously. Prince Andrew means we are serious, Prince Charles means we are serious, The Queen means we are really serious about our international ties.They carry far more weight than other public figures. Its the equivalent of inviting president Obama to visit and putting him up in a Premier Inn or top London hotel.

When you look at their work load it is quite rediculous to suggest they don't work. What the Queen does in her 80's would kill me in my 30's. Princess Ann similarly has a fierce work load.

They cost us no more than a few quid each. They help us to punch much higher than our weight internationally. They have more respect internationally then any of the other royal families. There are few titles internationally that carry such weight as The Queen of England (plus others) possibly The Pope and The US President but that is about it. Conversely how much weight or importance would "The President of Great Britain" have.... peanuts.

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:48:01 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Queen actually did agree to pay, tax-wise[/quote]

Who else gets to "agree" whether and how much tax to pay?

Don't forget that this Queen is only the queen because there wasn't a bloke to appoint ahead of her. ?? the acceptable face of institutionalised sexism.

re your question of what they are worth, a better question (and a more appropriate starting point) is what they actually cost. The concept of a constitutional monarchy is great - it works and it has stood the test of time. However, I think that the position is being abused. We don't need to be paying through the nose for the job to be done, neither do we need to be paying for a vast entourage of relatives and other hangers-on. (Do you really believe that UK inc would suffer at all if Prince Andrew was forced out of his grace and favour job?).

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:04:11 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]If Evelyn, or anyone else believes me to be an idiot then it behoves him to provide evidence to support his accusation. [/quote]

I read that as being one of Evelyn's friendly-tongue-in-cheek-uses-of-the-word-idiot - in the same way that I might call someone 'you old fart' as a term of endearment, rather than as an insult, you old fart.

I'm going to look up what the Queen actually did agree to pay, tax-wise, when I get a moment. But I suppose my question in the meantime is what do you think they're 'worth' to the country, Malcolm? Nothing? £500K per annum? £5M per annum?

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Richard Carter — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:46:19 GMT

children, children, children - go play outside in the snow - all getting a bit personal now

Re: Royal Wedding - great day off or a drag?

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:39:02 GMT

Interesting debate - high points for me were, I think, the Romanovs being referred to as a "touch autocratic" and the outright denial that the Queen enjoys tax breaks that are not available to the rest of us. The tangential off-shoots are to be expected - anyone who questions the fiscal arrangements around our monarchy is assumed to be unpatriotic, ignorant and so left-wing that they should be locked up or shot (in the interests of freedom and justice!). For the record, I am intensly patriotic, moderately well-educated and with right of centre politics on most issues.

Regrettable that so many have spouted "stock" responses and made wide-ranging assumptions rather than formed sensible and consistent arguments. The recent descent into personal insult is sad.

If Evelyn, or anyone else believes me to be an idiot then it behoves him to provide evidence to support his accusation.