Quoting:
1: They make us glad we weren't born a royal

2: Until they die?End Quote

thats what I thought.  

So basically what you are saying is that they don't really serve a purpose?  ???

It seems England is one of the very few remaining advanced and prosperous countries in the world that still has a royal family.  And for what?

Basically all we hear about the royal family here in America, is in the tabloids.  To me, it seems like it would be more of a nuicense to have a royal family than anything, at least in the 21st Century.  And yet the people of England never seem to raise any concerns about it.

Quoting:
This is not meant in any offense or disrespect to our freinds "across the pond", but I got to ask:



How do you feel about the "Royal Family"?


2 Questions:

1.  Seriously, what purpose do they serve?

and

2.  How much longer will they exist?



End Quote

No offence taken, 80sRocked - in answer to your questions (from my POV anyway):

1. I often wonder myself! That's easy for me to say, as I'm not a royalist, but the whole royalty malarky is something that is becoming less and less relevant to people in this day and age...

2. Well, there's two possible directions...

a) The whole thing will just continue to shrink as more and more people question its relevance...the UK is more of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic place today than ever, and a lot of religions within that mix will be the first to question the aspect of a royal family...

b) But on the other hand, our delightful "establishment" is alive and well, and they certainly enjoy a bit of manipulation to keep things as they are...

So perhaps one will cancel the other? No, I'm not sure either...

Hard to even put a figure on it on how long it would go on for, but I would think that in years to come, the royalty thing will be something akin to what they have in Belgium, Holland, Sweden - i.e., a very shrunken-down version of what we've got now...

If there was a referendum tomorrow on whether we should keep 'em or kick 'em out, I think it'd be close - probably 60/40 in favour - precious little chance of that tho' - we're not even being asked whether we want to be screwed further by the EU!

But, suckers that we are, we'll sit and take what's being dished out...!

Anyway, hope that (sort-of) helps...

Quoting:
From my perspective, I don't particularly notice them, so therefore it doesn't particularly bother me  :)
End Quote

It bothers me that Australia is still connected to the royal family - and that they are totally irrelevant to us.  And to top it off, look at the mess our G.G. got into.  What a good representative of the Queen he was ::)

Quoting:


It bothers me that Australia is still connected to the royal family - and that they are totally irrelevant to us.  And to top it off, look at the mess our G.G. got into.  What a good representative of the Queen he was ::)
End Quote

What's worse is that our mighty PM wouldn't fire him.

Quoting:
What's worse is that our mighty PM wouldn't fire him.
End Quote

You are so right - it went on for sooooooo long.  Little Johnny should have stepped in and done something from the beginning.

Quoting:
Don Carlos.

From what I see in this country (England), the monarchy and politics are separate from patriotism.
End Quote

Exactly my point.  In the states, to attack the pres, is to attack the country.  People don't destingish between "head of state" and "head of Gov't".  Here, they are one in the same.

Quoting:
When I say "Mr Bush lies in BIG ways, not just about his sex life (if he has one), I get called unpatriotic, if not treasonous.  
End Quote

Don Carlos, perhaps its because you manage to turn every thread into another political rant!

Have you noticed several members have just stopped reading your posts altogether?  I don't blame them, 99.9% of everything you say here is a political rant, whether the thread is political-related or not!

You always manage to get in your little pathetic political slam in at least once in every thread.

Nobody is questioning your patriotism, or your right to say whatever you want to say(that argument didnt work for Marting Sheen and its not working for you).  But when you say the same old thing over and over and over and over and over in places where it has no relevance to the conversation   (and this refers to many many many various threads you have hijacked and made into your political rant, both past and recent), you begin to become known as the crazy old cook that just sits in the corner rocking back and forth rambling on about the "evil" government.

>>> IT GETS OLD!!! <<<<

Quoting:
My view on the monarchy in the UK, in one word

Embarrassing
End Quote

Taoist, I applaud your honesty.

Quoting:The people of the UK are advanced enough to realise that this system of rule is outdated and just plain wrong, so the country has completely replaced this with a parliamentary system leaving the monarch with no real power.
So why do we still retain these people as a reminder of a time when we were more primitive?
End Quote

I guess that was my whole point:  UK seems to be attempting to hold on to their past in a strange strange way.

I guess if I were from the UK and had a choice, I would love to boot the Royals out of their palace and make them all work at, say, McDonalds.   :D

Quoting:
I think Charles should be king and he has my vote, he'd have been a great king.
End Quote

so you would be in favor of continuing this nonsense with the royal family?

And what makes a "great king" anyway?  What role in civilised life would a king(or queen) play?

Quoting:


Don Carlos, perhaps its because you manage to turn every thread into another political rant!

Have you noticed several members have just stopped reading your posts altogether?  I don't blame them, 99.9% of everything you say here is a political rant, whether the thread is political-related or not!

You always manage to get in your little pathetic political slam in at least once in every thread.

Nobody is questioning your patriotism, or your right to say whatever you want to say(that argument didnt work for Marting Sheen and its not working for you).  But when you say the same old thing over and over and over and over and over in places where it has no relevance to the conversation   (and this refers to many many many various threads you have hijacked and made into your political rant, both past and recent), you begin to become known as the crazy old cook that just sits in the corner rocking back and forth rambling on about the "evil" government.

>>> IT GETS OLD!!! <<<<


End Quote

All I can say, 80's, is that, first, when dealing with current topics, such as this one, we are dealing with political issues.  If you read my posts on, say Playful Penguins, you will see that they are not political but playful.  But I never see you there.  Second, I never said that government was "evil".  As I tell my students, every human group, ie people acting in concert, practice some form of governance to manage their affairs, formal or informal.  So government is neither good nor evil, just necessary.  But specific  governments, ours and others, commit acts that I think (IMHO) are evil.  Last, I may be a "crazy old cook", but your constant, perpetrual, unending defense of Mr Bush & co. certainly puts you in the same mold.

Quoting:
Perhaps someone can clarify:

The autocracy of The Russian dynasty ruled under the notion of "divine right".  What is the notion of monarchy?
End Quote

Monarchy = Rule by one!
The monarchy theoretically rules by divine right but it is based on family (ie the position is inherited)

Quoting:
What's the procedure for making one king of England, does the Queen choose him?  Can we send suggestions to the Queen?  Charles should be king, not Harry.
End Quote

Birthright!
Charles will be king as he is the eldest son of the monarch.  If he dies before the current Queen, Charles's eldest son will become king.

Quoting:
My view on the monarchy in the UK, in one word

Embarrassing

The people of the UK are advanced enough to realise that this system of rule is outdated and just plain wrong, so the country has completely replaced this with a parliamentary system leaving the monarch with no real power.
So why do we still retain these people as a reminder of a time when we were more primitive?

End Quote

Succinct and to the point Tao, I completely agree.
We had our chance to get rid of them in the Civil War but blew it. Now the Royal Family is an anachronism but the role of the monarch is so ingrained into the fabric of the establishment that it's impossible to see how we could get rid of them, short of a revolution. I can only hope that their privileges are gradually removed over time so we are left with the Holland/Sweden/Spain type of royalty that Paul mentioned.

And you guys in Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. - just make the break please!! I would be so happy to see you do that. Although I was distraught that England didn't win the 1999 Rugby World Cup, I cheered when John Eales refused to bow to the Queen when accepting the trophy.

Quoting:
 Charles should be king, not Harry.
End Quote

Wouldn't William be next in line?  Personally my vote goes to him, he's much better looking than Charles ;D

Quoting:

Monarchy = Rule by one!
The monarchy theoretically rules by divine right but it is based on family (ie the position is inherited)
End Quote

Same for Autocracy, so what's the difference?  

Delusions of 'divine right'. . ?  Inter-familial marriage {presumably to keep the blood 'blue'}. . ?     ::)
They lock people up for sh*t like that in my neck of the woods.   :D

Quoting:   So does Australia, in fact. Symbolic or not, the vote to retain the Queen makes monkeys of the lot of them.
End Quote

I know you were tongue in cheek, Davester, so I will respond in kind !

Not this Monkey !  I didn't vote for it.  Thing is it wasn't simply (the referendum on the issue that is) worded as a question requiring a yes or no answer.  

It was written in such a way it was impossible to tell whether you were saying you did or didn't want to retain those links.

A cynic might say that was done deliberately, but of course I wouldn't say that though  ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D

Quoting:
Not this Monkey !  I didn't vote for it.  Thing is it wasn't simply (the referendum on the issue that is) worded as a question requiring a yes or no answer.  

It was written in such a way it was impossible to tell whether you were saying you did or didn't want to retain those links.

A cynic might say that was done deliberately, but of course I wouldn't say that though  ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D
End Quote

It wouldn't be just cynics who'd say it Fuss!

So far as I can remember the question, it didn't even ask if you wanted Australia to become a Republic! Instead, it was something like:

"Do you want Australia to have a President selected by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Parliament? Yes or No."

All they needed to ask was: "Do you think Australia should become a Republic? Yes or No." But of course, if they'd asked that, the Republicans would have won by an 85/15 majority and the PM's Royalist friends would have gone crying into their beers chardonnays.

Quoting:Sure, Tao, you be embarrassed at us having a monarchy still, but would you really rather have had President Thatcher?End Quote

Eek !  :o

PM Thatcher was scary enough, and I lived as far away as one could from her  ::)   :P :P ;D

Quoting:
"Do you want Australia to have a President selected by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Parliament? Yes or No."

All they needed to ask was: "Do you think Australia should become a Republic? Yes or No." But of course, if they'd asked that, the Republicans would have won by an 85/15 majority and the PM's Royalist friends would have gone crying into their beers chardonnays.
End Quote

IIRC, hadn't they already come up with that ridiculous electoral college idea for presidential elections? - rather like Woy Jenkins' proposals for electoral reform over here, too strained ever to be viable - so that what was being voted for was either anachronistic or bollocks, and the vote went with the safer, if outdated, option.  Ted Heath did something similar over here with regard to joining the Common Market (what is now the EU) - public opinion was evenly split, so he announced our entry into the thing, then held a referendum on whether we should *stay* in - and won by a whisker.

Phil

Quoting:

IIRC, hadn't they already come up with that ridiculous electoral college idea for presidential elections? - rather like Woy Jenkins' proposals for electoral reform over here, too strained ever to be viable - so that what was being voted for was either anachronistic or bollocks, and the vote went with the safer, if outdated, option.  End Quote

Yes you're right. They spent billions on a Republican forum to establish the best "model" for the change, came up with something that was nothing more than a replacement for the Governor General, and then asked us if we wanted to vote for it.