A Queen question for our British cousins. (actually everyone, but them, mostly)

[pbfoot]

Be right there keep the lights on

 

[gumbyk]

Like I said, I have no problem paying for museums and what not, I just don't believe in "donating" money to pay for something the govt. should be taking care of anyhow. I don't believe the UK taxpayer should be paying for it either, but rather the Queen and her family themselves. The taxpayer probably already pay too much anyhow.

Comparing parking fees to this, is like comparing apples and oranges. I would have no problem paying a parking fee at the Tower of London. Besides people pay entrance fees at the Tower of London (which they should). I sure as hell am not going to donate though, to help keep crown jewels in pristine condition. That should fall on the monarchy themselves in my opinion.

Does the president personally pay for the upkeep of the Whitehouse, or the presidential limosines?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

But the jewels aren't owned by the Royal Family. They're symbols of State. The Government (courtesy of the UK taxpayer) does fund a great deal of the upkeep but they're such a popular attraction, and so bluddy expensive to secure and insure, that I think it only fair that foreign visitors should also contribute to their maintenance.

My analogy wasn't to parking fees, or entrance fees, in general but to the specific cost of getting into the Udvar Hazy Center. All the other Smithsonian facilities are free to enter so why the parking fee at Dulles?Essentially it is an entrance fee. The aircraft therein are owned by the US nation and the facilities are maintained by the US nation (ie by US taxpayers...like me) so I think the analogy with the Crown Jewels is actually quite a propos. However, I digress...

I hear you and I understand what you are saying. I don't feel the need to pay for the crown jewels (substitute the crown jewels for the US Presidents cuff links for all I care...). I don't feel that the UK tax payer should either. Yes I understand that they are owned by the state, but I feel the monarchy should be the ones paying for their upkeep.

I love the UK and London, and whenever I am there, I will go and visit the Tower of London (for me it is a must for some reason). I will happily pay for the entrance fee and all that, but I will put any money in the crown jewels donation box). Just my opinion on the matter...

Does the president personally pay for the upkeep of the Whitehouse, or the presidential limosines?

No of course not. I still think that is a bit different than the crown jewels though...

Are you visiting to join in the Queens diamond jubilee celebrations in June?

Nope...

It probably would be something neat to see though.

 

[parsifal]

The whole royal family thing should be viewed as a giant commercial enterprise. The whole phenomenon is an income generator, not a cost burden. It is robably the most successful "state run" family business in history. All that pomp and jewellry attracts tourists, sells magazines, keeps an army of people employed, and is the basis of the most stable and democratic form of government in history. Constitutional monarchy is also a very stable form of government, because of the emergency exec powers the monarch has. We have had to use it once or twice in our country, and averted a full blown crisis each time we did.

People love monarchy and all the spectacle it brings. Dont know why, but they do.

I think the monarchy is good valkue at twice the price, and not for reasons of any sentimental attachment

 

[Readie]

The whole royal family thing should be viewed as a giant commercial enterprise. The whole phenomenon is an income generator, not a cost burden. It is robably the most successful "state run" family business in history. All that pomp and jewellry attracts tourists, sells magazines, keeps an army of people employed, and is the basis of the most stable and democratic form of government in history. Constitutional monarchy is also a very stable form of government, because of the emergency exec powers the monarch has. We have had to use it once or twice in our country, and averted a full blown crisis each time we did.

People love monarchy and all the spectacle it brings. Dont know why, but they do.

I think the monarchy is good valkue at twice the price, and not for reasons of any sentimental attachment

Spot on Michael.
I think QE2's funeral will signal the last of the old skool monarch's reign.
It'll be sad day, whatever side of the fence you are on.
John

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I think the colonials affection for the royal family grew immensely starting with Diana, Fergie and now, Kate. I am guessing, the passing of QE2 will be a huge deal here because it's seen as a milepost to children of the WW2 generation. To some extent, affection for Elizabeth will probably benefit from the film The Kings Speech. Depicting QE2 as a child in that flick certainly gives us a contrast between what she knew as a child and what she experienced with her own family as a mother. I think most people who have children can appreciate the difficulties that can arise when their kids grow up, marry and have their own kids. Of course, unlike the past, instead of lurid rumors, indecorous behavior becomes public as soon as they stick their nose out the door.

 

[stona]

and is the basis of the most stable and democratic form of government in history.

Nope. That would be Parliament and the Law. Plenty of very robust and stable democracies get along just fine without a Monarchy.

Most people in the UK want to keep the Monarchy and as we live in a democracy that's what we'll do.I might not like it but,as a democrat,I accept it.
Don't tell me that we HAVE to have it or our whole system will come crashing down around our ears! I'm not buying it.

The current Queen should be remembered for the fantastic effort she has put into the Commonwealth ( along with Phil "don't stay here too long or you'll get slanty eyes" the Greek) and that is not a bad thing.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Readie]

I think the colonials affection for the royal family grew immensely starting with Diana, Fergie and now, Kate.

Au contraire Mal.

QE2 is a British and Commonwealth jewel in the crown.
She is one of few people that commands respect around the world and has done for 60 years. I'll wait for the Canadian explosion...but, its true.
The royal children have done everything they could to **** up the Windsor tradition of service to country commonwealth by, as you say, indecorous behaviour and scandals.

When QE2 dies it will be a day of mourning then, we have to move on, maybe William has it in him to follow QE2, or redefine British royalties role?
He has a head start being Diana's son that is for sure.

My parents thought more of King George V1..a lot more.

John

 

[pbfoot]

Alls the Queen ever did for me was ruin a few days off so we could practice for an inspection by her , and I didn't care for loosing my days off so she could gawk at me (due to my height I usually got to be Right Marker) . Now if it came to a choice of seeing the Queen or The Tragically Hip the Hip would win without pause for a thought

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ySL9ZHUiQ

 

[yulzari]

Why do some people go on about being 'ex British colonials'? All that disappeared more than two generations ago and is ancient history to the generations of my children or grandchildren. Do the British go on about being ex Roman or ex French colonials? Do Ecuardorians go on about being ex Spanish colonials? The Spanish about being ex Maghrebian colonials?

Modern Indians don't. To them it is rightly a piece of ancient history up there with the Moghuls. Grow up and move on.

Britain is a modern 21st century state forming part of Europe. USA, Canada, Australia New Zealand et al are doubtless fine places and inhabited by fine people but Britain's neighbours are a short train or ferry ride away not a multi hour 950kmh flight. I can be English by nation, British by nationality and a European Union citizen and anywhere in the EU is my country. Maybe we could skip the British bit and return to an independent Commonwealth of England?

OK Rant over. Apologies if anyone feels offended in some way. Normal service can be resumed.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Why do some people go on about being 'ex British colonials'? All that disappeared more than two generations ago and is ancient history to the generations of my children or grandchildren. Do the British go on about being ex Roman or ex French colonials? Do Ecuardorians go on about being ex Spanish colonials? The Spanish about being ex Maghrebian colonials?

Modern Indians don't. To them it is rightly a piece of ancient history up there with the Moghuls. Grow up and move on.

Britain is a modern 21st century state forming part of Europe. USA, Canada, Australia New Zealand et al are doubtless fine places and inhabited by fine people but Britain's neighbours are a short train or ferry ride away not a multi hour 950kmh flight. I can be English by nation, British by nationality and a European Union citizen and anywhere in the EU is my country. Maybe we could skip the British bit and return to an independent Commonwealth of England?

OK Rant over. Apologies if anyone feels offended in some way. Normal service can be resumed.

DEEPLY OFFENDED YUL Yet somehow, I'll find the courage (or was it corsage) to survive

If you lived here In the USA, and got the BBC programming we import and happen to be a film devotee, you'd see a definite fascination by the British, bordering on obsession, for its Roman roots. I find it both interesting and charming at once.
Trying to think of the most recent films that celebrate that connection. The Last Legion (with Aishwarya Rai of all things) , The Eagle, The Centurian, King Arthur, to name a few... There are endless documentaries on the subject... I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a mockumentary about the English enchantment with their Roman past. There was even a PBS broadcast about training to be a roman legionary in Britain. My kids and I watched it religiously.

To say that the USA is obsessed with the breaking of her colonial ties is an understatement. As a nation, it is our defining moment. Yet, there remained a strange familial affection for the mother country that began almost as soon as the tie was severed and has survived, despite the invasion of 1812 (The Second Revolution, or The Continuation War ) upon which the bonds forged in WW 1 and 2 were based. Common language, common faith, common culture... common traditions. I have the impression that animosity among the commonwealth nations and the USA is more similar to that amongst members of a family. The past is always with us.

Readie, I was trying to say that the US interest in the royals has only increased due their ongoing family events and drama. QE2 has been a commendably stable institution, but lacking the drama that the media and the US Public feeds upon. The appreciation for QE2 will become quite exaggerated here due to CNN and other TV media going into a feeding frenzy at the news of her passing .

 

[meatloaf109]

I guess that the British empire was interesting. Island nation becomes the first great super-power, Sun never sets, Heart of oak, and all that.
By the way, thanks to France for the help in throwing the b*ggers out!

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Well said ML... 1776, It was time for Mom and Dad to go home.

The fact that our French friends made it possible and then we, essentially returned to England's orbit as our most favored trading partner tells you something about how strong those familial ties actually were. We didn't really return the favor to the french until 1917 and 1944.

 

[pbfoot]

I guess that the British empire was interesting. Island nation becomes the first great super-power, Sun never sets, Heart of oak, and all that.
By the way, thanks to France for the help in throwing the b*ggers out!

As one of our Prime Ministers stated the "Sun never sets as even god didn't trust them"

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Grow up and move on.

Hey chill out. Everyone here only uses it tounge in cheek, in a joking manner.

 

[A4K]

This thread has sure strayed from it's original subject!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As always...

 

[meatloaf109]

That's the thing about historians, we can't help but drag out some stuffy old facts for a good airing!
By the way I still got my eye on those Canucks; they been quiet since 1812 or so... They are up to something!

 

[oldcrowcv63]

This thread has sure strayed from it's original subject!

I can't remember what that was!

By the way I still got my eye on those Canucks; they been quiet since 1812 or so... They are up to something!

Yes, and it's a given that we can blame then for whatever disfunction that occurs down here south of the border. It's our God given right as Americans. If only Canada would give us a pretext for invasion, it would solve so many of our problems. Of, course then we'd have to deal with the Quebecois. Probably better to just let sleeping pit-bulls lie.

 

[pbfoot]

That's the thing about historians, we can't help but drag out some stuffy old facts for a good airing!
By the way I still got my eye on those Canucks; they been quiet since 1812 or so... They are up to something!

Thats cuz you got bitch slapped then.
Remember that Madison stated in 1812 that taking Canada was only a matter of marching