Watching our two Octogenarians suffer the pomp and ceremony of our service to commemorate the killers of innocent Arabs, don't you wonder how on earth anyone can knock the Monarchy? Agree with them or not, entire lives devoted to public service is incredible, especially when they didn't choose it.

There was a very igorant letter on teletext from someone claiming they worked far harder than the Queen who does nothing but take holidays and attend banquets. Actually the Monarch is our hardest working Ambassador, on the job 24 hours each day, putting up with people she'd probably rather not meet and having to go places she'd rather not go. When she does take "holidays" abroad she is surrounded by teams of lawyers and diplomats and paperwork. Huge responsibilities. Hardly any time for herself. Devoting her entire life to this nation with very little appreciation or understanding for what she does. I'm sure there must be days when she wishes she could chuck it all in and go put her feet up and watch Corrie, but she'll loyally serve the British people until the day she dies. I think most of us are grateful, but there will always be those who refuse to see beyond their class prejudice.

In the interests of balance being the richest woman in the world must help slightly.
Pity that you assume that anyone holding republican sympathies must be motivated by class prejudice, Al. I certainly don't think I am, and I certainly hold the view that devotion to public service shouldn't {and indeed doesn't in the vast number of cases} automatically qualify one for a life of privilege and precedence. Mother Teresa, for instance, worked much harder than the Queen has ever done. Yet her death was almost ignored because of the death of the much more photogenic Princess of Wales. It's not about class. George Osborne said the other day "we're all in this together". I'll bet the Queen isn't "in this" at all.
Sorry, I just felt that the last posting was more than a little one-sided.

the country..and the Commonwealth would have fallen apart without them, decades ago.

Mother Teresa of course had the choice to walk away if she wanted. I'm not sure that she worked harder or devoted more time than The Queen. It's a bit like saying a dustman works harder than a bank clerk. They each do different kinds of work, so the comparison is a bit weak. And actually The Queen isn't even in the Top Ten of world's richest women. Neither is JK Rowling and she is richer than The Queen.

Personally I don't think money has anything to do with it. You cannot buy a lifetime of duty and devotion.

What's the "this" that you claim The Queen isn't in?

Pardon me, my info is way out of date and I'm wrong.
I'll address the rest of your points later, Emma... time presses. Even on me!

veritas wrote:
the country..and the Commonwealth would have fallen apart without them, decades ago.

strange how plenty of other countries without royal families have not fallen apart tho, isn't it?

I don't criticise the family as people, I criticise the institution- it's just silly.

you are correct to some degree. There is really no way of justifying the idea of one family being in the position they are-indeed the very idea of 'aristocracy' is an anathema..a class entirely built on previous generations of bullies and thieves.

But sometimes (maybe it's age) I believe that in the end..someone will rise to the top and it isn't always the best for a country.

Thailand which I visit often, adores their royal family and as a frequent visitor I've gradually begun to realise how important that is to the Thai people.

It's something that binds them together in a way which nothing else can...certainly no political group can.

And a true Royal Family that is dedicated to the people...like the Thai and British Royal families, can have a positive effect.

The cost can be criticized but overall if that money was diluted amongst general spending it would make little difference...or in Britain's case you must agree the Royal Family even as a tourist generator more than pays for itself.

It depends on how you interpret "falling apart". Those Easter Europe countries, for example, which prospered under a Monarchy before WW2 have indeed suffered political turmoil and widespread instability. They rely, even now, on other nations giving them various kinds of support.

The former Soviet State of Georgia wanted to bring back it's old Monarchy to help reunite the country. The family who were by then well established business people in Western Europe decline the invite and, whether as a direct consequence or not, the country has lurched from one crisis to another. The most stable nations in Asia are Japan and Thailand who each have a Monarchy. Likewise in the Far East.

Modern day Monarchies rule over some of the most influencial and internally stable countries on the planet. I'm sure that can't be entirely coincidence.

Without this "institution" all control of our nation would fall into the hands of politicians continually seeking compromises and making false promises in order to win votes to stay in power. Urgh! The very idea!

The Cat wrote:
It depends on how you interpret "falling apart". Those Easter Europe countries, for example, which prospered under a Monarchy before WW2 have indeed suffered political turmoil and widespread instability. They rely, even now, on other nations giving them various kinds of support.


The fact that many Eastern European countries are struggling is not down to the fact that they don't have monarchies. It is down to the fact that they were invaded and 'occupied' by the Soviet empire for 4 decades.

Let's not forget that Eastern Europe makes up half (if not more) of our continent, so it is easy to generalise while talking about an extremely diverse part of the world.

I do get what you say about Georgia and a couple of other Eastern European countries (tho one could debate whether Georgia is in Europe) - and how a couple of countries have seen a renaissance of monarchism. i would say that ths is in a minority of countries.

I lived in Hungary for many years and travelled in Eastern Europe extensively, working with ministers and former communist apparatchiks, so I do know what I am talking about...

I think the term Eastern Europe should be replaced with 'former communist countries', as much of what we call Eastern Europe is to the west of Italy, and much of Austria and Germany.

The Cat wrote:


Modern day Monarchies rule over some of the most influencial and internally stable countries on the planet. I'm sure that can't be entirely coincidence.



sorry to post after myself, but you might like to count the number of non-monarchist countries that are also way up there in the league of successful countries.... France, the US, Germany and many more.

I can't ever see Royalists and Republicans ever agreeing. I think there are some fairly successful countries who do not have a monarchy. I wouldn't include the USA into this current debate as they have never had a monarchy and haven't really been around long enough to fall apart yet. When they get a bit more history behind them then maybe we'll have more idea of how they fare long term.

France was once a world leader but hasn't really had the same impact since their revolution which was one of the most shameful acts in human history ( I do say one of!), and would have been whichever class of people had been sent to madame guilotine. Germany has only taken a lead in Europe through fear based on it's 20th century behavious. When I was living in Poland in the early 90s I witnessed genuine fear of the Germans which still seems to exist today. On the subject of Poland, their monarchy was the only one to ever be elected, although the common people didn't have a vote, but the people kept telling me how they wish for a monarchy "like in England". This is one of the reasons they put the crown back on their national badge. However, even when they had a monarchy they were not exactly world leaders.

The main theme seems to be that, whether for good or bad, all countries undergo dramatic internal changes once they lose their monarchy and turn republic. I think it's true to say that no former monarchy has become more influencial on the world stage than they were when were still a monarchy. Most fell down the ladder. Not necessarily because a nation cannot exist without a monarch, but because their entire identity, sort of their country's DNA, was so altered.

I'm not sure that Eastern European countries would like to be referred to as former communist countries. In my experience most would like to try and forget that part of their history.

The debate will no doubt go on .. and on ..