I believe they do a very difficult job they never asked for very well and to the massive benefit of the country.
I dismiss the negatives as sour grapes and jealousy for others having more money.
I reckon they have earned billions in tourism and business for the UK.
I note how the Arab Spring has so far not destroyed society (and human beings) in monarchies there.
Indeed, I think we'd have avoided many problems if the monarchy had stronger influence over our democracy here.
And I think both the Queen and Prince Philip deserve enormous gratitude and very little condemnation for their contribution to our society.

60 years! Fantastic! I remember Day One.

60 years! Fantastic!

Hear Hear.

It isn't true they create 'billions' in tourism, and tourism does not create jobs outside of that particular industry, or even outside of London. The fact remains they cost us billions in taxes, money of course which could be used to invest in business, training, education and employment.

Look how many souls have perished in bloody wars for Queen/King and country? Note how it's for the monarch first! The Queen Mother swanning around the ruins of the aftermath of the blitz in WWII wrapped in animal furs and limply holding people's hands with a meek 'we are thinking of you'.

For the next fifty years she emerged twice a year from her life of luxury to tip her head to one side whilst she greedily awaited being adorned by flowers and gifts from schoolchildren...in stark contrast to those of her age whom had given their all in at least one world war...after WW1 many of the youngsters who returned from the hell of the trenches were shunned by society and couldn't find work, many died in poverty. Not one penny was donated by the billionaire Royals to help these tortured young men to recover.

I could say much more, but I'll leave it for now and no doubt will contribute more to this thread as it grows through this Diamond celebration.

I know that you will think I'm a ghastly rotter who should be this very afternoon dragged kicking and screaming to the Tower, but there you have it!

I'd best start looking over my shoulder (Oh of course I've been doing that for years).

.... so am I

When will Michael Hastings (the REAL King of England) take the throne ?

The Fat Controller wrote:
It isn't true they create 'billions' in tourism, and tourism does not create jobs outside of that particular industry, or even outside of London. The fact remains they cost us billions in taxes, money of course which could be used to invest in business, training, education and employment.

Look how many souls have perished in bloody wars for Queen/King and country? Note how it's for the monarch first! The Queen Mother swanning around the ruins of the aftermath of the blitz in WWII wrapped in animal furs and limply holding people's hands with a meek 'we are thinking of you'.

For the next fifty years she emerged twice a year from her life of luxury to tip her head to one side whilst she greedily awaited being adorned by flowers and gifts from schoolchildren...in stark contrast to those of her age whom had given their all in at least one world war...after WW1 many of the youngsters who returned from the hell of the trenches were shunned by society and couldn't find work, many died in poverty. Not one penny was donated by the billionaire Royals to help these tortured young men to recover.

I'm with you on this one, FC.

It is of course quite absurd to say that the Country's economy would disappear without them.
Its the HISTORY that people come to see ... not the present incumbants.

Prepared to be bored senseless this "diamond year" - just like the Olympics, no one cares a hoot ... be we shall be bored anyway with various "Antiques Roadshow Diamond Jubilee Specials" ... I fully expect to see QB (Queen Betty) guesting on a Diamond Jubilee Match of the Day Special (she'll probably kick-off for Queen's Park Rangers).

Of course the very idea of these people being REALLY descended (directly) from previous Monarchs is truely absurd. Society has passed-over numerous REAL descendants (when it suited) - in fact in King James' time weren't the next 40 DIRECT descendants passed-over because they were all Catholics?

You may as well worship a Corgi !

And we've all seen countless examples of how cruel, calculating and utterly ruthless this lot are .... they will do ANYTHING to maintain their own position.

What a sacrifice !!!!

In The Know wrote:
The Fat Controller wrote:
It isn't true they create 'billions' in tourism, and tourism does not create jobs outside of that particular industry, or even outside of London. The fact remains they cost us billions in taxes, money of course which could be used to invest in business, training, education and employment.

Look how many souls have perished in bloody wars for Queen/King and country? Note how it's for the monarch first! The Queen Mother swanning around the ruins of the aftermath of the blitz in WWII wrapped in animal furs and limply holding people's hands with a meek 'we are thinking of you'.

For the next fifty years she emerged twice a year from her life of luxury to tip her head to one side whilst she greedily awaited being adorned by flowers and gifts from schoolchildren...in stark contrast to those of her age whom had given their all in at least one world war...after WW1 many of the youngsters who returned from the hell of the trenches were shunned by society and couldn't find work, many died in poverty. Not one penny was donated by the billionaire Royals to help these tortured young men to recover.

I'm with you on this one, FC.

It is of course quite absurd to say that the Country's economy would disappear without them.
Its the HISTORY that people come to see ... not the present incumbants.

Prepared to be bored senseless this "diamond year" - just like the Olympics, no one cares a hoot ... be we shall be bored anyway with various "Antiques Roadshow Diamond Jubilee Specials" ... I fully expect to see QB (Queen Betty) guesting on a Diamond Jubilee Match of the Day Special (she'll probably kick-off for Queen's Park Rangers).

Of course the very idea of these people being REALLY descended (directly) from previous Monarchs is truely absurd. Society has passed-over numerous REAL descendants (when it suited) - in fact in King James' time weren't the next 40 DIRECT descendants passed-over because they were all Catholics?

You may as well worship a Corgi !

And we've all seen countless examples of how cruel, calculating and utterly ruthless this lot are .... they will do ANYTHING to maintain their own position.

What a sacrifice !!!!

Indeed ITK. By accident of birth they exist. The Queen Mother incidentally was obsessed with bloodlines which is why she hated Diana and Sarah Ferguson...they weren't pure enough.

And for the pro Royals aren't they just slightly concerned that HM will probably not give up the throne until she is at death's door which might be another twenty years (if she lives as long as her Mother)...surely she should give Charlie a crack at it before he's too old himself?

But as ITK says..what exactly do these people represent? Great Britain? That's a laugh, we are nothing more than America's whipping boy now.

The Fat Controller wrote:
Indeed ITK. By accident of birth they exist. The Queen Mother incidentally was obsessed with bloodlines which is why she hated Diana and Sarah Ferguson...they weren't pure enough.

You sure about that FC ?
I would have thought that Diana's "Spencer" bloodline was far more regal than the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Bizmark-von-Zieg-Heil's (or the Windsors as they now like to call themselves).

and as for the Bowes-Lyons .... well, how many went to the loony bin?

Ah, there's the thing ITK...the Queen Mum was well aware of that.

sorry Fats and ITK but I disagree.

but then I alwys do with ITK (refer to George Monbiot and right's creation of alternative realities
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/fe...-enabled-polite-left)

I also agree that there is a good case for labelling them 'scroungers"..well most of them however..

you cannot isolate the history of Britain by not including the bunch of Germans currently in the Roal family and that is the point.

The very reason someone has to be seconded into the royals to keep them going..(anyone..the Tasmanian who will be Queen of Denmark) as that continuaity keeps the whole history intact.

I think it's a fantasy to believe tourists would flock to see Britain's history unless it were not still enderway as in present incumbents.

Russia is a prime example..amazing history and priceless palaces and so on..absolutely fascinating but gets only a small fraction of the tourism.

Why..because it's dead history. Britain's is alive and unique..what the tourist witness is something that is still underway.

The alternative..ITK wants corgis in crowns and he thinks the left is loony

No, veritas ....its because Russia is not a tourist-friendly country - nothing more.

Do easyJet fly there? Ryanair? Thomson perhaps? (they did once - I went to Moscow on a long weekend with Thomson way back in the early 70s - staying at the Intourist Hotel right in Red Square).

Seen many (cheap) packages to Russia ? (there are many to the tourist sites of Jordan, Egypt and I expect very soon to Iraq as well).

History is our buildings, cathedrals, historic houses, palaces, etc - NOT the current occupants. The very word "history" refers to the past.

Currently reading - "Arbella - England's Lost Queen" by Sarah Gristwood - utterly compelling

*** Think differently and independently - you'll see things in a different light ***

veritas wrote:
sorry Fats and ITK but I disagree.

but then I alwys do with ITK (refer to George Monbiot and right's creation of alternative realities
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/fe...-enabled-polite-left)

I also agree that there is a good case for labelling them 'scroungers"..well most of them however..

you cannot isolate the history of Britain by not including the bunch of Germans currently in the Roal family and that is the point.

The very reason someone has to be seconded into the royals to keep them going..(anyone..the Tasmanian who will be Queen of Denmark) as that continuaity keeps the whole history intact.

I think it's a fantasy to believe tourists would flock to see Britain's history unless it were not still enderway as in present incumbents.

Russia is a prime example..amazing history and priceless palaces and so on..absolutely fascinating but gets only a small fraction of the tourism.

Why..because it's dead history. Britain's is alive and unique..what the tourist witness is something that is still underway.

The alternative..ITK wants corgis in crowns and he thinks the left is loony

Quite right about Russia,my wife works in leningrad Oblast during the summer,so I know it well.Russia is great value by air,and living is so cheap if you know what you're doing...but it is dead,caught in a 1918 time warp.
You can't beat the real thing,I just met a yank and an Icelander on my way back on the ferry,both wanted to see Royal Britain while here,the tourists love the royals far more than we do.

incorrect.

The reason the Beatles got their MBEs is because they transformed England in the eyes of the world and brought so much cash into the country.

The Royal Family do similar. If you really beielve thousands would flock to Buck House every day if it was empty and some relic of the past you are nuts.

I know you have a few Corgis ready in cheap tiaras and one with a Mickey Mouse mask on it but you won;t get away with it.

Yes Russia shot all theirs..and that's exactly what the joint feels like.

Ryanair, Easyjets come after the fact..when tourism is so strong an opportuniy presents itself..

weird..don;t even understand capitalism.

re-education Camp for you..ten years minimum

veritas wrote:
If you really beielve thousands would flock to Buck House every day if it was empty and some relic of the past you are nuts.

Hundreds of thousands flock to the Tower - and the royals are hardly ever there these days (unfortunately).

The paintings, the works of art, the furniture (all of which belong to us !) would still be there.

Canterbury Cathedral is always crammed - as is York Minster (they actually charge these days to keep the numbers down).

Warwick castle was busy last time I was there, as is Stratford (always) and numerous other places.

You dont need a current occupant to show a building's history.

Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck never actually lived at all you know veritas ... but Disney World seems to get rather alot of tourists too !

It's not just tourism; it's stability.
Somehow, a monarchy seems right. It's wrong for Ben Ali or Mubarak or Gaddafi or Asad to become rich and live in palaces - it's correct in the natural order of things for the King to live in wealth in Morocco or Jordan - or the UK.

And when it's a constitutional monarchy, allowing government by democracy (mistake - but seems fair), and the Royal Family contribute to the panoply of spectacle - it's stunning. Diana's wedding; William's wedding; waving from the balcony, going to fetes and schools and hospitals - it boosts morale.

I thought the Queen Mum was magnificent and she smiled at me on the steps of the Ritz.

My brother has a sticker on his school folder which reads "Republicans Suck". He got it in the USA but it works just as well here too.

JK2006 wrote:
...... she smiled at me on the steps of the Ritz


I love these snippets of amusing detail.

In The Know wrote:
[quote]veritas wrote:


Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck never actually lived at all you know veritas ... but Disney World seems to get rather alot of tourists too !

don't be ridiculous I knew them personally.

JK2006 wrote:
It's not just tourism; it's stability.
Somehow, a monarchy seems right. It's wrong for Ben Ali or Mubarak or Gaddafi or Asad to become rich and live in palaces - it's correct in the natural order of things for the King to live in wealth in Morocco or Jordan - or the UK.

And when it's a constitutional monarchy, allowing government by democracy (mistake - but seems fair), and the Royal Family contribute to the panoply of spectacle - it's stunning. Diana's wedding; William's wedding; waving from the balcony, going to fetes and schools and hospitals - it boosts morale.

I thought the Queen Mum was magnificent and she smiled at me on the steps of the Ritz.

It works,and so I see no reason to change it.

Gene wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
...... she smiled at me on the steps of the Ritz


I love these snippets of amusing detail.

I must admit that had me chortling too. Only JK...eccentric ( a little)...but often very funny. Funny in a good way of course...(ooohhh a bit Goodfellas there)