God Save The Queen
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
Much as I agree with you, it probably turns out they bring in more tourist money than we shell out?
The Monarchy was relatively 'poor' until Queen Victoria noted that the aristocracy lived to a far higher standard than she did. The tax laws were reworked to boost her 'income' (our taxes) now, of course, different story.
I would slim it down, but if we were looking at the cost alone, I'd rather look at the aristocracy and the mega-rich who stay well out of the public eye, and who are making money hand-over fist, it seems, while the rest of the populations is experiencing a notable decline in living standards ...
If you look at the recent jubilee, that tells a story ...
On the flip side, the Charles-and-Diana thing was a complete PR stunt by 'the firm' who runs the Royal Family, as a sop to the public. Charles was then, and remained throughout, infatuated with Camilla P-B, Diana was just there for the cameras, although no-one told her.
Then we have Andrew, who won national acclaim when he piloted his helicopter into thick smoke to rescue crewmen from a sinking ship in the Falklands War, but lost it because of his recent shenanigans ... but he's still protected by 'the firm'.
But what worries me is, if we let the idea of royalty go, there will be a push towards a presidency. Tony Blair wanted to be President of Europe. Boris Johnson will want it, because he really wants to be King of England. Nigel Farage wants it, just to piss people off ...
In short, I fear a presidency will be worse...
I spoke to an old solder, a Desert Rat (The 'Desert Rats' became the generic name for all UK soldiers who fought in N Africa. Technically a Desert Rat is a member of the 7th Armoured Division, stationed in the region throughout, because the jerboa, the desert rat, was their divisional symbol. He was a member of the Rifle Brigade, part of the 7th Armoured Support Group.)
"What d'you think of Monty?" "Oh, we hated him! There were better officers who were fired before him, by Churchill, who demanded everything, but gave us nothing. When Monty turned up, the Yanks were in the war and we had Lease-Lend equipment coming out of our ears. So whatever the Jerries had, we had more, and Monty could play the attrition game and know they'd run out before we did."
"What did you think of Churchill?" "We didn't like him, either! Never gave us the kit we needed in case we got kicked out, but demanded victory. The civilians loved him, of course, but not us. We were gasping for a cigarette most of the time, and there he was, tossing away three inches of cigar!"
"Who did you like, then?" "Oh, the King. He was our man. He came out to speak to us. None of your Monty b•ll•cks. None of your Churchill V-signs. He just stood there, thanked us, told us he was thinking of us, all England was behind us, spoke from the heart. We loved him, we'd do anything he asked."
+++
Just last night a local news report focussed on retired Gurkha soldiers living in London having a Jubilee party. History: The Gurkhas are Nepalese soldiers who fight for the British (since 1812). Their training is notoriously tough, and they hold more VCs (the highest award for valour) than any other regiment in the British Army.
The interviewer spoke to a ex-soldier: "I love the Queen, I pray to her, she is like God to us."
+++
Patriotism runs very, very deep here.
"What d'you think of Monty?" "Oh, we hated him! There were better officers who were fired before him, by Churchill, who demanded everything, but gave us nothing. When Monty turned up, the Yanks were in the war and we had Lease-Lend equipment coming out of our ears. So whatever the Jerries had, we had more, and Monty could play the attrition game and know they'd run out before we did."
"What did you think of Churchill?" "We didn't like him, either! Never gave us the kit we needed in case we got kicked out, but demanded victory. The civilians loved him, of course, but not us. We were gasping for a cigarette most of the time, and there he was, tossing away three inches of cigar!"
"Who did you like, then?" "Oh, the King. He was our man. He came out to speak to us. None of your Monty b•ll•cks. None of your Churchill V-signs. He just stood there, thanked us, told us he was thinking of us, all England was behind us, spoke from the heart. We loved him, we'd do anything he asked."
+++
Just last night a local news report focussed on retired Gurkha soldiers living in London having a Jubilee party. History: The Gurkhas are Nepalese soldiers who fight for the British (since 1812). Their training is notoriously tough, and they hold more VCs (the highest award for valour) than any other regiment in the British Army.
The interviewer spoke to a ex-soldier: "I love the Queen, I pray to her, she is like God to us."
+++
Patriotism runs very, very deep here.
Last edited:
One of my fave stories, just for balance, you understand, concerns an event that occurred among the Irish Guards (The Micks) who were fighting in N Africa in WWII.
There was a strong German attack, and the forward positions were overrun. Out of ammo, the Irish were obliged to surrender, which they did. The Germans rocked up and began the process of disarming, searching, etc. One German officer said to his prisoner, "For you, Englander, the ..." That's as far as he got. So enraged at being called an 'Englander', the Irishman hit him. A fight ensued. The remaining Irish captured their German captors, and brought them back to the regiment's rearguard position!
Why the Micks volunteer in huge numbers to fight for the Brits remains an unanswered question. My answer, purely an opinion, is that the Irish regard the English as 'theirs', and anyone who tries to intervene is gonna get a black eye for his troubles.
(The only other occasion when the Micks were taken prisoner occurred later. Ten men were in a ship in Benghazi harbour, to be shipped to a POW camp in Greece. The harbour was bombed by the RAF, the ship holed and sinking. The German guards released the prisoners. Many, including the ten, escaped. They made their way back to the British lines, and turned up at the Irish Guards base depot, where the Sergeant who led them, rather than be the first entry of prisoners – albeit escaped – in the Regimental Diary, insisted they be recorded as Absent Without Leave and placed under arrest.
The commandant agreed, and for punishment the men were confined to a bar until the booze ran dry, or somesuch...)
There was a strong German attack, and the forward positions were overrun. Out of ammo, the Irish were obliged to surrender, which they did. The Germans rocked up and began the process of disarming, searching, etc. One German officer said to his prisoner, "For you, Englander, the ..." That's as far as he got. So enraged at being called an 'Englander', the Irishman hit him. A fight ensued. The remaining Irish captured their German captors, and brought them back to the regiment's rearguard position!
Why the Micks volunteer in huge numbers to fight for the Brits remains an unanswered question. My answer, purely an opinion, is that the Irish regard the English as 'theirs', and anyone who tries to intervene is gonna get a black eye for his troubles.
(The only other occasion when the Micks were taken prisoner occurred later. Ten men were in a ship in Benghazi harbour, to be shipped to a POW camp in Greece. The harbour was bombed by the RAF, the ship holed and sinking. The German guards released the prisoners. Many, including the ten, escaped. They made their way back to the British lines, and turned up at the Irish Guards base depot, where the Sergeant who led them, rather than be the first entry of prisoners – albeit escaped – in the Regimental Diary, insisted they be recorded as Absent Without Leave and placed under arrest.
The commandant agreed, and for punishment the men were confined to a bar until the booze ran dry, or somesuch...)
Back to the plot, at Queen willing to parachute into the Olympic Stadium (2012 Uk-hosted Olympics) is worth it, in my book.
The jump
Danny Boyle (opening sequence director), on the Queen's involvement.
The Queen
The jump
Danny Boyle (opening sequence director), on the Queen's involvement.
The Queen
Why would I call folks from Ireland or Scotland English?
Why do you wish me in a bar fight?
Why should I know every nuance of English rule or geography when I am 4000 miles away and never been? (Hint we broke away 250 years ago...you may have heard)
But beyond all that this is an intl forum with a semblance of decorum. We only ask that you understand that we all have differing upbringing and don't need nitpicking to derail threads (sort of like this)
Back to your regular programming.
Why do you wish me in a bar fight?
Why should I know every nuance of English rule or geography when I am 4000 miles away and never been? (Hint we broke away 250 years ago...you may have heard)
But beyond all that this is an intl forum with a semblance of decorum. We only ask that you understand that we all have differing upbringing and don't need nitpicking to derail threads (sort of like this)
Back to your regular programming.
All dang interesting Thomas and definitely differing pov.
But why a president? What powers has the queen that needs to be transferred?
Could your govt not run without royalty?
But why a president? What powers has the queen that needs to be transferred?
Could your govt not run without royalty?
The consensus seems to be there would be a 'Head of State', currently not the Prime Minister ... there would have to be major constitutional reform.
If the Monarchy went, the House of Lords would have to go too (not a bad thing), ideally its replacement would be a house reflecting Proportional Representation, rather than the highly unfair constituency system.
Then there's the Crown Estate which holds a property portfolio worth about £12bn. This is commercial property, not just palaces and estates. This is not the Queen's, it's a separate entity, which pays about 85% of its income into the Treasury. She gets a fraction of its income.
My fear would be that apart from places like Buckingham Palace, etc, the portfolio wound be snapped up by corporates, with the consequence that the income would be diverted to offshore accounts and the Treasure would be lucky to see 15%, let alone 85%.
Suffice to say, the way things are going, the demise of the Monarchy would see us worse off than before.
Lastly, the desire to end the monarchy is not there. It's a minority view and that won't change any time soon.
Well, I'm happy to learn you got it better than we did with our branch of the family. I'm just glad they left for good back in 1918, and the aristocratic titles were abolished. The German imperial family were all but non-political (though the army was loyal to them).
- Messages
- 10,678
- Reaction score
- 3,464
- Points
- 108
Old joke: in a perfect world the cooks are French, the policemen are English, the mechanics are German, the lovers are Italian and the bankers are Swiss -- in an imperfect world the cooks are English, the policemen are German, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss and the bankers are Italian.
Lol...must be... I don't think I can name half the monarchies in this world nor their history or current queen....but then I can't fly.a helicopter or use a sextant either.
But English bistory....bout the bottom of my todo list of things I need to know....
Hello Tony. I am sorry that my comment was not made more tactfully. I was referring to a period of long ago and long before Queen Victoria, when an English monarch died and the Scottish Royal family took over. Replaced much later by Dutch then Germans and so on.
A very large part of Britain both physically and culturally is Scottish and Welsh. Feelings do get hurt when that point is ignored.
To refer to Britain as England is akin to calling the U.S.A. New England or referring to Germany as Prussia. It is wrong and may be considered impolite, although clearly that was not the intention here.
100% with you there.
RJM, I am sorry that your post went down this particular side road. Certainly not my intention.
Last edited:
Tony Bristow-Stagg
World Citizen
- Messages
- 1,574
- Reaction score
- 546
- Points
- 108
Thank you for clarification.
I was very fortunate in my life that as a young child, when nature and nurture and the lessons we learn in life do become a permanent part of our psychological makeup, I lived in Malaysia for 3 years and was exposed to the most amazing diverse cultures.
Thus I have never had it in me to see the world with boundaries set on race or culture, I just see a garden of humanity with many wonderful and diverse colours and shapes.
What we have the bounty of in this day is, that all those mistakes we have made in the past, of which a good deal was born out of misguided faith, but mostly our troubles are born from material greed and the willingness to take over what is not ours, we can learn from all that.
Imagine how much better the world would be if we all sat down and shared what we had, but best of all imagine if the way of the world was not directed towards material gain and pursuits.
This is also the sign of a great Monarchy, a King or Queen that rules in virtues and justice and these are a gift to humanity.
Baha'u'llah offered this to the Kings.
"O kings of the earth! We see you increasing every year your expenditures, and laying the burden thereof on your subjects. This, verily, is wholly and grossly unjust. Fear the sighs and tears of this wronged One, and lay not excessive burdens on your peoples. Do not rob them to rear palaces for yourselves; nay rather choose for them that which ye choose for yourselves. Thus We unfold to your eyes that which profiteth you, if ye but perceive. Your people are your treasures. Beware lest your rule violate the commandments of God, and ye deliver your wards to the hands of the robber. By them ye rule, by their means ye subsist, by their aid ye conquer. Yet, how disdainfully ye look upon them! How strange, how very strange!...."
Regards Tony