So how do you all feel about the Royal family ?? and what opinion [if you have one] do you have about Diana ?
The film the queen
- Thread starter PNL
- Start date
Currently reading:
The film the queen
Cant really explain my opinion of the royal family but i can say that newspapers etc should just leave diana alone,i understand this past week as it was 10th anniversary,but can we stop having her on the front page of newspapers now about things fromthe past which cannot be explained.
Tbf i was sickened at the amount of press coverage the princes consorts get looking for the 'next' Diana, the papers do realise it was people working for them that (indirectly) killed the original. As for the royal family, why the hell charles should own sh**loads of the country and make a profit for it cos he was born into it while being a walking contradiction....save the world...shoot pheasants escapes me, tho i suppose it is a comfort to have someone like the queen about, imagine being in the american situation i.e. your head of state is to all intents and purposes mentally retarded and their is no one else who personifies your country but other than that dont see the point...
yer, but i didnt think the royals actually ran the country,more just a tradition, like the opening of parliament type thing
I disagree with the whole concept of a monarchy TBH. Although the royals don't have the power they used to, it still annoys me that these people have gained such a high status by being born/wed into the right family.
Royals dont run the country but charles owns the duchy of cornwall...which is a huge land owning organisation and has a turnover in millions and charles is in charge because he is a member of the royal family...
life is a lottery, dont blame the winners.
its the same for almost everyone, you are born into a certain way of life, you dont choose or deserve it, but thats life. even if the royal family were no longer royal they would still be rich and powerful just like the rest of their class, the royal privledges are now far less significant than they historically have been, there are many families in this country with similar wealth and power to the royal family, almost all of them are old money. the rich and powerful have kids that grow up to be rich and powerful, as you would expect. the royals are at a disadvantage in my opinion, i would not want to be one, you lose much of your freedom. i can do whatever i want in life, they have to do what is expected of them.
Plus ask any Australian/Japanese/American tourist in London what they want to see and you'll 99/100 times get the same answer.
They want to see the Queen.
They're good for tourisim, and certainly bring in more than they cost us. Plus I couldn't bare the thought of President Blair and now the even more worrying President Brown?
They want to see the Queen.
They're good for tourisim, and certainly bring in more than they cost us. Plus I couldn't bare the thought of President Blair and now the even more worrying President Brown?
as has been shown in the economist in a great article back in 99, which suggests the royal family is a very profitable part of our economy.
but i wouldnt mind doing a secondment to see what exactly it is they do
This is several very good questions in one thread;
The film is great, it is not about Diana per se but rather about how Britain has changed and how those changes crystallised about her, and her death. It uses the media savvy connectedness of Blair/Campbell v the 1950s old Britain Queen as a metaphor.
We should have an elected head of state, the PM is always a a monarchist as the present fudge gives him all the powers of head of the legislature and head of state since the Queen is "above politics!!!" I mean WTF, we are paying for ahead of state and don't get one !!! ( An elected President could have said no to invading Iraq for anyone who thinks this is an arcane detail). This is one of the systemic problems in UK politics.
We are always pleased to see Diana in the media if it makes life more difficult for Camilla, I mean if Charles can't set an example and can't get involved in running the country then what is he for? Mrs R thinks William is very nice though and is pleased he is back where he belongs, under Kate's control.
If anyone believes the tourism bit, just go to Paris in the summer where they chopped the heads of their aristocracy in the 18th Century during the terror and you still cant move without bumping into a visitor.
The film is great, it is not about Diana per se but rather about how Britain has changed and how those changes crystallised about her, and her death. It uses the media savvy connectedness of Blair/Campbell v the 1950s old Britain Queen as a metaphor.
We should have an elected head of state, the PM is always a a monarchist as the present fudge gives him all the powers of head of the legislature and head of state since the Queen is "above politics!!!" I mean WTF, we are paying for ahead of state and don't get one !!! ( An elected President could have said no to invading Iraq for anyone who thinks this is an arcane detail). This is one of the systemic problems in UK politics.
We are always pleased to see Diana in the media if it makes life more difficult for Camilla, I mean if Charles can't set an example and can't get involved in running the country then what is he for? Mrs R thinks William is very nice though and is pleased he is back where he belongs, under Kate's control.
If anyone believes the tourism bit, just go to Paris in the summer where they chopped the heads of their aristocracy in the 18th Century during the terror and you still cant move without bumping into a visitor.
that is only symbolic. the queen cant wake up one morning and sack the PM, nor can she decide who is PM. power is given 'by the people' in a democracy such as the uk, we choose the PM, not the royal family.
you are ignoring world politics. we invaded iraq because it was considered better in the long run than damaging our relationship with the US. they may be a country of morons but they are our only ally and they are the most powerful country on earth at present.
Tony Blair could have said no to iraq as prime minister, it had nothing to do with the royal family.
Last edited:
We do not vote for the PM, the Queen invites the effective top party(ies) to form a Government, we vote for a representative (not a delegate, we dont give them their policies)
The point about Iraq is just to show the difference that a democratic mandate gives to an elected Head of State.
Last edited:
you cant compare the queen to a president, they are compeltely different roles. queen is head on the monarchy, not the head of government. you could have a president and a queen at the same time.
you can compare a PM to a president. both could be appointed by the queen, but neither needs to be because they are both elected positions, hence they have mandate.
if the president was not appointed by the queen it would not have any effect on the power of the role, it would be the same as the prime minister, only the name is different. the queen's appointment is only symbolic. that is why we do not need a president, nor a queen, all we need is an elected head of state, the name is irrelevant.
you can compare a PM to a president. both could be appointed by the queen, but neither needs to be because they are both elected positions, hence they have mandate.
if the president was not appointed by the queen it would not have any effect on the power of the role, it would be the same as the prime minister, only the name is different. the queen's appointment is only symbolic. that is why we do not need a president, nor a queen, all we need is an elected head of state, the name is irrelevant.
OP
OP
I also think the Queen was in a very difficult position and being brought up in an uncaring cold/strict environment I think the royals find the concept of the word loving hard to under stand ..personally I never liked Diana and found her a very good actress and one that played to the audience [the world population ] and with great success it was obvious she was never going to fit in as many of the partners of the royals actually do ..I also cant stand Philip I find him arrogant and very selfish and a hypocrite and his exploits as a womaniser are well documented ..BUT despite the many shortfalls they have as a family I think also that the queen as a figure head in this country does bring revenue here into the UK ..the other hangers on tho I think should be dispensed with as quickly as possible IE- Andrew..Edward..or an example
The Royal family have more power than you realize. Remember, the armed forces are loyal to Queen and country and most servicemen are extremely patriotic. If the Queen wanted to, she could over throw a government. Without armed forces a government has no ultimate power.
If the government wanted to form a rebublic and the Queen said no, then called on the Army to help her, who would the army side with, Gordon Brown or the Queen?
If the government wanted to form a rebublic and the Queen said no, then called on the Army to help her, who would the army side with, Gordon Brown or the Queen?
OP
OP
With regards to Gorden Brown all I can say is GOD HELP US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state
I love FF, the range of subjects covered, brilliant
I like the shared power models, it gives lots of chances for "creative tension" . What would happen to the Monarch if we elected a President instead, well they would have to give a lot of money and palaces back for a start, titles including Queen are a different issue as the Monarch gives them all as the "fount of honour" and this comes from the long since abandoned (at the expennse of the head of Charles I) claim to the divine right to rule. Personally I would like to see that continue, and the House of Lords go back to it's old format.
The fact that the armed forces are the Queens is not generally realised, and the Guards or Household Regiments are specifically the Monarchs "minders". Yes there could come a time when that power was excercised, but it's unimaginable while the UK is a functioning democracy and this is part of officer training ( but you do "hold the Queens commsion")
I love FF, the range of subjects covered, brilliant
I like the shared power models, it gives lots of chances for "creative tension" . What would happen to the Monarch if we elected a President instead, well they would have to give a lot of money and palaces back for a start, titles including Queen are a different issue as the Monarch gives them all as the "fount of honour" and this comes from the long since abandoned (at the expennse of the head of Charles I) claim to the divine right to rule. Personally I would like to see that continue, and the House of Lords go back to it's old format.
The fact that the armed forces are the Queens is not generally realised, and the Guards or Household Regiments are specifically the Monarchs "minders". Yes there could come a time when that power was excercised, but it's unimaginable while the UK is a functioning democracy and this is part of officer training ( but you do "hold the Queens commsion")
