The Royal Wedding

[bookslover]

I think my invitation might have gotten lost in the mail. Frustrating, too - I've got to have the tux back by Saturday morning...

I sure hope it arrives in time - I hear the eats afterwards are really gonna be top shelf...

(Hey! This is post number 3,500! Where's my free box of grits? - [That is the prize for reaching 3500, right?])

 

[Notthemama1984]

For our British members, is anyone making a fuss that taxpayers are footing the bill for the thing?

I know Americans are not too thrilled when Obama spends billions for vacations, but I do realize he is not the same as having a royal family.

Just curiosity.

 

[Peairtach]

I don't know or care how much it costs.

Overall the Royals tend to cost each British subject about 60p a year - about the price of a couple of pints of milk.

They generate far more in tourist revenue.

Our politicians, economists and bankers have been shown to be fools however, in running up a massive deficit and allowing the banks to get out of control, and in many other things. The Royals cost a pittance compared to the amount of public money that the elected government was wasting under Blair and Brown.

Only about 16% of the British population is in favour of getting rid of the Royalty, so in that sense it has democratic backing, if democracy is the Eleventh Commandment, which it's not.

If the Royals were removed we would have a President like that of Ireland, Germany or Israel that is elected every so many years and tries hard to represent the nation.

They don't embody the history and traditions and continuity of a nation in the way that a monarch does.

These presidents don't embody much at all.

Of course in the USA the executive and representative functions are combined in one man. This at least gives the American president "bottom" compared with e.g. the President of Ireland.

The unwritten British constitution needs to evolve slowly as it has largely successfully since 1689. The last Labour government made many changes to the constitution in a way that was harmful. Being a member of the European Union is also harmful to our constitution.

 

[PhilA]

For our British members, is anyone making a fuss that taxpayers are footing the bill for the thing?

I know Americans are not too thrilled when Obama spends billions for vacations, but I do realize he is not the same as having a royal family.

Just curiosity.

There is little point in “making fuss” it would just be seen as mean spirited. I think it is a waste of money. In truth if Cameron/Clegg were not wasting money here, it would be on something else. I find it ironic that money can be found for this indulgence when in in a few months many of “Her Majesty’s” loyal employees will be sacked. In my experience all politicians are guilty of wasting huge amounts of public money. Thatcher, Major were just as guilty as Blair, Brown and Cameron/Clegg.

The figures provided to the press on the cost of “The Royals” are provided by the Royal Household and are not independently audited. They are put forward in simple terms to justify the cost to the populace.

The suggestion that “The Royals” generate more in tourist revenue is made again to justify the cost. The fixed assets that tourists see do not belong personally to the Monarch and would remain long after their departure. What they own personally they keep to themselves.

Overall there is majority support for the Monarchy. The British are highly influenced by the press and the "Royals" provide constant content in all they do. I would go so far as to suggest that if on Saturday, after the wedding, the British people were given the choice to keep one of "The X Factor", "Strictly Come Dancing" or the Monarchy the outcry would not be "save the Monarchy" but why can't we keep both X Factor and Strictly!

If we did ever go for a Presidency, which in my opinion would be most unlikely, it would be on the US model. Many have suggested and criticised Blair for assuming that role. In my opinion an unsavoury President can be replaced after a fixed period. An unsavoury Monarch is for life and then replaced by their clone.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 AM ----------

The unwritten British constitution needs to evolve slowly as it has largely successfully since 1689. The last Labour government made many changes to the constitution in a way that was harmful. Being a member of the European Union is also harmful to our constitution.

We must not forget that we entered the EU under a Conservative administration. Only under the Government of Harold Wilson were people given an opportunity to express an opinion. Two thirds of the whole United Kingdom voted to remain within the EU. No politician, no matter how anti-Europe, has ever made any attempt to change our situation.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Phil - the British Population has never voted on the 'EU'. The vote was on a far scaled-back and smaller economic trading union. There would be nothing like two thirds suppport today for this crazy superstate with all its various arms.

I do think the Royal Family has moved with the times, performs many public duties and IS value for money even at double the estimated cost. They are a massive tourist attraction.

I see the 'Royal Wedding' as about far more than two Royal persons getting married. Well, one royal and one commoner who is so wealthy she must be in the top 1% of the population anyway. It is about national identity, some sort of pride and patriotism, which is all-too rare these days and has largely been trampled down by the liberal elite.

I'll be enjoying the whole thing, the carriages, the liveries, the flags, the buildings, the pomp and circumstance. As I've said before, nobody does it better. It is poignant and sad too. It is a reminder that God made this nation great. We ride on the coat-tails of an illustrious past.

 

[bookslover]

And - I guess Prince Charles will have a short reign. He's now 62. His mother turned 85 last week and is in good health. Poor Chuck.

 

[PhilA]

Phil - the British Population has never voted on the 'EU'. The vote was on a far scaled-back and smaller economic trading union. There would be nothing like two thirds suppport today for this crazy superstate with all its various arms.

The Question put was "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?". Of those voting (64.5% turnout) 67.2% voted yes including Margaret Thatcher.

I of course accept that the referendum was in relation to the EEC and not the EU. The point remains that IF it is so unpopular why have successive Governments (who are so swayed by popular issues) never done anything to get us out?

 

[JennyG]

Phil - the British Population has never voted on the 'EU'. The vote was on a far scaled-back and smaller economic trading union. There would be nothing like two thirds suppport today for this crazy superstate with all its various arms.

I do think the Royal Family has moved with the times, performs many public duties and IS value for money even at double the estimated cost. They are a massive tourist attraction.

I see the 'Royal Wedding' as about far more than two Royal persons getting married. Well, one royal and one commoner who is so wealthy she must be in the top 1% of the population anyway. It is about national identity, some sort of pride and patriotism, which is all-too rare these days and has largely been trampled down by the liberal elite.

I'll be enjoying the whole thing, the carriages, the liveries, the flags, the buildings, the pomp and circumstance. As I've said before, nobody does it better. It is poignant and sad too. It is a reminder that God made this nation great. We ride on the coat-tails of an illustrious past.