They win, by far.

rich cousins of Honey Boo Boo.

She can see any country on the planet and bag a moose from a Bell Jet Ranger.

Works out to about a dollar a year each.

Last poll whatever they've got c. 70 approval from the British public.

conduct its affairs WRT the royals need to just go pound sand.

I might be a little prickly about this as I have multiple lines of royal descent in my family, some as recent as Henry VII. They're FAMILY to me (I'm the family genealogist).

That one?

Guess you never lost any relatives in concentration camps.

But do you know anyone who would single handed walk up to six soldiers who were determined to beat down a man for being gay? One versus six, and he showed no fear. He stood up and did the right thing. He even showed genuine concern for and interest in that gay soldier. Treating him as equal as anyone else. Isn't that what we ask of everyone?

But focus on a stupid mistake he made once. Ignore all the good, and if you keep that up you can qualify as a Republican any day now.

Well, some of us don't think that dressing up like a Nazi is the least bit funny. And you can call me any names you want -- I've been a Dem probably longer than you've been alive, thanks very much.

Considering the mistakes I've made, I give everyone a pass for one stupid mistake where no one is harmed. Your feelings may have been hit, but he apologized. He hasn't done it since, and he has done a lot of good since. Do we write off a lifetimes of good works for one stupid mistake? If so, then none of us are worthy of praise, for we have all done something stupid in our past.

Fact that he was what, 16 at the time? I'm almost of an age with him, and I remember my mother saying something to the effect of "why the hell didn't someone give him an earful before he even left?" When that went down.

I agree with you, no, it wasn't funny or acceptable in the least. But no, it isn't something to judge his character on for the rest of his life--particularly when he's since grown up and demonstrated much better values and beliefs.

Are you going to hold this one incident against him for the rest of his life?
My god, I hope you were never less than perfect your entire life.

He was all grown up when he made these remarks:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/prince-harry-compares-war-to-playstation-and-taliban-is-not-amused/

He claims he has actually killed human beings in this manner, and he still likens it to a video game. That makes him one sick fuck.

As for the gay rescue story, you have to be VERY naive to believe that one. That is almost certainly a carefully crafted PR damage control type deal -- and it conveniently came along when Harry desperately needed some good press.

every day, by the m(b?)illions.

which we know nothing of.

for people suffering from AIDS. Sure there have been jerk-wads in the past (there are in my family too) but some of Elizabeth's descendants have done seriously good work that many here unfairly disparage.

But actually deride with malice.

In later interviews she was quite explicit about her feelings and there's no denying they treated her horribly.

Diana gave every indication of being a good and compassionate person, so of course she did not fit in with that loathsome bunch.

patient when many people were largely ignorant about the disease, thinking any kind of contact would be contagious. Diana knew better and it was nice to see.

Prince Charles' environmentalism doesn't mean much when he doesn't oppose the fox hunt. And there are also issues with tax avoidence and his massive land holdings. The really odious thing about the monarchy is the in your face class system it perpetuates.

It's a lot easier to be charitable and do the right thing when it doesn't cost you much: sit on the boards of charities (easier if you don't have a day job), make PR tours of hospitals, campaign against wind power when it blocks your view....I do not know any of the people involved, and as far as I know they may be genuinely kind and decent human beings, but I don't give people too much credit for a home run when they start out at 3rd base (to mix my metaphors a bit). Who is a better person: the one with uncountable wealth who donates several hundred thousand pounds a year that amount to pocket change for him (and because he's had the concept of noblesse oblige pounded into him since birth) or the one who volunteers a couple of hours of his scant free time at a food bank?

Some ethical traditions teach that Tzedaka (charity/alms to those of Christian tradition, but literally Justice in Jewish tradition) is not a free gift that soothe the conscience of the giver, but a religious necessity and a form of self-taxation. Giving gifts, loans and to charity is one's moral obligation and the recipient of Tzedaka has a moral right to aid. Those who fail to give are, by some measures, stealing from those who are in need and denying justice. In that tradition, a large, begrudged gift is of greater moral value because one has fulfilled the whole of one's obligation and the action matters more than the content of the heart.

Noblesse oblige operates on a similar principle. One gives and shares of one's prosperity and privilege because prosperity and privilege incur moral obligation and great responsibility.

Do all aristocrats operate from that principle? No, but neither do most people. The difference is not the content of the intention, but the degree of the action. The hospital that is founded out of a sense of obligation is still founded, still healing the sick.

Not yet banned, but probably not far from it. Britain has a carbon tax, thanks in part to Charles. Britain is moving away from coal, using renewables in its place. Now can we say that we are superior? We have no carbon tax, coal running amok.

They have fox hunting, while we do much the same with Raccoons. I still don't see how the Royals are a negative by any of these metrics.

Charles paid just 23.6 per cent of his income in direct and indirect tax, compared with an average of 38 per cent paid by the poorest quarter of the population.

Describing the Duchy of Cornwall, which owns land across the South West and provides Charles with his income as heir to the throne, as a ‘medieval anomaly’, Mr Mitchell suggested the only reason it was not registered as a company was so the Prince could avoid tax.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364231/Prince-Charles-paying-lower-rate-tax-servants.html#ixzz2Zoldr4GN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

or fox hunting in general because that is illegal. In Scotland it happened in 2002, England and Wales in 2004.

There are many things to object to about the British monarchy, but you can't fault them for lacking either courage or noblesse oblige.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_The_Queen_Mother

During World War II, the King and Queen became symbols of the fight against fascism.[68] Shortly after the declaration of war, The Queen's Book of the Red Cross was conceived. Fifty authors and artists contributed to the book, which was fronted by Cecil Beaton's portrait of the Queen and was sold in aid of the Red Cross.[69] Elizabeth publicly refused to leave London or send the children to Canada, even during the Blitz, when she was advised by the Cabinet to do so. She declared, "The children won't go without me. I won't leave the King. And the King will never leave."[70]

She visited troops, hospitals, factories, and parts of Britain that were targeted by the German Luftwaffe, in particular the East End, near London's docks. Her visits initially provoked hostility; rubbish was thrown at her and the crowds jeered,[6] in part because she wore expensive clothes that served to alienate her from people suffering the deprivations of war. She explained that if the public came to see her they would wear their best clothes, so she should reciprocate in kind; Norman Hartnell dressed her in gentle colours and avoided black to represent "the rainbow of hope".[71] When Buckingham Palace itself took several hits during the height of the bombing, Elizabeth was able to say, "I'm glad we've been bombed. It makes me feel I can look the East End in the face."[72]

Though the King and Queen spent the working day at Buckingham Palace, partly for security and family reasons they stayed at night at Windsor Castle about 20 miles (32 km) west of central London with the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. The Palace had lost much of its staff to the army, and most of the rooms were shut.[73] The windows were shattered by bomb blasts, and had to be boarded up.[74] During the "Phoney War" the Queen was given revolver training because of fears of imminent invasion.[75]

If they're not actually passing laws or chopping heads off I'm more inclined to view them as a quirky national institution rather than anything else.

I'd have trouble justifying my own tax dollars going for something like that, but all things being equal it's probably preferable to some of the idiotic shit we pay for.

If we could, somehow, exchange a goofy royal family for our $60 billion a year drug war or "abstinence only" education, I'd take that deal.

And frankly, when you make that comparison, I think we come out with the short end of the stick. One classy, kind, charitable, well-behaved Duchess Kate is worth 10 trashy, dumb, fame-whoring Kardashians or Courtney Stoddards who didn't do one ounce more real work to earn their moment in the spotlight than she did (and probably less).

JMO. YMMV.

What's more entertaining than yesterday's hero on crack?

Do our political leaders encourage their children to join the military? Remember Harry went to Sandhurst, the British West Point and took his commission and went to combat. Do we see any kids of any President doing that? Joe Biden's boy is the Nation Guard, the JAG corps. Honorable, sure, but not front line combat. Who else has skin in the game?

Do you see the Bush twins signing up? Or how about the Obama girls?

Our celebrities and politicians get all of the fame and fortune without any of the responsibilities (e.g., noblesse oblige, being right there with the little people defending their country when it needs to be defended). I'd rather have the British royal family any day than any of the draft-dodging, "I got mine" Bushes.

I don't give a shit what past "royals" did. If they don't abdicate their farce of nobility and stop sponging off their country just because of who they were born to or married then the hell with them. The whole concept of being ordained by God as above even the law and born to govern no matter how stupid or corrupt or insane is revolting. It is particularly revolting to embrace such a thing in this day and age.

Past royalty deserves no credit whatsoever. They governed due to the ridiculous concept of being ordained by God through birth to do so, claimed their nobility made them immune from the law no matter what they did or didn't do and they regularly killed and imprisoned people who simply annoyed them and called it treason.

Fuck royalty and the goat it road in on.

tourism revenue and they bring in a ton. They more than pay for themselves with the amount they bring in. Seeing as how they don't throw their weight around anymore by making unreasonable laws, forcing religion, being judge, jury and executioner and collecting taxes well and above their "worth", they are just largely window dressing. They provide money and jobs to those living there. They'd be stupid to throw that meal ticket away.

The artwork in Buckingham Palace alone far outstrips "royal tourism". Without the royals there would still be tourism anyway. Nobody goes to Britain just in the hope of catching a glimpse of any "nobility," they go to see the changing of the guard, the palaces, etc. Getting rid of royalty hardly means they get to take it all with them. All that stuff should go back into the country's coffers where it belongs. And not just the immediate family but all the other "nobility" of dukes and duchesses and all the rest. The royals themselves don't bring in a dime to the country, and they cost the country far more than they're worth with all their luxurious living, security, travel, etc., etc.

that is a real right wingnut stance to take, considering Republicans in Britain are largely against the monarchy and have been trying to oust them for years because they claim they are such a drain on the treasury. It's not going to happen. They are an attraction in Britain whether you choose to believe that or not. People go there in droves whenever anything happens in that family. I lived amongst it, I didn't just pull that out of thin air.

Believe what you like, I don't care

eff 'em

Say what you want about the Kardashians here, but at least the US taxpayer doesn't pay that family ~$50 million a year for living expenses.

It takes some ungodly sum just to pay for all their palaces. I mean, our rich people get an unhealthy amount of tax breaks too. I see no real difference.

And Prince Charles is an idiot. He is a purveyor of woo in the highest order (homeopathy, alternative "medicine" and all that bullshit). So he is complete waste of space.

While the younger ones might be decent folks, the problem is that they are part of a system of entitlement that shouldn't exist.

something about the Royals. England is a great country, I used to live there, but as far as tourist attractions go, they don't have much, but the Royals bring in the most tourist revenue than anything else. They bring in anywhere between several hundred million pounds and into the billions, most especially if there is a royal wedding, birth or death. They bring in a staggering amount above what they are paid.

Things are different now and the roles have reversed. The royals are the cash cow for England now, not the other way around as was traditionally.

the 1%ers would have been out of there PRONTO

Every week at the palace even during the Blitz. Churchill wrote that he was amazed that the King read every memo, and could recall each subject and would ask good questions.

What I don't understand is the arrogance of my countrymen who demand other nations give up the political system that works and is popular with the people.

helping ground her sons and making them aware of their fortune compared to the rest of the world.

I don't hate or resent them; I'm far more annoyed by the latest generation of overpaid, under-talented, classless and/or clueless American "celebrities".

I can understand Americans not caring, he's not going to be your head of state someday, but I don't get the need to spoil our fun.

Some here are not happy unless they are raining on somebody's parade. The bitterness I've seen on this forum since I joined is astounding.

Ignore them. They'll soon get bored and find something else to rain on.

Congrats on the new heir!

It's their country, and most Britons support the monarchy. Good post.

The way the British choose to govern themselves or maintain a royal family. I hope they are all happy.

Excellent post and replies.

Some rich/powerful/famous get it here in the US. But many wealthy Repubs do not.
Their attitude is more "I got mine, go get your own". They feel no responsibility--
because of their wealth and privilege--to care for those less fortunate, either
by birth or circumstance.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige