I often do - by choice -but not always

which is abhorrent.

that royalty is abhorrent to YOU. I could give a shit. There are a lot more things that are a lot more important.

Not to mention the multi-million dollar industry of royal souvenirs. My relatives buy this crap like it was an original Van Gogh.
Spoons, plates, photos...

It's like this in almost every Commonwealth country. Well, maybe not Australia.

There is no basis for this oft-repeated superstition in the actual numbers of visitors to UK tourist sites.

Now, Buckingham Palace as a Museum of the Former Royalty -- THAT would bring in tourists.

Anyone outside the US who criticized Reagan had no standing to do so!

You are wrong.

If a country espouses an essentially racist ideology that holds some people to be rulers by virtue of nothing other than birth, and if this country has also spent most of the last four centuries fucking over dozens of other countries on the planet while claiming that this entity is the head of an empire, then everyone on said planet has a right to an opinion.

Chop'em!

Scots 41%, Welsh 35%, and English 80%
Find any pride in the Queen according to a poll in April


Note: this may show that many non-English are simply indifferent to it all. Rather than it translating into support for or against a republic.

that all that money is being expended on the jubilee, given how much many are suffering (and likely more if Greece defaults).

But, then again, I fume at the gazillions being spent on the upcoming elections, when our own are suffering. Not to mention the taxpayer contributions for the conventions.

So, there you go. We the little people will always be shafted, no matter what.

The government decided we were going to have massive celebrations and the Queen has little choice but to go along with it. Besides, we would have been getting austerity no matter what, Cameron has made that very clear.

they're really trickling it down to the masses. So that is a good thing. However much you may disapprove of how they spend it, it still is making its way to the little people through the medium people. So the more costly elections become, the better.

That they spend it to buy elections is a bad thing, unless someone who can't be bought accidentally gets elected. But that is a different discussion.

Lib Dems decision to institute austerity.

I'm sure you know that.

must, so should they along with the UK Government.

Since Jamaica along with Canada are British Commonwealth countries, we do have concerns about Royal spending.

The Jubilee celebrations are entirely controlled by the government. Also, the two have nothing to do with each other. Cameron has made it plain that we were going to get austerity no matter what. It wouldn't have mattered if the country was rolling in cash, Cameron would still have taken the whip to the poor and sick.

death warrant if was appropriately passed by Parliament. She has no power.

Of course, it would cause a constitutional crisis because the veto hasn't been used in centuries and the Parliament Acts have been passed since then but, in theory, she'd be able to stave off the execution for a few days.

But you've got to get a belly full of wine.

Oh, yeah!

and Kate's hot.

Whether there is a queen or not, we are clearly not all equal.

The Queen, however, is a unifying national symbol, and thus worth the expense. America could probably use a unifying national symbol. We have, of course, the Flag, the SSB, the Constitution, the Declaration, and the MIC, but there is no one person, or one family for us all to rally around.

We have the President too, but in an average year, there are many who do not support the President, in fact, who hate the President in spite of, or because of (they would say), their love of their country. Unity is important, because civil wars are very destructive.

. . . for maintaining a separation between the notion of "state" and the notion of "government." In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch functions as head of state, but not head of government. Our presidents effectively serve in both roles.

daughter in law as a commoner unite anything or anyone?

Please

one would say "fuck you too". Up the arse, actually.

Welcome to DU, your Majesty!

Post should be written as:

We would say "fuck you too". Up the arse, actually.

Well, then...perhaps she'll abdicate soon, or be deposed, perhaps.

Perhaps Wallis will be along soon? You never know who may show up on DU!

she aint no 'uman beeeen.

Better than 'Off With Her Head,' LOL.

These two footmen will show you to the door now. If we may be of future service to you, don't hesitate to ring.

I am, as always, your obedient servant,

MineralMan

By appointment to the Royal Household

Anyway, nice to see ya.

That's 'we'

Your Grace.

especially as applied to Prince Harry. Can I have him, Mum?

I look forward to further insights with eager anticipation!

Spain has a king. Thailand has a king. Morocco has a king. Saudi has a king. The Netherlands has a queen. Denmark has a queen. Norway has a king. Sweden has a king.

What gives us the right to sit in judgement of their governments, or their royalty. We certainly have royalty of our own - perhaps not officially kings or queens, but recognized as such.

We are the so called 'common people' to these folks.
They call us the free loaders when they are real freeloaders on the planet.

Democracies are always under threat because of these people.

don't think there's a class system in the U.S.? Really?

Did you ever notice that the first thing they say about American Presidents is who is a descendant of the British free loaders in their gaudy castles (which are filled which as much loot as any tinpot dictator's mansion).

Do you think rich Americans buy all those old aristocratic castles in Britain without hoping for some of the pretentious class shit to rub off just a little bit.

What makes you think you know anything about my country?

Of all the things that contribute toward our class-system - wealth, ivy-league education, ancestry, power - this OPer decides to put it onto your Monarchy.

btw - I cannot remember the last time our media has reported one of our presidential candidates has ties to your royalty. All family backgrounds are scrutinized and reported - to include a British royalty ties if they apply.

Class systems appear all over the place for all sorts of reasons...

By giving them a title, they would become a target instead of being able to hide behind faceless international corporations.

It appears that humans are very much in love with blaming others for trouble, no matter what the issue is. And we love to have someone to adore that doesn't know us while turning a cold heart closest to us, like our neighbor. How strange human beings are with who they choose to love, not even realizing that is a choice.

As long as we continue to attack each other, we'll have rulers.

The Queen is our head of state. You insult ours, I insult yours.

My head of state is a governor general representing some Briisth freeloaders

It's ridiculous

Why do we attack dictators for their mansions are celevrate these gawd awful castles built on stolen land.

But, oh well.

Say, did you notice? Her Majesty herself is just upthread.

I intend to bet heavily on Fergie.

Of course I hear the showstopper will be Princess Di via hologram.

(sorry, that was very wrong... so very wrong...)

on ABC - I'm really anti-royal...period - all of them - everywhere.

I don't particularly, though I don't feel called upon to condemn or disparage other cultures for it or interfere in their business.

A "Revolution" that would require the silence, forcible re-education, or elimination of the majority of people living is not one I'm interested in.

They abandoned that crap ages ago

...and Napoleon was worse than most kings. But in fairness you do have a point, and French culture did slowly evolve toward their ideal of liberte, egalite, fraternite - more so than has ours.

I don't think that would have worked out well in either case if imposed from outside, so our opinions about the lack of social development of our neighbors serve little purpose.

You are wise.

Or so I've been told.

People from around the world go to see Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London (will we be lopping off 'eads today Your Majesty?) and all of the other royal pomp and circumstance. It's as if Disney World had an "Englandland" exhibit.

That turned out well for Russia, didn't it?

LOL

Abolishing the monarchy was one of the few things the Bolsheviks did right. I don't necessary agree with the execution of the royal family. They should have been exiled to some other country. I'm sure there are plenty that would have been willing to take them, but the abolition of the monarchy was a progressive thing.

100% correct

even though the majority of people in THEIR country support them?

There'd be the measure of your "against".

I kind of agree when I behold their bloated lifestyle on one side while they shake a tin cup for taxpayer subsidies on the other.

Maybe they should liquidate some land holdings or pawn a couple of "granny's chips" to pay their own way. It's kind of funny to see some of the arguments here justifying the concept of monarchy as a paid tourist attraction which offsets it's own subsidy with tourist revenue.

It seems the main argument for royalty is becoming like our own case for taxpayer backed billion dollar football stadiums. Both provide entertainment and distraction at the expense of education, healthcare and infrastructure. Both of them are ridiculous on the face of it. You've got to wonder if the queen wakes up in the morning and says 'I wonder if this is the day they'll all realize how absurd this is?' I bet she does.

In the UK they've discussed the idea of "downsizing" monarchy so why not let the invisible hand of the market dictate the scale?

People who support the monarchy usually have no argument with free market principles so why not combine those two values and find a way to help the queen free herself from her addiction to public funds? She can downsize her estates to trim expenses and when her revenue equals her budget the problem is solved!

People who support the monarchy usually have no argument with free market principles so why not combine those two values and find a way to help the queen free herself from her addiction to public funds? She can downsize her estates to trim expenses and when her revenue equals her budget the problem is solved!

Most of the younger Brits could give two shits about the royals..the older generation seem to carrying the fascination with the royals..

There are people in every generation who like and dislike royalty - right now there are a lot of younger Brits (and non-Brits) who love the Will and Kate thing, so I don't think the royalty will fade away soon.

She wears the most wonderful hats. She's a cute little old lady. I would have a beer with her.

me the whole world. Life in a fish bowl ... no amount of goods or services could make up for that living hell. They bring in mucho tourist bucks, which in the end helps the average guy. It's up to the Brits, they pay the queen for the job she does and if they don't like it it's up to them to "fire" her and her family.

As the Queen prepares to celebrate her diamond jubilee, the royal family is enjoying record popularity, but things could get a good deal more complicated after she leaves the scene, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll.

Britain would be worse off without the monarchy say 69% of respondents, while of 22% say the country would be better off. This 47-point royalist margin is the largest chalked up on any of the 12 occasions since 1997 on which ICM has previously asked the question.

Pro-royal feeling is spread remarkably equally among the social classes, and across the regions of England and Wales. It is less marked in Scotland – where 36% say the country would be better off without the Windsors – but even there a solid 50% feel the opposite way. Support is stronger among the older, and especially among Conservative voters, in whose ranks it reaches 82%. But across every age group and among Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters alike, the monarchy is enjoying solid support.

But if "long to reign over us" is the diamond jubilee sentiment, that could be partly out of nervousness about what is coming next. When voters were asked what should happen when the Queen dies or if she abdicates, they remain resolutely anti-republican, with just 10% saying Britain should elect a head of state instead of having a new monarch. But if there is support for the hereditary principle, there is much less for what it means in practice. Only 39% want the crown to pass to Prince Charles in line with the succession; 48% who want it to skip a generation and pass straight to Prince William.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support

is that any of the associated countries have the ability either cease to have the Queen as head of state or completely leave the Commonwealth but currently chose not to do so.

What's happening now in Jamaica on that subject in general ? They did mention change a while back.

btw - I was the Atlantic side of Cuba only this year so couldn't wave to you.

Your Parliament is supreme whereas our Constitution is supreme and it will require a referendum. My view is that when your Head of State's government starts charging you big money for a visa, it's time to say goodbye.

Guy gets a free pass to do anything he wants to because he's Di's son.

History and tradition. That is more what it is about, and keeping it. Everyone is going to know who inherited the Crown no matter what. It may not be taxpayer money they live off, since their ancestors owned a lot of land. But the government there is elected, so it's their choice. We keep a jet just for the President to fly around in.

That's just Liz. And yes, it is from tax payer money.

I always understood they were independently wealthy. Which would make sense, as their ancestors have owned the land since the middle ages. Maybe the government keeps up some of the castles, but they are also historical. And they could always vote to cease doing so.

it's from the profits from the Crown Estate (the properties owned by the Crown), which were transferred to Parliament by George III in exchange for an annual payment from the Civil List (the Crown Estate's profits for last year were £231 million after expenditures on a property portfolio valued at £7 billion).

[link:|

Then I moved to Minnesota. Uff da! Now I have to scoff at the Twins. They suck this year, big time.

DUzy

She's OK.

what exactly do they mean?
I mean they are just ordinary human beings? Who the fuck are they to divide society into 'them' and we lowly commoners.
I hate this shit. They divide and rule in perpetuity.

Just as the stars and stripes is a symbol of the United States. Also, they dont rule, that's Parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/27/forget-queens-jubilee-kneesup-magna-carta
<snip>
The glossy newspaper supplements are out, the BBC (supposedly a hotbed of subversive lefties) is preparing wall-to-wall coverage, MPs are going on holiday for two weeks, the populace is ready to put out the flags and the picnic tables. In an orgy of deference, we are celebrating Elizabeth II's 60 years on the throne. If any other country were paying homage to an unelected head of state in this way, while the living standards of the majority of the population fall and schools and hospitals struggle with diminishing resources, we would call it "the cult of the personality" and probably think about invading.

It is on this ground that republicans may find some purchase. A monarchy, particularly a slimmed-down Scandinavian version, may be just about tolerable, provided our public life asserts the primacy of democracy. Why should MPs not swear an oath to serve their constituents honestly and diligently and, as required of foreigners seeking British citizenship, to respect the country's "rights and freedoms" and to "uphold its democratic values"? Why should the pledge not be made in the MP's own constituency before a JP and a randomly selected audience of, say, 500? Why should the pledge not be annually renewed and the MP required to account to constituents on the same occasion? All this, away from the flummery involved in the Queen opening parliament, might remind MPs of their true responsibilities.

Again, we hold an annual celebration of monarchy – the trooping of the colour – but no equivalent celebration of democracy. We hold street parties to celebrate the landmarks of the monarch's life – coronations, jubilees, weddings of anyone in the direct line of succession – but not to mark the major events on the British road to a (partially) democratic constitution. Does anybody recall a knees-up to mark the 100th anniversary of the 1884 Reform Act, which extended the vote to a majority of adult males? Or for the 300th anniversary of the Glorious Revolution, marking the overthrow of a despotic monarch?

Monarchy, we are told, is merely a symbol. When MPs and judges pledge allegiance to the Queen, they are really pledging allegiance to Britain's history, traditions and way of life. When people hold street parties they are, according to the Daily Mail, engaged in "a glorious affirmation of Britishness". If so, we should think more about what monarchy actually symbolises: hierarchy, hereditary privilege, deference, feudalism, unearned wealth, militarism (the armed services being just about the only profession in which the royals seek serious employment). Democracy has a better story to tell. Republicans should help us develop symbols for its celebration. They may not immediately displace the royal symbols but, in time, people will come to love them more.
-----------------
Could not say it better

You and Wilby agree, do you?

"Neeeeeer, I don't like the Queen."

I'm beginning to think you're secretly jealous.

You and Wilby may wish to pretend that there is some of peculiar contest between democracy and the British royalty. I don't really know why. You don't seem to know very much about the UK. It already has a democratically elected Parliament. You want to celebrate Magna Carta - super duper! Knock yourself out.

Perhaps you feel powerless to change the disgraceful mess of your own country's laughable "democratic" system? And you think it's somehow the fault of Queen Elizabeth II?

I knew a lot of people like you when I was young, mostly trendy lefties who ditched their opinions as soon as it became awkward to hold them and a high salary simultaneously. It's not particularly difficult to say "fuck the Queen", is it?

For the record I've never ditched me opinions and I still say fuck the queen and every other royal on the planet.

The British Monarchy is a symbol of traditional Britain. As an American, I oppose anything the represents traditional Britain (or anything else which is a relic of the old world)

Monarchy is something I oppose. Still it is the right of Britain to have one if they desire.
Though, I would never bow to a monarch if I met one. Afterall, I am not a subject of theirs.

I don't think we're in a position to be judging other nations for spending taxpayer money in an irrational manner.