A Question for the British People

Throughout my lifetime, the 70s, 80s and 90s - the general publics feeling towards the royal family was one of from mild disinterest to outright hatred and calls for them to be removed, which reached it's height post-death of Diana.

Since then, the royal family have done a great PR job of softening their image to where the general mood is now one of mild disinterest to brow-beating of anyone who still holds to the previous hatred/dislike of them. The Queens recent anniversary, rose-tinted movies about them and the recent wedding kerfuffle have all worked to give them a false image of being benign celebrities.

The analogy of Hollywood celebrity and royalty is not quite accurate, though I see the point. There is a lot of white-washing of their actual function, that people, especially young people who only know them post-Diana, don't really understand what their real public roles are and see them just as passive heads of state - which is quite inaccurate, but this image is portrayed in the media.

Public opinion swings back and forth, so don't be fooled by the recent good PR - The British public are not fools, and the royals are tolerated, not enjoyed.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by something wicked

 

Iain Duncan Smith, formerly leader of the Conservatives - Catholic
Charles Kennedy, formerly leader of the Liberal Democrats - Catholic

Both could have become Prime Minister and they are but two examples.

But neither of them actually were Prime Minister - and if the truth is told neither of them had any realistic chance of becoming so.

As usual Freeborn, an interesting observation, but if two political parties elected to have Catholics as their leaders then they didn't do so with the specific intention of not getting into government did they? Although I'll admit I've used the internet as my reference source, there isn't a 'law' around this other than the...

Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, sect. 17, and the Jews' Relief Act of 1858, sec 4, no Roman Catholic or Jew may advise the sovereign on ecclesiastical matters. Were the prime minister to be a Roman Catholic or a Jew and alternate system of ecclesiastical appointment would have to be devised.

wiki.answers.com...

Which technically doesn't prohibit a Catholic being Prime Minister (or someone who is Jewish), but prohibits them from a particular activity. I'm assuming only Catholics and Jewish faiths were pinpointed as at the time other faiths did not have large enough representation within the UK.

reply to post by VelvetSplash


Velvet Splash,

Can you explain the duties (briefly) of the Royal Family?

I know the princes serve in the military, which is a good thing. But what other functions does the Royal Family serve?

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by VelvetSplash

 

Velvet Splash,

Can you explain the duties (briefly) of the Royal Family?

I know the princes serve in the military, which is a good thing. But what other functions does the Royal Family serve?

Hi, I'm sure Velvet Splash will come back as usual with a well thought out, eloquent response, but can I point you to the official site which may assist you a little with that...

www.royal.gov.uk...

And also the Duke of Edinburgh Awards site, a charity/foundation which for many people has turned their life completely around...

www.dofe.org...

reply to post by something wicked

..... but if two political parties elected to have Catholics as their leaders then they didn't do so with the specific intention of not getting into government did they?

Iain Duncan Smith was only ever viewed as a temporary, stop gap leader whilst The Conservative Party carried out the necessary reforms / cull etc to make itself electable.
He was ditched pretty sharpish as it was thought The Tories were unelectable with him as leader.

Charles Kennedy never had a hope in hell of becoming Prime Minister and his party never had a whiff of power until they sold their soul to the devil and entered into this coalition.

Although I'll admit I've used the internet as my reference source, there isn't a 'law' around this other than the...

You are quite correct, there is no 'law' prohibiting a Catholic from becoming Prime Minister - it's just never happened and never will for the foreseeable future.

I'm assuming only Catholics and Jewish faiths were pinpointed as at the time other faiths did not have large enough representation within the UK.

I suspect you're probably right there - but Jews aren't specifically mentioned in the Line Of Succession and imagine the uproar if this law was updated to include Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs etc.

To be fair, I think there are far more urgent issues that need addressing - it would be one of those 'other' things I would put right whilst reforming the whole electoral / parliamentary procedure.

And to be brutally honest, the vast majority of British Catholics probably aren't even aware of it and those that are couldn't really give a toss - they are far too concerned with just living their lives the same as anyone else and getting by the best they can given current circumstances.

reply to post by smyleegrl


First I dont see myself as a British citizen, I am Scottish. I can only speak for myself but I personally have no time for the royals and if I could they would lose all the money they get each year and there stolen and illgotten gains.

People forget the the Monarchy has only in the last 100 years or so stopped enforcing there will on the people. Also in the UK there are some bizzare laws that still the monarchy sticks to like the mines royal act. Essentailly it means the crown owns all the precious metal in Britian and you need a royal permit to dig for gold and silver even to pan for gold you should get one.

The treasure trove law which states that anything found in the ground over 300 years old thats considered precious automatically belongs to the crown but they do have to pay a finders fee.

I could go on but to lastly point out all kings and queens started with the most violent bloke/women decraling themself king or queen and killing anyone that did not agree. The whole system is built on death and destruction.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by pavmas

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by pavmas

 

Okay, I understand now. Thank you for clarifying.

Although I knew the Queen was the head of the Church of England, I did not know that Catholics were still discriminated against.

Please believe me when I say that I meant no disrespect to you.

No disrespect taken, in fact just last week the church says just how important it is for this discrimination to continue
www.telegraph.co.uk...

That isn't discrimination towards Catholics on the whole now is it? Church of England saying a future monarch shouldn't be Catholic and you believe that is a direct discrimination against YOU? It's making a point about that particular religion being at risk of losing any further credibility if the monarch is not a member of their faith, sheesh, I think you are looking for reasons to be offended, and yes, I am Catholic and no I do not feel I am subject to any discrimination whatsoever.

It certainly is deliberate discrimination towards catholics. That is why they brought the Hanover monarchs in and not the Scottish King - James son Bonny Prince Charlie.

That is why they had the act of settlement of 1701 which directly forbade a catholic monarch - this all started with Henry the 8th who changed his religion from catholic to protestant in order to divorce, then his daughter queen Mary changed the country back to Catholic and then Elizabeth the 1st changed the country back to protestant.

So the catholics were then seen as a threat. A primeminister of Britain is not allowed to be a catholic - by law.

Like many issues in the UK the question of the Monarchy divides opinion. Some people think they are the best thing since sliced bread, others hate them with a passion and think they should go away and never come back again.

My own personal opinion is that they do more good than harm and now recognise that they need to continue to earn their status as Royals.

Before making a judgement it's worth taking a quick look at what a typical day in the Queen's life involves.

www.royal.gov.uk...

I won't paste the entire contents but here are a few snippets:

The Queen will then see, separately, two of her Private Secretaries with the daily quota of official papers and documents. This process takes upwards of an hour.

Every day of every year, wherever she is, The Queen receives from government ministers, and from her representatives in the Commonwealth and foreign countries, information in the form of policy papers, Cabinet documents, telegrams, letters and other State papers.

These are sent up to her by the Private Secretaries in the famous 'red boxes'. All of these papers have to be read and, where necessary, approved and signed.

A series of official meetings or 'audiences' will often follow. The Queen will see a number of important people.

These include overseas ambassadors and high commissioners, newly appointed British ambassadors, senior members of the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces on their appointment and retirement, and English bishops and judges on their appointment.

Each meeting usually lasts 10 to 20 minutes, and usually The Queen and her visitor meet alone.

The Queen carries out around 430 engagements (including audiences) a year, to meet people, open events and buildings, unveil plaques and make speeches.

Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).

At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings, written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always reads this the same evening.

The Queen in particular is an extremely busy woman, especially for someone of her age (86).

I would encourage anyone interested to do a bit of research and find out what the Royal Family actually do, you may be surprised. They certainly deserve our respect a lot more than most politicians.

There has been a reigning Monarch, almost without pause, since 927AD. In 1707 the Kingdom of Great Britain was born from the union of England and Scotland and we had a British Monarch which is what the Royal Family is today (more or less).

I think this is something to be proud of. Not all English or British Kings and Queens have been shining examples of humanity but they have brought consistency and success to their people for centuries. At the very least the history is fascinating and I think it would be a shame if we ended that history.

If after looking at all the facts you decide you don't want them, that's your view, but in my humble opinion so many of the people who dislike them really know know nothing about them other than they were born into more wealth than they were.

Sounds like tax payer welfare

reply to post by smyleegrl


Plain and simple, I hate them.

You will get plenty of conservatives who will tell you the hate people have for the monarchy is unfounded. Well not if you're Irish and not if you pay their wages and keep them in luxury whilst struggling hard to put food on the table.

Prince Philip is the worst one. He is consistently racist, has ties to the SS (very strong ones) yet our joke of a media service always refer to him, at most, as bit close to the bone with his comments. He is a racist and has proved this many times. His grandson, that moron prince Harry, even dressed up as a Nazi for a fancy dress party and was photographed doing so! What more can you show to people to see them for what they are?

reply to post by smyleegrl


Hi, i am British, well in fact English and the answer to your question is that myself and possibly millions more absolutely despise the royal family and their hangers on. For centuries all they have done is murder, bully,intimidate and steal money off people , they are just legalized criminals, just as simple as that. This is why i just can not get my head around peoples pathetic mentality thinking that they are fantastic, " oh they bring in torism" , " oh they work so hard" " oh the queen is so sweet and lovely". Just get a f---in grip you nieve idiots, the royals and all the aristocracy could not give an absolute toss about us peasants and are wellbeing as long as we do as we are told and dont question why we are all being fleeced for are money every week to pay for the upkeep of their many castles and other homes all over Britian. Also for their extravagant lifestyle with obviously the finest of foods and so on, all this mounts up to billions of pounds over so many years.The unemployment in Britian is really high, and the amount of youth unemployment is considerably the highest for years,and poverty is getting more and more worse,but as long as they get their luxeries and get their arses wiped for them well then thats ok is in it. I could go on and on for hours about them but i will end up boring you, by the way on a more less serious point i just like to state that probably 95% of English people do not talk or sound remotely like those posh pompus pr---s, we all have regional accents like cockney, jordie, scouse , brumie, cornish/devon, manchunion, yorkshire, lancashire , and you probably would not understand a hell of a lot of what we are saying, but i would much rather sound like a peasant than a posh aristocratic t--t , i hope that might give you a little insight into a normal British persons thoughts!!!!

Originally posted by koosty68
reply to post by smyleegrl

 

Hi, i am British, well in fact English and the answer to your question is that myself and possibly millions more absolutely despise the royal family and their hangers on. For centuries all they have done is murder, bully,intimidate and steal money off people , they are just legalized criminals, just as simple as that. This is why i just can not get my head around peoples pathetic mentality thinking that they are fantastic, " oh they bring in torism" , " oh they work so hard" " oh the queen is so sweet and lovely". Just get a f---in grip you nieve idiots, the royals and all the aristocracy could not give an absolute toss about us peasants and are wellbeing as long as we do as we are told and dont question why we are all being fleeced for are money every week to pay for the upkeep of their many castles and other homes all over Britian. Also for their extravagant lifestyle with obviously the finest of foods and so on, all this mounts up to billions of pounds over so many years.The unemployment in Britian is really high, and the amount of youth unemployment is considerably the highest for years,and poverty is getting more and more worse,but as long as they get their luxeries and get their arses wiped for them well then thats ok is in it. I could go on and on for hours about them but i will end up boring you, by the way on a more less serious point i just like to state that probably 95% of English people do not talk or sound remotely like those posh pompus pr---s, we all have regional accents like cockney, jordie, scouse , brumie, cornish/devon, manchunion, yorkshire, lancashire , and you probably would not understand a hell of a lot of what we are saying, but i would much rather sound like a peasant than a posh aristocratic t--t , i hope that might give you a little insight into a normal British persons thoughts!!!!

Did you join to make that comment? Welcome to ATS. I probably spend more of my tax money a month on your unemployment/student benefit than I will on the Royal Family in a year. Can you please back up any of the comments you have made OR........... take another look at what ATS is about, denying ignorance not throwing in opinion without fact.

That's from a really normal person who knows what a paragraph is.

ETA: In case you don't realise, I obviously don't pay for your personal benefit directly, I was being metaphorical, If you look at the actual figures, the Royal Family bring in more revenue than they cost, particularly considering how limited the civil list is, and the amount paid back in tax.

Furthermore, when you look to justify your rant, please look at the Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme and how it has directly led to employment for many by providing new skills and outlets for people who otherwise may not have had other opportunities.

I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level, she seems like a decent enough person. However I have no time for the Monarchy, and I don't think this feeling is unique to ATS users as has been suggested earlier. I don't know anyone who would care if the Royal family ceased to exist tomorrow.

The media attention and hype surrounding the Jubilee 'celebrations' was absurd. As a previous poster has already said, I would have had far more respect for them if the Queen had just given a speech to mark the occasion rather than spending so much money on ridiculous parades, especially when every part of the UK is feeling the pinch. The media tried to promote the idea that this was something the country was celebrating as a whole. In reality, there were by little applications to have street parties!

I don't buy into the assertion that they bring in millions of £'s through tourism, certainly not outwith London. Besides, London has far more or offer than a trip to Buckingham Palace!

The Royals have probably seen an increase in popularity due to the maddening craze for anything 'celebrity' in the UK at the moment. But there is very little substance to it. People want to read about what Kate is wearing, or what trouble Harry has got himself into. I don't think there's much interest in them apart from that.

Ultimately, they are very privileged people leading very privileged lives. If they are going to continue with the charade of approving governments then perhaps, as head of State, they should also denounce their own discrimination against Catholicism for that is what it is. All the pomp and ceremony cannot hide that fact.

Look up Stone of Destiny. It was apparently replaced with a fake. The queen is apparently not rightfully the queen. Without the stone, the ceremony became meaningless as far as ritual ceremony goes. PLUS, the queen swore to uphold God's Law. God said man is not to legislate. As soon as the queen legislated, she broke her oath. Which would happen to make all the attorneys/lawyers(BAR members) rogue crown agents, for one thing, with no power. Many people are starting to wake up to all this and are looking into it to find the truth of the matter. If this is true then......

Personally, I see no use for a king and/or queen. How much is that family worth, and how many are struggling to survive and going hungry? To me, that would tell you what that family thinks of their subjects.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by smyleegrl

Arms deals for a start. They have their fingers in a lot of pies, and make the tax payer fit the bill for their oppulent lifestyles and renovating their many, many mansions.

reply to post by something wicked


Personally I'd much rather pay tax to help someone on benefits or who is a struggling student than to help someone who is already insanely rich and has no need for a single penny more...

Originally posted by Scope and a Beam
reply to post by something wicked

 

Personally I'd much rather pay tax to help someone on benefits or who is a struggling student than to help someone who is already insanely rich and has no need for a single penny more...

Good for you, France isn't too far away, bon voyage.

ETA: that was of course half in jest, but only half. You aren't actually really paying to a person, but an institution, for the upkeep of an institution and it (assuming you pay a normal rate of tax) costs you less than £1 a year. You think that's too much? You think the UK would not suffer a negative effect by no longer having a monarchy and the Commonwealth as a logical conclusion no longer existing? Well, that's your opinion, not sure you will find it actually validated in any unbiased study, but go for it.

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
reply to post by smyleegrl

 

Arms deals for a start. They have their fingers in a lot of pies, and make the tax payer fit the bill for their oppulent lifestyles and renovating their many, many mansions.

Which they then try to convince us, 'belongs to the nation' (the mansions/palaces)!

So, if that is true and the palaces belong to the nation, then the royals can let their numerous spare bedrooms out to the homeless, can they not? Or better yet, the homeless can demand the right to occupancy of property they 'own'?

What of the 'bedroom tax' the Tories are introducing for those living in 'social housing', ie housing 'owned by the nation'? This bedroom tax does not seem to apply to the royal residences!

Consider this; in 2010, two cousins visited another distant cousin and asked her to form an unelected government of their making. Nepotism is alive and well in the UK and we now have a government that has declared war on the poor, whereby the elderly, the infirm, the roofless are dying as a direct result of class war policies enacted by her majesty's representatives in parliament.

Very adeptly hidden out in the open is the fact that the royals hold more power than the electorate.

For all those that think the monarch has no power and only a nice old dear for tourists.
www.dailymail.co.uk...