LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
Contrary to the general idea that I must be a staunch Royalist, I'm actually more of the opinion that in the absence of something better, there is no point in removing the monarchy as head of state. MC summed it up well on that point I feel, in that replacing one troubled system with another is not an improvement.
Personally, I'm neither for nor against the monarchy as such; they are there, they are a fact of life, and to paraphrase someone during the English Civil Wars, "we can beat the king a hundred times, and yet he will remain the king". There is absolutely no chance whatever of Liz and Phil ending up in a high rise in Sheffield, in more modern terms - look at the Austrian and German royal families, who nowadays strut the world just as wealthy as ever they were, 90 years after their removal. The Hapsburgs of Austria and the Hohenzollerns of Germany are still out there with their palaces and yachts - many of them live in the more exclusive areas of New York City I believe, and can be found as regular visitors in Monte Carlo and the like.
Which brings us to the treasures and assets questions. Of course, much of all that belongs to the nation, but in terms of it being shared out amongst 60 million of us in the UK, there is little to go round - none of us would be made wealthy by such a distribution, unless we account the purchase of a five year old BMW as a privilige of wealth. Were it more rightfully shared out amongst the billion and half people who contributed to that wealth, since much of it came from Empire, we would each be lucky to receive sufficient funds to acquire a tank full of petrol, which in the absence of our second hand BMW wouldnt be much use. Meanwhile, that which does belong personally to the royal family, would not see them in any worse situation than their Hapsburg and Hohenzollern relatives.
But, we can and ought to do something about the rest of what is termed the establishment. Paradoxically, Charles has been at the forefront of some of this simply in terms of his statements regarding the title he is due to inherit "defender of the faith" - meaning the Protestant Church of England faith, and none other. For suggesting his wedding to Camilla ought to be an all faiths event, for suggesting he ought to become "defender of faith" (meaning all faiths) he has been slated mercilessly by the establishment. I believe this man to be of such a different generation and outlook to those surrrounding and advising him that we would be ill served to dismiss his possible accession, in that as king he ought to be able to make those things happen which by his statements would appear to be his views on how the country and indeed commonwealth should move into this century. Given that he is able to produce much change in the direction of modernising the establishment, he would be the most ideal person to produce the changes we want, without replacing the whole system. As for his son, I expect that we could anticipate even further change when he accedes, and all without having yet another greasy pole erected for greasy politicians to climb.
As for how the country in general views the royals, I'd say that for the vast majority it is no different to any other celebrity. David Beckham would attract the very same awed crowd should he go walk about, as the queen does or any of her family. We also should bear in mind that a very high percentage of modern Britain have no idea about our history, nor how the country works and alternative models to achieve that. The vast majority have experience of the royal family in exactly the same way as anyone in the US - through the glossy magazines.
Now, Utopian Ranger raised an interesting point about our supposed universal elevation of these people on the basis of their birth, and our corresponding supposed demonstration of submission. Yes, people do bow, curtsey and whatever when they meet the queen - its traditional, and a lot more informal than in times past at that. Would I? No. Liz Windsor (or Saxe-Coburg to use her proper surname) is a person like me, who happens to be queen. She eats, she drinks, she sleeps, she farts, shits and throws up, just like the rest of us. She had sex and gave birth just the same as any other woman. She is due respect though for having sacrificed her life for the sake of the country as she saw it, and as a now old lady she is also due respect. Above all though, it is the institution of monarchy as head of state which deserves respect in that as such it represents the country as much as the flag does, and does that far better than President Blair (or whoever) ever could.
And on the subject of Liz, we ought to remember our history. She was born the daughter of the second son of the then king. She wasnt due to be anyone or anything other than a minor royal, all her life. The abdication crisis then forced her father, who also wasnt due to be anyone or anything other than a minor royal, to become king - a shy, awkward man with a speech defect who never wanted the job, yet he provided invaluable service through a sense of duty throughout the greatest war we ever faced and she joined up like anyone else, even if never put in harm's way. She became queen on her father's death and has continued since then to provide invaluable service through a sense of duty from an age at which most of us were unwilling to take anything much in life very seriously. Those who talk her down continually ought to remember all this, and keep their criticisms to the institution and not on her personally.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
For Our British Friends - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread