Be Excellent To Each Other

Well, aren't we all...

But how long till she either carks it, or abdicates?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22431757
Is this the beginning of the process? Shall we have a sweepstake?

My vote for Charlie becoming King (regardless of reason) is June 2014.

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!

God chooses Kings & Queens.

But, I think 2015, and he'll reign for a few short years before popular pressure forces him to abdicate in favor of William

I doubt Liz will go Dutch on this. I always got the impression she was in the 'Anyone but Charlie' camp too.

Good point, I expect it'll be a Simon Cowell run x-factor competition then.

lol

Britannia's Got Royalty

With Ant and Dec in the wings to chat to the hopefuls?

Hope they make them do a Krypton factor type assault course

harry would nail that.

Challenge one: maintain a grumpy face no matter how much fun everyone else is having.

Challenge two: read a recent Queen's Speech without laughing.

Prime opportunity to divest ourselves of the pointless and archaeic royalty. Funny how a society obsessed with democracy allows itself to technically be a country of hereditary rule. If it's just a tourist attraction, it's one that we can do away with.

A few celebrities legally avoid some tax, everyone hates them. Queen gets free cash every year for living a life of exquisite privilege, people think she's fucking great. Odd.

I hear that if one of them goes they'll both go, her and Philip that is. I also hear that they are both knocking on said door so probably some time soon. Lets say new years day.

That's very specific, itsallwater... have you taken a hit out on them?

Beex, yesterday:



Not sure if I agree with all this sweepstaking. Harumph. She's still Queen. (Surprise Monarchist Card!)

Have to agree. Not sure I'm completely happy with it but if I had to I'd give them dates. It's the Queen. She's probably going to go out in style so probably New Years or Christmas day just so she can outshine Christ or something.

I know one of the body guards and he just happen to mention a few things. So I am adding 2+2 together and probably getting -42. However they still drive their cars around; the Queen her Land Drover thing and Philip his London Taxi. Sweet really.

She gets a civil list payment of 8 million a year. This is in exchange for the income of the Crown Estates. The arrangement was something set up in the 1700's by her high spending ancestors and parliament.

In addition she gets other bills paid for by the government. The Crown Estate is worth 7.6 Billion and makes 240 million a year so I think that as the Queen can’t benefit from this she gets the shitty end of the stick.

As of this year it will change, the civil list will go and she will get 15% of the crown revenues which will cover all the Royal Family costs.

I think it would be interesting to actually tott up the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the monarchy over the costs to switching to a republic and maintaining a presedency. I have nothing to back this up with, but I have suspicions that a democratically elected head of state might not turn out to be vastly cheaper.

I rather have someone who has no choice being the head of the country over someone who would actively try to get that position.

:waves:

Also, albeit not a general rule for monarchs, but she does actually seem to work for her pay. And anyone there to scowl at prime-ministers and keep them in their place is alright by me.

The only downside of monarchs is that in general whenever you get a good one their offspring are frequently ghastly. Though I do have an odd fondness for Charles.

Exactly!

An obscure figurehead president, like the German one, could be cheaper and avoid the politicisation of the top post, but you still have to pay for those palaces, guards, and state dinners.

In that case, it's probably easier just to let the Commons Speaker do the 'meet-and-greet' head of state stuff on his days off, and give the palaces over to the National Trust.

An empty palace is a sad palace.

Or a great place to do Laserquest. Whichever.

I expect it would be significantly more expensive. A president wouldn't come with an estate worth billions, that most profits from are fed back to the taxpayers...

And try not to forget that 'Crown Estates' date back to a time when the monarchy essentially said 'I'm the King/Queen, therefore this land is mine'. Pretty fucking easy to amass wealth with generations of land-grabbing and fanciful notions of 'divine right' behind you.

I don't actually see that we require a head of state. It serves no functional purpose given the Prime Minister is our representative in foreign relations.

Equally absurd is the notion she 'works for it'. She lives in a life of absolute luxury, surrounded by servants. Her 'work' extends to occasionally travelling first class on private charters to a few places, waving, shaking hands, and feigning interest at losts of stupid people and their stupid shit. You then then say 'But she does lots of charity work!', yeah, if I was obscene rich and had it all handled to me, I'd probably support a few charities too, if only to cultivate the impression that I wasn't a completely worthless and unworthy sponger.

Knock the fucking palaces down for all I care. Reclaim some of that wasted land for the public use.

Still having a monarchy just makes us look stupid. Keep all the palaces and stuff though, people will come here and pay to see them, turn them into theme hotels.

He seems harmless enough in his old age. I almost feel a bit sorry for the guy - he spends his entire life preparing for the moment he'll become King, and virtually everyone out there would now rather he got skipped over and his son take the job instead.

He's rich as fuck though, so my pity doesn't extend too far.

I'm pretty sure if you take that thinking back far enough the none of use should own any land, unless we happen to be related to the natives.

Yeah, except no, due to the inherently unfair nature of the world. See also: Native Americans.

The monarchy continue to hold these large estates because press and the political establishment constantly reinforce just how swell the royals allegedly are, and how great the queen is. This is so as to avoid any possible question as to just how these entitled fuckwits came around in the first place and by what right they continue to hold their positions and assets. Their wealth is entirely contingent on their historical position of privilege - they are not an independent corporation who have acquired wealth over time from the standard mechanisms of capitalism as I would if I become a wealthy landowner.

I am genuinely baffled how nobody sees this. Given this country is obsessed with bemoaning how unfair everything is, and how bankers are evil because they earn money, the royals get off with barely a mention. I struggle to be annoyed at paying for Maggie's funeral when we're all paying for someone to wipe the queen's arse every day.

66p a year per taxpayer seems pretty good value to me, given the amount of money that they bring into the country due to tourism.

And frankly, we got an extra bank holiday the other year for Wills and Kate's wedding, so that's alright in my book.

I think she does a great job and I've a lot of time for her. She will never give up the throne early. She swore to serve until she dies and she will stick to it.

Charles is a bit of a dick at times, and unlike the Queen he is very extravagant. He has lots to say about organic farming, but this is easy for a man with a 20 million a year income.

Also not sure William is that intrested in the Throne to be honest.

Harry should be King, freshen the whole thing up a bit

Jesus. You're happy to be ruled by a tourist attraction because you get an extra day off work. That pretty much typifies the moronic short-sighted thinking of this country.

The buildings will remain a tourist attraction; kick the squatters out.

If I want to buy a day's holiday off my employer, it costs me a hell of a lot more than 66p. So yeah, good deal really.

You do know that she doesn't actually have any power, don't you?

Tradition means nothing?

For all its worth I think the royals are alright. I'm not sure they will always be and I can understand the argument to remove them. But financially they do more good than harm at the moment and I'm all for a bit of tradition in modern bland times.

Also she lives most of the time in secure apartment buildings on their grounds too. Not quite the fancy castles. Mind their not cheap either.

Yes, so why the pretence? Why do we sit this old bitch on a throne wearing a ridiculous crown worth millions to impart the intentions of 'her' government in a speech she didn't write? It's a total nonsense.

'Tradition' doesn't cut it. Keeping things the same in a kind of grand pantomime because it's been like that for a while is about as intellectually devoid as it gets, particularly when those things are outdated, functionally useless, and expensive.

At least if we had a referendum on whether we wanted this old hag as a tourist trap, that would be one thing. I'd have to concede the result of a democratic process, even if I didn't agree with it. The fact such a question would never ever be on the table (even to be shot down immediately), is deeply troubling.

/glances at Beex server

I don't see a problem with the royals, I've found you can go to many different places in the world and say "The Queen" and everyone knows who you are talking about. She's pretty popular

Yeah, well, to the rest of the world it's a funny British quirk.

I didn't even realise but the Daily Mash was way ahead of me: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 3050968003

Holy shit, a website that still thinks auto-playing video clips unrelated to the actual content is an acceptable thing. I thought that kind of utter idiocy was stamped out years ago.

The Queen's speech is read from a Vellum Scroll. That's pretty cool.

I'd rather it was read from an Elder Scroll such that she went blind and mad.

Halfway there already

There's an interesting political argument for maintaining the monarchy, insofar that it creates a political sense of stability that is inherently missing with the polarised politics of most republics.

I really don't see what's so wrong in us, Great Britain, maintaining a little bit of pomp and circumstance. It's once of the few bits of acceptable national pride we get. I quite like the whole state opening of parliament and the changing of the guards and the guys in red jackets and ridiculous fluffy black helmets. I'm happy chipping in my 66p a year for all that shit - it's kinda cool and it's something we do over here that no-one else can match.

The Queen actually taking part in that James Bond sketch for the Olympic opening ceremony cemented my opinion that she's alright really. Which I appreciate is a bit dumb, but there you go.

I was thinking about this earlier. People are generally very scared about being alive and need icons and figureheads on whom to assign unrealistic traits and virtues. They can then get behind these so as to make them feel less lost and insecure. See also: Religion.

Party politics cannot achieve this because a political party as an entity is too impersonal, and even the most dynamic of party leaders has a shelf-life of less than 15 years. The Queen, and monarchy, is a point of familiar consistency to help make us feel safe, even if we don't perceive it on that level.

always wondered about this, she saw how here father took up the job after abdication of her uncle (king's speech etc), you thought thst would make it easier... still, happy that WA now got the job her, all new starts in 2013...