Jump to content

"THE" Royal family...... Rule Britannia


Recommended Posts

  • Forum Support
Posted (edited)

Nope, not about that American actress drama queen attention hoe.

I've never been much interested in the English Royal family other than from a historical perspective. Reading today the declining health of Prince Phillip and knowing Queen Elizabeths age  I was surprised how it saddened me to know soon the monarchs will pass to another generation. As an American I have no reason or right to judge the political arrangements of Great Briton other than knowing they are one of maybe two real allies and friends America has. 

When the Queen departs so much history will have ended with her. It's truly amazing what changes took place in her lifetime! Again this is not meant to be a political judgment simply history.

Among my Moms favorite keep sakes is a tea cup of the Queens Coronation. My folks never drank tea.

We have a large number of English and Dominion members here I'm curious what your thoughts on this are.

 

Edited by Old55
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Old55 said:

We have a large number of English and Dominion members here I'm curious what your thoughts on this are.

Her Majesty is queen of many countries, Australia amongst them (rather than being queen of the 'British Empire' that was).

She remains strongly popular in Australia although more amongst the older generations and her son Prince Philipp isn't near as popular since the sad tragedy of Diana.

There are periodic pushes for Australia to transistion from a constitutional monarchy to a minimalistic republic model (basically replace the parliment appointed Govenor General with a parliment appointed 'President' - who would have the same extremely limited powers) but it's been defeated the last couple of times it was voted upon by the people.

NB This would not be a President in the US sense, he'd have basically none of those sorts of powers.  The functions of the governor-general include appointing ministers, judges, and ambassadors (purely at the direction of parliament), giving royal assent to legislation passed by parliament (which is required, not optional), issuing writs for election (this is the important one as it is somewhat at their discretion under some circumstances) and bestowing Australian honours (which has been at some points knight and dame hoods and at other points Orders of Australia, generally depending upon if the governing party is strongly 'Republican leaning' or are 'Constitutional Monarchists'.

Having said all that I don't think the monarchy rises to the top of the news that often... it's more in the background than that.  It was different when I was young, the whole school would line up to watch as the Royal Motorcade was diverted past the school (not stopping just drive by) and the Queen did her wave out the Rolls Royce thing with the hand out the window.  Royal visits were a big then back then... but now, not so much.

It might be different in the UK.

Edited by GeoffH
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Support
Posted (edited)

Geoff, I know very little about your form of government thanks for sharing along with your thoughts and experiences to do with the Queen. LOL, you've seen the Queen do a drive-by. 

 

Edited by Old55
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to view them as just an expensive PR stunt for Great Britain.  They've a massive media department that churns out propaganda to appeal to the masses. 

I served over 24 yrs in the Armed Forces so many of my friends are surprised at my attitude but I've met a few of them including Prince Edward who failed his Commando course when I was on it. The Royal family to me have sat back as our Armed Forces have been decimated, medical care for ex Forces pretty much handed over to charities, thousands of ex Forces sleeping rough on the streets and getting prosecuted for made up crimes, some hounded 50yrs after events.  Even Harry and William the latest poster boys took more deserving people's places on pilot training. 

Throw in the Panama papers where the Queen and Royal household have been found to be hiding their vast wealth, tax free I'll add while many in GB are on the poverty line then I'm afraid they've lost all my respect. 

Prince Charles is lined up to be the future King, yet while holding many honorary military titles was sleeping with another officers wife. I've known men kicked out of the Army just for being friendly with other wives. 

  • Like 3
  • Hmm thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

while many in GB are on the poverty line

[tangent]

Apropos of nothing, I watch a lot of British TV shows and felt like I had at least a rudimentary grasp on the economic strata there. I was surprised at Unforgettable last night, as one of the story lines is a maid who has been asking for a pay raise for the first 3 episodes is now blackmailing one of the leads for, as she put it, "£287. My overdue gas bill. And £9 an hour." That's US$399 and US$12.50, respectively. Surprising to me that a female Deputy Chief Constable would balk at a pay raise for a single mother who puts up with the DCC's caustic elderly mother. Also, that's quite an honest blackmailer.

[end tangent]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on the Royal Family may upset some .

Yes the Queen through tourists brings millions into the UK. But really thats all she does ! Yes she may be head of state but she has no real power ! All she does is sign the Governments documents to make them legal. But my biggest gripe with the Royal Family is the sheer number of them and the hangers on ! And the cost ! " AIR MILES ANDY " is a good example with his Helicopter trips for a few miles! As for " The Peoples Princess " Diana her days were numbered when William was born! With Camilla lurking in the backround waiting to take her place ! And the thought of Diana marrying Dodi Fayad that really upset them ! And as some people say now Harry and Megan must avoid driving through tunnels ! I wont say anything about Andrew and the Epstien thing as he will get away with it. Then you have all the relatives cousins,nephews ,nieces etc living in homes which the taxpayer funds. The Royal Family are basically untouchables ! Who have no idea of the real world !

 

  • Like 2
  • Hmm thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Old55 said:

Geoff, I know very little about your form of government thanks for sharing along with your thoughts and experiences to do with the Queen. LOL, you've seen the Queen do a drive-by. 

Luckily she'd given up her WW2 military uniform well before then so no danger of sub-machine guns :hystery:

Not sure how interesting you'll find this but here goes...


The Aussie Commonwealth government (means basically Federal government) consists of a lower house of representatives who draft bills, vote on them and send them to the upper house the Senate, which is a 'house of review'.  The Senate can either pass or reject and send back to the lower house bills.  The lower house seats are local regions with generally similar population numbers so they cover large regions in the rural areas and small areas in the cities but then intention is to make a vote be worth a similar amount no matter where you live for your representative. 

The Prime Minister (the nominal head of government) is a lower house member as is the head of the opposition (the party with the second largest number of votes).  Generally these are the Coalition (Liberal and National parties - conservative center-right city and conservative center-right rural) or the Labor party (a loose affiliation of labor party members and similar centre-left groups).   It is uncommon for an independent or third party candidate to get elected to the house of representatives but there are a couple of Green party members most times and sometimes a popular local independent.

The upper house (senate) similarly sits in two sections with the government members on one side, the opposition on the other side and any 'cross bench' members between them.  The senate is elected differently with each state getting a certain number of members (varying with the population of the state) and everyone in that state votes for all the senate members for their state and the ones with the most final votes win the seats.  In a state with 5 senators you might end up with 3/2 or 2/2/1 between the parties for example.

The big difference is our voting count is proportional with preferences.  So I don't just mark for a candidate, I number them in my preference so 1,2,3,4 and 5 for example.

They count the votes then the candidate with the least votes is knocked out and their second preferences are allocated to the remaining 4 and the count happens again until there is a final winner.  The intention is to ensure that even if everyone doesn't get their first pick that as many people as possible get a cadidate they don't hate which is supposed to minimize extremism as well.  I will say that we tend to have more centrists and less far left and far right politicians than many western democracies from what I can tell so it may actually work.  

The other difference is that it is compulsory to attend a voting centre (or submit a postal ballot) and the intent of that is so as to ensure that the views of all citizens are heard, not just those who choose to vote.

 

There are also state legislatures which are residual from when Australia was a group of 6 colonies before Federation occured in 1901, they ceded external powers to the Commonwealth government and most rights to levy tax (with a few exceptions) and in return they get a share of the Commonwealth tax income.  Mostly they provide infrastructure (like hospitals, roads, police etc) and the Commonwealth government does international relations, defence, tax, law etc.

 

Umm I'm sure an expert could give you a better run down but thats my take on it anyway...

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I approve of most of them.

Will say no more.

Have a nice day all.  :thumbsup:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Queen herself has never faulted, she has proven to be worthy of the title.

However those that follow on will never gain the full respect of the people, due in the main to their behaviour outside of "Royal Duties"

It will remain to be seen if William can regain the respect of the people on reaching the throne after his Father's demise.

That said, will there be a "Royal Family" in the future, I have my doubts about that.

As a Mother and Grandmother, I'm sure privately she must be hurting over events of recent years. :tiphat:

Edited by Kuya John
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, graham59 said:

I approve of most of them.

Will say no more.

Have a nice day all.  :thumbsup:

 

I disapprove of most of them. 

Happy to say more but would probably be banned from this site for foul and abusive language.

Have a nice day all.   :thumbsup:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...