Conference tallis::celt

    I luv this one....its a classic. Anything resembling an icon of
    britishness will always be trashed by antibritish sentiment. So what do
    I think? They're just a family that act as figureheads for the state,
    similar to the Queen of Sweden, Queen of Holland, King of Belgium etc.
    They do have a tendency to embaress themselves in the press etc but the
    british tabloid press does tend to have few moral standards. All in,
    they generate twice as much income for the country than they take from
    it - no, not with palace visits, but with confidence business contacts
    being signed in the wake of royal visits.
    
    Personaly, I think we should just all let them get on with trying to
    live a relatively normal life rather than trashing them for want of
    better things to do. And as for calling them gits...do you know these
    people personaly ?
    
    Shaun.

    I'm reluctant to call myself a royalist, but I agree with Shaun (cf. .2)
    on this one.
    
    As for the financial side of things, doesn't the revenue from the 
    Duchy of Lancaster go to the Treasury? The revenue from the Duchy
    of Cornwall used to go to the Treasury, but Charlie (gawd bless 'is
    cotton socks) negotiated its retention to pay for Di (O-level in flower
    arranging for the diplomatic service, and ironing rugby shirts) and 
    a few other bits and pieces (Camilla, tampons and a few horses). 
    
    So, to be fair, I think the Royals pay back more dosh from their estates
    than they actually receive on the Civil List.
    
    John

    The 'royalist' point is an interesting one. If the so called 'royal
    family' have no constitutional political or governmental influence then
    what is their nature. The queen of sweden has recently been lambasted
    by the swedish government for her vocal call for the banning of
    paedophile material in sweden - the posession of which is not outlawed
    in sweden. Most people, I hope, would agree with her sentiments exactly
    but the Swedish constitution makes it quite clear that she should not
    comment on the governing of sweden, inc. law.
    
    If then the moden royal families have no real power, is the term
    'royalist' still valid. Are they not just figures of state - with less
    powers than republican heads of state....aka France, America, Ireland
    etc.
    
    Interesting issue.
    
    Shaun.

    The thing which I dislike most about royalty in general is the
    `commoners' having to bow and scrape to them, calling them `Your
    Highness' etc.etc....They are no better or worse than the rest of us so
    why should we grovel to them?...
    
    Oh and the whole `Honours' system is a joke....
    
    Sir Ray Howard MBE OBE BBC ITV RTE GTF SFA RTFM....

    Some honors are a joke and some are for recognition of certain deeds
    such as charity work, bravery, distinguished service etc. I personaly
    don't feel i'm groveleing to a royal. The fact that i would use the
    phrase 'your magesty' etc is more out of respect for protocol (no i'm
    not a stuffy old fart). Its the same as calling a teacher 'sir' - its
    just simple respect for the other persons position.
    
    Admittedly, a teacher earns his position through work whereas a royal
    inherits theirs. But, all in, I wouldn't want to be a part of royalty
    as its a tough job - so whats the harm in respecting the protocol.
    
    There are other advantages. Society is a living entity, it must have
    limits to stop it cascading out of control. Dismantleing traditional
    values in one foul swoop would leave a very fragile and unstable society
    indeed - i'm all for change but only when its implemented in a cautious
    manner, not a la anachist!
    
    Shaun. 

I'm rather worried - I've agreed with two posts that Shaun has made - on the
same day!

I think I'll go home for a lie down

regards,
//alan

    
    ...and she's only Queen Elizabeth The First of Scotland.
    					  _____
    

    Eddie, if you research further into C4's claims then you would realise
    that the state aquired the possesions that the state accepted to
    maintain. Thus it is not the royal ship or train but the states ship or
    train etc. Secondly, I agree the tax scandal was a bit over the top and
    this has somewhat been rectified. Her argument at the time, or rather
    the argument of her representatives, was that if she *must* perform
    state duties then it is the state that should pay. The state expects
    that she should trundle all over the world visiting thingies and
    basicly improving or sustaining hand-shakey friendships with other
    nations. If teh state expects this of her then they should pay for it.
    
    Thirdly, it has been shown that the number of business contracts signed
    in the wake of such confidence boosting visists far outweighs the
    totality of the taxpayers contribution to her upkeep.
    
    You should perhapps be gratefull that she's helping make britain better
    off financialy but I personaly wouldn't go that far.
    
    
    Shaun.
    after such visists

The biggest Economic powers in the World manage just fine without a 
Monarchy! If a Monarch was so beneficial to an economy you would wonder
why more Countries don't have them? 

There are some benefits that are associated with Monarchy, I imagine they
generate a lot of tourist dollars. On the other hand there is a liability
associated that rarely gets discussed. Would you really want to buy technology
from a Country that seems so mired in the past? I visited the Epcot
Center in Florida once, in there they have what looks like an authentic 
British Pub and serves good ale as well - but the staff are all dressed
in clothes that would be worn in the 17th Century!  I believe there
is a huge uncounted expense associated with the Royal Family and
the quaint image they present.

The Monarch is still the source of all politcal power in Britain. Though
you should really refer to it as "the Crown". The great bulk of this
authority has been assumed by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. I think
it's this power that needs to be abolished far more than the Royal Family.

Mark
Committee of Safety!

    Ahem,
    
    Eddie, the Royal Yacht, ummm, hasn't it been scrapped due to cost?
    
    Richard

Re .13

I believe the royal yacht has been scrapped but we still paid for it over
and over again.

    Re .14
    
>    The same way you would go about booking a ride in the new euro-fighter
>    or driving a tank across dartmoor - both of which are state owned.

Surely you'll admit that the chances of either of these happening is 
infinitely greater than chartering the royal plane. These tanks and euro-
fighters are indeed owned by the state but they are not reserved 
exclusively for the use of one person.
    
>    ...I'm
>    all for the royal family being taxed as equally as us. As figures of
>    state they should perform all state duties deemed necesary by the state
>    government - in return they will be able to retain their monachaic
>    status and have use of the state owned premises set aside for the
>    monach's use. In line with this, the monach should also be paid a
>    relative salary. I thinnk my proposition will keep the 'royalists'
>    happy and the tax brigade happy.
    
How do you feel about the number of royals with their snouts in the 
civil list trough ?

>    Is this meant to be accurate journalism - don't fall in the tripe
>    bucket.

No. I thought this was a medium for discussing opinions not a journal.
I don't understand the "tripe bucket" reference but I hope it is not
the start of a slide into unseemly communication - we were doing so
well and I hope we can continue in the same vein.
    
>    Good question - probably any film using monach set aside buildings for
>    their location should contribute a proportion of the films revenue to
>    the state as well as to the monach.

Maybe I mis-led you by with my "film" reference. What I meant was that 
every time a piece of "The Coronation" footage even appears on the news
then queenie gets another wedge jammed into her hippie.
    

    
    Hi There,
    
    Well as I expected this is a passionate note, (good) the thing is that
    you are all good at quoting this and that but we don't know just how
    much they cost us.
    
    To think that people in business give us contracts because of the Queen 
    wake up this is the 20th century, If you had a business who would you 
    give the contract to (think about it), the royal yacht this one strikes 
    close to the heart, they've scrapped it my heart bleeds 1 million pounds 
    a day to keep afloat I should think they did, how about the wages of all 
    the servicemen who have to guard them, every time you fart in the forces 
    they are having parades something to do with the royals a birthday, a 
    nappy change or something equally as trival, In all honesty you have no 
    idea how much they cost but its a lot more than they bring in.
    
    If you royalist in all honesty can turn around to me and say that A. we 
    could not do without them B. the money they cost could not be better spent
    ie. in hospitals or housing the homeless, then as far as I can see you 
    must be a tad hard hearted or just a bit narrow minded, sorry if that 
    upsets anyone, hey and to the noter who asks if I've ever met the royals 
    well I would not walk to the front door to see them, but I was on one of 
    the biggest ships at the fleet review in 77 and what a lot of money that 
    cost, and do you know  she was the size of a pin prick from our ship, I 
    would of rather been knitting.
    
    What I would like to know if they put it to the vote would we get rid,
    I think that with all the hardship in the world and people struggling
    to make ends meet you never know, hey I remember about 15 years ago
    watching a program on the box about some royal up in the north east I
    think, if I could of jumped through the tele I would of give him what
    for, a statement he made and I quote him word for word ( the worst
    thingnow is when I go to town the peasants don't bow any more) I know
    what he needs.  
    
    Anyway you haven't convinced me that I was wrong in what I feel about
    them but please keep trying, and if you could come up with some proof
    of how much they cost and how much they bring in, and they do bring in
    more than they cost then I'll become a royal.
    
    many thanks to you all
    
    Mike.

    Mike,
    
    Here are some commas and full stops for your next note,
    
    ,,,,....
    
    Only kidding....God save the Queen
    
    Ray....

    Eddie,
    
    There's this 'Royal plane' thing again, no such thing I'm afraid (where
    do you get your information from). The RAF has the 'Queens Flight',
    which amongst other things ferries visiting state dignitaries about,
    the same sort of service afforded visiting heads of state in most other
    countries.
    
    Richard

    Hi Howard,
    
    Cheers mate!! do you think you could let me have a few more.
    
    many thanks
    
    Mike.

The monarchy is partially protected by the sycophantic sucking up of 
senior members of the Government and senior civil servants who are after
knighthoods and other such gongs. Oops! there goes my OBE.

The honours lists are a complete farce as witnessed by the recent award of
one to that Saatchi fellow for services to the Tory party. This was 
announced on the same day as the infamous demonic-eyed Blair poster which
he designed was banned from use.

To whom or to what would the NI loyalists plead allegiance if we had no 
monarch?

What do the royalists in this conference think of the House of Lords? 
Should they, as well as the royal family, wield power merely through an
accident of birth?
    

    Eddie, I'm still trying to find economic information on the royal
    family but so far in vain. As for the lords - personaly I think its all
    a load of tosh - all we need is a government elected within a multi
    party system. As I said before, I see the royal family as an accessory
    state figure and, in such light, don't care if they exist or not. If a
    means can be found to retain the monchy such that it is just and
    economicaly, spiritually and symbolicaly advantageous to britain then
    i'll be all for them - as individuals I have nothing against them.
    
    On a further note, the whole peer system is a load of bolox - where
    there might be some symbolic reason for retaining monachy (aka national
    hritage) there is no reason to retain a house hold of jumped up jerks -
    otherwise known as Lords.
    
    Shaun.

    On a further note, the whole peer system is a load of bolox - where
    there might be some symbolic reason for retaining monachy (aka national
    hritage) there is no reason to retain a house hold of jumped up jerks -
    otherwise known as Lords.


Hmmm...I think I've started disagreeing with you here, Shaun.  (I've been
disagreeing with Eddie all the way through, of course :-)

I'm not going to contend that the Lords makes Britain more democratic.  But
what it does do is make the country considerably more stable.  Remember that
the vast majority of voting peers are not hereditary peers, but are people
recognised for having made an exceptional contribution to the country over
their working lifetimes.  They are seen as being wise people who have the
country''s best interests at heart.

They are often much better able to take a long view of things than
politicians are.  They cannot prevent a bill from becoming law, but they can
return it to the commons with a suggestyion of how it can be improved.  They
act as a damper, to stop the short term swings of public opinion taking over
from intelligent, far-sighted attempts to solve the real problems the country
faces.

Sure, the system could be improved by a little reform, but having someone in
the process of creating laws who doesn't have to worry about re-election can
be a good thing.

regards,
//alan

    Hi There,
    
    RE:.22
    
    I think that the house of Lords do have quite an important role to play
    in the country,  But don't you think then if these people are so good at 
    taking the right path we should have them instead of the party in
    power, I totally agree with your points but some were along the line to
    have people there with no power seems a bit daft.
    
    Mike.

    But don't you think then if these people are so good at 
    taking the right path we should have them instead of the party in
    power, I totally agree with your points but some were along the line to
    have people there with no power seems a bit daft.
    
Mike,

I hear what you're saying - almost anything would be better than the shower of
incompetents currently in power in the UK :-)

Where I think the Lords can be a winner - and why it's not terribly
undemocratic - is that all it can do is delay issues.  This means that it can
delay politicians' knee-jerk reactions to crises.  That can give time for MPs
and public to get over emotional reactions to situations, and instead allow
people to consider the situation in more detail.

It seems a reasonable balance of power to me

regards,
//alan

    Re: .22
    
    >> but are people recognised for having made an exceptional 
    >> contribution to the country over their working lifetimes.  
    
    That's a fairly generous view of things. No doubt Saachi would
    agree.
    
    John 

    That's a fairly generous view of things. No doubt Saachi would
    agree.

Below the belt - I _did_ say that the system was far from perfect

//atp

    Re: .26
    
    True. You did.
    
    John

re: House of Lords and stability

The US Senate has been serving this role quite satisfactorily for more
than 200 years. There is no need to choose between Democracy and
stability.


When I first saw .0 I wondered why you had posted that here, expecting it
to create controversy. Perhaps it was because Republican movements in
Ireland and Australia are somehow seen to be rejecting the queen. For many
centuries now the Monarchy and the Catholic church have viewed each other
as very compatible institutions. So the Catholic Irish are a very unlikely
source of those antagonistic to the queen. 

The rejection of Monarchy and the union of church and state is essentially
a Protestant "thing". Now given that the Unionists are pushing for union
with Britain, they are very unlikely to be antagonistic to the Monarch
either!

M

 

   > For many centuries now the Monarchy and the Catholic church have viewed 
   > each other as very compatible institutions. So the Catholic Irish are a 
   > very unlikely source of those antagonistic to the queen.
    
    Interesting point. Both are Rich to the hilt while their "humble
    servants" in many cases are starving. To be honest I don't think most
    people in Ireland give two hoots about the Monarchy in the Uk...its a
    source of gossip and amusement..Would be different if we were paying
    tax to support it though..
    
    Mick
   
    
    

    IMHO the whole argument about the economic benefits or non benefits of
    the royal family is a side issue. The main point is that the UK has
    been and to some extent still is crippled by the class system. The
    royal family are simultaneously the pinnacle and underpinning of the
    class system. We should have emulated the Bolsheviks in 1917 and shot
    the lot of them.
    
                             Dennis  

    Bit of a knee-jerk reaction isn't. Why shoot the Royal Family, thats
    not exactly going to achieve anything - it didn't achieve sod all in
    1917 either. Such a reaction reminds me of the post-french revolution
    ripping the faces of statues on the Lourdes cathedral.
    
    Shaun. 

I didn't realise the Celtic world has its own private Royal Family.

Simon :-)

    A side issue perhaps, but certainly worth a thought: am I the only one
    to be a little bit curious as to why the British royal family seem to
    be accorded such respect around the world (when compared to, say, their
    Dutch, Spanish and Danish counterparts)? Personally, I've nothing
    against them as individuals (with the notable exception of Phil the
    Greek), but I am sometimes perplexed at the treatment they receive.
    
    Examples? Princess Anne, the only Olympic athlete NOT obliged to
    undergo a sex test since they were introduced (not sure when that was).
    Worse still, how on earth does the Duke of Endinburgh, fox hunter
    extraordinaire, manage to hang on to his presidency of the WWF (surely
    one of the greatest ironies in history!)?
    
    Hmm...maybe the time has come for a change, although I agree with those
    who think that the full implications of an abrupt end to the monarchy
    should be fully examined first.
    
    Dom 

    Hi Dennis,
    
    Well I think you hit the nail on the head in some ways.
    
    As for noter .28
    I am a chatholic but it does not mean that I have to agree with a
    system were some people are stinking rich, and others die because
    they are to poor to turn on the heating in the winter, or the local
    hospital has no money for specialized equipment, need I go on, this
    country is full of people who bypass the law because they are rich,
    and do under the table deals anything just to enhance their bank
    accounts, and the best of it is they sit in on charities, put ads on
    the tele to make us feel guilty for having the little we've got, it
    was on the box one night were 84% of the wealth in this country was
    held by 16% of the people, and I bet the royals account for quite a
    lot of that 84%.
    
    many thanks
    
    Mike.
    
   ......,,,,,,, please slot them in were needed.
    

    Mile,
    
    85% of wealth is held by 5% of the worlds population, I think some
    global wealth redistribution wouldn't go amiss but how damaging could
    that be on market forces and global wealth generation ?
    
    Shaun.

    Sorry....for Mile read Mike.
    
    Shaun.

    >> We should have emulated the Bolsheviks in 1917 and shot
        the lot of them.
    
    The situation is not comparable. The Civil War and counter-revolution,
    had their been a white victory, would have lead to another round of
    enormous suffering by the great mass of Russian people. Tsar Nicholas
    would have played an important role in the counter revolution. The best
    modern comparison is the Rumanian Ceaucescu (sp?). I think he was dealt
    with correctly, I would have joined the firing squad and pulled the
    trigger.  Had he and his cronies regrouped and broken the revolution,
    the consequences don't bear thinking about. Modern China, (puke) is the
    nearest thing to Ceaucescu. 
    
    There is obviously not a revolutionary situation in Britain now,  but
    even if there were, it might not be necessary to shoot Charles and
    Camilla. Eric Honneker and co were dealt with as required. Put them on
    St Kitts I say :-)
    
    Kevin

    I can't understand the logic here - the british system maintains a
    monachy, if that monachy is subsequently rejected, why is it necesary
    to punish the now ex-monach ? It doesn't make any sense to me. I think
    a lot of peoples arguments so far have been directed at the state but
    using the monachy as an easily recognisable icon. Much in the same way
    as the protestants use the pope rather than the catholic church of
    Ireland as the icon for outletting their fears.
    
    Shaun.

    re .31 a knee jerk is a sudden reaction, I've felt this way as long as
    I can remember.
    
    re .37 what has St Kitts done to upset you ?  :-)
    
                               Dennis

    re .38 Slightly more seriously, yes, it's the institution of the
    Monarchy that I despise, although some of the individuals who form 
    the institution present a less than admirable public face.
    
                             Dennis 

    re St Kitts, I may have the name wrong, I'm thinking of the Scottish
    Island from which the natives were driven some 60 years ago to make way
    for biological warfare tests. I saw an amazing piece of film of the
    natives running round in panic before the barmy rounded them up and
    took them to the mainland. It is uninhabitable now because of some
    dreadful disease.
    
    Kevin 

    Anthrax wasn't it ?
    
    Shaun.

    yes I think that is it. I've been meandering round with Alta Vista
    trying to find this but no hits yet
    
    Kevin

Gruinard is the iland you're thinking of.  It was "cleaned up" a few years
back.  Not sure I'd want to move there, though...

//atp

    Re .31:
>    Such a reaction reminds me of the post-french revolution
>    ripping the faces of statues on the Lourdes cathedral.
    
    	Just a detail: the Lourdes basilica (there's no cathedral in
    Lourdes) was not built until about 70 years after the French
    revolution...
    
    Re St Kitts: Did you mean Saint Kilda?
    		Denis.

    You're right, I had doubts as I wrote it that it was Lourdes. Its
    definately a french cathedral but I can't remember where - perhapps it
    was Notre Dame ? Any offers ?
    
    Shaun.

re: Admiration of the British Monarchy

I would say they evoke ridicule and admiration in equal measure. For
example in the US they are regularly `featured' on the 'Jay Leno' show
[then again Clinton and Dole warrant the same treatment!]. When Di
visited Chicago recently people were clammering to be seen with her.


Though this propensity to accept Royal favor and yet profess total rejection of
Royal power is as old as the US. Back in 1775 (ish) Gen. Gage was just
completely unable to understand how Bostonians would swear loyalty to
the Monarch and then "go and throw his Majesty's sailors in the harbour".

re: Revolution in Britain

That has already happened! When Republican Government was established in
the 1640's Charles 1st had his head cut off. The same fate awaited many of his
Royalist followers. No new revolution is needed, it's just that the
current Government needs a reminder of the true order.

re: Class system

That is exactly why there is a House of Lords. It is said that Britain
has a system of 'mixed government'. The mix is among the classes:

 Monarchy  (top of the pile)
 Lords      (represented in the house of Lords)
 Commons     (represents the commoner's)

Even the Commoners are technically split:

   o If you are of the Church of England you can vote, hold and inherit property
      etc.

   o All other religions have no such rights, but due to a succession of
     'Toleration Laws', you have pretty much equivalent rights.

M

    Re .46: That's indeed Notre Dame in Paris. The front of the cathedral
    features what's called the "galerie des rois" (the kings gallery), a
    row of 28 two meter high statues of kings, above the porch. They
    actually represent the biblical kings of Juda but, during the French
    revolution, the "sans culottes" mistook them for representations of the
    French kings and so pulled the statues down. They were replaced with
    copies during the 19th century. About 15 years ago, during works in a
    Parisian big bank about 2.5 km north-west of Notre Dame, what remains
    of the original statues was found buried in the yard. They are now
    exposed in the musee de Cluny in the Latin Quarter. They're quite
    damaged from the fall from about 15 to 20 meters high but are still
    impressive examples of gothic art.
    			Denis.

    re .41 Yep, exile to Gruinard seems a good idea, they'd fit in well
    with the rest of the parasites.
    
                                Dennis

    I'm not sure if it was St Kilda's or Gruinard I meant. Was Gruinard
    occupied before the bio-war tests ? The texts I have found on St
    Kilda's suggested the natives packed up and left voluntarily, and I
    think he point about this 'declassified' film was that it was clear
    that the crofters were rounded up like sheep and driven from the
    island. Anyway my point is not so much the anthrax, but that the RF
    should compensate the crofters, who must have suffered terribly from
    these evictions.
    
    Kevin  

    Re .50: You're probably right. Saint Kilda was evacuated voluntarily in
    1930 after a schoolteacher spent two or three years convincing them to
    do so. They were subsequently employed as foresters in Morvern and
    Ardnamurchan, not really something life on Saint Kilda had prepared
    them for... What made me ask if you meant Saint Kilda was the date
    (about sixty years ago) and the fact that the army still has a facility
    on Saint Kilda (a radar station, I think). I haven't heard much about
    Gruinard. Can anybody supply the story?
    			Denis.

I can't provide any significant level of detail, however my understanding is
that during one of the world wars the government was terrified that it was
unable to retaliate against germ warfare.

In order to test out the country's germ warfare capacity, the population of
Gruinard was removed from the island, and the ground was infected with anthrax
spores.  All the livestock on the island perished.


From that time on there were sporadic outbreaks of anthrax in the surrounding
area thought to be caused by seabirds landing on the island then flying to the
mainland.

The island was cleaned up about ten years ago.  I have no idea how effective
this cleanup is thought to have been, nor do I know whether the island is
now inhabited.

regards
//alan