The Queen, The Church, adultery...

[p_p_man]

and Prince Charles.

How can the British have any respect for a family elevated to No 1 in the land when they are such a bunch of hypocritical has-beens.

We all know the story of Di and her "living in a marriage of three people speech", we all know that Charles was sneaking out the backdoor to meet up with Camilla for a bit of bonking and we all know how the Royal Family gathered together and disappeared en masse to Scotland on the occasion of Di's death. We also know how they refused to fly the flag over Buckingham Palace at half mast (until the popuilation turned ugly that is - then they scuttled back fast enough) and we all know how Camilla Parker-Bowles is being groomed to be more acceptable to the public in order to marry Charles.

How the hell can the Queen be the Head of the Church when her background is murkier and more offensive to the nostrils than any sewage works?

Three out of four of her children's marriages have ended in divorce.

One of her sons not fathered by Prince Philip.

Another son probably gay.

A third son who breaks down in tears if his father even looks at him.

Running her family like some sort of Feudal overlord. I mean what normal child would call their mother "Her Majesty the Queen" when being interviewd on TV , what's wrong with "my mother".

And now this Camilla thing...

I reckon we should get rid of this lot and bring in a new crowd as monarchs.

 

[Closet Desire]

Ah yes...

...but isn't that what "courtly love" was all about? It's tradition to have the formal, conjugal marriage and then...there is the concubine.

 

[WriterDom]

If only you could make Clinton King, PP.. you'd probably bust a nut at his crowning. Wondering if you'd take Hillary too?

 

[Myrrdin]

Not sure where you got some of your facts from, there pp.

But since when has the conduct of your children, made a person unfit to be head of state. (eg GWB)

But she is one of the few heads of state not to have had alleged financial irregularities levelled at them. eg USA, Germany, France.

And despite all the mudslinging, if we were to go over a presidential system, and she stood, she'd walk it.

 

[Closet Desire]

Tongue in cheek...

It's hard to have financial "irregularities" when you have virtually unlimited funds coming from the taxpayers.

 

[rambling man]

I don't remember whether it was a George or an Edward who reigned directly after Victoria, but there is a pertinent story here...

When he lay on his deathbed, his wife sent for his favorite mistress to help comfort him in his final hours.

A natural consequence of marriages that come together for different reasons than love is that they rarely work and accomodations have to be made. Nicholas and Alexandra were one of the few examples of marital devotion among royal families. Victoria and Prince Albert as well. However, many just do not work. The bad taste aspect enters the picture when people like Diana toss their dirty laundry out for everyone to gawk at. For whatever reason, they seem to believe nowadays that these arranged marriages should work the same as those created on the basis of love. That's why they do not last. Of course in situations like this, the wife also plays around herself. It's pretty equal.

Was Franklin Roosevelt a bad president because of his personal affairs? Was George Washington less of a hero because he carried a torch for a woman other than his wife all his life? Warren G. Harding and Clinton were bad, but not because of what they did in their personal lives (Clinton's choice of locations
for his affair made his public, though)

Also homosexuality in royal and aristicratic families is hardly news. Richard III was not exactly a straight arrow. I'm kind of surprised you see this as a character flaw in the mother, though.

I don't believe you really need a new royal family, though. Charles seems like he is pretty active in different ways. He should make a good King.

 

[p_p_man]

Charles probably won't be made King...

Copied from rambling man's post.

I don't believe you really need a new royal family, though. Charles seems like he is pretty active in different ways. He should make a good King.




especially if he marries Camilla Parker Bowles (she's a catholic and we don't allow that sort of thing in the monarchy).

No it will be William who will be crowned and that's the only saving grace the present crowd have.

He's not inbred (well not that much), his background is true blue aristo (the Spencers being one of the few real aristocratic familes around), on his mother's side he is of almost pure Anglo blood, not a hybrid of Germanic, Greek, and Dutch. And above all he actually passes exams!

That may sound strange to you over the water but most of the Royal Family are as thick as two short planks.

He's been in the clutches of the Windsors since his mother died but he looks and sounds like a bloke who can make up his own mind and go his own way, so hopefully they haven't bent him into their disfunctional little ways too much.

It may not sound like it but I'm actually a Royalist, it's just the Windsors I find particularly distateful.

 

[rambling man]

Luckily kings and queens don't make too many decisions anymore. God only knows what might happen.

I admire English institutions, though I would not like to see them transplanted here. With one exception. I would like to see our Senate take in people like the life peers in the House of Lords. I would say every ex-preseident would be automatically eligible and each president could nominate maybe one per term if 2/3 of both houses agree. It would be great to see a few people with wisdom and experience continually involved with government decisions. People like Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, George Bush I, Colin Powell maybe someday. The only thing would be that they could not officially be members of a party, and so could not count towards one party or another's control of a house of Congress.

 

[OUTSIDER]

Fuck the royal family and the horse they rode in on and shag sometimes to, their all a bunch of fucking moocher's anyway and it'll be a cold day in hell before I'll bend knee to any of them.

 

[p_p_man]

Yes...

It would be great to see a few people with wisdom and experience continually involved with government decisions. People like Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, George Bush I, Colin Powell maybe someday

We Brits have often thought it must be very strange for an incoming administration to make a completely clean sweep and start afresh. Without that continuity you mention and the fund of knowledge available a lot can be said for the British method.

Is it true though, and I'm not sure even where I heard it, that even the civil servants are appointed when a new President takes over. If so wiuld that just apply to senior civil servants or to everyone?

When we have no legal Government in the UK (during elections for instance) it is the Civil Service that runs the country for a few weeks.

Anyway for one moment of hope I thought you were going to offer a home for the Windsors!

 

[rambling man]

if we can accomodate the Marcos's we can take in the Windsors..

The Windsors have not been exceptionally great since they called them the Hanovers, great meaning that they are strong people. It was shameful how they turned their backs on the Romanovs in 1917 and did not insist that the Provisional Government turn them over when things were going south. You don't just turn your back on family like that, especially when they suffered for your cause. Victoria was an ideal monarch. She knew her constitutional and traditional bounds but was able to be a good influence at times on the governemnt.

Then again the system requires little of them if they are not inclined to contribute

I don't think the civil service jobs are refilled with each administration but there are poitical positions that get refilled.

 

[*Lazer*]

It would be a cold day in hell before I would curtesy, bow or otherwise to any person of so called royal blood. They have done nothing to deserve that mark of respect. You can spout all you want about traditions but it doesn't wash with me. Let's not even go there with the stupid heads of states tricks okay. When you can find a country without feet of lead give us a head's up.

 

[rambling man]

Royalty, I think is something special, but like anything should not be taken to extremes. Some people with royal or aristocratic blood actually live up to their blue blood billing. The great English photographer whose name escapes me, the third Marquess of Salisbury, who was an exceptional Prime Minister

Don't think we do not have aristocracy here...Kennedys, Bushes, looks like the Powell family is developing a familial political power base, the Daleys in Chicago..people defer to these families as much if not even more so than the English do their royalty and aristocracy...

 

[*Lazer*]

That is your opinion of course. I do not view any of those people as better or deserving of more because of their names. It is what you do in this life that commands respect. The best of us often accomplish the most quietly.

 

[Closet Desire]

p p man...

It isn't really that different in the US. There was a book written some years ago...the only thing I remember from an economics class...titled Who Rules America? and a follow up titled Who Rules America Now? The suggestion being that the civil system and corporate boards actually control most policy making in the US. I'll stand clear of any debate on this, but I think there is some degree of truth to the notion.

There really isn't a clean slate made of it since most of the civil service stays on and, believe it or not, for all the rhetoric and noise made by the president he or she (well...one can hope) isn't really that powerful. In the long run only a few decisions will really be swung by the incoming power.

Curiously, Rambling Man, I've heard grumblings over here about abandoning the House of Lords in favour of something more like the Senate. The senate, because of the rotational style of election never actually clears out all at once and with six year terms (gosh...I hope I remembered that right) there is some continuity.

I think the founders actually wanted a semblance of chaos to prevent any one power from getting too entrenched. The only thing worse than not enough power and control is too much.

 

[cymbidia]

(This is all really fascinating stuff to someone who's lived in California for nearly her entire life, hasn't spent more than 21 days, total, in GB or any of it's holdings, or spent much more time than that thinking about GB's governmental/royalty "problems". Please continue... ~fading back into the shadows~)

 

[p_p_man]

Re: p p man...

It isn't really that different in the US. There was a book written some years ago...the only thing I remember from an economics class...titled Who Rules America? and a follow up titled Who Rules America Now? The suggestion being that the civil system and corporate boards actually control most policy making in the US. I'll stand clear of any debate on this, but I think there is some degree of truth to the notion.

Maybe the same book (with only the names changed to protect the inocent!) but I had one with a similar title "Who Runs Britain" which was the background reading of a year's Open University course of the same name.

It also came to the same conclusion, including networking in the process, where Board members from one company sit on Boards of other companies. It all helped to keep the wheels of commerce and the state running smoothly.

I suppose we don't really know who controls us. It could be the Republicans/Labour Party or Ford/MacDonalds!