The Queen's speech

Fran · May 25, 2010

So, Auld Lizzie shoved her flash hat on and read out a pile of new legislation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8702267.stm

So this is it, people! The brave new world of coalition politics in the UK. Everything will get much better from now on. Or will it?

Bird of Prey · May 25, 2010

Fran said:
So, Auld Lizzie shoved her flash hat on and read out a pile of new legislation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8702267.stm

So this is it, people! The brave new world of coalition politics in the UK. Everything will get much better from now on. Or will it?

Fran, the Queen - capitalized out of respect to the UK that believe in her as a sovereign- has no more judgement or should have any more political clout than Monty Python.

Her family is a near disaster, with her son an utter adulterer and for all we know, a philanderer; her daughter in law was killed under suspect circumstances: certainly driven to near insanity: and the disfunctional royal family isn't even BRITISH!! It's insanity to give people born of a name only the trust of a nation. I don't care what Queen Elizabeth says: she's never lived the life of a common Brit, so she could hardly understand the plight of an average Britain; and she's hardly entitled - nor is her family - to an influential opinion. . . .

poetinahat · May 25, 2010

In her user profile, Fran lists her location as Paisley, Scotland -- which is a part of the UK. But, you know, there is a chance that Newcastle might be short on coal this week....

Fran · May 25, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
Fran, the Queen - capitalized out of respect to the UK that believe in her as a sovereign- has no more judgement or should have any more political clout than Monty Python.

Her family is a near disaster, with her son an utter adulterer and for all we know, a philanderer; her daughter in law was killed under suspect circumstances: certainly driven to near insanity: and the disfunctional royal family isn't even BRITISH!! It's insanity to give people born of a name only the trust of a nation. I don't care what Queen Elizabeth says: she's never lived the life of a common Brit, so she could hardly understand the plight of an average Britain; and she's hardly entitled - nor is her family - to an influential opinion. . . .

The Queen doesn't write the speech and has no say in its content - it's written by the government. Auld Lizzie's role is purely symbolic.

Of course, understanding the life or plight of an average Briton is probably beyond the very wealthy and privileged Cameron and Clegg, too.

Priene · May 26, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
Fran, the Queen - capitalized out of respect to the UK that believe in her as a sovereign- has no more judgement or should have any more political clout than Monty Python.

The Queen's Speech is actually a declaration by the government of business during the next parliamentary session. It can be amusing watching Elizabeth Windsor spouting obvious propaganda, and was actually hilarious when she used to have to mouth BlairSpeak.

Bird of Prey · May 26, 2010

Priene said:
The Queen's Speech is actually a declaration by the government of business during the next parliamentary session. It can be amusing watching Elizabeth Windsor spouting obvious propaganda, and was actually hilarious when she used to have to mouth BlairSpeak.

LOL!! Oh. Thank you. Anyway, I still don't understand why on earth the British support the royal family, as they do support them to a degree. I remember the big uproar over who was going to pay for the damage to I think Windsor Castle after a fire. That was during Elizabeth's "annus horribilis," way back when, albeit she certainly doesn't know the real meaning of a tough year. I suppose everything is a question of perspective. If only I had to struggle with her bills, and renovate one of my several castles out of my OWN bank account. . . .

Torgo · May 26, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
Anyway, I still don't understand why on earth the British support the royal family, as they do support them to a degree.

I think the amount of money we spend on the Royals - about £40m per annum - is pretty small beer compared to the amount we regularly toss down the pan on worthless broken IT projects and the like, and arguably they draw a lot of tourist pounds into the country.

Also, despite the fact I'm basically a lefty, I like living in a constitutional monarchy. I like the pomp and the ceremony and the sense of living history. The most recent alternative we tried was Oliver Cromwell, that total arsehole.

Bird of Prey · May 26, 2010

Torgo said:
Also, despite the fact I'm basically a lefty, I like living in a constitutional monarchy. I like the pomp and the ceremony and the sense of living history. . . .

I know, I know, and that attitude is just so common among you Brits!! The "living history" part I understand, given how long the Queen Mum lived. . . .

Don · May 26, 2010

Some people think the whole having a ruler thing in groovy. They like being reminded on a daily basis that their betters are allowed to plunder them and they have no say in the matter.

Seems kinda masochistic to me, but what do I know?

ETA: And what's it say about them when they consider that group of misfits "more equal" than they themselves?

Torgo · May 26, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
I know, I know, and that attitude is just so common among you Brits!! The "living history" part I understand, given how long the Queen Mum lived. . . .

I think you will find it is fairly common for us to be proud of our heritage, yes </asperity>

Torgo · May 26, 2010

Don, the plundering gets delegated to our beloved elected officials. I think it's quite probable that having a monarchy actually makes us a net profit.

Roger J Carlson · May 26, 2010

Torgo said:
I think you will find it is fairly common for us to be proud of our heritage, yes </asperity>

Well, Americans find that difficult to understand too, since we are expected (both internally and externally) to put on sack cloth and ashes and bemoan all the atrocities we've committed.

Torgo · May 26, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Well, Americans find that difficult to understand too, since we are expected (both internally and externally) to put on sack cloth and ashes and bemoan all the atrocities we've committed.

Everyone's nation has at one time or another done evil shit that's worth apologising for... IIRC Tony Blair went on what felt like a Sorry, Guys! world tour at one stage. I don't really see why that's incompatible with being proud of your heritage, Roger?

Priene · May 26, 2010

Personally, I'd happily dump the Windsors wholesale. You can take pride in your history without putting these idiots in a position of influence. But the monarchy won't be dumped any time soon because Elizabeth Windsor is an innocuous woman who has the sense to keep her mouth shut. Her son is a dribbling fool, and republicanism in Britain won't seriously get going to until he and his horrible wife are trotting off to the abbey. That's when the second problem with monarchy disposal kicks in: the constitution unravelling would be horrendous, and would probably take most of the parliamentary time of a five year government to pass. Unless Charles does something truly vile (which is, I admit, a possibility) I can't see them becoming so unpopular that they'll be removed.

Unless a future monarch decided to try to exercise some power. Then they'd be gone in a flash.

Roger J Carlson · May 26, 2010

Torgo said:
Everyone's nation has at one time or another done evil shit that's worth apologising for... IIRC Tony Blair went on what felt like a Sorry, Guys! world tour at one stage. I don't really see why that's incompatible with being proud of your heritage, Roger?

Neither to I, really. Nevertheless, it is expected. Please read Ending the Slavery Blame-Game. It's okay for Canadians to be proud of their country, but if an American is, he or she is given some suitably derogatory label, like "Teabagger" or "Sarah Palin".

Torgo · May 26, 2010

Priene said:
Personally, I'd happily dump the Windsors wholesale. You can take pride in your history without putting these idiots in a position of influence. But the monarchy won't be dumped any time soon because Elizabeth Windsor is an innocuous woman who has the sense to keep her mouth shut. Her son is a dribbling fool, and republicanism in Britain won't seriously get going to until he and his horrible wife are trotting off to the abbey. That's when the second problem with monarchy disposal kicks in: the constitution unravelling would be horrendous, and would probably take most of the parliamentary time of a five year government to pass. Unless Charles does something truly vile (which is, I admit, a possibility) I can't see them becoming so unpopular that they'll be removed.

Unless a future monarch decided to try to exercise some power. Then they'd be gone in a flash.

I'm with you up to a point, Priene, it's just that we'd dump the Windsors and into the vacuum would rush exactly the sort of people you'd expect.

Fran · May 26, 2010

It bothers me that the Royal Family get taxpayers' money. Really bothers me. If they didn't I wouldn't care about them at all. But as I said in another recent thread, Oliver Cromwell showed us there are worse things than a monarchy.

I'm glad all the anti-civil liberties legislation is being torn up, although it seems the databases will remain. Covert surveillance society? Who knows at this point? The £10,000 before income tax is cool as is the scrapping of ID cards. I'll be sad if the foxhunting ban is repealed but I know it's not the main priority we have just now. And I'd like George Osborne to wear a bag on his head but that's an issue of personal nausea.

I'm mostly keeping an eye on Vince Cable, though. I think his hatred of Osborne will make him pop, and I expect if he pops he'll do it spectacularly.

Torgo · May 26, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Neither to I, really. Nevertheless, it is expected. Please read Ending the Slavery Blame-Game. It's okay for Canadians to be proud of their country, but if an American is, he or she is given some suitably derogatory label, like "Teabagger" or "Sarah Palin".

Couldn't bring myself to read the Slavery thread, actually, although I will add my two cents in that I think it's telling that the new Texas curriculum prefers the euphemism 'Atlantic triangular trade' to 'Slave trade'... For me it's not Sarah Palin's patriotism that's a problem, it's her rampant personality disorder!

johnnysannie · May 26, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Nevertheless, it is It's okay for Canadians to be proud of their country, but if an American is, he or she is given some suitably derogatory label, like "Teabagger" or "Sarah Palin".

Americans can be proud of our nation without condoning some of the historical acts of atrocity and other unsavory events.

I'm proud of America but I certainly - as a self-professed practicing far left leaning liberal Democrat - is not a "Teabagger" or "Sarah Palin", both of which I personally revile. And I've never been called either, probably because my views are polar opposites of those folks.

Let us not forget that the "Teabagger" label was self-dubbed by those who wanted to participate in those ridiculous little "Tea Parties" that are a sham and mockery of the original deal, IMHO.

Mr Flibble · May 26, 2010

Don said:
Some people think the whole having a ruler thing in groovy. They like being reminded on a daily basis that their betters are allowed to plunder them and they have no say in the matter.

Oh, you mean the government?

If Torgo is right about the amount the Royals cost, MPs claim twice as much per year in expenses( or they did

). And tourists aren't as keen on them.

Plus:

The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue of around £190 million for HM Treasury every year, greatly exceeding the costs of the Civil List

But the monarchy won't be dumped any time soon because Elizabeth Windsor is an innocuous woman who has the sense to keep her mouth shut. Her son is a dribbling fool,

Gods yes.

Fran · May 26, 2010

I think after Prince Charles is more of a problem, because I don't think William has any interest whatsoever in being king, and I don't know if his "sense of duty" is as well-cultivated. But if William abdicated before he had kids, we'd get Harry, the very thought of which fills me with despair.

Torgo · May 26, 2010

IdiotsRUs said:
If Torgo is right about the amount the Royals cost...

£40M is a low estimate as it doesn't include security costs (which might be as much as £50M.) Googling 'cost of monarchy' brings up some interesting and comprehensive pro- and anti-monarchy sites near the top of the results. The anti- site puts the bill at £110m pa; the pro- site claims £37m.

Still, it's peanuts, really.

Torgo · May 26, 2010

Fran said:
But if William abdicated before he had kids, we'd get Harry, the very thought of which fills me with despair.

"Queen Chelsy".

Mr Flibble · May 26, 2010

Torgo said:
The anti- site puts the bill at £110m pa; the pro- site claims £37m.

Well that's still less than the revenue the Crown Estate pulls in. (ETA again: Interestingly one of those sites states that 70% of the civil list actually goes on wages for staff. So it's keeping people in work at least....)

Still, it's peanuts, really.

Yup.

ETA: I wonder if it's possible to calculate how much in tourism they bring in?

Torgo · May 26, 2010

IdiotsRUs said:
ETA: I wonder if it's possible to calculate how much in tourism they bring in?

Dunno - I think it's a very dodgy argument in many ways because you could argue the tourist revenues wouldn't change if the Royals themselves were abolished (the bricks and mortar would remain). Google is much less certain about this than it is about the costs.

The Queen's speech

Slate grey mole person

Benefactor Member

say it loud

Slate grey mole person

Out to lunch

Benefactor Member

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Benefactor Member

All Living is Local

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Moderator In Name Only

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Out to lunch

Moderator In Name Only

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Slate grey mole person

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Slate grey mole person

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.