Charles and Camilla

[el Chi]

I haven't seen a thread about this and I only put it in Politics (as opposed to General Off-Topic) because it involves the relevance of monarchy in modern Britain, the tax money they get, etc. If a mod feels it doesn't belong here, then please move it.

What do my fellow Brits feel about their impending marriage? Should Charles, as a divorced man, not re-marry? Should he, as a divorced man, refuse the crown should his time come? Are there moral implications of divorcees re-marrying when Charles is supposed to be a high profile attachment to the Church of England (possibly even the future head of it)?
Does Camilla have the right to become queen? Should she, instead, be called "princess consort" or whatever term was being banded about (one news observer pointed out that that sounded like quite a whorish/concubine-esque title...)? Should she have the same right to tax-payers money that the rest of the royal family do?
Indeed, should the royals have any right to our tax money at all?
Perhaps more importantly - do you care?

Personally, I don't care - if they're happy together then fair play to them and the best of luck. If he wants to be king then fine - I couldn't care less - and if she gets called queen, then I still don't care.
As for the tax money... Well I can certainly understand peoples' objection to that, but that seems only borne out of the same reasons of traditional royalism and religious snobbery. I think the monarchy and the church have to shape up a little in regards to these issues of divorce and remarriage (amongst other things, natch). Should the royals get any tax money at all? I don't like the royal family particularly, but I don't believe in their abolition, so maybe a cut in their money might not be such a bad thing.


EDIT: At this point I'd just like to point out that Charles is Camilla's son's godfather. Isn't that lovely.

I apologise if this seems like a lot of rambling nonsense - I don't feel very well at all.

 

[Danimal]

I really don't care.

 

[The Monkey]

Why shouldn't they marry? And she wouldn't be queen, would she? She would be a princess, right?

 

[Danimal]

A fairy princess :x

 

[kirovman]

I don't care really, I don't know them except from in the media, it doesn't affect my life one bit. So I don't care as much as I don't care about any celebrity's wedding.

I'm only gonna care about those people I know.

 

[KoreBolteR]

i REALLY dont f*cking care. i hate the royals. why do they have to be the symbolic thing of our country...

jesus, people get married every day for christ sake! why the media fuss on this? :x

 

[Tr0n]

I think they should go to hell.

 

[jondy]

Yeah, that'd show them.

I do have some respect for royalty, tho'. Something to do with nobility. It just seems the honourable thing.

 

[kirovman]

Yeah, respect nobility and inbreeding.

 

[Solaris]

The problem with me is, what they represent.

The monacrchy as whole represents the rich ruleing class being better than the poor. I mean why should we bow to the queen, she is no better than us!
The monarchy costs 64p to the average taxpayer per year. That money could be spent on better and more usefull things.

And prince charles, got a book banned ( which I possess). this book is by one of Dianas and Charles servants, which describes Charles affair with Camiila, whil he was married to diana.

This makes a mockery of our democary how a book exposing how arrogant the monacists are can be banned.

Also camilla and charles are adulteres, and this is why camilla will not be made queen. IMO the monachry should be overthrown and will not bat an eye when the queen dies.

Solaris

 

[AntiAnto]

I really really don't care. This is all symbolic anyway.

 

[kirovman]

The problem with me is, what they represent.

The monacrchy as whole represents the rich ruleing class being better than the poor. I mean why should we bow to the queen, she is no better than us!
The monarchy costs 64p to the average taxpayer per year. That money could be spent on better and more usefull things.

And prince charles, got a book banned ( which I possess). this book is by one of Dianas and Charles servants, which describes Charles affair with Camiila, whil he was married to diana.

This makes a mockery of our democary how a book exposing how arrogant the monacists are can be banned.

Also camilla and charles are adulteres, and this is why camilla will not be made queen. IMO the monachry should be overthrown and will not bat an eye when the queen dies.

Solaris

Yeah I agree, we are beyond the days of empire and monarchy, I would have thought. We live in a classless society, and we are smart enough in general to not let someone represent us incorrectly (although some recent events dispute that a bit).

To be honest it's just a tradition that didn't die. The monarchy should be stripped of their status and unfairly gained money, and be given a mediocre council house in a bad housing estate.

But the excuse for keeping them remains in -they're good for the economy or they keep our british pride (not sure how that works exactly).

 

[Razor]

Yeah I agree, we are beyond the days of empire and monarchy, I would have thought. We live in a classless society, and we are smart enough in general to not let someone represent us incorrectly (although some recent events dispute that a bit).

To be honest it's just a tradition that didn't die. The monarchy should be stripped of their status and unfairly gained money, and be given a mediocre council house in a bad housing estate.

But the excuse for keeping them remains in -they're good for the economy or they keep our british pride (not sure how that works exactly).

Since when do we live in a classless society? Since when does any country live in a classless society? A classless society is what pure Communism is about.

edit: And yes, i am in support of the Royal family, well, perhaps until Prince Harry becomes King. The Queen and Prince Charles have dedicated themselves to this country and have bettered this country more then most people who calls themselves English ever could, it is not because they can, but because they want to.

 

[kirovman]

Since when do we live in a classless society? Since when does any country live in a classless society? A classless society is what pure Communism is about.

edit: And yes, i am in support of the Royal family, well, perhaps until Prince Harry becomes King. The Queen and Prince Charles have dedicated themselves to this country and have bettered this country more then most people who calls themselves English ever could, it is not because they can, but because they want to.

Well I guess I say that because I don't have any trouble blending with all types, but I can see the problems of charvers mixing with the royals. Anyway, they aren't a class, they are the underclass.

But this is about as close to classless as you can get without becoming totally socialist. There's much less distinction than any other period in our history.

There is a lot more opportunities for those born underprivillaged these days.

 

[Solaris]

Thats why a communist society would be so great.

 

[kirovman]

Umm, I think if you work hard you should be recognised for that.

If you don't work hard, that should be acknowledged. Communism is good in theory, but where's the feeling of reward or achievement for the individual?
The professor who gets the same wage as the binman (well in the UK that's not far from wrong actually). Not a good motivation to strive for achievement.

If I was in a communist society I would think, "why bother getting educated? my job will not reward me any more than manual labour"

I think you have to reach a balance. Give everyone opportunity and a basic/comfortable life, while giving more to those who want to attain high. Which in a way is what we have today.

Although seems more and more that those who don't want to work hard still manage to get their purple BMWs with unsilenced engines and mega bass sound systems :angry:

 

[Kangy]

Yeah, sure, give him what he wants. If he can't become our monach.

He's an idiot, and he had all kinds of dodgy goings on while he was still married to Diana. It simply isn't appropriate for him to become King.

 

[bliink]

I don't know why people are still interested in the royals.. I guess its because I'm not British

One day, Australia will throw off the shackles of the opressive monarchy!

Actually... I'd bet most Australians had forgotten the Queen of England is our head of state.

 

[The Dark Elf]

I don't know why people are still interested in the royals.. I guess its because I'm not British

One day, Australia will throw off the shackles of the opressive monarchy!

Actually... I'd bet most Australians had forgotten the Queen of England is our head of state.

apart from times like this when they turn up in the media, most of us Brits don't really know their there anymore. They don't really do much and don't really have a say in anything anymore.

 

[Tr0n]

I don't know why people are still interested in the royals.. I guess its because I'm not British

One day, Australia will throw off the shackles of the opressive monarchy!

Actually... I'd bet most Australians had forgotten the Queen of England is our head of state.

I thought Oz was independent of England. :|

 

[bliink]

I thought Oz was independent of England. :|

The Queen is still our head of state, there is a representative called the Gov. General in australia, but he doesnt do much, then theres a Prime minister, elected via the Westminster system - we don't vote directly for our PM (which is like a President).

Oh, but once, the Governor General dismissed the PM in an event that led to our govt being completely disolved, in whats known as a double-dissolution.

That said, the British royal family barely has any base here, apart from the odd visit now and then.

 

[Tr0n]

The Queen is still our head of state, there is a representative called the Gov. General in australia, but he doesnt do much, then theres a Prime minister, elected via the Westminster system - we don't vote directly for our PM (which is like a President).

Oh, but once, the Governor General dismissed the PM in an event that led to our govt being completely disolved, in whats known as a double-dissolution.

That said, the British royal family barely has any base here, apart from the odd visit now and then.

Still...you're apart of england.

HAHAHA...*cough*

 

[baxter]

Who cares?

A pair of toffee nosed twits is getting married and the British press go into overdrive.

I won't drivel on about the royal family because I simply don't care what they do.

 

[el Chi]

Well I guess I say that because I don't have any trouble blending with all types, but I can see the problems of charvers mixing with the royals. Anyway, they aren't a class, they are the underclass.
But this is about as close to classless as you can get without becoming totally socialist. There's much less distinction than any other period in our history.
There is a lot more opportunities for those born underprivillaged these days.

What UK have you been living in that you can't say we live in a classless society? You're right that, for most sane people, it's not really an issue of importance any more, but it's still there. Accentuating class boundaries (the whole "chav" thing) was one of the media's favourite things last year and it makes me want to f*cking hurt people.
Still, I don't see the monarchy as a representation of archaic class boundaries any more. They're quite benign and besides, their appeal isn't restrained by class (that is to say, royalists aren't just from the upper classes)
All that said, I agree with you that there are more possibilities now for people of lower classes; however it's still difficult.

I thought Oz was independent of England. :|

It's BRITAIN, you foolish Yank

 

[pomegranate]

i don't give a ****.
the only issue i have with the royalty in my country is that they distract attention from the arseholes who are really in control of our lives ie business interests

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

I think it's cool the Brits have kept this link to their past.... Although to be honest I think Chuck is scary ugly...

 

[FortisVir]

I guess some people might think their marriage is disrespecting Diana's memory, but I guess they should be able to do what they want. I mean, it has been almost eight years.

It looks like the "I really don't care option" is popular in this poll, but apparently a lot of Americans do, because it's all over the TV and the engagement was the cover story on Friday's USA Today I picked up.

I'm drifting off-topic now ( I can't help myself), but when Diana died, it was a HUGE deal to everyone I knew. My mother was friends with a British woman when we still lived in Florida, and they were both upset the whole day (and the whole week after, actually) when the news came in that she had died. At the time I didn't really understand why my mother was so upset because I had no idea who Diana was. But thinking back on it, I think America's reaction emphasized the close connection a lot of Americans feel with Britain.

 

[kirovman]

What UK have you been living in that you can't say we live in a classless society? You're right that, for most sane people, it's not really an issue of importance any more, but it's still there. Accentuating class boundaries (the whole "chav" thing) was one of the media's favourite things last year and it makes me want to f*cking hurt people.
Still, I don't see the monarchy as a representation of archaic class boundaries any more. They're quite benign and besides, their appeal isn't restrained by class (that is to say, royalists aren't just from the upper classes)
All that said, I agree with you that there are more possibilities now for people of lower classes; however it's still difficult.


It's BRITAIN, you foolish Yank

I'm from Mordor. Or the North East.
Anyway I'm just trying to say, my grandparents were working class, but me, I've been to University, travelled the world, USA, South America, China, Russia, etc.

So I wouldn't say nobility was a prerequisite for being prosperous.

But yes class does still exist, I think the point I was trying to make is that class is less obvious here. (You go to China, they look down on the farmers, as peasants, and yet it's supposed to be a communist country).

 

[Razor]

I guess some people might think their marriage is disrespecting Diana's memory, but I guess they should be able to do what they want. I mean, it has been almost eight years.

It looks like the "I really don't care option" is popular in this poll, but apparently a lot of Americans do, because it's all over the TV and the engagement was the cover story on Friday's USA Today I picked up.

I'm drifting off-topic now ( I can't help myself), but when Diana died, it was a HUGE deal to everyone I knew. My mother was friends with a British woman when we still lived in Florida, and they were both upset the whole day (and the whole week after, actually) when the news came in that she had died. At the time I didn't really understand why my mother was so upset because I had no idea who Diana was. But thinking back on it, I think America's reaction emphasized the close connection a lot of Americans feel with Britain.

It is strange to see how many American's really take a huge interest in the British Royal family.


Bliink, and as far as i am aware, from what the British news people have reported, Australia still has no problem looking up to the Queen as a head of state, nor does Canada, however, there are a vocal few who hate the whole thought of the Queen being head of state.

The Royal family though is a very mixed bunch of people, there are the very supportive, hard working members, such as Prince Charles, the Queen, Prince William, who do a great service to the whole international image of the British Royal family, as well as Britain and the Commonwealth as a whole, but there are those drugged up, alcoholic idiots who just want to have fun...William's brother Harry for instance, who i would hate to see be made King, unless he was to seriously change his ways.

 

[KoreBolteR]

I don't know why people are still interested in the royals.. I guess its because I'm not British

One day, Australia will throw off the shackles of the opressive monarchy!

Actually... I'd bet most Australians had forgotten the Queen of England is our head of state.

so your saying, "only british are intrested in the royals?" LOL.

i know for a fact the majority of british are not intrested in the royals or what they do, why would we? ,

 

[Razor]

so your saying, "only british are intrested in the royals?" LOL.

i know for a fact the majority of british are not intrested in the royals or what they do, why would we? ,

I say for a fact that that is rubbish, you only need to see how much idiots in this country lap up crap like The Sun and The Star when the Royals do anything at all, good or bad.

 

[KoreBolteR]

I say for a fact that that is rubbish, you only need to see how much idiots in this country lap up crap like The Sun and The Star when the Royals do anything at all, good or bad.

have you asked everyone in britain "do you buy papers cos the royals are on the front?". if so, plz tell me the result.

even if they do, that doesnt state that they like the royals...

look ive been on a lot of british forums, and lots of brits say "i dont care about the royals", and "i hate the royals".

ive never seen anyone say "i bow to the royals".
unless you are going to be a first?

 

[el Chi]

I'm from Mordor. Or the North East.
Anyway I'm just trying to say, my grandparents were working class, but me, I've been to University, travelled the world, USA, South America, China, Russia, etc.

So I wouldn't say nobility was a prerequisite for being prosperous.

But yes class does still exist, I think the point I was trying to make is that class is less obvious here. (You go to China, they look down on the farmers, as peasants, and yet it's supposed to be a communist country).

I hear Mordor's lovely this time of year
Of course, what you're saying is perfectly true - class isn't a prequisite at all. Things are much better than they were even 20/30 years ago.

However, particularly last year, I've noticed some sway towards highlighting (if not actively trying to rebuild) class boundaries.
I know I've ranted about it many many times on these boards, but the whole "chav" phenomenon of '04 was f*cking ridiculous. If I was to say to my mates "Bloody scallies" and make one or two sweeping judgements then it wouldn't be ok as such, but it's not really on a par with national publications wringing their collective hands and deriding the chav working class. Personal opinion is one thing, but for media outlets to mock a proportion of the working class is, in my opinion, indefensible.

And then there was a story the Daily Mail ran (not that I'd even bother with their opinion, but a lot would) about a child - I think they may have been adopted - who was abused by a middle class family. They were quite intent on stressing the class of this couple as if it made any difference.
Is it that saying that middle class people are child beaters? Is that saying that you don't expect it of middle class families, just proles? I wasn't entirely sure (although I think the general readership of the Mail is working class), but it just struck me as an extremely irrelevant piece of information.

And then Dominic Masters, from the band The Others, went on a rant about middle class people in NME I believe. First off, shut the f*ck up - that kind of unfounded prejudice is as bad as racism. Second off, that's quite ironic as I'd put down money on the fact that the majority of NME writers are middle class. Thirdly that's hypocritical because, according to NME themselves, between leaving uni and being signed, Masters worked for a telemarketing thing where he earned £32,000 a year.

I'm fed up of people putting emphasis on this when it doesn't matter.
Rant ends.

 

[Razor]

I hear Mordor's lovely this time of year
Of course, what you're saying is perfectly true - class isn't a prequisite at all. Things are much better than they were even 20/30 years ago.

However, particularly last year, I've noticed some sway towards highlighting (if not actively trying to rebuild) class boundaries.
I know I've ranted about it many many times on these boards, but the whole "chav" phenomenon of '04 was f*cking ridiculous. If I was to say to my mates "Bloody scallies" and make one or two sweeping judgements then it wouldn't be ok as such, but it's not really on a par with national publications wringing their collective hands and deriding the chav working class. Personal opinion is one thing, but for media outlets to mock a proportion of the working class is, in my opinion, indefensible.

And then there was a story the Daily Mail ran (not that I'd even bother with their opinion, but a lot would) about a child - I think they may have been adopted - who was abused by a middle class family. They were quite intent on stressing the class of this couple as if it made any difference.
Is it that saying that middle class people are child beaters? Is that saying that you don't expect it of middle class families, just proles? I wasn't entirely sure (although I think the general readership of the Mail is working class), but it just struck me as an extremely irrelevant piece of information.

And then Dominic Masters, from the band The Others, went on a rant about middle class people in NME I believe. First off, shut the f*ck up - that kind of unfounded prejudice is as bad as racism. Second off, that's quite ironic as I'd put down money on the fact that the majority of NME writers are middle class. Thirdly that's hypocritical because, according to NME themselves, between leaving uni and being signed, Masters worked for a telemarketing thing where he earned £32,000 a year.

I'm fed up of people putting emphasis on this when it doesn't matter.
Rant ends.

I think you have got something mixed up, or the press have anyway, Chav does not equal working class, most Chav's haven't worked a day in their lives. That is what a chav is, someone who can work, but chooses to leach money off benefits by commiting fraud, etc.

 

[kirovman]

I think you have got something mixed up, or the press have anyway, Chav does not equal working class, most Chav's haven't worked a day in their lives. That is what a chav is, someone who can work, but chooses to leach money off benefits by commiting fraud, etc.

And are hence the 'underclass'

 

[el Chi]

I think you have got something mixed up, or the press have anyway, Chav does not equal working class, most Chav's haven't worked a day in their lives. That is what a chav is, someone who can work, but chooses to leach money off benefits by commiting fraud, etc.

No, I know not all chavs are working class, but that's the implication in the media and besides, most are. And being from the "working class" doesn't necessarily mean you work - one can be unemployed and be in the working class.
And to say that all chavs leech off the state is utter f*cking bullsh*t. That's snobbish bollocks and exactly what I was raging about in the first place. You've made me a very very angry panda, Razor.

 

[Razor]

No, I know not all chavs are working class, but that's the implication in the media and besides, most are. And being from the "working class" doesn't necessarily mean you work - one can be unemployed and be in the working class.
And to say that all chavs leech off the state is utter f*cking bullsh*t. That's snobbish bollocks and exactly what I was raging about in the first place. You've made me a very very angry panda, Razor.

It seems we have different ideas of what a chav is. Too me, a chav is someone who hangs out in fake sportsware on your council estates screaming abuse and threatening passers by, whilst not working at all or doing manual labour 2 days a week or something like that.

 

[el Chi]

Apart from the last 17 or so words, I think we sort of agree. Although I refuse to use the word "chav". Ugh.