To feel extremely bloody proud to be British today?

[hehitmeanditfeltlikeakiss]

I take our country for granted because I live in a town that is the polar opposite of what Windsor looks like. But wow - watching the Royal family today I got shivers down my spine and felt so overwhelmed with emotion.

In the past I've looked at ways of emigrating because I've been fed up of living here, but I've just realised that it's a free country and to feel better about life I can actually make the move and go and live somewhere nicer (ok, maybe not Windsor but still).

We're so lucky aren't we?

"they were important in the eyes of their sovereign and the highest ranking family in the country."

Well, exactly how important were they? The queen didn't offer to spend some of her sovereign grant to rehouse them, did she? How many did she put up at Buck House? And of course being important in the eyes of your 'sovereign' suggests you think that a sovereign's eyes are more meaningful than anyone else's.

That final phrase, 'the highest ranking family in the country', is the crux of it for me. In what way should they be the 'highest ranking family'? Why should any rank be inherited?

People always rabbit on about how much work the queen does for charities etc but all the work she does, apart from the state duties that a head of state of any type could do, are add ons to make her have work. Anyone could open a charity or a hospital or visit victims of a tragedy. It's all completely circular, because it only seems worthwhile that she is visiting because she is the queen. If she wasn't the queen, she wouldn't need to visit.

What have Labour-run councils specifically got to do with the queen's response to Grenfell? That is such a non sequitur.

ontopofthesunset

Read walkswithmydog above my post and spot the sentence that my post commented on. Clue, it mentions ‘the government’ and ‘callous’.

the poor continue to get poorer and have to live in such death traps as Grenfell because of the governments callous disregard

Here ya go. 🙂

People always rabbit on about how much work the queen does for charities etc but all the work she does, apart from the state duties that a head of state of any type could do, are add ons to make her have work. Anyone could open a charity or a hospital or visit victims of a tragedy. It's all completely circular, because it only seems worthwhile that she is visiting because she is the queen. If she wasn't the queen, she wouldn't need to visit

We could even have all the Pageantry as well. No reason why we can't have changing the Guard, Trooping the Colour etc.

The only pageantry we wouldn't have is all the wedding stuff.

How can you troop the colour if there isn’t a sovereign? I know they used to carry out the ceremony for other reasons hundreds of years ago, but it is now tied up with the monarch’s birthday.

How can you troop the colour if there isn’t a sovereign? I know they used to carry out the ceremony for other reasons hundreds of years ago, but it is now tied up with the monarch’s birthday

Link it to another day?

It's not that hard. A regiment has its colours. Pick a special day to parade them in front of the Head of State. Helps celebrate the military and have the Head of State as the representative.

Well, exactly how important were they? The queen didn't offer to spend some of her sovereign grant to rehouse them, did she?

But she could hardly do that even if she wanted to could she? At the very least they were pleased to see her there.

And you don't know if the Queen (or any of the RF) donated anything from her personal wealth, unlike celebs who leak their generous donation giving to the press, I don't think she goes around shouting about things like that. Plus again, she would hardly be allowed to say if she did.

The Grenfell debacle and a refusal to allocate resources to those in need has nothing to do with the Queen. In fact I would say its because we really aren't expecting or demanding more from our politicians who are elected to represent us but instead represent their friends.

I have never believed that if you abolish the Monarchy you'll somehow magically get a more egalitarian society. Nothing about the present day situation indicates that would be so. It's like the "let's abolish the lords" argument. All you'd replace it with is yet more crooked people who are not used to privilege and therefore actually more prone to bribery and pleasing whoever gives the next best opportunity.

You'd end up with president Boris.

Well as it now you're going to end up with King Charles, his suitability irrelevant.

You'd end up with president Boris

Who would have no political powers to decide law, who couldn't influence things and who would just have a role like the Irish President which would kill someone like Boris because he wants to get things done.

The point about 'President Boris, President Farage' has been discussed upthread.

I am interested to know where to go where life will be better for the just about managing: where are you choosing? Maybe we will follow you. And just to clarify the situation, please explain your criteria.

Free health care?
Reasonable but not over generous benefit criteria?
Or are you expecting a free four bed duplex with a sea view?

Get real. The UK is generous with social care and benefit, without bankrupting the taxpayers who fund the generosity. It may not be as munificent as the indigent would wish, but there is very little real serious poverty here, that is not compounded by disastrous life choices or massive ill-luck. And the ill luck will usually be caught up by the system. You do not pay for school, you don't pay health care, there's a state pension.

I love you OKSock Of course you're right.

Only the deluded think there is an entitlement to more than that. I do know that entitlements and benefits can be higher in other countries, but generally so are the tax rates even on ordinary salaries. Not perfect, agreed, but better than many and only worse than a very few.

I am interested to know where to go where life will be better for the just about managing: where are you choosing? Maybe we will follow you. And just to clarify the situation, please explain your criteria

What's this got to do with the idea of a Monarchy?
An interesting discussion but little to do with the Monarchy debate.

I suggest that the whole discussion of a monarchy is a distraction from more pressing issues. As a % of the whole value of the UK economy, the monarchy (however extravagant) is down in the .000 elements.

I suggest that the whole discussion of a monarchy is a distraction from more pressing issues. As a % of the whole value of the UK economy, the monarchy (however extravagant) is down in the .000 elements

Surely you mean the Monarchy and all its pageantry, media headlines and obsession is a distraction from more pressing issues?

The headlines about Meghan Markle is a distraction from Brexit.

(But it is of course possible to discuss the idea of a Monarchy and also other concerns)

I suggest that the whole discussion of a monarchy is a distraction from more pressing issues. As a % of the whole value of the UK economy, the monarchy (however extravagant) is down in the .000 elements.

does that matter? most single things in the budget are insignificant. That's just a waste of money, and giving it to people who have a ton.

But, it's actually not that insignificant. If you go with the high estimate of what the monarchy costs, it's about 15,000 nurses. But even if we don't get the nurses, why not just not spend it on something so entirely wasteful.

We should have a proper head of state, and we could have a whole new office in government called "the queen". Doesn't do anything (no change then), but doesn't get any money (big savings). And those who want to worship her and give her an insignificant pound can do so on her gofundme page. Problem solved.

marchin1984: Nothing about the monarchy follows

Actually, it does. It was only Kerr's position as Governor General - as the representative of the Queen - that allowed him to dismiss Gough Whitlam, the Prime Minister, who was leader of a party which was elected by a majority and then install the leader of the opposition party as caretaker PM until an election could be held.

It doesn't matter who made the bad decisions - the actions were down to Kerr, who had the power and, many still think, abused it.

Years later, there was a rumour going around that Prince Charles evinced an interest in becoming Australia's GG, but it was never going to happen after Kerr's disastrous involvement in Australian politics as the representative of the Monarchy.

I don't get your point. That action neither supports nor condemns the idea of a monarchy. That he acted in the name of the monarchy doesn't condemn it. He could have just as easily done that had the GG been the actual head of state.

And, what does that say about either the british monarchy or monarchies in general?

marchin84: I don't get your point. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are not getting - and I'm not being passive aggressive saying this. I genuinely don't understand what you're not getting.

That action neither supports nor condemns the idea of a monarchy. On this thread, I don't think I personally have made any comment, positive or negative, about the British, Liechtenstein, Belgian, Spanish or any other monarchy.

Rather my comment was in response to your statement but the de facto head is the GG, which effectively is effectively ceremonial. I referred to a Governor General who took his position as a figurehead a long long way beyond the ceremonial. In his former role as a judge, Kerr could not have performed such an act - it was only the role of GG which permitted him to do so.

Had he been an elected head of state, yes, he could still do so. But, and it's a big but, he would be an Australian elected by Australians.

I hope you now get my point. If not, I will try to clarify it for you. I will reiterate, I am making no comments about monarchies, but am responding to your statement.

That he acted in the name of the monarchy doesn't condemn it. Are you referring here to condemnation of Kerr's act or that he acted in the name of the monarchy?

I suggest Neil Kinnock or his wife for president. They would be perfect.

Ha! at the thought of anyone wanting to watch Neil Kinnock take the salute.

It’s crazy to think that in this day and age, we have this top alpha family, the monarchy, who have done absolutely nothing to gain their high privilege and status, and yet they are revered like gods, by many, and we stil have to pay them to stay where they are?

Absolutely shocking. Although, on the flip side, they do draw in the tourists and wedding was rather lovely.

Ha! at the thought of anyone wanting to watch Neil Kinnock take the salute

It would be the Head of State representing the country, lots of pageantry, decorated soldiers, all the stuff that happens now...except the person taking the salute wouldn't be an unelected Monarch but an elected Head of State representing the country.

I am sure some people come to see the Queen. I am sure others come to see the pageantry itself.

It's strange to see how the Queen / member of the Royal Family is seen as a 'God' almost. Would numbers fall if the Queen was represented by Charles or a minor member of the Royal Family?