How does the British royal family view the war?

[Kurai Tsuki]

I know that Tony Blair has been a big defender of the war in Iraq, but I have never heard what Prince Charles or the queen think about the invasion and occupation. Does anyone have this information?

[Funky Monk]

I think i read somewhere that the Queen was generally rather unhappy with the state of affairs over there. On the whole the Royals generally try to stay out if such matters.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wonder if Bess had to sign a piece of paper giving Blair permission to take Britain into war with Iraq?

You see she has the power not to sign such documents but they are taught not to use their powers, very strange.

[Funky Monk]

You see the thing is, despite generations of in-breeding, the royal family is not totally stupid. The Queen has preserved her power through a mixture of continuing to appeal to the symbolic love of the people and not doing anything to annoy anyone and promote reform.

If "Bess" signs something prohibiting an action which is supported by a large proportion of the public against the wishes of a "democratically" elected Prime Minister people are going to start to questino her role in political life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If "Bess" signs something prohibiting an action which is supported by a large proportion of the public against the wishes of a "democratically" elected Prime Minister people are going to start to questino her role in political life.

Sorry, I though most of the British public were against the war in Iraq.

[James]

The monarchy is a constitutional monarchy: the nature of our constitution (convention) dictates that the monarchy is for use in times of emergency. Like a constitutional fire extinguisher.
We don't have such a crises at the moment, so they are ceremonial (although of course they do have their influence).

[h&s]

Prince Charles was said to be against the war, but as he talks to plants, no-one cares what he thinks.
Personally, I hate anything to do with the Monarchy, and I look forward to the day when they are put in stocks and pelted with rotten fruit in the street!

[Fidelbrand]

Who cares? They are just a bunch of hypothetical morons who happen to inherit some hypothetical "tags".

[James]

I'd rather have the Queen as Head of State that another Blair, thatcher - or a Bush!
Which would of course be the reality of a republic

[JonP]

Down with the monarchy, they are an insult to "ordinary" hard working people in the UK, when it comes down to it i would rather have an elected head of state rather than someone who gets their power through blood.

[Funky Monk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:48 PM

Sorry, I though most of the British public were against the war in Iraq.
Point of contention. Much vocal anti-war support but still a large amount of people especially in Middle England who supported the idea. At best you could say a small majority of the people were against the War in Iraq.

[T_SP]

When it comes to Monarch's the French got it right! This maybe the only time I say that!!

[h&s]

I'd rather have the Queen as Head of State that another Blair, thatcher - or a Bush!
Which would of course be the reality of a republic
So you like the fact that Prince Andrew spent £350,000 of our money on helicopter transport last year, most of which was for under 100 miles?

[James]

Not meaning to sound rude - but i do wish you would read my posts.
Read it again, and you can answer that for yourself (hint - i said Queen, not royal family)

[Hate Is Art]

I have nothing against to be honest, they do generate quite a bit for the economy but I just think that alot of the tax money could be spent on a more valuable cause, like schools or hospitals.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 29 2004, 01:36 PM
I have nothing against to be honest, they do generate quite a bit for the economy but I just think that alot of the tax money could be spent on a more valuable cause, like schools or hospitals.
Exactly! They do bring in some revenue but with there rascist attitudes, (princess Micheal being the most recent case) do these idiots really represent us??

[el bigpig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:55 PM
Down with the monarchy, they are an insult to "ordinary" hard working people in the UK, when it comes down to it i would rather have an elected head of state rather than someone who gets their power through blood.
The monarchy is just there to give Britian its cultural differences, wheter or not a few humans benefit from it is not really a problem to me. Since it has been around for so long and the monarchy has more of a satircal viewpoint with no real power, it doesn't really bother me that the monarchy is being kept. Now if this were happeneing in a not so economically-prosperous country such as, well asy any 3rd world country, this may be more of a concern to me.

[Funky Monk]

Think we went through the big monarchy thing a couple of months ago. The fact is that whilst the monarchy is of course a terrible thing, practically they do a lot of good for the country and reform should be made to the extent of the royal list rather than with a large axe.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:55 PM
Down with the monarchy, they are an insult to "ordinary" hard working people in the UK, when it comes down to it i would rather have an elected head of state rather than someone who gets their power through blood.
Exactly, the Royal family could care less what's going on Iraq, they are too busy spending their family fortune at the expense of the tax payers.

[James]

Think we went through the big monarchy thing a couple of months ago


indeed (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18854&hl=monarchy&st=40)

[Funky Monk]

Does anyone ever get the feeling that some members live inside their heads?

[James]

Are you refering to what i like to call, philosophically detached?
Or just a more general, ignorance?
Or something else?

[Funky Monk]

At a guess i'd say philosophical detatchment although i might like you to clarify your definition.

[James]

Well like Lovett in C19th. He was for sure, philosophically detached.

Where-as O'Connor incomparrison, was just a little inconsistent, unorigional, idealist and mad.

[h&s]

Not meaning to sound rude - but i do wish you would read my posts.
Read it again, and you can answer that for yourself (hint - i said Queen, not royal family)
I apologise, but the Queen also spends a hell of a lot of our money. I only quoted Prince Andrew because he is the only one I have figures for.
The Queen's royal train costs us millions each year to keep going, she wastes more of our money than the other royals.
James, are you against private property?
If so, you really shouldn't support the royals, as they are the biggest lanowners in the country.

[Kez]

Shoot the ****s.

the crown, the church and the Conservative Party, fuck em all.

If you want to know the views of the Royal family, read the tory manifesto, or the mumbo jumble bible.

[James]

I apologise, but the Queen also spends a hell of a lot of our money.

Yes, but when do you think she does this?


The Queen's royal train costs us millions each year to keep going, she wastes more of our money than the other royals.

Because she is the head of state - i'd be concerned if the others were spending more.


James, are you against private property?
If so, you really shouldn't support the royals, as they are the biggest lanowners in the country.



This is what me and monk were on about - some people just have these popular misconceptions.
I'll explain for you, but please read carefully:
True the "Head of State expenditure" is met from public funds - i.e. the tax payer. But this is in exchange for the "surrender" by Queen of the revenue from what is called, the "Crown Estate". It is a VERY good deal:

Financial year to 31 March 2003;
Revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury was £170.8 million.
Head of State expenditure for 2003-04 was £36.8 million.

so thats around £140m mate. And thats not counting the indirect money the monarchy brings in.

Imagine how much a Bush would cost us! I don't have the figures at hand, but i'd be VERY shocked if the presidency was better value for money. And of course, due to the nature of elections, Queen really is the best head of state we can have.

+ + +



Shoot the ****s.

How intelligent. Thanks for joining in kamo.


the crown, the church and the Conservative Party, fuck em all.

queen isn't really anything to do with the church - its more of a ceremonial historical role.
Oh and the queen and thatcher HATED each other. The queen prevented alot of thatcher legislation.
How do you feel about that kamo? The queen has done more for the working class than you ever will! How about we shoot you? ;)


If you want to know the views of the Royal family, read the tory manifesto, or the mumbo jumble bible.

As i said, she isn't really a Conservative - even though she is conservative. with a small c.
What has the bible got to do with their views kamo?

[Kez]

what was said was that they are 3 branches of the establishment, all of which protect the state.

As for the Queen being good value for money, the slaves were also good value for money, u paid them piss all, u got lots of work out of them, straight into the budget. You want to bring slaves back?
The point is nobody should have the right of doing fuck all, and getting all the money they need.
Its the principle.


You didnt answer the previous question, are you against private property?

The Conservatives have always defended the Queen, and along with them so do you, for the same fucking reasons. backward degenerate.

Does it not piss you off were subjects and not citizens?

[h&s]

Why are we concentration on the monetary aspect of how the Monarchy benefits us?
They are from a long line of slave-driving scum who enslaved Europe through feudalism.
They were constantly at war for stupid reasons.
Why should we care that they might be somehow benefitting us now?
I can't stand to look at one of their in-bred faces any more than I can stand to look at Bush or Blair.
They get paid to live in the biggest houses in the country for going to the odd charity do, and they get paid to go on holiday, while they are already the richest family in the country.
They lord it over us, and why should we let them do that?
Oh yes, James; Answer the question: Are you against private property?

[James]

Why are we concentration on the monetary aspect of how the Monarchy benefits us?

What??! READ WHAT YOU POST!
I was replying to what YOU had said:
"Queen also spends a hell of a lot of our money"


In the other thread from a while back, which i provided a link for at the top of this page, i discussed the various benifits of the monarchy. You can't just ignore these.
The reality of the matter is that if you got a republic, now and in the forseeable future, we would end up with a thatcher as our head of state.
Am i the only one who is against this??


The Conservatives have always defended the Queen

Unlike your gracious party of course!
The most republican party is the lib dems, and they arn't that republican. they prevented their youth wing from taking a vote on the matter at their convention.

I don't really feel like either citizen or subject. Do you? It wouldn't really change anything - look at america, they are the biggest republic in the world. And most capitalist! If its a choice between remaining a british subject, and becoming a citizen of america, i know which i'd choose every time!


private property... now this is a dodgy issue. Tell me what you mean first - are you refering to possessions, or land, or what? Different leftists define it differently, thus its easy to fall into a "trap".

[h&s]

Why are we concentration on the monetary aspect of how the Monarchy benefits us?
What??! READ WHAT YOU POST!
I was replying to what YOU had said:
"Queen also spends a hell of a lot of our money"

I know, thats why I put we.


private property... now this is a dodgy issue. Tell me what you mean first - are you refering to possessions, or land, or what? Different leftists define it differently, thus its easy to fall into a "trap".
In this case I mean the royals owning half the land in the country, and then charging their people rent for using it.

[Funky Monk]

Anyone see the thing about Charlie? He's really raking it in with his land in Cornwall.

[James]

In this case I mean the royals owning half the land in the country, and then charging their people rent for using it.

Well if it is "crown estate", it is in effect a source for taxation. Alot of the land is now opened. Remember also the crown, is in effect, another name for the state. Its an issue regarding how you feel about the state owning vast amounts of land.
Whilst there are benifits of this (e.g. revenue), it is WRONG.

I resent the selling off of all public land.
Especially school fields by the way! So many are being sold off because they lack funding.
This is also contributing to our youth becoming SO bloody fat and unfit.