I'm look for a discussion about Queen Elizabeth and how she acted after Diana's death. I never much cared for the Monarchy before, but I just can't stand them now. I just want to get some feel for the way the British feel about Elizabeth in particular, the royal family as a whole and the whole idea of the monarchy. I seriously think I couldn't live in England knowing how these pampered snobs where being supported off my hard day's work. It just sucks to me.
I haven't seen (and I wouldn't want to see) the Film.
This is a particularly hard subject for me, because I am torn between two emotions.
The first is due to my Mother's memory, and her attitude to the Royal family; she was extremely proud of the royal family, and went to great lengths to Make a "Union Jack" when we were in the Congo; most of it was hand stiched, and I dread to think how long it took her to make . The Flag is quite complicated.
I grew up with that mentality.
When Diana married Prince Charles, I was enamoured by her. Unlike most people I know, I believe that Prince Charles behaved like an absolute swine; rarely do I get so passionate, but this is one area where I do.
That he should still be seeing Camilla - and wear a gift of hers to the wedding was a bit much for me.
I expect most English members will disagree with me, but I saw the marriage as a simple trade in Charle's finding a charismatic baby-making machine. It is know that his Father had affairs after marrying the Queen (so, I guess it was O.K for his son to follow the family tradition ?)
Conspiracy theories abound by the ton; she was unfaithful to him (yes, after he was unfaithful to her - from the word "Go"); the Queen (I don't believe) ever liked Diana, because she was a threat (in that she had won over people's feelings). I honestly am not able to make my mind up about her death......for me, there will always be a question mark over that affair. I can fully empathise with Al Fayed.
The way I look at it now, the Royal family costs an absolute fortune "to keep in the style to which they are accustomed", and the ceremonies and pagentry would pay off a third world's debts in no time.
If this was France, I would have been a supporter of the anti - monarchy (although I would never want to see any harm come to any member of the family) - I think that they just ought to blend quietly into the countryside.
Strange, considering I have white Russian blood in me.....
As far as I am concerned, the British royal family should follow the example of other European countries, and just be "ordinary" though recognised as monarchy. i guess it is mainly the money spent on them that sickens me, when i see a need for that money elsewhere.
How do you feel about your own Great Billionaire families. is it not a capitalists right to be powerful wealthy and pampered.
The royal family used to be immensely wealthy and powerful. personally owning great chunks of the UK. and were largely above the Law and paid no taxes.
Victoria came to an agreement with the Government of the day ,and gave most of the royal lands and properties to the state in exchange for a pension... as agreed this has been paid ever since to senior members of the royal family... the exception is the lands of the duchy of Cornwall which is owned by the heir to the throne ( now prince Charles ) because of this he gets no money from the state. All this has meant that The royal family is now relatively poor by modern standards... had they kept their lands and properties they would still be probably the richest family in the world.
Poor dear, according to
http://www.forbes.com/people/2001/06/26/0626queens.html she is worh a measly "relative pauper's sum of $420 million. "
The queen has in recent years agreed to pay Tax on her wealth... she was exempt from this in the original agreement.
poor her..........and she received Child benefit (Paid to all mothers of Children in the U.K) - destined to help parents cope with the bringing up of their kids.........
I have talked to many British people on the issue of the royal family and the conclusion has always been They would far rather keep this system with the Queen as head of state than have a presidency. the cost for one thing is far less. The total cost to your own nation of the presidency is enormous. You put almost unlimited power into his hands. who can with out any training or qualification veto legislation of both houses. ( In theory the queen can do this but never would as she can have such powers removed by parliament)
The heirs to the throne are trained in their task over a long period and should they prove unequal to it... they either abdicate or are effectively sidelined by public opinion.
It is a known fact that the Royal families of various European Countries have "genetic defects" because historically, they were "Bred from pure stock" (just like animals, inbreeding only heightens physical or mental defects. The reason they were in - bred was to keep the peace, between nations.
On the other hand the extreme power of the president is placed in the hands of people who seem to be on a ego trip
That is a generality; it does
not have to be the case....
they must be extremely wealthy to get elected
Again, that does
not have to be so. Belgiun faced a dreadful financial mess after the end of WWII - mainly due to the collaboraters who received sums from the Germans, who had printed as much money as they had felt the need for.
Instead of going to a politician for an answer, a local unassuming butcher was asked for his opinion on how to deal with the problem; he immediately came out with the solution. Print brand new bank notes, and exchange the old currency for new as long as you could show how you came by the money you were exchanging. Apparently, there were - literally - thousands of bomfires from those who needed to dispose of wads of money rather fast.
