Heartland

markfiend wrote: Ah yes, good point!

I strongly suspect though, that when Charles finally does get to be king (he's been heir apparent for longer than anyone else in British history) he'll do something stupid and arrogant and provoke a constitutional crisis. At which point, we can finally wave bye-bye to the monarchy.

Wishful thinking?

The thinking now is that Charles will realise he's damaged goods and pass on the crown. Wishful thinking by the royalists I suspect, the mans shown too much of an ego over the years for that. Besides, am pretty sure if Charles ever refused the crown his issue would be barred too, and it'd go to Andrew. Wouldn't that be fun..?

Just WTF do The Black Eyed Peas have to with the Queen or the UK

I for one would think her majesty has better taste then that.

DeWinter wrote:The thinking now is that Charles will realise he's damaged goods and pass on the crown. Wishful thinking by the royalists I suspect, the mans shown too much of an ego over the years for that. Besides, am pretty sure if Charles ever refused the crown his issue would be barred too, and it'd go to Andrew. Wouldn't that be fun..?

My money's on Charles either refusing it on the condition that it goes to William, or failing that accepting it and then abidicating immediately, which would hand the crown to his son by default. I don't think he's ever wanted the job - wants a nice quiet life in Devon with his organic farm, doing the things he wants to do. He's talked about modernizing the monarchy, assuming a more "European" model, and he is looking to make a break between old (his father's generation), and new schools of kinging. Lizzy Deuce is really the last of the 19th century monarchs - time we moved on.

EvilBastard wrote: My money's on Charles either refusing it on the condition that it goes to William, or failing that accepting it and then abidicating immediately, which would hand the crown to his son by default. I don't think he's ever wanted the job - wants a nice quiet life in Devon with his organic farm, doing the things he wants to do. He's talked about modernizing the monarchy, assuming a more "European" model, and he is looking to make a break between old (his father's generation), and new schools of kinging. Lizzy Deuce is really the last of the 19th century monarchs - time we moved on.

I dunno, a man with a retinue of servants into double figures and his own private train doesn't strike me as being a moderniser. He's also quoted as saying he'll be as vocal in his support for the subjects close to his heart as King and those hoping for the restrained style of his mother will be disappointed. I suspect we'll get a male Queen Victoria, a monarch who constantly interferes and is given the polite raspberry by ministers.
I'm not convinced a "European" monarchy is on the cards either, given one of the major justifications for them is the pomp and circumstance supposedly bringing in slack-jawed tourist money.

DeWinter wrote:I dunno, a man with a retinue of servants into double figures and his own private train doesn't strike me as being a moderniser. He's also quoted as saying he'll be as vocal in his support for the subjects close to his heart as King and those hoping for the restrained style of his mother will be disappointed. I suspect we'll get a male Queen Victoria, a monarch who constantly interferes and is given the polite raspberry by ministers.
I'm not convinced a "European" monarchy is on the cards either, given one of the major justifications for them is the pomp and circumstance supposedly bringing in slack-jawed tourist money.

I don't buy it - mid-60s is not an age when people want to start a new job, and he must be aware of prevailing national feeling as pertains him and her indoors.
The tourism-revenue thing is a bit of a red herring. I was reading recently that the biggest argument against dissolution of the monarchy is that HMG wouldn't have the income from the Crown Estates, which vastly outweighs what is paid out in the Civil List. Plenty of other countries are monarchies but you don't hear too much made of the Netherlands' ruling family as a tourist draw

EvilBastard wrote:Plenty of other countries are monarchies but you don't hear too much made of the Netherlands' ruling family as a tourist draw

But you don't hear about them visiting other countries and being massive draws there either. Like them or loathe them, people do flock to see the UK monarchy and their houses. I don't know what money they actually bring in but they are a big draw and are ridiculously popular in countries that have long since rejected monarchy (usually the UK monarchy ironically enough). FFS, American TV companies even make mini-series about them and Helen Mirren's never won an Oscar for playing the Dutch queen.

stufarq wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:Plenty of other countries are monarchies but you don't hear too much made of the Netherlands' ruling family as a tourist draw

But you don't hear about them visiting other countries and being massive draws there either. Like them or loathe them, people do flock to see the UK monarchy and their houses. I don't know what money they actually bring in but they are a big draw and are ridiculously popular in countries that have long since rejected monarchy (usually the UK monarchy ironically enough). FFS, American TV companies even make mini-series about them and Helen Mirren's never won an Oscar for playing the Dutch queen.

I get the "seeing houses" thing - people go to Germany and visit Mad King Ludwig's house (from which Mad King Ludwig has long since departed), or Versailles (whose last resident departed sans head). I think people would still come to see the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, Buck House, even without an extant monarchy. I don't think they come to England to see the Royal Family - they might shop at Harrods because of the royal connection, but I'm not sure that keeping one crooked Egyptian in brushed nylon sheets warrants keeping the family around.

And the sepos are weird in so many ways - they like a sense of "gloire", but weirdly they also want them to be approachable (which sort of defeats the purpose of monarchy - there's supposed to be a mystique, which is one of the reasons the Bourbon monarchy failed after French revolution). Di and Fergie were popular in the US because they weren't royal, and William/Harry The Bastard have been reduced to the level of American Idol winners. The Americans don't want a monarchy, they just want something that isn't what they've got, and they'll watch pretty much anything on TV so long as it's aspirational (which accounts for the difference in US and UK soap operas).

stufarq wrote: But you don't hear about them visiting other countries and being massive draws there either. Like them or loathe them, people do flock to see the UK monarchy and their houses. I don't know what money they actually bring in but they are a big draw and are ridiculously popular in countries that have long since rejected monarchy (usually the UK monarchy ironically enough). FFS, American TV companies even make mini-series about them and Helen Mirren's never won an Oscar for playing the Dutch queen.

There was a very embarrassing statistic a while ago that stated more people go to Legoland Windsor, than Windsor Castle. Most tourists are not hugely interested in walking around what's basically a giant museum.
I have the sneaking suspicion that if the Windsors could prove they brought money into the country, they'd be screaming the details from the rooftops. In point of fact they go to quite extraordinary lengths to ensure we cannot find out any of the costs. The security services won't release the costs of protecting them. They are exempt from the FOI act. They went to the European Court to prevent us finding out how much they cream off in EU subsidies for their land holdings, as the UK is a net contributor to the EU, that's our money. Charles is, according to rumour, the biggest recipient of EU aid in Britain as absentee landlord of half of Cornwall.
The so-called "Crown Estates" aren't even theirs, so why we should give them an income in exchange for it is a mystery. It was land owned by the government, which was once, obviously headed by the King/Queen.
This is why the Windsors don't own any of the former Crown Estates in Ireland.
I think though, neatly crapping on what I've just actually said, even if the evidence was there they brought money in, I'd still want rid of them. Their very existence kicks in the teeth any notion advancement in this country is based on merit. We can even blame our disaster of a P.M's political career on a phonecall from Buck House to CCHQ..

EvilBastard wrote: I was reading recently that the biggest argument against dissolution of the monarchy is that HMG wouldn't have the income from the Crown Estates, which vastly outweighs what is paid out in the Civil List.

The Crown Estates is a tricky thing to explain, but there's two basic misconceptions.
It was always government property, but of course, the monarch was the government. Now they no longer are. So the Crown Estates wouldn't revert back to the Windsor family in the event of a republic. They didn't in Ireland or any part of the former British Empire.
The second is the Civil List. It wasn't the Crown Estates that were exchanged for it, it was the monarch being responsible for the funding of the judiciary, army, navy, civil service, and a whole host of other things. Obviously it was too big a strain and the royal finances collapsed a fair number of times during the reign of the Georges. So the control of the military, judiciary, civil service and it's expenses were transferred to Parliament effectively neutering the monarch as a political force, and the Hanoverians got the Civil List to maintain themselves.
So if the Civil List arrangement were reversed, Lizzy would be on the street begging for pennies within about three months.

Back to Charles: anyone who thinks he'll refuse the crown or abdicate (in either case William would be the next King by the way) is fooling themself. He's been itching to take over the reins (if you pardon the pun) his whole adult life. Shame for him that his mother seems to have inherited her mother's longevity.

He's already shown a penchant for sticking his oar in where it's not wanted: his opinions on architecture are well known, as is his support for alt-medicine nonsense. (That the NHS pays for people to get homeopathic treatments at our expense despite there being copious evidence that the magic water doesn't work is at least partly down to his influence.)

He has also made noises about changing "Defender of the Faith" to "Defender of Faiths"; his ideas about some sort of rapprochement between the Church of England and Islam range from touchingly naïve to actively dangerous IMO.

So all back to normal now

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 2060629501

Pista wrote:So all back to normal now

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 2060629501

EvilBastard wrote:[William/Harry The Bastard have been reduced to the level of American Idol winners.

Maybe that's how we should choose them. Sobo for queen anyone? Or maybe Ashley as she's got her own dog.

(Yes, I know they were BGT but I've no idea who's been on American Idol although I'm fairly sure they wouldn't have been nearly as funny.)

stufarq wrote: I've no idea who's been on American Idol

Really ?? So up until now you've blissfully unaware of camp gothesque screamer Adam Lambert ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0u1sUU ... re=related

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:

stufarq wrote: I've no idea who's been on American Idol

Really ?? So up until now you've blissfully unaware of camp gothesque screamer Adam Lambert ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0u1sUU ... re=related

Why? What did I ever do to you?

I think Kelly Carlson may have won it once but I'm not sure. Were the Wurzels ever on it?

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:

stufarq wrote: I've no idea who's been on American Idol

Really ?? So up until now you've blissfully unaware of camp gothesque screamer Adam Lambert ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0u1sUU ... re=related

He is awfully, awfully, pretty..

DeWinter wrote:He is pretty, pretty awful..

Fixed that for ya.