William and Kate, at last

[devildeac]

It looks like that piece of shit Prince Charles is angling for that whore Camilla to become Queen when he takes the throne. Why am I not at all surprised?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -wife.html

Camilla looks like Mr. Ed.

Of course, of course.

[lawgrad91]

It looks like that piece of shit Prince Charles is angling for that whore Camilla to become Queen when he takes the throne. Why am I not at all surprised?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -wife.html

Camilla looks like Mr. Ed.

Of course, of course.

"Willll-buuuurrrrrr!"

[OZZIE4DUKE]

It looks like that piece of shit Prince Charles is angling for that whore Camilla to become Queen when he takes the throne. Why am I not at all surprised?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -wife.html

Camilla looks like Mr. Ed.

Which end?

[CathyCA]

It looks like that piece of shit Prince Charles is angling for that whore Camilla to become Queen when he takes the throne. Why am I not at all surprised?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -wife.html

Camilla looks like Mr. Ed.

Which end?

Very funny. I was comparing face to face. And those teeth!

[YmoBeThere]

Haven't the British royals long since lost any relevance other than tabloid fodder?

[colchar]

Haven't the British royals long since lost any relevance other than tabloid fodder?

In a word, no.

[Lavabe]

Haven't the British royals long since lost any relevance other than tabloid fodder?

In a word, no.

They could regain some relevance if they sponsored one of the Richard Petty Motorsports teams. I'm thinking they need to sponsor Dinger.

[Miles]

Haven't the British royals long since lost any relevance other than tabloid fodder?

In a word, no.

Not trying to be flippant, this is an honest question. What benefit does the monarchy provide? How are they relevant and what value do they bring to the kingdom?

[YmoBeThere]

Haven't the British royals long since lost any relevance other than tabloid fodder?

In a word, no.

Not trying to be flippant, this is an honest question. What benefit does the monarchy provide? How are they relevant and what value do they bring to the kingdom?

Agreed...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 88179.html

[Lavabe]

Not trying to be flippant, this is an honest question. What benefit does the monarchy provide? How are they relevant and what value do they bring to the kingdom?

Agreed...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 88179.html

They bring in tourists to the UK. And their daily sagas sometime generate decent SNL sketches. Otherwise, I agree completely.

[Miles]

In a word, no.

Not trying to be flippant, this is an honest question. What benefit does the monarchy provide? How are they relevant and what value do they bring to the kingdom?

Agreed...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 88179.html

I don't know if I should laugh, cry, or just be thankful I'm not shivering in a drafty, leaky flat blessing the queen. What a bitch.

[colchar]

Haven't the British royals long since lost any relevance other than tabloid fodder?

In a word, no.

Not trying to be flippant, this is an honest question. What benefit does the monarchy provide? How are they relevant and what value do they bring to the kingdom?

First, the monarch serves as the official Head of State. They do not wield any day-to-day powers but they are there if needed. Second, the monarch performs all kinds of foreign relations functions that would either not get done or would have to be done by elected representatives who have better things to do with their time. Third, the provide a direct link back through British history that demonstrates that, no matter what else happens, the head of state remains intact (there is a lot more to this but I'm in a hurry and don't have time to go into it all right now). Fourth, they only cost about 65 pence per person in Britain yet bring in far fare more than that each year in tourism money.

[colchar]

I don't know if I should laugh, cry, or just be thankful I'm not shivering in a drafty, leaky flat blessing the queen. What a bitch.

That story has to be taken in context. First, every senior citizen in Britain, regardless of their income, gets a heating allowance (seriously, millionaires get it too). Second, the monarch is required to maintain all of the palaces for the benefit of the country (tourism, historically listed buildings, etc.) but is required to do so out of their own pocket. They have to maintain them even if they never ever set foot in them. The majority of them should be administered by the government and not the royal family at their own expense. Finally, the newspaper that printed the linked story is decidedly left of centre so you cannot take anything they say about the monarchy at face value as their viewpoint is very biased.

[captmojo]

[devildeac]

This is freakin' hilarious following the capt all over the board tonight.

[Miles]

I don't know if I should laugh, cry, or just be thankful I'm not shivering in a drafty, leaky flat blessing the queen. What a bitch.

That story has to be taken in context. First, every senior citizen in Britain, regardless of their income, gets a heating allowance (seriously, millionaires get it too). Second, the monarch is required to maintain all of the palaces for the benefit of the country (tourism, historically listed buildings, etc.) but is required to do so out of their own pocket. They have to maintain them even if they never ever set foot in them. The majority of them should be administered by the government and not the royal family at their own expense. Finally, the newspaper that printed the linked story is decidedly left of centre so you cannot take anything they say about the monarchy at face value as their viewpoint is very biased.

How much is the Queen worth?
How much is the power bill?

[Miles]

\
In a word, no.

Not trying to be flippant, this is an honest question. What benefit does the monarchy provide? How are they relevant and what value do they bring to the kingdom?

First, the monarch serves as the official Head of State. They do not wield any day-to-day powers but they are there if needed. Second, the monarch performs all kinds of foreign relations functions that would either not get done or would have to be done by elected representatives who have better things to do with their time. Third, the provide a direct link back through British history that demonstrates that, no matter what else happens, the head of state remains intact (there is a lot more to this but I'm in a hurry and don't have time to go into it all right now). Fourth, they only cost about 65 pence per person in Britain yet bring in far fare more than that each year in tourism money.

What does "official Head of State" mean? Do they decide law? Do they declare war? Do they set income tax rates? What does it mean to not yield day-to-day powers but be there if needed? That sounds a lot like my boss and he is an extreme douchebag that is seriously over-qualified for his title and has climbed well-beyond the highest rung on the Peter Principle Ladder.

Still trying to understand. I'm pretty sure I could google my ass off on this and be led astray, or ask many a friend and get their interpretation, but you're the only the subject I know that seems to defend the crown so I'm really interested in your perspective.

[Lavabe]

First, the monarch serves as the official Head of State. They do not wield any day-to-day powers but they are there if needed. Second, the monarch performs all kinds of foreign relations functions that would either not get done or would have to be done by elected representatives who have better things to do with their time. Third, the provide a direct link back through British history that demonstrates that, no matter what else happens, the head of state remains intact (there is a lot more to this but I'm in a hurry and don't have time to go into it all right now). Fourth, they only cost about 65 pence per person in Britain yet bring in far fare more than that each year in tourism money.

1&3) So in case the PM is impeached, y'all know that there's someone there. Sort of like insurance, right?
2) We don't need that here in the US. We have a vice-president who handles most of those functions.
4) I always wonder how people calculate what proportion of the tourist money floating into Britain is due to the crown. As if there's no other reason to go to the UK.

[colchar]

I don't know if I should laugh, cry, or just be thankful I'm not shivering in a drafty, leaky flat blessing the queen. What a bitch.

That story has to be taken in context. First, every senior citizen in Britain, regardless of their income, gets a heating allowance (seriously, millionaires get it too). Second, the monarch is required to maintain all of the palaces for the benefit of the country (tourism, historically listed buildings, etc.) but is required to do so out of their own pocket. They have to maintain them even if they never ever set foot in them. The majority of them should be administered by the government and not the royal family at their own expense. Finally, the newspaper that printed the linked story is decidedly left of centre so you cannot take anything they say about the monarchy at face value as their viewpoint is very biased.

How much is the Queen worth?
How much is the power bill?

Define worth. Much of what she 'owns' is actually owned in the name of the British people and isn't anything she can turn into cash (ie. she can't go and sell Balmoral or anything). The Crown Jewels belong to the country and the institution of the monarchy so she can't exactly take them to Christie's to have them auctioned off for cash. Yes, she might technically be wealthy but she is asset rich and the assets don't actually belong to her.

[colchar]

What does "official Head of State" mean? Do they decide law? Do they declare war? Do they set income tax rates? What does it mean to not yield day-to-day powers but be there if needed? That sounds a lot like my boss and he is an extreme douchebag that is seriously over-qualified for his title and has climbed well-beyond the highest rung on the Peter Principle Ladder.

Still trying to understand. I'm pretty sure I could google my ass off on this and be led astray, or ask many a friend and get their interpretation, but you're the only the subject I know that seems to defend the crown so I'm really interested in your perspective.

As official head of state the monarch gives assent to the laws passed by Parliament but plays no role in the creation, debate, or passing of those laws. The monarch serves as a figurehead and giving assent to those laws is ceremonial - the monarch wouldn't refuse to give assent to any law that was passed (technically, I'm not even sure they could). They play absolutely no role, other than the ceremonial one, in deciding laws. When the Prime Minister is elected the monarch 'invites' them to form their government but that is kind of the same as the person in the US who swears the President into office after an election - not quite the same but close enough. If the Prime Minister chooses to dissolve Parliament they go to the monarch who gives their permission to do so. Technically Parliament cannot be dissolved without that permission but it is always always always granted. Again, the monarch's role is essentially ceremonial. They could refuse but that power hasn't been exercised in centuries and will never be exercised again.

After the last election there was some wheeling and dealing going on to form the coalition government that is in power now. There wasn't as much going on as people were led to believe as the Lib Dems knew they couldn't work with the Labour Party but could with the Conservatives despite being closer ideologically to Labour than to the Conservatives. While things were shaking out there was a great deal of uncertainty as to what would happen. If things had dragged on for any longer the Queen, as the reigning monarch, could've stepped in and told the politicians to get their shit together and to come to some sort of agreement sooner rather than later. Or she could have invited Gordon Brown and the Labour Party to continue in government until the parties figured things out amongst themselves. Or she could have asked David Cameron and his Conservatives to form a government for the time being until the parties figured their shit out. As it turns out, she didn't do any of those things and just let the parties get on with it themselves. But if things had dragged for longer on there would have been demands from the public that she step in to help sort the mess out. She does wield that kind of power but it is only ever exercised in exceptional circumstances.

It might be tough for an American to understand, especially since, technically, Britain does not have a written constitution. The monarch can also exercise the Royal Prerogative but that is only ever done on the advice of the Prime Minister so, in real terms, it is the Prime Minister who advises the monarch as to what they wish to see done and then the monarch goes and does it thus making it official.