The Monarchy

[An Elegant Iguana]

I'm sure the Estate managers are capable of doing their jobs without intervention from those up high. A bit like how the country does not collapse when the legislative branch swan off on their 76 day holiday each summer.

Though, you have a point about the island. gonk  

[Invictus_88]

Well - it is the case that the estates are managed under the guidance of the monarchy, if they wanted to allow building on greenbelt land then they could do so. Just as many landowners do. However they're standing their ground.  

[An Elegant Iguana]

Invictus_88

Well - it is the case that the estates are managed under the guidance of the monarchy, if they wanted to allow building on greenbelt land then they could do so. Just as many landowners do. However they're standing their ground.

My point was that the running of the Crown Estate would not need micromangement from the monarch themselves  

[and_solo_said]

Zarathushtra

Invictus_88

Well - it is the case that the estates are managed under the guidance of the monarchy, if they wanted to allow building on greenbelt land then they could do so. Just as many landowners do. However they're standing their ground.

My point was that the running of the Crown Estate would not need micromangement from the monarch themselves

But without the monarch as a head it would deteriorate into one massive auction. In the governments hands everything would get sold off, gradually, just before each election to raise funds for some woman who wanted an untested drug on the NHS or somesuch nonsense.  

[Invictus_88]

Zarathushtra

Invictus_88

Well - it is the case that the estates are managed under the guidance of the monarchy, if they wanted to allow building on greenbelt land then they could do so. Just as many landowners do. However they're standing their ground.

My point was that the running of the Crown Estate would not need micromangement from the monarch themselves

It doesn't need it, indeed, I agree. I don't expect my monarch to act as surveyor for every inch of property, I'm happy that the monarchy is simply providing the requirement for sustainable and ethically sound progression.

The Crown Estate doesn't go so far as Highgrove, certainly, but it's far better managed than anything the government has ever been responsible for.  

[Panthino the Moth]

I've recently discovered I'm even more of a monarchist than I thought.

I book I've been reading made an interesting point about the monarchy: they are there to take away the pomp that comes from being leader of a country, so that Britain is safe from dictators. Bear with me. They remove the incentive of becoming leader to revel in the glory and pomp.

Of course, this is failing somewhat these days.  

[Invictus_88]

Panthino the Moth

I've recently discovered I'm even more of a monarchist than I thought.

I book I've been reading made an interesting point about the monarchy: they are there to take away the pomp that comes from being leader of a country, so that Britain is safe from dictators. Bear with me. They remove the incentive of becoming leader to revel in the glory and pomp.

Of course, this is failing somewhat these days.

But this way, though that ugly monster Mrs Blair spends taxpayers' money on her hair, she's not entitled to do so.

This means we can stop her, and can reasonably order her to not extend that spending to her clothes, car, friends and business associates.

Which would be much more difficult if she were called, for example, Chirac.  

[A Lost Iguana]

Invictus_88

But this way, though that ugly monster Mrs Blair spends taxpayers' money on her hair, she's not entitled to do so.

When did she do that? All I know if it when her expenses for the Labour campaign was published but that money is the Labour Party's to spend as they wish [it's not from the taxpayer].  

[Invictus_88]

A Lost Iguana

Invictus_88

But this way, though that ugly monster Mrs Blair spends taxpayers' money on her hair, she's not entitled to do so.

When did she do that? All I know if it when her expenses for the Labour campaign was published but that money is the Labour Party's to spend as they wish [it's not from the taxpayer].

But...but, no. Damn.

I thought parties got central funding, but I'm wrong. That's just something they were discussing at the time.  

[Panthino the Moth]

Invictus_88

A Lost Iguana

Invictus_88

But this way, though that ugly monster Mrs Blair spends taxpayers' money on her hair, she's not entitled to do so.

When did she do that? All I know if it when her expenses for the Labour campaign was published but that money is the Labour Party's to spend as they wish [it's not from the taxpayer].

But...but, no. Damn.

I thought parties got central funding, but I'm wrong. That's just something they were discussing at the time.

I think we were all just shocked that anyone would spend £7,700 to make her hair look like that.

(That was surprisingly catty).  

[Sir_Catherine]

Sad to admit, for me, but I must post here from an outside perspective.

I think most in the U.S. see the Monarchy as outdated, uninvolved, expensive, tradition bound, and just plain strange to have around.

I am very glad to read that this is not the majority opinon here!

Personaly, I have a deep respect for history and the role the Monarchy has played in it. I'm also aware of the tourisim industry built up around them and their very real current roles in the government and society. I think most of my fellow U.S. citizens are ignorent fools on this matter.

If I had something to offer to England, I would seriously consider applying for British citizinship. It would not bother me to be a suject of the Queen. I am guessing that as part of obtaining citizinship, one must swear loyalty to HM the Queen? If there is, I would be proud to swear to defend and protect.

I am heartend to hear others who are subjects speak along similar lines.  

[Sir_Catherine]

Invictus_88

Fourcolour

Invictus_88

She was still Princess of Wales though..

True, but I don't think she should have been.

She shouldn't, but she was.

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. I am not the only one who finds it wrong that she remained 'Princess of Wales' when she divorced Prince Charles? How refreshing. Diana is so beloved by the general culture here in the U.S. I hesitate to tell people, when she comes up as a subject, that I couldn't really care less about her. Yes, she did some wonderful acts of charity, but so then do many of the royals. She just did so more publicly.

Here is a piece of ignorance I just recalled. Enjoy if you like; as it concerns the Monarchy, I thought it might belong here.

I work in a bookstore and right now there is a biography of Diana behind the cash registers. One customer I was serving made the comment, "The Royals must make a lot of money off that book."
It took me a moment to find my voice and I think she was a bit taken back when I told her flatly, "No. They don't." I actualy had to explain that the subject of a biography does not recieve royalties or any pay unless it is an autobiography, in which case the subject is the author and thus should be paid for the work they have done when the book sells.
It is this type of ignorence that helps lead people to think the Monarchy is disgustingly rich and the 'needless tax burdon' anti-royalists like to bring up.  

[Emmanuela]

I find this fact quite amusing:

Camilla is cleverer then Diana because....

Wait for it....

... Camilla got 1 GCSE where as Diana got none!  

[Sir_Catherine]

Emmanuela

I find this fact quite amusing:

Camilla is cleverer then Diana because....

Wait for it....

... Camilla got 1 GCSE where as Diana got none!

'GCSE'...what is this?

I hope I don't stand out to badly as an ignorant American in this guild.