So what does everything think of "The Engagement"?

I have to admit - I wasn't a Diana Nut like so many - but I adore William...likely an overflow of maternal affection because he had a wacky, absent mother who he adored and what appeared to be automatons standing in for his father's side of the family. My children were the ages of William and his brother. Diana's birthday - the day after mine - her wedding a few months after mine, so there was an added interest because of that.

Of course, my opinions about the royal family is all conjecture driven by biased, prurient Fleet Street pics and blurbs... but, I like the kid. I am actually and shamefully invested in a happy future for him - and I like his choice, from the scant bit of unreliable info I have.

It IS creepy that they've passed down that particular ring, but William may actually want his intended to have the ring he saw on his mother's hand most often.

I wish them well.

I didn't think we were discussing the maintenance of the "royal family" on this thread, chai. Just responses to the forthcoming wedding. But seeing as you've brought this subject up ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5123580.stm

That is something close to $60 million in US dollars each year. Paid by taxpayers. Plus extras.

I think, in the process of evaluating whether that amount of money is worth it or not, it might depend on whether you might see better uses for taxpayers' money? Depending on whether you're a monarchist or not?

Or perhaps whether or not ordinary British taxpayers are getting a reasonable return for underwriting such expenses?

I think that when the old broad finally kicks that the British will get rid of the monarchy, so I don't have the time to care about these young people.

At last the British monarchy is seemingly willing to let working class genes enter the Saxe Coburg whirlpool. Well, working class on the mother's side anyway.
Mrs Middleton's father (Harrison clan) was an engineer, and his father was a Coalminer from Durham, as was his father and the one before him. The father before that was probably something else, as coal hadn't been invented in his time, so he was probably something like a pig sticker or a groat harvester. Whatever he was, you can be sure he was tugging his forelock from an early age, so good luck to them and I hope the goldfishbowl existence turns out to be worth it in the end.
Kate herself is a fine looking young lady who seems to be able to handle things with grace and humour, so all things point to them being very popular with the unwashed masses not only in the UK, but around the world.

I predict that, certainly in the USA, she will eventually prove to be as popular as her late MIL, but this time the attraction will be enhanced by the fact that this time around it's a real love match, and she'll have a really nice guy on her arm, whether he keeps his hair or not. William will prove to be the first of a modern style monarchy, and will go down as one of the most popular Monarchs of recent times.

I wish them well, and don't begrudge the costs involved regarding the upcoming marriage, as this will be returned tenfold in both money generated, and more importantly, a sorely needed feel good factor to give a lot of people, both in the UK and abroad, a much needed bit of relief from the drudgery and worry of our present and ongoing lives.

Bring it on, that's what I say!

And quite right in the horrendous economic circumstances for ordinary people, too!

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/71680,people,news,prince-charles-to-pay-for-the-royal-wedding-

Poppycock! (to put it politely)

Elizabeth is of her time, Charles was brought up in that same starched formality but has to cope with the modern world and finds it almost impossible. He therefore puts his foot in it on regular occasions and generally comes across as a chinless idiot. He has his faults, but most of that can be placed at the door of the people who chose the way in which he was raised.

William, however, is totally different. At present he is an air/sea rescue helicopter pilot, who really wants to be of use and do something worthwhile with his life before the constraints of Kingship get thrust upon him. He is not just playing at all of this, he genuinely wants to be no different from anyone else at this moment in his life.
He has recently volunteered to work the Christmas shift this year, so that his crewmates can spend time with their families, and fully intends to live with Kate up on wet and windy Anglesea after the marriage, and by all accounts is resisting any attempt to transfer him to a more comfortable ceremonial position, and seems to be getting his way.
He wanted to go to Afghanistan and serve with the lads, as has his brother Harry, but this was a bridge too far for the stuffed shirts and his repeated requests have all been refused. You can see their point. Imagine what efforts would be made by the taliban to capture or kill such a high profile prize.

William is an affable, intelligent, conciensious young man who has his mother's compassion without the need for drama that went with it.

He will do well and will be loved, believe me. This young man, if anything, will probably end up being the saviour of the British Monarchy, whether you give a fig about it or not.

Personally I find the notion of publicly funded "royalty" a pretty strange concept, Old Goat.

What exactly do you see as their function in 2010?

"Groat harvester" . . . i enjoyed that. So, if one were paid tuppence to harvest a groat, the coin is actually only worth tuppence, right?

that is certainly a line of reasoning that I have heard before. I think that argument assumes that the "Charles problem" can be dealt with, that he can be bypassed, which I dont know is set up. From what I gather he is intensely disliked, is considered a Buffoon, and is in excellent health. In this age of austerity can the monarchy be justified? I dont think so. How much money can be supplied to the treasury by liquidating the assets set aside for the family but not owned by the family? I'll bet it isa bunch. I dont think that William being charming and fun to watch is going to justify keeping a monarchy that serves no purpose other than celeb watching, on the public dole.

Yes, I believe the modern European way is that they can keep their titles, but they get no public money and they have no role in the government. If they can parley their titles into cash then good for them. I do believe that England, the bankrupt little nation of minor importance that it is, will need to get with the program. The British empire is long gone, time to realize this.

No, this it what concerns me.

It is the the impact on the lives on ordinary people, compared to the cost of maintaining the "royals'" expenditures.

Priorities, in other words.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979

Exactly, and with the exchequer empty dismantling the monarchy could be good for a nice pop, just as King Henry dismantled the Roman Catholic Church for financial profit, if the Tutor's TV show was correct.

Could you decode into plain English so it's clear what you're saying, please?

If the monarchy is abolished and all of the property that belongs to the British people but has been used to support the Royal family were to be sold off, then there would be a nice benefit to the National treasury...a nice pop.

I understand now.
Thank you.
But surely this is matter for the British people to decide?

yep.

Right.

Never Happen.

No chance, old boy, I say, who would oversee the empire.

What empire?

Where oh where to begin?

For a start they are a living thread right back to the ancients of this land, a direct (maybe in a slightly round about way on occasion) link back to the Normans and beyond.
Names, tribes, terminology and events that most people here know of, such as, in no particular order:

Boadicea (Boudicca of the Iceni), King Offa (of Offa's dyke fame), Cnut (Canute), Alfred The Great, William The Bastard (Conqueror), Richard the Lionheart, The Plantagenets, Henry V, Edward Longshanks, the Princes in the Tower, The War of the Roses, The Tudors, the break from the church of Rome (massive event in its time), Bloody Mary, The Virgin Queen, Virginia USA, Sir Francis Drake, The Armada, the game of bowls, Lady Jane Grey, The Stuarts, the beheading of Charles I, the civil war, Oliver Cromwell, the House of Hanover, the colonisation and eventual loss of America, the madness of King George, Queen Victoria, and the numerous places around the world named after her, Prince Albert and his passionate patronage of the Sciences and fledgling industry, the great exhibition, the spreading of the industrial revolution around the empire and eventually around the entire world, The Saxe Coburgs, The Windsors, the abdication, George VI and his wife, the Queen Mother, WWI and WW2 and the need for a serious rallying point, our present Queen, and that is just a snapshot.

A deep and undying Rallying point for the nation when our backs are against the wall, is how I would sum it up.

"I know I have the weak and feeble body of a woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a King" - Elizabeth the First, rallying the troops at Tilbury on the eve of the Armada, 1588.

" I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start. The game's afoot. Follow your spirit, and upon this charge Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' - Shakespeare, readily acknowledging Harry (Henry V) as a focal rallying point in the 1400's.

Into more modern times and Britain's "darkest hour", 1940.
(From Wikipedia) -" The Darkest Hour is a phrase coined by British prime minister Winston Churchill to describe the period of World War II between the fall of France in 1940 and the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941, when the British Commonwealth stood alone against Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers in Europe. It is particularly used for the time when the United Kingdom was under direct threat of invasion; following the evacuation of the British Army from Dunkirk and prior to victory in the Battle of Britain. The darkest moment is usually considered to have been 10 May 1941, when over 1,500 civilians died in Luftwaffe bombing raids on London alone"

Two things here. One, the commonwealth was fighting, and not the Brits alone.

To quite a few of those brave Commonwealth soldiers (not all, admittedly, but certainly the majority), they were rallying around the same figurehead that the British soldiers were fighting for. Britain as the mother country of the Commonwealth, with the King at it's head .

People must remember that, despite how Hollywood may beg to re-educate the masses, the Americans were nowhere to be seen at that time.

The rest of Europe had fallen.

Without the help of those many brave soldiers, sailors and airmen from the Commonwealth, this country would no doubt have been either blockaded into starvation and eventual surrender, or invaded and beaten comprehensively. Without that aid in those early days, Hitler would have very probably been able to concentrate more of his forces in our direction. The fact that he couldn't, meant that he left Britain free to become a staging post for the US when they had finally been cajoled into sending actual armies, as opposed to lend lease goods and machinery, of which all had to be paid for at a later date (I believe that the British Government finally finished paying for it in about 2005?)
You could say that the forerunner of Halliburton was alive and kicking even in those days.
Tom Hanks and Spielberg be buggered, the majority of troops landing on D-Day were British and Commonwealth, and the main reason the Commonwealth lads were there was because of their ties to this Island, and the reason that this miniscule Island was (note the word "was") sufficiently influential to create a Commonwealth in the first place was because of our unity around the flag and the propensity that they all had (note "had") to rally round our King or Queen in time of dire need. Thank god they did.

Modern times (post war) may have changed the viewpoint of many Commonwealth or ex Commonwealth member states and their peoples, especially after the way in which Britain cast them aside when it joined the European Union, but the fact is that they wouldn't probably exist as they do, if it were not for Brits going there and, lets face it, taking the place over in the first place.
The same goes for the USA.

And the Brits wouldn't have been sufficiently united and/or driven to spread themselves around the world without the one common rallying point, that was duty to their country, the monarchy being its all powerful figurehead.

Australia, without all this swashbuckling and conquest, would probably be speaking Dutch (maybe).
India would be without a common language (probably).
France (as with most of Europe) might be speaking German, but would more likely be speaking Russian.
The USA would have no influence in Europe at all, as that would be where the post war Iron Curtain commenced, and they would probably be speaking and acting French anyway, so they would probably just shrug their shoulders at such a situation.

Getting back to the subject in hand, the idea of Monarchy flows through the blood of every Brit, however much the supposedly anti royals bluster and rage against them. Our history has made us who we are, and our history is irrevocably entwined with Monarchy.

Show me one Brit who is dead against them, and I'll show you ten Brits (and hundreds more non Brits from other shores) who will fill with pride on the day of the wedding, and no doubt shed a tear as they watch it all on TV.

I could go on....


Their function in 2010? To keep our communal feeling of history, and I'm not just talking about 200 or 300 years of the stuff here, but thousands, alive and well.

What do Yanks want to see first when they come here ?

The same things that most of us pass by every day of the week, but totallt take for granted until something like a Royal wedding comes along.

Living history. It's everywhere you look over here, if you have a mind to.