Diamond Jubilee

Would you like to see the Queen's head on a spike?

I would.

On a serious note, I'm not in favour of murdering anyone, but I hope one day, certainly not in my life time, that this country will see sense and reject the notion of a Royal Family.

The very idea that if you are born or marry into one particular family you can enjoy a life of wealth and status on an unparalleled level, subsidised by the tax-payer, sickens me. I resent the Royal Family's existence. If I were Prime Minister I would put them all in council houses and reclaim their many residences for public use. Don't reply to this post saying they raise enough money to pay for themselves through tourism because that is untrue.

I'm quite happy to have a discussion about the monarchy, however this post is really about the upcoming Diamond Jubilee and the media coverage.

There is this blanket assumption that "the whole country will unite in celebration". People like me, who aren't remotely interested in celebrating an old woman who has been living off the rest of us for 60 years, are ignored. Not just marginalised, but completely ignored, as though we don't exist.

I understand that the Diamond Jubilee and the Royal Family are important to all the sycophants and royalsts out there, and I am sure they have their reasons, and that's fine to a point, but it was the same with the Royal Wedding last year. The language the media use unfailingly assumes we are all up for watching, excited about. and planning our time around this shit.

At a time of enduring austerity, why are we wasting state resources on this event? Why do the media assume everyone is a monarchist? What a load of shit.

I beg to agree.

Think most people on here won't be too fussed about the Jubilee other than to have another paid days holiday.

I don't mind the Queen - she's only constitutional head of the country anyway - if we did not have her we would only have to have elect a Presidential figurehead instead - at least the queen is not a 'political' appointment.

Anyway as the sex pistols say -

We're not having another paid days holiday are we? We've lost a bank holiday in May to account for the extra one on the Jubilee Weekend.

Rather amusingly, someone I know has planned his wedding for the Sunday, rather than the Saturday which most people go for, which normally precedes the May bank holiday, completely forgetting the Jubilee until it was too late.

Oh well we got one on her 25th and also on her 50th - so we can't complain I guess.

I love the queen. You should never underestimate her value to the tourist industry in this country.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I love the queen. You should never underestimate her value to the tourist industry in this country.

I don't underestimate it, but it's a proven fact that it doesn't cover the cost of keeping her and the rest of the parasites.

It could be argued that if you stuck the queen on a bonfire and opened up all of her many homes to the public, tourists would spend even more.

largehat wrote:

I don't underestimate it, but it's a proven fact that it doesn't cover the cost of keeping her and the rest of the parasites.

It could be argued that if you stuck the queen on a bonfire and opened up all of her many homes to the public, tourists would spend even more.

Get real, half the yanks on holiday here come simply for the royal family.

What woud take her place, and why sell all the buildings? The proceeds would only find their way into some rich bankers pocket, or an 'entreprenurial 'politician. The country really would have nothing once all its history and assets are sold off. Although not 100% behind the majority of the Royal Family, I think the Queen does a good job, although all the hangers-on and sycophantic supporters do make me wonder what its all about. Look at the USA with their less than democratic processes. Democratic in theory, but each Presidency bought by the richest ticket to influence the Electoral Colleges.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:

I don't underestimate it, but it's a proven fact that it doesn't cover the cost of keeping her and the rest of the parasites.

It could be argued that if you stuck the queen on a bonfire and opened up all of her many homes to the public, tourists would spend even more.

Get real, half the yanks on holiday here come simply for the royal family.

What, and they all have tea with the Queen do they?

gloswhite wrote:What woud take her place, and why sell all the buildings? The proceeds would only find their way into some rich bankers pocket, or an 'entreprenurial 'politician. The country really would have nothing once all its history and assets are sold off. Although not 100% behind the majority of the Royal Family, I think the Queen does a good job, although all the hangers-on and sycophantic supporters do make me wonder what its all about. Look at the USA with their less than democratic processes. Democratic in theory, but each Presidency bought by the richest ticket to influence the Electoral Colleges.

I didn't propose we should sell all the buildings, I said they should stay in public ownership.

Whether they are used for tourism, or to house people, or whatever, is a separate discussion really.

If by "the Queen does a good job" you mean sitting on her arse being waited on hand and foot, then I agree.

largehat wrote:


The very idea that if you are born or marry into one particular family you can enjoy a life of wealth and status on an unparalleled level, subsidised by the tax-payer, sickens me. I resent the Royal Family's existence.

These were virtually my exact words at the pub the day of the royal wedding last year, and I was told by pretty much everyone that had involved themselves in the debate that I was talking shit.

I couldn't agree more with you.

doffcocker wrote:

largehat wrote:


The very idea that if you are born or marry into one particular family you can enjoy a life of wealth and status on an unparalleled level, subsidised by the tax-payer, sickens me. I resent the Royal Family's existence.

These were virtually my exact words at the pub the day of the royal wedding last year, and I was told by pretty much everyone that had involved themselves in the debate that I was talking shit.

I couldn't agree more with you.

Yes they are rich, and yes they are waited on hand and foot. But would you really want their life? They can't go anywhere without bodyguards, I bet the queen has never been to Londis for a can of Pepsi and a Twirl.

LH, you know she does rather more than that, although being the Queen it isn't always made public, besides, she often walks her own corgis, or so rumour has it. For a lady of 84 (?) she gets through a prodigious amount of work, whether you think it impotant or not, and she is very intelligent, and misses nothing when she's conducting her royal duties. I've been at two places of work when she has visited, and believe me she misses nothing.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Yes they are rich, and yes they are waited on hand and foot. But would you really want their life? They can't go anywhere without bodyguards, I bet the queen has never been to Londis for a can of Pepsi and a Twirl.

You're right Natasha, but that's not a justification for their continued existence and tax payers money being chucked at them.

gloswhite wrote:LH, you know she does rather more than that, although being the Queen it isn't always made public, besides, she often walks her own corgis, or so rumour has it. For a lady of 84 (?) she gets through a prodigious amount of work, whether you think it impotant or not, and she is very intelligent, and misses nothing when she's conducting her royal duties. I've been at two places of work when she has visited, and believe me she misses nothing.

Yes OK she does more than sitting on her arse being waited on hand and foot.

But why her, by virtue of her birth? We live in a parliamentary democracy. Why are Catholics not allowed to marry into the Royal Family? Why should everyone else pay for her to live in several palaces?

I'm not saying there isn't a benefit in having a stately person representing your country on overseas and state visits, there clearly is. I just will never accept that it should be the exclusive privilege of one family.

They are not in touch with reality.

ok, the royalty question is for another thread, and I can see where you're coming from, like many others. One final point though. It doesn't matter if you are born into a royal family or not, this world is, and always will be, run by the haves and have nots. We have the royal family, the States has the Kennedy dynasty, North Korea has their own version , and so on. The one plus point for our royal family is that it makes money, and not all for itself.

I don't see why we can't discuss the Royal Family in general on this thread, gloswhite. It's likely the same people in favour of the big hoo-ha over the diamond jubilee (if there are any on BN) are going to be pro-monarchy anyway.

You will always have a situation where people have more than others but in every other facet of live people have an opportunity through skill, hard work or maybe luck, to become wealthy.

If you buy a lottery ticket, your ticket has the same chance of making you rich as any one else's.

If you invent something worthwhile, you have a great chance of becoming wealthy regardless of your background.

If you start a business and it is successful, the same applies.

I'm not arguing against hereditary wealth, I am arguing against the Royal Family. I am also against hereditary titles and peerages, but not as strongly.

So you're not coming to my street party Largehat?

Natasha Whittam wrote:So you're not coming to my street party Largehat?

Good question. I am prepared to be a complete and utter hypocrite when it comes to having a good time in the sun and getting drunk.

Send me the details of your party via a PM, Nat, and we'll catch up over a jug of Pimms. I might lower the tone a litte bit, but I promise I'll do my best to fit in with your wealthy friends.