Plan B Forum

Posted: **Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:26 am**

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/24/rep ... ce/?hpt=T2

Posted: **Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:30 am**

Don't get me started....

Posted: **Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:12 pm**

Who voted them into office?

God?

Posted: **Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:03 am**

Who voted them into office?

God?

Well, that would appear to be the case, since the Head Of State's title begins:

"Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith..."

But this appears to be another case where the sensational headline is not backed up by the content of the story:

British newspaper The Independent, found out royal aides were looking at tapping into the $94 million fund to help with bills that ran more than $1,000,000.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/24/rep ... z10b1zcG6L[/b]

Neither this story, nor the one it links to from The Independent, contains any evidence whatsoever, (even from unnamed sources) that the Queen initiated this, suggested it, or had anything to do with it in any way shape or form.

But that didn't stop News Feed from running this headline:

Report: Queen Elizabeth Tried to Use Public Aid Fund to Heat Her Palace

Or The Independent from running this one:

Queen tried to use state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace

To me, this is a story that is much more about the decline of journalistic standards than anything else...

A story about some stupid, politically tone deaf Palace flunky bean counters trying to find out if there were government funds available to help them balance their books just doesn't have the pizazz of a story like "Rich Heartless Queen Wants To Raid Funds For The Poor"....

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:28 am**

The Queen’s officials spent more than £1.5million of taxpayers’ money on cosmetic improvements to her palaces as other aides begged the Government for more cash.

Nearly £100,000 went on cleaning chandeliers and £14,000 on a curtain to protect wine bottles in the Buckingham Palace cellars.

Refurbishing a staff canteen and games room cost £808,000 while turning a private cinema into a State function room was £458,000, official expenses documents show.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z10gXOUv00

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:49 am**

Yeah, so? It's Buckingham Palace, should she let the place fall into ruin?

Let's not forget. please, that the income that flows into the British treasury from the Crown Estate (the hereditary properties of the British Monarch) totals something like £190 million, while the total amount spent on all things royal is something like £38 million. Some of which now goes back to the Treasury in the form of taxes.

The British public are getting more than a 400% return on what they spend on the monarchy, be happy with that and STFU.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:27 am**

"Royalty." What a truly revolting concept. Ugh.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:32 am**

Really? I thought it rather revolutionary.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:36 am**

I'm with Scooter on this one.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:36 am**

Sue U wrote:"Royalty." What a truly revolting concept. Ugh.

I can see how someone could think that, but there is something to be said for a head of state who is completely above all politics (which an elected official, or a person appointed by an elected body, could never truly be). Such a person could act as a force for unity and to engender confidence in the institutions of the state. There was probably no better symbol of the morale of the whole nation, for example, when the then King and Queen chose to remain at Buckingham Palace during the Blitz, memorialized in the Queen's declaration that "the children won't leave without me, I won't leave without the King, and the King will never leave." In my own country and during my own lifetime, at the time when certain major constitutional changes were being made, the Queen tread a very delicate line and played a very influential role in seeing that those changes were enacted without spltting the country apart, a role with which no politician could have been credibly entrusted.

Sure, we could probably do without some of the pomp and snootiness (the Queen of the Netherlands reportedly does her own grocery shopping, for example) but all in all, monarchy has served most of those countries currently having one pretty well.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:27 pm**

I for one am glad we don't have any "royal" class in the USA.

Except for the MOTU and the pop stars.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:33 pm**

Just because your politiicians aren't called "royal" doesn't mean they don't live and expect to be treated that way.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:17 pm**

Scooter wrote: ... there is something to be said for a head of state who is completely above all politics ...

... all in all, monarchy has served most of those countries currently having one pretty well.

I don't see that those countries with monarchies are politically any better off than those without, while the social diseases attendant to "aristocracy" are self-evident. I'm pretty sure the French got it right.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:29 pm**

I'm pretty sure the French got it right.

You mean when they replaced this guy:

With this one?:

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:46 pm**

Sue U wrote:I don't see that those countries with monarchies are politically any better off than those without, while the social diseases attendant to "aristocracy" are self-evident.

Care to illuminate us about how evident this social disease of aristocracy is in countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, or New Zealand?

And I repeat, the fact that yours don't have an HRH in front of their names doesn't make them any less aristocrats.

Is it coincidence that monarchies like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. have far less income inequality and far more enlightened policies on the poor and disadvantaged than the purported "egalitarian" republics? Is it coincidence that they also happen to be far more socially progressive? Probably, but the existence of monarchies in those countries clearly has not held them back in any way or caused them to be the reactionary cesspools that some countries which need not be mentioned are rapidly becoming.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:27 pm**

Scooter--are you really comparing the monarchies of those countries (or at least th SCandinavian ones, I don't know much about the netherlands) wih th royal family of England. As I recall, the Queen of England is one fo the richest people in the world; whe has armies of servants at her beck and call, and the family lives a life of untold luxury. Contrast this with the King of Norway who (at least recently0 was still on a waiting list to get a parking space in downtown Norwy, or th monarchs of Denmark and Sweden who bicycle to work. There sems to be a big difference; yes there is a far greater equality of income in those countries, but then there are no real hereditary privileged families or indiiduals, either.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:48 pm**

The statement to which I was responding began with "those countries with monarchies", and so I taliored my response accordingly. Is it my fault that certain people believe themselves competent to judge the "social disease" engendered by monarchy without being aware of the great variations which you yourself have pointed out?

I am not aware of any hereditary aristocracy in my own country*, apart from the Royal Family itself, and yet it is a monarchy. What then am I to make of comments about the alleged "social disease" that apparently infects my native land, since it was used to tar all monarchies without qualification?

*That is, hereditary aristocracy in the sense in which the person who made the comment intended. I still maintain that aristocracies exist in monarchies and republics alike, regardless of whether they are officially "royal".

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:54 pm**

And as for this:

Big RR wrote:the Queen of England... has armies of servants at her beck and call, and the family lives a life of untold luxury

I seriously question whether the Queen has more servants or lives in any more luxury than that enjoyed by the President of the United States or some other presidents of republics.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:07 pm**

Scooter--

am not aware of any hereditary aristocracy in my own country*, apart from the Royal Family itself,

Are there not a number of seats set aside in the House of Lords for hereditary aristocrats (peers?) to occupy? My understanding is that the House of Lords was reformed to consist mostly of those who get lifetime peerage appointments (I'm not sure by who), but that a significant percentage of the seats are still set aside for those who are hereditary aristocrats.

am not aware of any hereditary aristocracy in my own country*, apart from the Royal Family itself,

Given the number of residences the queen has compared to the president, I seriously doubt this is the case; certainly there are servants in every one of them. I don't doubt that we treat many of our politicians quite well, especially the president, but i think the wealth and estates owned by the monarch of england dwarfs anything any of our presidents receive. Indeed, I'd bet the president is treated more like the Prime Minister.

Posted: **Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:27 pm**

Big RR wrote:Are there not a number of seats set aside in the House of Lords for hereditary aristocrats (peers?) to occupy?

There is no House of Lords in my country.

I'd bet the president is treated more like the Prime Minister.

Mmm hmmm.

The residence of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:

The residence of the President of the United States:

Plan B Forum

Royal Gall

Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall

Re: Royal Gall