BBC needs to get a grip

[Bentley Bullet]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

[River Don]

BB

I'm quite ambivalent about the royals these days. I think what they can do much better than presidents or prime ministers is entertain. Schmoozing, garden parties, waving at sporting events because they're more perminent, more famous, it is something for dignitaries to meet them and it doesn't have the grubby side politicians have.

I remember hearing a story a Chinese business man came out with about receiving an invitation to a party onboard Brittania, he wasn't bothered and put it away but when his wife saw it... She told him in no uncertain terms there was no way they were going to miss going on board that ship. It was during that party he said that he embarked on a deal with Rolls Royce motors. It's that kind of soft power they have and it does have a value to the country.

[Bentley Bullet]

BB

I'm quite ambivalent about the royals these days. I think what they can do much better than presidents or prime ministers is entertain. Schmoozing, garden parties, waving at sporting events because they're more perminent, more famous, it is something for dignitaries to meet them and it doesn't have the grubby side politicians have.

I remember hearing a story a Chinese business man came out with about receiving an invitation to a party onboard Brittania, he wasn't bothered and put it away but when his wife saw it... She told him in no uncertain terms there was no way they were going to miss going on board that ship. It was during that party he said that he embarked on a deal with Rolls Royce motors. It's that kind of soft power they have and it does have a value to the country.

Exactly!

[wilts rover]

I don't care how much they bring in. £500m seems a very convenient rounded up figure by the way that I don't believe for a second. The current royal family can't take the credit for our history. Do these tourists actually expect to meet some of them? Is that why they come? Of course not.

Time to ditch the spongers and cut off the head of the aristocracy that makes it OK for the toffs to have the best of everything in our country because gullible people fall for supporting the royal family.


The fact that you are pro royal says a lot about you. You are happy that the figurehead of the aristocracy is kept in place so keeping in place the divisive class system that prevails today and which concentrates the vast bulk of the wealth of the country in the hands of a few toffs. This situation arises because the likes of you fall for the claptrap that is associated with keeping this dysfunctional family in place.

What are you waffling on about? The divisive class system that prevails today and which concentrates the vast bulk of the wealth of the country in the hands of a few toffs? You think getting rid of the monarchy will do away with wealth, privilege and the Torykip Party? And how many of the richest people in the UK are 'toffs'. Here is a link to help you
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/times-rich-list-number-billionaires-3561098

[River Don]

What the royals do now is present an ideal British lifestyle.

It promotes a British education, old LandRovers and Bentleys, wax jackets and tweed, the military and public service, niceness, picnics, Pimms and G n T, the old country pub and a good pint of beer, tennis at Wimbledon, racing at Ascot, rugger at Twickers. Even football now.

It's all a great big advert for Britain and the world laps it up.

[IC1967]

The divisive class system is put up with by the British public because they have been brainwashed into thinking there is nothing wrong with having a royal family.

We need to do away with the head of the aristocratic system in this country so the other toffs can also be got rid of.

[IC1967]

What the royals do now is present an ideal British lifestyle.

It promotes a British education, old LandRovers and Bentleys, wax jackets and tweed, the military and public service, niceness, picnics, Pimms and G n T, the old country pub and a good pint of beer, tennis at Wimbledon, racing at Ascot, rugger at Twickers. Even football now.

It's all a great big advert for Britain and the world laps it up.

I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks. It is morally reprehensible that these people are given a life of unbridled luxury at taxpayers expense.

[River Don]

What the royals do now is present an ideal British lifestyle.

It promotes a British education, old LandRovers and Bentleys, wax jackets and tweed, the military and public service, niceness, picnics, Pimms and G n T, the old country pub and a good pint of beer, tennis at Wimbledon, racing at Ascot, rugger at Twickers. Even football now.

It's all a great big advert for Britain and the world laps it up.

I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks. It is morally reprehensible that these people are given a life of unbridled luxury at taxpayers expense.

You old leftie!

[Orlandokarla]

People get on about people on the dole being scroungers,probably getting fifty quid a week,the biggest scroungers never get mentioned,they live in Buck House and fly everywhere,get the best of everything,while everyone else does their best to get by.

I'm sure that goes down well at the pub after a few pints.  The dole scroungers might even club together and get you half a bitter for making them feel better about themselves.

Any abuse aimed at the monarchy should be reserved for those members of the family that deserve it. Whether you approve of the institution or not, the Queen has worked tirelessly her entire life to fulfill the role she was born into, and deserves respect for that. People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?

I Don't drink Orlando so nobody would be buying me any bitter,the government has brainwashed everybody to hate,anybody who doesn't work,there are disabled people unemployed,not all are work shy,as most of the populace seems to think.

The Queen has my respect because she is older than me and she has mucked in when the country has needed her,i have nothing against her,but my point still stands they get paid for attending functions and being well fed,you have your opinion i have mine,that's what forums are for.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Even were it so, I don't think it's a bad thing for society to be seen actively encouraging people to get off the dole and become useful members of society. 
Of course there are people who can't, as opposed to won't, work.
You picked on the royal family, and some members of it work incredibly hard, so I find your point quite hypocritical.
Being unemployed is not shameful, but being capable yet unwilling certainly is. 

They get paid for representing the country, something i think they do very well. They do a great job of promoting our trade interests all over the world.

Forums are indeed for sharing points of view and opinion. However, debating the merits or reasoning behind those opinions is also a primary function. If you're not willing to have you point of view challenged, then don't share it.

[Orlandokarla]

People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?

She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.

I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.

Nonsense.

She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.

The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.

There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.

[River Don]

Orlando

I seem to remember young William saying he didn't want to be royal and wanting a more normal life.

Diana was quick to say wait and see...

I'm not sure the obligation really is fair.

[Orlandokarla]

Don't most young people wish for what they don't have, taking the positives for granted and focussing solely on the negatives?

I wouldn't blame him for wanting to have a normal life, but I'm sure his definition of normal would be quite different to ours. Several members of the family keep to themselves, and that option has always been available to him.

I'm sure many Hollywood celebs hate the paparazzi and the media scrutiny too, but it comes with the job, and the rewards aren't so bad.

He could've walked away from it should he have wished too; he wouldn't have been the first.

[IC1967]

People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?

She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.

I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.

Nonsense.

She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.

The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.

There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.

You're the one that is talking nonsense. From birth she was brainwashed into believing her life should be one run by others. It is disgraceful that people like you think this is OK. You say she has had plenty of opportunity to step down. As if this makes it all OK then. She never had any choice when she was a child about being exposed to the media and being 'groomed' for her future role. By the time she was queen it was too late for her to have much choice in how her life panned out.

I thought we had abolished slavery. It seems you are quite happy for it to continue.

[Orlandokarla]

People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?

She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.

I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.

Nonsense.

She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.

The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.

There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.

You're the one that is talking nonsense. From birth she was brainwashed into believing her life should be one run by others. It is disgraceful that people like you think this is OK. You say she has had plenty of opportunity to step down. As if this makes it all OK then. She never had any choice when she was a child about being exposed to the media and being 'groomed' for her future role. By the time she was queen it was too late for her to have much choice in how her life panned out.

I thought we had abolished slavery. It seems you are quite happy for it to continue.

It seems we treat our slaves well these days.

You'd better add most professional athletes/sportsmen, young popstars/actors etc to your list of modern day slaves, because most of them train and are 'groomed' for a job since early childhood.

That poor Tiger Woods and his untold millions. He'll be crushed to hear he's just a slave. Poor bas**rd.

[Orlandokarla]

People get on about people on the dole being scroungers,probably getting fifty quid a week,the biggest scroungers never get mentioned,they live in Buck House and fly everywhere,get the best of everything,while everyone else does their best to get by.

I'm sure that goes down well at the pub after a few pints.  The dole scroungers might even club together and get you half a bitter for making them feel better about themselves.

Any abuse aimed at the monarchy should be reserved for those members of the family that deserve it. Whether you approve of the institution or not, the Queen has worked tirelessly her entire life to fulfill the role she was born into, and deserves respect for that. People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?

I Don't drink Orlando so nobody would be buying me any bitter,the government has brainwashed everybody to hate,anybody who doesn't work,there are disabled people unemployed,not all are work shy,as most of the populace seems to think.

The Queen has my respect because she is older than me and she has mucked in when the country has needed her,i have nothing against her,but my point still stands they get paid for attending functions and being well fed,you have your opinion i have mine,that's what forums are for.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Even were it so, I don't think it's a bad thing for society to be seen actively encouraging people to get off the dole and become useful members of society.
Of course there are people who can't, as opposed to won't, work.
You picked on the royal family, and some members of it work incredibly hard, so I find your point quite hypocritical.
Being unemployed is not shameful, but being capable yet unwilling certainly is.

They get paid for representing the country, something i think they do very well. They do a great job of promoting our trade interests all over the world.

Forums are indeed for sharing points of view and opinion. However, debating the merits or reasoning behind those opinions is also a primary function. If you're not willing to have you point of view challenged, then don't share it.

I Don't mind my opinion being challenged,my reasoning is there are people with not enough food to eat,ex servicemen who are homeless living on the streets.
People with barely enough to eat,and have to choose between eating and being warm,and it's not just the Royals,it's every government that has been in power in our once Great nation.
It's shameful when they are being took around in the best of cars,eating the best of meals,while the Queen and family are eating their Christmas Dinner many of her Loyal subjects will be cold and hungry.
The politicians get pay rises while the normal man or woman don't,the share of wealth in our country is uneven and always will be.
These same people who have fought wars for their country,put their lives on the line for their country are forgotten about.
Like i said i respect your opinion,this is my opinion,do with it what you will.

Fair enough Sammy; you just seemed a little touchy when I questioned your rationale.

Of course I agree that the divide between rich and poor is unfortunate, but I'm not sure that rousing the rabble against the aristocracy is venting your frustration in the right direction. A couple of hundred years ago in France, I might have agreed with you.

Don't let the crown fool you; it's the politicians that rule the country and whose policies exacceabate such inequity within our society.

Corporations dodging their tax obligations, crooked self-serving politicians, and the cult of celebrity creating another talentless, useless idol for stupid people to pay attention to and throw their money at - those are much more worthy targets for your scorn, than people who actually attempt to do something useful for their country.

[IC1967]

People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?

She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.

I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.

Nonsense.

She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.

The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.

There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.

You're the one that is talking nonsense. From birth she was brainwashed into believing her life should be one run by others. It is disgraceful that people like you think this is OK. You say she has had plenty of opportunity to step down. As if this makes it all OK then. She never had any choice when she was a child about being exposed to the media and being 'groomed' for her future role. By the time she was queen it was too late for her to have much choice in how her life panned out.

I thought we had abolished slavery. It seems you are quite happy for it to continue.

It seems we treat our slaves well these days.

You'd better add most professional athletes/sportsmen, young popstars/actors etc to your list of modern day slaves, because most of them train and are 'groomed' for a job since early childhood.

That poor Tiger Woods and his untold millions. He'll be crushed to hear he's just a slave. Poor b*****d.

Your logic is severely flawed. The queen has had virtually no say in how her life has panned out. All the others you refer to, have for the most part had a great say in how their life has worked out. Of course some children have overly pushy parents but to say it is OK for our society to expect the royals to do their duty and sod the consequences for their own personal lives is ludicrous in the extreme.

[Orlandokarla]

People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?

She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.

I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.

Nonsense.

She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.

The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.

There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.

You're the one that is talking nonsense. From birth she was brainwashed into believing her life should be one run by others. It is disgraceful that people like you think this is OK. You say she has had plenty of opportunity to step down. As if this makes it all OK then. She never had any choice when she was a child about being exposed to the media and being 'groomed' for her future role. By the time she was queen it was too late for her to have much choice in how her life panned out.

I thought we had abolished slavery. It seems you are quite happy for it to continue.

It seems we treat our slaves well these days.

You'd better add most professional athletes/sportsmen, young popstars/actors etc to your list of modern day slaves, because most of them train and are 'groomed' for a job since early childhood.

That poor Tiger Woods and his untold millions. He'll be crushed to hear he's just a slave. Poor b*****d.

Your logic is severely flawed. The queen has had virtually no say in how her life has panned out. All the others you refer to, have for the most part had a great say in how their life has worked out. Of course some children have overly pushy parents but to say it is OK for our society to expect the royals to do their duty and sod the consequences for their own personal lives is ludicrous in the extreme.

Olympic athletes, sportsmen, child actors etc all train and are groomed for a job since childhood.
The royal family is no different, with the exception that much more is expected from some than others. Only a handful of them are expected to do much more than live a life of dignity, so as not to embarrass the family. In return they receive great privilege, just as Tiger Woods/Drew Barrymore etc have earned vast fortunes to compensate them for their hard work and sacrifices.
Her uncle, Edward VIII abdicated when the Queen was around 10, so it's not as though the concept is an alien one to her.
It's clearly incorrect to state that they don't have a choice, as there are several examples of royals exercising their right to choose a different life.
Even Fergie made her own choice, in her typical self-destructive way. 

[IC1967]

You are completely missing the main point. The royals are expected by society to live their lives a certain way. Olympic athletes, actors, sportsmen etc. are not. It is the choice of their parents or themselves or a combination of the two.

A better analogy you could have used using your sporting metaphor would have been to compare the royals to how China carries on. They do groom children from a young age to become gymnasts etc. against the will of the child. Even then, once the sporting career is over they are free to live their lives how they want to. Not so with the slaves of the royal family.