For Brits only: What do you think about having a Royal Family?
957266
Like all English schoolchildren of the 1950's I was brought up to have an immoveable respect for the Royal Family, 'King and Country' and so on. When the old king died I remember us kids being taken to watch the funeral cortege go by. The coffin was carried on a gun carriage and it rained. A few months later we were taken to the same spot to watch Princess Elizabeth go by in the Royal coach to be crowned queen. We were all given Union Flags to wave and received a Coronation Mug. I lost mine. Later we had street parties with sandwiches and jelly and, guess what? it rained again.\n\nIn those days the institution of the Royal Family was sacrosanct with not a hint or whsiper of scandal or wrongdoing until the late 1950's when it started with Princess Margaret having an affair with a married man, Group Captain Peter Townsend. That was soon hushed up and she ended up marrying Anthony Armstrong Jones, an arranged marriage if ever there was one.\n\nAs time went by and old traditions and protocols started to vanish it became apparent that the Royal family were not the 'whiter than white' exemplary characters we had been led to believe and since those days there have been many sordid revelations and scandals that have tarnished the Royals forever.\n\nPrince Philip (Phil the Greek) comes across as an arrogant despot who loves to throw his weight about and cares about no-one except himself manging to have insuleted most of the world's leaders at one time or another. He, singlehandedly, managed to ostracise Canada, Australia, India and Hong Kong so that all of them and much of Africa broke away from British rule.\n\nPrincess Margaret came across as a gin-swilling, chain smoking good time girl who would party until the small hours, often drunk, and escorted by a variety of 'gentlemen'.\n\nPrince Charles came across as a bit of a wimp whose main hobby seemed to be talking to plants and bedding as many women as he could.\n\nPrincess Anne came across with an arrogance that can only be described as unique and loved nothing but horses. To her credit she was the hardest working Royal, if you can call it work, attending more functions that any other.\n\nRrince Andrew was the original good time charlie who spent much of his time in nightclubs, drinking and womanising and running up more expenses than any of the others. How can you justify having the Royal jet fly him from London to Scotland for a night out at a cost of £20000 to the taxpayer?\n\nPrince Edward came across as a bit of a nancy boy preferring to spend his time with actors and producers and it was widely assumed that he was homosexual until his marriage to Sophie. Some of us still wonder.\n\nThen there's the spouses. Sarah Ferguson married Andrew having been  living with a rally driver for a number of years and proved to be the good time that had been had by all, spending like there was no tomorrow and generally being an embarrassment.\n\nCharles married Diana, the girl who didn't seem to have a single brain cell until Charlie dumped her and her publicity machine created the 'Saint Diana' image. I'm sorry she died but I, personally, had no time for her.\n\nAnne had a variety of husbands starting with Captain Mark Phillips who famously hid behind her when someone attacked her car as it drove down the Mall. He was dumped for the present incumbant who probably likes horses better than he did.\n\nFinally the queen. She comes across as very aloof and money grasping. She is well known for being a skinflint paying her staff the smallest wages in London yet being the wealthiest woman in the world. She shows no emotion at all except to smile when she is cheered.\n\nthere are many other peripheral members of the family all of whom live in wealth and privelege just for being born into the family of Germans who usurped the British throne 200 years ago.\nPersonally I now think we'd be better off without the whole rotten mess of them but th
1072106
I think that the Royal Family has a lot to ask for. Instead of letting Charles just be happy with the person he wanted to they prolonged it for years and it turned out worse.\n\nI think Diana was the sacrifical virgin. I mean it's sad she got sucked into it.  I'm not to sure what she saw in him at all but maybe it is the fairytale thing.\n\nI think that it has bought more dissent and unpopularity to the Royal Family in the way they handle things. Instead of being a little disgraced and letting him marry the divorcee he wanted they totally and utterly disgraced themselves in the way that the Diana facade was handled and all the adultery etc and then lets him do it anyway.\n\nI think if they'd succumbed and let him marry her first there would not be such a downcast on the Royals.
170028
Like it or not, the British monarchy has no say in national policy, etc. Its' major contribution is to a flourishing tourist industry that has been well-promoted and exploited over many decades. Sadly, interest has also been accentuated by scandals within the extended Royal family that amount to a dreary "soap opera" and global embarrassment. Major beneficiaries are the tabloids and well-paid gossip columnists, not the British public. \n\nDoes Britain need this? Probably not, although it does provide a possible diversion from the more serious consequences of Britain's involvement  in, and support of, US foreign policy in the middle east. I doubt that the current potential heirs to the throne will ever match up to their forebears; neither will they ever gain the respect the Royal family once held in days long since past.
470344
the first thing that comes to mind..is london fog.. and the beatles. the second is terrorist bombings.  then i think of the royal family and how much i admired princess dianna and now her two sons. i think of kippers and white wigs.  it is funny how much movies.. media etc have an effect on your opinion of things in life. it has never been at the top of my travel wish list. ..but i am sure the people would be nice.yet england does not  seem  to me to be a warm welcoming place.
90427
Yes, besides the fact that they have a long tradition, they are part of the National identity of a country. And ... they bring publicity for the country, many tourists come to see them, their castles and perhaps even a member of the royal family. The yellow press would be nothing without them, it is a big business.\nEverywhere in the world, people are interested in Royalty.\nI wish we still had a royal family in Austria.
813875
i feel the same and i'm 23.\n\nI'm living with the in-laws to try a pay off student debts and to scrape the money together so we can afford to rent our own place again.\n\ni saw in the papers the other day a father with 15, yes that's 15 children and two on the way (one with the wife and one with the mistress) and they are all on benefit. last year he received over £26,000 in benefits and he has a council house.\n\nWhy not give to council houses to the people who need a hand on to the property ladder, people who want to support themselves.\n\nIt's a sad fact that children as young as 12 now see having babies and living off benefits as a career choice.
252577
Hey, can you please hit "Add Details" and answer your own question too?  :)\n\nI want to have a big family.  Or, if it's not big, I want to at least be big on family.
446044
Not nearly enough. Neither are there enough women. As a rough guess I would say 5% are black. Sadly our democracy is still mainly made up of white anglosaxon men. The queen is a woman, but royalty is anti-democratic. A black king would be good though.
541184
The continued existence of the "royal" family, is a way for he British people to hold on to an institution that has been a part of the history of their country for hundreds of years. Its figurehead status aside, it strengthens the pride of the average citizen and re-establishes patriotism
724014
I like the queen.  Classy lady.  But we Americans are far too zealous and alpha-type to tolerate a legitimate monarch.  I don't see any real benefit, other than an upstanding example of good manners and breeding.  Our "faux-royalty" is composed of inbred, dysfunctional political families and freakish entertainers.  If it doesn't entertain, it doesn't get air time over here.
664245
oh ALOT.. \nwhat if i spent my last year of highscool in Abu Dhabi and then moved to Canada\nWhat if my dad was here right now , what would he be doing?\nWhat if I wasn't hanging out with this friend, what would i be doing?\nWhat if I finally end up making my dream come true and go to Disney World\nWhat if my mom finally tells me that we come from a royal family and that I really am a princess\nWhat if I never end up marrying? or having children? would it matter so much to me? right now i say no, but u never know,, there is more and more. that's enough what ifs for now/...
16313
Check out:\nhttp://www.royal.gov.uk/\nfor more details. She is our Head of State and in theory has the power to disolve our Government. In effect this would be highly unlikley to happen! The UK is a constitutional monarchy so the Royal duties are mainly cermonial.
596076
I presume you are British, as I am. I believe in the Royal Family for one important reason; national pride.\n\nSure they don't do much, or even really have that much power any more. But the monarchy if what defines Britain and being British to a lot of people, especially those from abroad.\n\nBritain has sold out big time; there are maybe two truly British car companies left (Ariel and Noble, off the top of my head- even Morgan is powered by BMW!) when there were literally dozens in the post-war era. Our sports are dominated by foreign talent; how many of Manchester United's team are actually from Manchester- or even Britain at all?! The England team manager is foreign. A large percentage of British companies, from retail to technology, are owned by foreign interests.\n\nThe rates of immigration are soaring, although this in itself is a good thing as it promotes world knowledge and understanding to those who will isten. The English language is becoming saturated with slang derived from these foreign migrants and the old school virtues of chivalry and the good old British gentleman have been flushed down the pan.\n\nMy grandfathers, and thousands of others, fought for the British way of life, their 'King and Country', and we should honour them by upholding the traditional British values they lived and died by, whilst moving forward in to a new world with the rest of the globe.\n\nEven our patron Saint, George, was a Turk, and I am not oblivious to the fact that the British royal family were, in themselves, of Nazi stock. However, we must forgive (but not always forget) the blemishes of the past; living in a multi-cultural society has given us the opportunity to do just this whilst upholding our common values of decency and strength in the face of adversity.\n\nSo yes, I think we should keep the royal family even if, I admit, Prince Phillip has never ironed my shirt or made me a cup of tea. They are a bastion of British culture when few others remain. Ask anyone what the first things that come to mind are when you say 'Britain'- I'll bet the queen will be in there, along with Buckingham Palace. And bad teeth. Remember the monarchy also represents our kin in Canada, Australia and a few more places that I wil not list here. \n\nRule Brittania!\n\nAnd...breath...
673863
well i am not a very big supporter of monarchy no matter whatever country it is in.\nbut you guys in britain should be glad that your royal family atleast doesnt messes with the government and its running.\n\nthough i agree with you that spending so much money on the royal family serves no purpose but sometimes somethings are just part of your history and you cant do away with them.\n\nmaybe you could try abolishing the monarchy after her death.
473989
The monarchy has to end. It seems they are only here for tradition and nothing else. Sod off for all I care! Cheers!!
972037
Here's the top 25 in the British line of Succession:\n\nHRH The Prince of Wales ("The Prince Charles") (b. 1948), eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II \nHRH Prince William of Wales (b. 1982), elder son of the Prince of Wales \nHRH Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984), younger son of the Prince of Wales \nHRH The Duke of York ("The Prince Andrew") (b. 1960), second son of Queen Elizabeth II \nHRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988), elder daughter of the Duke of York \nHRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990), younger daughter of the Duke of York \nHRH The Earl of Wessex ("The Prince Edward") (b. 1964), third son of Queen Elizabeth II \nLady Louise Windsor (b. 2003), daughter of the Earl of Wessex \nHRH The Princess Royal ("The Princess Anne") (b. 1950), daughter of Queen Elizabeth II \nPeter Phillips (b. 1977), son of the Princess Royal \nZara Phillips (b. 1981), daughter of the Princess Royal \nDavid Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley (b. 1961), grandson of King George VI through his daughter Princess Margaret \nThe Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones (b. 1999), son of Viscount Linley \nThe Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones (b. 2002), daughter of Viscount Linley \nLady Sarah Chatto (b. 1964), granddaughter of King George VI through his daughter Princess Margaret \nSamuel Chatto (b. 1996), elder son of Lady Sarah Chatto \nArthur Chatto (b. 1999), younger son of Lady Sarah Chatto \nHRH The Duke of Gloucester (b. 1944), grandson of King George V through his son Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester \nAlexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (b. 1974), son of the Duke of Gloucester \nLady Davina Lewis (b. 1977), elder daughter of the Duke of Gloucester \nLady Rose Windsor (b. 1980), younger daughter of the Duke of Gloucester \nHRH The Duke of Kent (b. 1935), grandson of King George V through his son Prince George, Duke of Kent \nskipped George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (b. 1962), elder son of the Duke of Kent \nskipped Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick (b. 1988), son of George, Earl of St Andrews \nLady Marina-Charlotte Windsor (b. 1992), elder daughter of George, Earl of St Andrews \nLady Amelia Windsor (b. 1995), younger daughter of George, Earl of St. Andrews \nskipped Lord Nicholas Windsor (b. 1970), younger son of the Duke of Kent \nLady Helen Taylor (b. 1964), daughter of the Duke of Kent
689830
royalty is always great, not necessarily England only. I'll try and say why i think so:\ntradition \nstability \nblood-linkage with other royal families of the world, that would make state unions or treaties easier to sign. \nthe idea of something worthy to sacrifice for\netc (you think of something)\nI am a firm supporter of royalty, although I live in a semi-presidential republic. my country has been for over 40 years under communism, but before that it has been a constitutional monarchy. maybe i haven't lived under the monarchic rule and maybe i am a little over-romantic, but that is how i feel. ban me if you don't like it