And if you protest peacefully over it, you’ll be arrested. The very idea of Monarchs, inbread royalty, etc, makes my skin crawl, but some Brits still want them around apparently.
I had a friend who was an old Brick Mason in England.
He hated the queen so much he put her picture upsidedown above the toilet.
Just think we have hundreds of wannabe Monarchs holding public office.
It’s a symbolic monarchy and meant to preserve the better parts of British culture and history, but at this point most of the family is a flaming car wreck so I can understand why people may no longer wish to have them as “role models” or have to pay to fund their existence.
For starters, maybe is Charles hadn’t begun by f’ing around with the wife of a member of the UK military who had a family. I’m sure those kids f’ing love Uncle Charlie.
I had a lot of respect for Phillip and how he endured all that BS is beyond me, I couldn’t have done it. Diana’s kids seemed to have started out ok, William seems like the only one who kept his head, but Harry went off the deep end. And while Diana is a sad story and she isn’t to blame initially, she too had a long string of “that’s a bad idea” things that didn’t improve anything for her.
Not to mention all the wealth the royals have was pilfered from their subjects. Hmmm, actually that isn’t much different from our “elected” officials getting wealthy on kickbacks and taxpayer dollars.
Ours are just thieves, nothing royal about them .
The British younger generation seems lukewarm on the whole royalty concept. Maybe in a few generations there’ll be no King or Queen.
the only people I know of not happy about this are communist non english people and outside the uk its morons that dont understand english politics because muh 1776
It’s a very small but very vocal minority that wishes to abolish the monarchy.
It’s a mystery to me why anyone would want them to remain, but not my country or concern. I am more concerned about people getting arrested for peaceable protesting.
It’s a mystery to me why anyone would want them to remain, but not my country or concern. I am more concerned about people getting arrested for peaceable protesting.
I know a handful, here in the States and there. Most of them are ambivalent. My wife has a friend ‘over there’ she is absolutely nuts about them, loves everything ‘royal.’ I guess since I am American and born into a system that shuns the notion of monarchy I am not a fan, but I am intrigued by them. I mean, we do watch ‘The Crown’ and all.
According to DNA and geni research I do have some connection, but never interested enough to really research anything about it.
I will say props to those who, knowing they were in the spotlight, chose to serve in their military when the easy way out would be to either not to, or do it in such a way where they would not actually have to do anything.
I know a handful, here in the States and there. Most of them are ambivalent. My wife has a friend ‘over there’ she is absolutely nuts about them, loves everything ‘royal.’ I guess since I am American and born into a system that shuns the notion of monarchy I am not a fan, but I am intrigued by them. I mean, we do watch ‘The Crown’ and all.
According to DNA and geni research I do have some connection, but never interested enough to really research anything about it.
I will say props to those who, knowing they were in the spotlight, chose to serve in their military when the easy way out would be to either not to, or do it in such a way where they would not actually have to do anything.
I think there was a bit of a revolution during the loate 40’s and 50’s.
The effects of WWII were still evident, everywhere and that’s when people looked around, looked at the taxes they were paying and realized the Queens horses ate better than their kids.
That BS can’t go on.
I would guess in '52 that about half of the Children in London showed effects of being malnourished.
There’s an ongoing debate as to if the royals are a net gain or loss to the nation financially speaking. Besides the fact monarchs are the opposite of all things democratic/individual Liberty, along with dictators, communists, etc, if I were a Brit I’d ask myself what they ever did for me. If it just comes down to traditions and history and all that, and it makes some feel warm and fuzzy, not my concern. Humans cling to their traditions even if/when it’s neither logical nor beneficial to them and or, harmful to others. Brits I know don’t care at all about royals.
While The Crown does not make policy, their image and optics makes a difference in the eyes of the citizens. They have made an effort to not appear so tone deaf to the people and the times, but not sure how much it’s helped them.
That’s what they have people believe at least. I don’t personally believe they don’t have a say in various policies, directly or indirectly, at least as it applies to them.
Like Prince (then) Charles going “Green” and then England goes “Green”?
Of course they push policy. No one had an issue with Churchill as long as he was winning a war. Soon after the War was gone, well, so was Churchill. That’s the precise moment that they began a quick decent.
And on no small part do I think the Monarchy was behind it.
They do what they do. Constitutionally they cannot say “this is the policy that Great Britain is going to take.” They cannot force the PM to do anything, and have actually gone out of their way to not interfere when they probably should have or could have (Atlee, Eden). Atlee was PM after Churchill’s reign during WW2, and his inability to manage the horrible economy and significant borrowing from the US led to Churchill being PM again. After Churchill part 2, Eden was PM and mismanaged the Suez crisis. The Crown cannot say anything good/bad about the PM, but the government can talk about the relationship with the monarchy. Atlee felt that Elizabeth did not care for him. Years later, during Thatcher’s term, it came out that some of the people in the royal family did not support the Falkland/Argentine war, but kept their mouth shut so they did not influence her one way or the other.
Churchill didn’t get ousted because WW2 was over, he got ousted because he accused his political opposition Atlee of being Gestapo-like, and Atlee used that against him. It is true that Churchill believed in modest post-war reform and the population really wanted faster reform (ironically, the cost of which was part of what got Atlee canned), but the Conservative Party was unpopular as a whole.
They do what they do. Constitutionally they cannot say “this is the policy that Great Britain is going to take.” They cannot force the PM to do anything, and have actually gone out of their way to not interfere when they probably should have or could have (Atlee, Eden). Atlee was PM after Churchill’s reign during WW2, and his inability to manage the horrible economy and significant borrowing from the US led to Churchill being PM again. After Churchill part 2, Eden was PM and mismanaged the Suez crisis. The Crown cannot say anything good/bad about the PM, but the government can talk about the relationship with the monarchy. Atlee felt that Elizabeth did not care for him. Years later, during Thatcher’s term, it came out that some of the people in the royal family did not support the Falkland/Argentine war, but kept their mouth shut so they did not influence her one way or the other.
Churchill didn’t get ousted because WW2 was over, he got ousted because he accused his political opposition Atlee of being Gestapo-like, and Atlee used that against him. It is true that Churchill believed in modest post-war reform and the population really wanted faster reform (ironically, the cost of which was part of what got Atlee canned), but the Conservative Party was unpopular as a whole.