Charles To Wed Camila

[Postmaster]

I have a list 20 miles wrong as to why this is wrong.

[Brian Turner]

I saw this showing live on the BBC this morning - felt like news at the time.

Can't say I have any particular feelings, other than "just get on with it and stop dithering".

[Postmaster]

Prince Charlie is a hypocrite and on top of all that he will be future king. He is head of the Anglican Church and whilst he was married had an affair. See how high status gets to peoples head?

[maslow]

I'm fed up with being referred to as a citizen when I am a subject, therefore anything that puts the UK a step closer to becoming a republic I am in favour of. The only problem is finding a president, would Brian consider running?

[Postmaster]

Yeah republic is much better, like it is in Cyprus, I've actually met the president and was even on TV there 4 years ago Monarchy does waist a lot of money that could be pumped back into the public. But I suppose in tourism due to the Monarchy makes up a bit.

[Brian Turner]

Monarchy is just head of state - I don't believe that George W Bush or Jacques Chirac have done anything to suggest republicanism is a cheaper or useful alternative.

Do Royals waste money? You can sure bet that presidents and their staff do.

As for hypocrisy - crikey, it's like Byzantine history all over again.

I don't believe the Anglican communion has been against remarriage or forgiveness.

So many topics in one thread.

[Postmaster]

Byzantine's were big spenders but don't forget they were in constant rivalry with the Vatican, who are also big spenders and rumour has it, that the Vatican played a role of the capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans right after the Catholic and Orthodox Church split. Some Catholic pope's have had affairs and even had illegitimate children.. The Byzantines even employed Viking worriers to help with defense, fat lot of googd they did


Money will be wasited by governments no matter which form they come in. But the Monarcy does spend spend spend.. In the recent spot light was Charles spending actually.

[Brian Turner]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

rumour has it, that the Vatican played a role of the capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans

They did simply to the extent that when asked for help by the Byzantines - they refused. As did the rest of Europe.

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Money will be wasited by governments no matter which form they come in. But the Monarcy does spend spend spend.. In the recent spot light was Charles spending actually.

Better than Chirac financing gangsters, though? Or Bush giving out jobs to business friends, then losing a few billion in Iraq?

[Postmaster]

Originally Posted by Brian Turner

Better than Chirac financing gangsters, though? Or Bush giving out jobs to business friends, then losing a few billion in Iraq?

Aha very correct, was not aware of any rumours Chirac was financing Gangsters but it’s something that sounds believable, but I suppose at least Bush and Chirac they are investing (in some sick sense). Where as the Monarchy is just an elaborate luxury life style simply because they hold a royal title (who all share one ancestry root out of central Europe). Then you get all the spending of MP's ect.

[maslow]

Briefly I believe having a monarchy preserves the wretched and archaic class system in the UK. All subjects are expected to bow (and scrape) to any and all members of the ‘royal family’ and get what in return? Maundy money? Tourists? Do the tourists come to ‘see’ the queen or to visit the palaces? The Tower of London is still the number 1 attraction. Our army, navy, air force, police, members of parliament, etc all swear allegiance to the queen, not to the people.

Presidents indeed feather their own nests (as do prime ministers) allegedly, but the point is they are elected, can be and have been removed, and of course are voted out.

Finally the task of a president is surely to both lead the country and shape the future, not to dwell in the far distant past. What exactly is the role of the royal family?