The affection bestowed upon the British Royal Family - I don't get it

[devilgrrl]

Seriously, why are some are so fascinated with them? Is it because they would like the US to be a Monarchy too? I slays me to no end.

[phusion]

1. You're not alone.

:shrug:

[ret5hd]

16. ditto (nt)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Endless fascination with them

just like for the Kennedys. I guess it is why chidren's tales are full of kings, queens and princesses. Just something interesting about life in the castle.

[devilgrrl]

5. Personally I find absolutely nothing interesting about...

someone as emotionally vacant as Queen Elizabeth II. If anything, she seems rather miserable to be brutally honest.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. I come from a long line

of emotionally vacant brits, so I understand her!

[brainshrub]

3. I don't like the royals at all.

I don't see the facination either.

[NYC Liberal]

4. There are also some disturbed people who show affection for the

Bush Royal Family.

[devilgrrl]

7. Exactly!

Makes me :puke:

[Libby2]

6. I don't get it, I don't care about it, and

I don't want to see it.

We have more important things to focus on.

[devilgrrl]

10. If that is the case...

then why respond? :shrug:

[Matariki]

22. i could be wrong, but i think Libby2 was agreeing with you. n/t

[devilgrrl]

30. So do I.

Sorry Libby2. :blush:

[Ron Green]

8. Americans do it in different ways.

I mean, we have Michael Jordan, and Donald Trump, and Madonna, and Bill Gates, and Julia Roberts . . . royalty, every one, for different reasons.

I've changed my mind about Charles. He's matured into a very thoughtful man who is working on many important projects and using his influence to educate people about the big issues. I wish we had royalty more like him, rather than what we've got.

[Mojorabbit]

35. I agree

I saw him interviewed on sixty minutes and he had quite a few good ideas and came off quite well.

[Horse with no Name]

9. The one thing the Windsor's have over the Bush's though

is that they have all served in the military.:)

[devilgrrl]

12. The boys haven't yet...

but Harry did dress up like a nazi stormtrooper - does that count?

[Scooter24]

15. Harry is currently enlisted

at the Royal Military Academy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Harry is already in the Army

and they just announced William is about to join it too. But I'm sure they won't get sent anywhere dangerous.

[CottonBear]

24. Prince William is entering Sandhurst Military Academy.

Prince Andrew served for many years in the Navy and saw action in the Falklands War. He is a pilot. Charles was also in the service (Navy?) Edward was briefly in the Marines. Anne is an honorary member of the Armed Servies and wears a uniform at military events. She represents the Queen at various military events and commemorations. She rides (astride) in the Trooping of the Colours.

Prince Phillip (previously a Greek citizen and a Greek Royal) served in the British Navy during WWII.

The Queen served during WWII as a truck mechanic.

I'd say they have a better record than the Bush family.

[devilgrrl]

31. Got it. Thanks for the updates.

Obviously, I don't pay much attention to them. :blush:

[FVZA_Colonel]

36. "The Queen served during WWII as a truck mechanic."

Hmm, that's something I didn't know. Quite interesting, really.

[Coexist]

11. I have to admit, Lady Di had me interested in that stuff for a little whil

until after the heir and a spare were born - then it got silly. Camilla who? and her husband who are where?

Sorry - they have no glitter attached to their names. Di was just enigmatic. What a poor, tortured woman she was, though.

[az chela]

27. Coundnt say it better

Diana was true royalty,the rest of them are trash with money.I hope the boys get a chance to get away from that stupid bullshit.
AS for Charles, he is a whiney little boy who never really had a mama so he adopted camilla for his mommy.Dont know how he can stand to look at her,she would make anyone vomit.No matter how many makeup artists she has she always look like puke.
They are both so phony they deserve each other.

[Catchawave]

13. I'm benign about the Royals,

but it seems to bother me when I see them get "personally" attacked.

I just hate that trashing nonsense, whether it be Camilla or Harriet or Laura or the Twins. Just makes me feel like the repugs are winning:shrug:

[devilgrrl]

14. I'm not attacking them personally....

I guess it's the institution that I mock.

If anything, I find it sad that Charles - who loved Camilla all along - wasn't allowed to marry her in the first place. What kind of bullshit is that?

[Catchawave]

21. Agree !

But we have a starving Corporate MSM that makes a big deal about everything infotainment these days. No wonder we're at war :(

[devilgrrl]

32. Oh dude, the MSM hasn't shut up about them since that wedding in '81

before then. I didn't know who they were really. Also, I agree with you on the infotainment crap too. The Royals are the ultimate in info-tainment.

[itzamirakul]

45. Trash, Trash, Trash, Personal Attack, Personal Attack....grrrrrr...

I don't like Camilla, Laura or Barbara Bush Sr. Harriet who?

Camilla is a homewrecker who made good. A high-class, already married mistress who really got the man in the end. And Charles caused Camilla's husband to be the biggest cuckhold of modern times. Yet I understand that he was invited and attended the wedding of Charles and Camilla just to show that there were no hard feelings. LOL

Now for all of the happily married women who do not know that their darling hubbies really have another woman on the side, how will you feel if he leaves you for her, marries her, makes her an "honest woman" and she is accepted by all of your friends as well as your kids as being "worthy?"

And don't think that is impossible. Camilla is setting a precedent of "other woman" respectability that married women will come to rue in the end.

[Az]

19. Think of sport stars

Fans have little to do with their ability or success. Yet they rally around them as if they were part of the team. It's the same type of rational behind royalty.

People feel a sense of identity tied to royalty. They represent the higher ideals some would like to think their nation represents.

Of course not everyone likes sports or the royals. And their appeal is waning.

[deadmessengers]

20. They don't really care in the UK, either

Last month, I took a few vacation days in London after a 2 week business trip in Europe. I don't know if the attitude is the same elsewhere in the UK, but the impression I got from my conversations with Londoners is that the attitude towards the monarchy is generally one of indifference - with one exception: They LOVED Diana, and still do, even 8 years after her death. You can't walk a block in London without seeing a picture of her somewhere.

The rest of the royals I don't think would get pissed on if they were on fire.

[Disturbed]

23. I read that the Queen is a Billionaire.

If so, why do the Brits support the royals via tax breaks?

[CottonBear]

25. She is a huge part of the economy, the history and the culture of the UK.

I believe that she pays some taxes.

The Royal House supported by the civil list is very small.

Much of her wealth derives from a land, property and a massive and incredible collection of fine art, books, and historic buildings.

Charles is completely supported by income from the Duchy of Cornwall (farms, businesses and industries).

They serve as ambassadors for British business, culture and industry. They also are involved in supporting 100s of charities.

(Actually, J.K. Rowling is richer.)

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

26. Oh I care

I want the fuckers gone NOW. And the cult of Diana pisses me off big time. I hate them all & I hate having to hear about their latest exploits (although I don't read the tabloids, which helps). Hopefully in a couple of generations time, the indifference will finally grow into a stronger push for republicanism.

[Taxloss]

28. That's true in some ways, but not in others.

I personally favour a republic and would like to see the whole expensive, anachronistic charade consigned to the dustbin of history. But I think that the present Queen has pulled off a remarkable achievement, presiding over more than half a century of extraordinary change but still seeming sympathetic to modern ideas. Charles, I have no time for whatsoever.

And you are wrong about Diana. I never liked her - that's my problem - but since her death her memory has been mercilessly exploited by the tabloids and endless tat-mongers. most people are now indifferent to her. You say: "You can't walk a block in London without seeing a picture of her somewhere." This is not true, unless you are in the centre, and the pictures you see will pretty much always be on postcards on sale to tourists.

[CottonBear]

34. Hasn't she been receiving the Red Boxes ever since Churchill's time?

She has been privy to personal and private knowledge and conversation with every PM since Churchill, if I am correct. The stories she could tell...but she can't and never can. I heard that that she did not like Thatcher's policies but we'll never know.

[ignatius 2]

29. I agree..isn't getting out from under their iron fist the reason we fought

the damned revolution in the first place? Talk about taking a step backwards to idolize and adore the imperialists...

It is totally ignorant.

[devilgrrl]

33. I remember the MSM referred to Gropenfurher/Shriver's ceremony as...

America's Royal Wedding. :spray::eyes:

Anyone else remember that? It was ridiculous.

[jim3775]

38. Although, the countries that stayed under their iron fist are some

of the most progressive representative democracies in the world. I don't like the royal family, but I will take the canadian parliamentary system or the australian representative system any day over the stupid un-democratic electoral college.

[jim3775]

37. I can't stand them

It bothers me that once the queen (who I am indifferent about) dies I will have to look down at my newly minted money and see the face of charles or one of his sons. As soon as the queen dies I will actively oppose the royal family and support steps to sever all ties to them. I know Americans (and some Canadians too) could think that this is an overreaction but these people are technically Canada's head of state, I can't stand the fact that a single family (who doesn't deserve it) are technically and in title the leaders of my country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. I don't blame you at all

At least here in Britain they make some effort in terms of heading charities, performing ceremonies and so on. And occasionally they get sent abroad as 'goodwill ambassadors' to drum up trade and so on (whether that really works, I don't know). But I've never heard of them doing that for Canada, Australia, etc. It didn't even stop Reagan invading Grenada - he just informed the Queen after he did it.

[insane_cratic_gal]

39. I would tend to think the "Monarchy"

or the UK is far more of a democracy then the US of A at this stage in our history.

[HereSince1628]

41. Peerage is a social endpoint of the free enterprise ownership society

How quickly we forget centuries of strife to overcome European feudalism. We long for our own opportunity to live as baron or baroness.

[Walt Starr]

42. I'm a Patriotic American

I have no use for any member of the British royal family. None whatsoever.

I still have hard feeling over that thing in 1776.

:evilgrin:

[VaYallaDawg]

43. It's an anachronism.

But then, so is cheerleading, when you stop to think about it. They've got their anachronisms, we've got ours.

[sepia_steel]

44. Prince Charles is campaigning about global warming.

I don't know if 'campaigning' is the right word. But it's one of he things he came to talk to The Idiot about. For that, he has my respect, even though with Dipshit it won't do a bit of good because caring about the environment means no more oil. If that's not transparent I don't know what is, but some people worship him STILL and always will. :shrug: