I was listening to a program this morning on the radio. Networked from the BBC, it was this long piece about the Royal family and the Church of England continuing to wrestle agonisingly with 'the Camilla issue'. Apparently, if PC marries her and goes on to become king, she will automatically become queen, no ifs or buts. The dilemma appears therefore to surround whether he should be 'allowed' to marry for a second time.

Now I'm not trying to be inflammatory or take the piss here (honest). It's probably that I've been out of the country for too long, but I'm genuinely interested to hear what relevance this all has in the UK in the year 2000 ? Why is it so significant that major institutions and, I'd imagine, large numbers of its citizenry would spend so much time debating it ? Anyone got a clear explanation for this poor expat ?

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Answers

I think watching the Royal Family all commit suicide on live TV would be a definite ratings topper....ITK can you get Aunty Beeb to organise it?

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Nobody gives a toss really, not about Camilla, not really about the royal family. The royal family died with Di.

There is nobody who demands respect, I view them with ever increasing distaste.

The Quenn Mother is 100 in a couple of months. Let's guess the Quenn shows the same longevity, that would give her another 27 years as the boss. What happens when she dies (apart from bucketloads of middle aged women crying) ? Well if it's 27 years on then young Prince William will be 45 years old, will be just going into his second or third marraige, and somebody will eventually say "what the hell's all this about".

I personally think that the Royal family should go, it should be replaced by the Blairs, with Leo becoming third in line to the Prime Ministership.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Bunch of useless chinless inbreds. What kind of mentality would climb over Di to get to Camilla? What difference does it make whether Charles ever becomes king.

I'm keeping the guillotine sharp......

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Sorry to be a party-pooper here, but I think the Royal Family does still have a significance for the majority of people in the UK.
Unfortunately, the Queen's off-spring have allowed respect for the institution to be seriously undermined to the extent where I'm sure QE11 fully understands the continuation of Royalty in Britain in the Third Millenium is at risk - they cannot afford another "Royal screw-up", as it were!
Unfortunately, in this sensitive situation the Heir to the Throne's relationship with Ms. Bowles potentially represents an 'It's a Knock Out' size banana-skin.
Given Diana's deification by the populus, who feel she was treat appallingly by the 'The Family', this situation must be managed with extreme sensitivity - it has the potential to blow the whole situation regarding the continuation of the genus lineus wide apart - and don't think they don't know it.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Just to nail my colours firmly to the mast...

I detested Diana more than any other member of the royal family...

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Princess Diana - don't get me started on that topic...

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

If it wasn't for that minger dying the other year we would've beaten Liverpool at Anfield when they were struggling instead of having the match postponed until they were playing better!!

Never mind the fact that we had months of rubbish in the news about her....

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Looney,
The sooner we become a republic the better. At least if the guy in charge is an a******e, we'd have to suffer him/her only for as long as the term of office - to be replaced no doubt by another a******e, and, the office is open to anybody.

What I have difficulty getting my head round is how otherwise sensible people go completely off it where the hrhs are concerned - like driving down to the smoke to see the flowers when Di died. Not the funeral, just the bleedin flowers. Busloads of them. Sad or what ? Or am I missing something ? Probably from eating brain rissoles.

If you're in oz, you guys had an ideal opportunity not long ago to kick the whole lot of them into touch, and blew it. I wish we'd had the chance. So, you're right, I'm not a royalist.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Republicans unite!

I can only say that I agree with the vast majority of what's been written on here - and to add, I'll see you all on the scaffolds by Traitor's Gate :-)

Of course, I've more to add

To get all the vitriol really going about the Dodi-Di Death Day you should look at the Private Eye web page where they've compiled all the hypocritical crap for your viewing pleasure. Personally, I recall buying a paper, and discovering it was an early edition with an exclusive pic of Di in a bikini on a boat somewhere - needless to say it was swiftly withdrawn by the time I went back for a pint of milk.

I spent the rest of the day in mourning, by driving over to me mate's in Chelmsford for a jam on the ol' electric geeeeturs, bit of a smoke and spin back again - if nothing else, it was a great drive 'cos the M25 was empty!

I could go on for ages, but I'll just add this. The Prince Charles / Camilla thing is a problem because of divorcees getting to the top of the back stabbing German / Greek monarchy. Edward VIII had lots of bother with some American...Wallace Gromit I think. Curious really, 'cos the C of E was set up by a divorcee in the first place. And one of UK's most influential monarchs was spawned from a re- marriage (QEI by Henry VIII out of Anne Boleyn (who had a dodgy 6th digit on her hand...and they say in-breeding never harmed the Royals!).

I'm right in the mood for this now! Come on! Raise the Red Flag and let's storm McDonalds!!!

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

The biggest dork of the lot is that greek tosser who'd be seriously dangerous if he had a brain. Apparently, grey sqirrels are more of a threat to humanity than gm food. His areas of knowledge seem to be limitless. Stupid long string of bummler's p*ss.

That feels better.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Bill I disagree....

Phil the Greek is actually the only one of them that is vaguely amusing....worth his weight in horse sh*te for that alone...

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Didn't Marx sat that the modern monarchy was the opiate of the people? ;-) Perhaps not, but it's scarey how many people are so interested in the minutae of their lives, especially those that don't even live in the UK.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Gav,
You're right, but it's out of his control. He has as much idea he's being 'humourous' as I have of picking dishes from menus. -)

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Windy,
Ever the pendant, 'Religion is the opiate of the masses', Grouch Marx

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Curiously Marx (of the Karl variety) was married to a member of the aristocracy...although he was considered very bad form for his views.

The opiate bit is a bit of a misquote 'cos Marx didn't believe religion to be anything other than a side-issue when it came to the inevitable rising of the proletariat.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Comrade Bobchinsky,
As a bombast, I am perfectly qualified to misquote herr Marx (of the Karl variety), attributing said misquote to Mr Marx (of the Groucho variety) because I know very little about either. :-))

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Pit (the younger)

The only thing the two Marx's had in common was the belief that neither would want to be a part of a club that would have them as members :-)

Well, that and the shared idea that history was an evolution of the relationships of production...as Groucho said "either this man is dead or the surplus of his labour has been exploited by the bourgeoisie"

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

And for an extra potato, can anyone recall the Gogol play from whence "Bobchinski" is taken from???

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Bobby

Was it the "Government Inspector?"

On a more personal note, my mutha wants to know why that bobby-lad has stoppped writing his funny stuff on the BBS.

It was the highlight of the day for many a blue-rinsed ganny.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

The Government Inspector?

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

The Bottom Inspectors?

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

All this vitriol about the Royal Family and not one single mention of the person who is ACTUALLY responsible for it all...............

That bloody Caroline Ahern wasn't funny when she was Mr Merton, she was even less funny in this cr@p.......

and ps BOBBY: I've warned you before, you damage McDonalds in Uxy and my kids will do for you!

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Or MRS Merton even...................doh

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

1. Sadly, ITK, Mr Merton has passed on. And the Royals is funny...some is a bit too close to wor lass's family!

2. Yes, The Government Inspector! Cracking good fun, and with the dodgy camp duo of Bobchinski and Dobchinski getting the laughs!

3. Bobby isn't as funny as he used to be due to a touch of Viz- itis, where the sufferer asks more and more to keep his increasingly expensive tastes satisfied yet fails to deliver even half as many laughs as he used to.

4. Blue-rinse grannies are the scourge of the earth

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Holy Sh*t, Bobby,

I think me mutha's surfing this afty. If she logs into this site and sees your remark about blue-rinsed gannies (followed by your e-mail address) you had better stand by for some heavy spamming (if not heavy breathing).

And when you're spammed by a big Shield lass you sure stay spammed.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Sorry Bobby.....but if you think that cr@p the Ahern sl@g turns out is actually funny...you are even more sad than I thought you were...............

(80)

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Mrs Merton is only funny in parts. But I think she's well past her sell-by date. I don't find the Roayl Family remotely funny - either of them.

As for Mr Merton, I p*ss myself laughing regularly at HIGNFY (but I a on edication and it should all be OK by Christmas). OK, so what if many of his ad libs aren't. Some are and they're all funny.

PS. Nobody will convince me that Dumb & Dumber was funny. I did like Arthur Askey when he was on the wireless.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Was that the old crystal set......Jimmy Clitheroe was my favouite

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Pit Bull,

The problem we face in Oz is that the republican movement is split into many camps. It's not a question of Monarchists versus Republicans. The problem lies with the Republicans who want to create a republic where by only a select few could actually run for the presidency. We would not have a system similar to the USA.

At the moment some friends of mine are working on a Constitutional Democracy idea. However the problem being that the major media owners back the limited republican movement and take great delight in highlighting the fact that many of the 'loony' interest groups back the Constitutional Democracy movement. Unfortunately this true as many of the 'loonies', read those who advocate gun ownership, have white australia policies etc, are led by inteligent people who realise if you want a free-ish style society and government system whereby people aren't screwed by the system then the only way to go is a Constitutional Democracy.

That said we have bugger all ties with the Queen anymore anyway. She doesn't appoint our Governer General anymore, our PM does, just as our state premiers appoint the state governers.

Our legal system is no longer tied to the british system as it once was, and consequently we are not protected by the Magna Carter and other such documents. When Australia recieved federation we had a pre-amble that included all the legal documents carried over from great britain. However that was voided in 1911. Since then the politicians have been slowing screwing all our laws and squeezing the public and no-one either realises or cares. In effect we have not lived in a democracy since 1911.

We used to have a law carried over Great Britain that stated something like 'no law can be passed that is deemed repungnant to the people, and will automatically be tossed out. What this law was saying that no law that negatively impacts upon the people of Australia can be passed.

Well in 1988 Pual Keating passed the 'Autralia Act' which sole purpose was to overide this law. The stupid thing was that the judicial system realised this and did not try and fight it. So now any law can be passed and the people of Australia are not protected.

I can give you an example. We are about to have a GST introdeuced here in less than one month. Legally a total change to the tax system should have gone to a referendum. However the Liberal party went into the election on the platform of the GST. Less than 50% of Australia voted for the liberals but they still got in and are implementing the GST.

The really sad thing that has occured in Australian politics was the whole Pualine Hanson and One Nation witch hunt. I'll admit she had some policies that were questionable, and it was these that the media and major parties attacked. However what they were scared of that her political advisers were well aware of what has been happening in Australia and were actively campaigning to change the whole system. However unless you went along to one of her rallies, which was a dangerous thing to do, you never heard of these as the major parties through the media wanted to keep the publics attention away from this and on the emotional issues that could bring down Pualine Hanson.

There is a hell of a lot more to all this but I'm sure you're totally bored by now.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

I can't be arsed to go into a diatribe about about that lot. Suffice to say, they'll be gone in one, two generations tops.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Tre, not too badly explained.

But why do you spell Paul, Pual, and Pauline, Pualine?????

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Gus,

becuase my brain is fried and I need a holliday. Oh waite of got the next six weeks off. Yippee.

One thing, I am always scared about talking about Pauline Hanson, becuase as soon as some one starts talking about her not in a negative manner you're almost immediately crucified. And at Uni it's very dangerous to talk about her in a passive or positive light. Woops I just lost another 15% on an assignment. God damn uni monitoring.

;-)

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2000

A quick straw-poll. Please arrange these events in order of importance:

a) British Attache in Greece murdered by 'November 17'
b) Government pledges to allow open vote on banning of fox hunting with hounds
c) Some f***ing press secretary resigns because pictures of 'Wills' at his 18th weren't copyrighted to the Royals

I despair. Not only was C the lead story, but it had a full 10 minutes and an update with live broadcast later in the bulletin. Just supposing that the Photographer from the Telegraph had made millions from the snaps, did that in any way shape or form justify spending millions more on broadcasting the fact to a disinterested public???? Staunch Republican me. High time we had a head of state with some power to kick some of our 'governments' up the arse when they stray from their remit. Someone who has a duty to the people first and party second.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

Nominations Softie? Maxwell is dead. Livingstone? Branson?? Thatcher!!!........................???

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

I'd have thought Paddy Pantsdown would have been good for starters but Richard Branson would do. A man who likes to get things done amke a nice change from the windbags currently filling the airwaves with spin.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

I have a credibility problem with Branson. He was OK when he was selling records, but when he went on to running late trains.........

......anyway, I can't take a President seriously if he's head of "Virgin". But it never stopped the Yanks. As stated elsewhere on here, they've had their foar share of Bozos.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

I'd still rather have a Bozo I can vote out than encourage some inbred Gorman to breed another chinless wonder that we all pretend forms the balance in our unwritten constitution by being between Lords and Commons. With the Lords finally getting the boot, the Royals must follow as the Commons have a dangerous amount of power now. Someone has to have a more direct mandate from the people (I can hear the Holy Grail fans clacking at their keyboards now!) to prevent silly twats like Thatcher and Blair from causing irrevocable damage to the fabric of the Nation through no greater motivation than short term poilitical expediency. Urgh! Can't abide any of them. Why don't you all vote me in as a benign dictator...I have quite a portfolio of ideas and I'm pretty sure you'll like some of them :-)

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

Lets hear it folks, SOFTIE FOR PRESIDENT!!

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

RESISTANCE IS USELESS - YOU WILL COMPLY!

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

Hmmm...a leader that represents the people rather than the party....what a fantastic idea! I wish we could have that in the US as well!! Softie...can you handle running 2 countries? The Softie Empire! :-))

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

Self-styled Ruler of the Galaxy, Softie, surveyed his domain. The vast sweep of his posessions was encapsulated in a rather small room with an admittedly nice PC (not fully paid off yet) and a distictly inferior vintage wine.

The Lord of the Outer Reaches belched quietly and tiptoed to the loo - deathly afraid of waking his wife of whom he is sensibly frightened.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

Softie for President........resistance is useless....you will comply

WILL THE LAST PEROSN TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY PLEASE TURN OFF THE WATER AND THE LIGHTS!

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

Sorry if this goes against the grain folks, but I have to chip in here. I`ve been watching this thread all week, and fair play to you all, if that`s how you feel. However, just to balance things up a bit, personally I am a royalist, though I think the Queen has been very unlucky with her sons, and I wouldn`t be particularly proud of any of them. Princess Anne has worked non-stop for years and years, and deserves huge amounts of credit for her efforts. Now this will really get your goat, I was also full of admiration and sympathy for Diana, I won`t bother discussing why, because I know you won`t agree. But I do hope, for the sake of the Royal family, that she passed on some of her virtues to her children.

I`m not a grandmother, nor do I have a blue rinse. Oh, and whilst I am not a member, nevertheless, - Power to the Women`s Institute! (:o)

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

The problem here though Galaxy is that they can quite ably carry out all those decorative and charitable functions without depriving us of an accountable system of government. Lord only knows that they have enough loot to amuse themselves for the rest of Creation, but it is downright dangerous to have Supreme Authority vested in a monarch who has ceded it all to the Lower House. We badly need someone accountable with the power to veto legislation which is damaging to the Country when it gets railroaded through parliament. Someone who has the ability to snip the red tape and force Parliament to deal promptly with matters that they would otherwise avoid since they haven't come up with a party-line or somesuch pimping excuse. There is a vacuum at the top. We get to choose a party, the party chooses our MP, the Party chooses our Prime Minister and we all get shafted. At least let us choose our head of state. Have the party allegiances severed for this one. If The Speaker of the House can manage it then there is no Earthly reason why a President can't. It's the 21st Century for God's sake, how much longer are we going to continue with this sham?

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

Very early in the morning for this sort of discussion (for me that is) but can you think of anyone who would fit the bill?(:o)

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

I see him every morning while shaving ;-)

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

Clown!(:o)

I do take your point - political parties aside, it would be fantastic to have someone you could trust enough to veto some of the truly bad decisions that have been made, or even to be in a position to put the brakes on a bit. I surely don`t know the answer, from the current crop of politicians, I would be sorely pressed to find anyone trustworthy enough. Nor, do I think that the Royal Family are equiped to make those sort of decisions. If they had the sort of power that they used to have historically, you`d have no more than a Royal dynastic/dictatorship. But, the point I was really making, was that I some of the Royal-bashing that goes on is seriously unjust. (:o)

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

meant to type `I think that` (:o)

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

I'm not sure you get to vote for a dictator Softie :-)

Have to join the republicans myself, can't stand any of them. I was as upset as anybody when Diana died, I'd been looking forward to the Liverpool match for weeks.

Who for president? Someone like Jello Biafra would get my vote.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

Softie Despot....got a ring to it.

I was also upset at the death of Diana.......the only one in the whole royal family worth a sh@g.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

PS cheers softie for reminding me of one of my favourite python moments:

"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

"Oh, King, eh, very nice. And how d'you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By 'anging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society."

"Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

Unbeatable stuff!

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

My one and only word on this thread....I'm with Galaxy!

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

I've always thought the Queen was basically just a ceremonial figurehead, but held no real legislative powers? It sounds to me like technically she does, and that's what the folks in Parliament use to stall decisions?

While I can certainly see the argument in wanting a system where all citizens have a voice in electing the leader, I just wonder how realistic and workable it is in a major country. Supposedly that's the system in the US. The reality is that it just don't work that way. 'The people' have NO direct say in who is elected president. That is left to the mysterious 'electoral college' which is comprised of delegates assigned based on teh populations of each state. More people = more delegates (if you live in Delaware just stay home cause your state only gets 1 vote and it won't make any difference anyway). So it is entirely possible(and has happened) for a candidate to lose the popular vote(that be the masses) but win the electoral college(the mysterious ones) and thus the presidency. Presidential candidates are almost always puppets of their parties and those that emerge as the party candidates are almost always chosen by their parties. And with only 2 major parties in the country, people basically do vote for a party. Some polling booths are even set up with a lever that lets you do exactly that rather than make individual choices. It's faster and easier.

At least in the UK, you know that's the system operated under, so there's no illusions of the average person actually having a say in things ;-)

So endeth my 7th grade civics lesson diatribe. :-))

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

Thank you ITK - nice to know I`m not alone! (:o)

And thank you Ciara for pointing out that the US system is just as full of pitfalls.(:o)

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

Well, I'd say I'm still leaning towards Galaxy (but then I always liked the quality chocolate bars). Granted the Royal Family are (in the main) a bunch of upper class twits, but the whole idea of a Monarchy still cuts the mustard with Johnny Foreigner (not to mention the majority of Brits).

I'm afraid I just can't see one person (ie an independent President) having sufficient power/MIPS/judgement to over-rule anything decreed by Parliament (crikey, thaz hard to spool after a battle of vino!). They will be influenced by their own predjudices. So perhaps does a Monarch, but at least we aren't stupid enough to let them exercise this power (or maybe they're clever enough to decline). I'm not saying I prefer it, but I think a system with proportional votes would be prefereable (ok, perhaps I do prefer it!!) to a Presidency.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

While we're on the subject, we should go the whole hog and scrap the national anthem as well. We must be the only country in the world that says things about an individual rather than the country itself.

Time we had an anthem that didn't refer to anybody in particular. It shouldn't come any closer to people than at most, referring to 'the Nation'.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000