Our (when I say our I mean the Greek) Duke of Edinburgh is famous for them, here are a few favourites:<ul>During a state visit to China in 1986, he told a group of British students: "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed".
Speaking to a driving instructor in Oban, Scotland, he asked: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?".
Still throwing spears? (Question put to an Australian Aborigine during a visit in March 2002)
"Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed." (during the 1981 recession)
"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian." (in 1999, referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh)
"Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf." (in 1999, to young deaf people in Cardiff, referring to a school's steel band)
"You are a woman, aren't you?" (in 1984, in Kenya, to a native woman who had presented him with a small gift)
"You can't have been here that long - you haven't got a pot belly." (in 1993, to a Briton in Budapest, Hungary)</li></ul> And my personal favourite: <ul>"If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." (at a 1986 World Wildlife Fund meeting)</li></ul> Just because the Duke of Edinburgh has a cronic case of foot-in-mouth disease does not mean that the entire system of Consitutional Monarchy should be abolished.
I don't see anyone calling for the removal of the King of Sweeden, according to the article he will have to be accompanied by a Cabinet Minister to ensure he does not make political comments again, due to the fact that he is forbidden to take part in political affairs.
When referring to the Monarchy as something to represent one's nation you have to look past the actual person and to the institution itself.
<!--QuoteBegin-Josiah Bartlet+Feb 17 2004, 11:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Feb 17 2004, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't see anyone calling for the removal of the King of Sweeden <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3474793.stm' target='_blank'>I do</a>. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There have been renewed calls in the Swedish press for the abolition of the monarchy after King Carl XVI Gustaf complimented Brunei on its openness during a visit there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I think we have enough dumb celebrities who we can laugh at, so we don't need royals for that. And besides the 'we want to hold on to traditions' I can't see a one good reason to keep royals. Even that tradition one is a bit shaky.
<!--QuoteBegin-Josiah Bartlet+Feb 17 2004, 10:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Feb 17 2004, 10:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you look at the <a href='http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page433.asp' target='_blank'>Official British Monarchy Website</a> one can see that the average "cost" of the Royal Family is £36.2 million, down from £87.3 million in 1991-92, which is remarkably little in the grand scheme of things. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Assuming that the government's estimate is accurate and unbiased, I will take the figure at face value.
I could stand here and burn $5 knowing that it was a small amount, but you would call me a fool for doing so. Is 40 million pounds a year necessary for multiculturalism and traditions? Would that amount not be better spen ton health care or educaiton?
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Feb 17 2004, 10:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Feb 17 2004, 10:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Josiah Bartlet+Feb 17 2004, 11:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Feb 17 2004, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't see anyone calling for the removal of the King of Sweeden <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3474793.stm' target='_blank'>I do</a>. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There have been renewed calls in the Swedish press for the abolition of the monarchy after King Carl XVI Gustaf complimented Brunei on its openness during a visit there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I think we have enough dumb celebrities who we can laugh at, so we don't need royals for that. And besides the 'we want to hold on to traditions' I can't see a one good reason to keep royals. Even that tradition one is a bit shaky.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then give me a good reason to get rid of them, that is better than a common sense of identity, the large amount of money the generate in tourism and the other factors I outlined in my previous post. What other form of government would be better and less expensive?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I could stand here and burn $5 knowing that it was a small amount, but you would call me a fool for doing so. Is 40 million pounds a year necessary for multiculturalism and traditions? Would that amount not be better spen ton health care or educaiton?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think £40 million is remarkably little when you consider it, and the government at the moment has thrown money at the National Health Service and Education and has done little to help it, but this is more of a politcal (vote Conservative) than an ideoligcal debate on the role of the Monarchy. Also £40 million a year of an instantly recognisable figure of Britain, who act as Ambassadors for us around the world who can further British interests, is very good value for money.
<!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Feb 17 2004, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Feb 17 2004, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is 40 million pounds a year necessary for multiculturalism and traditions? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. I suspect that the monarchy, especially the Queen, add value to this country - probably in excess of £30 million.
whilst I do not agree with the monarchy in principal, I do recognise that she does give our troops a figurehead to fight for, I mean I can't imagine many of our armed personell would be as happy fighting for Tony Blair <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I went and edited my post on page 1 for clarification and to remove any ambiguity.
This whole mess has been a gigantic failure of the English language, compounded with the flaws of trying to discuss anything through text alone. The views of myself (the positive kinds of tradition positively influence a sense of nationalism) and MonsE (some traditions are crap, and I share this idea) are not at all incompatible.
<!--QuoteBegin-Josiah Bartlet+Feb 18 2004, 02:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Feb 18 2004, 02:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then give me a good reason to get rid of them, that is better than a common sense of identity, the large amount of money the generate in tourism and the other factors I outlined in my previous post. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would any tourist come to Great Britain for Queen? Tourists won't see the royals anyway, if they are lucky, a hand. What's the point? Tourists come to see the Palace or Big Ben or whatnot, not the royals, I believe.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Feb 19 2004, 11:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Feb 19 2004, 11:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Josiah Bartlet+Feb 18 2004, 02:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Feb 18 2004, 02:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then give me a good reason to get rid of them, that is better than a common sense of identity, the large amount of money the generate in tourism and the other factors I outlined in my previous post. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would any tourist come to Great Britain for Queen? Tourists won't see the royals anyway, if they are lucky, a hand. What's the point? Tourists come to see the Palace or Big Ben or whatnot, not the royals, I believe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The closer they can get to the Royal Family is at the Wax Museum.
I still have the pic <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin-Josiah Bartlet+Feb 17 2004, 09:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Feb 17 2004, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Royal gaffes make life fun.
Our (when I say our I mean the Greek) Duke of Edinburgh is famous for them, here are a few favourites:<ul>During a state visit to China in 1986, he told a group of British students: "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed".
Speaking to a driving instructor in Oban, Scotland, he asked: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?".
Still throwing spears? (Question put to an Australian Aborigine during a visit in March 2002)
"Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed." (during the 1981 recession)
"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian." (in 1999, referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh)
"Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf." (in 1999, to young deaf people in Cardiff, referring to a school's steel band)
"You are a woman, aren't you?" (in 1984, in Kenya, to a native woman who had presented him with a small gift)
"You can't have been here that long - you haven't got a pot belly." (in 1993, to a Briton in Budapest, Hungary)</li></ul>And my personal favourite:<ul>"If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." (at a 1986 World Wildlife Fund meeting)</li></ul>Just because the Duke of Edinburgh has a cronic case of foot-in-mouth disease does not mean that the entire system of Consitutional Monarchy should be abolished.
I don't see anyone calling for the removal of the King of Sweeden, according to the article he will have to be accompanied by a Cabinet Minister to ensure he does not make political comments again, due to the fact that he is forbidden to take part in political affairs.
When referring to the Monarchy as something to represent one's nation you have to look past the actual person and to the institution itself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A lot of the Dukes comment are just the Tabloid papers twisting the facts; for example when he was in Australia and sopke to an Aborigine and asked "still throwing spears?" There was a lot more to that situation that papers like the sun etc neglected to point out.
The Tribe of Aboriginies that he was visiting he had also visited before sever years agoago and duing this visit they are having a kind of tribal dissagreement (war) with another tribe. The question he asked about the spear throwing was in reference to this.
The British tabloids just made it out that he walked up to some random Aborigine and asked him if he was a spear chucker.
Comments
Our (when I say our I mean the Greek) Duke of Edinburgh is famous for them, here are a few favourites:<ul>During a state visit to China in 1986, he told a group of British students: "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed".
Speaking to a driving instructor in Oban, Scotland, he asked: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?".
Still throwing spears? (Question put to an Australian Aborigine during a visit in March 2002)
"Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed." (during the 1981 recession)
"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian." (in 1999, referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh)
"Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf." (in 1999, to young deaf people in Cardiff, referring to a school's steel band)
"You are a woman, aren't you?" (in 1984, in Kenya, to a native woman who had presented him with a small gift)
"You can't have been here that long - you haven't got a pot belly." (in 1993, to a Briton in Budapest, Hungary)</li></ul>
And my personal favourite:
<ul>"If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." (at a 1986 World Wildlife Fund meeting)</li></ul>
Just because the Duke of Edinburgh has a cronic case of foot-in-mouth disease does not mean that the entire system of Consitutional Monarchy should be abolished.
I don't see anyone calling for the removal of the King of Sweeden, according to the article he will have to be accompanied by a Cabinet Minister to ensure he does not make political comments again, due to the fact that he is forbidden to take part in political affairs.
When referring to the Monarchy as something to represent one's nation you have to look past the actual person and to the institution itself.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3474793.stm' target='_blank'>I do</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There have been renewed calls in the Swedish press for the abolition of the monarchy after King Carl XVI Gustaf complimented Brunei on its openness during a visit there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I think we have enough dumb celebrities who we can laugh at, so we don't need royals for that. And besides the 'we want to hold on to traditions' I can't see a one good reason to keep royals. Even that tradition one is a bit shaky.
Assuming that the government's estimate is accurate and unbiased, I will take the figure at face value.
I could stand here and burn $5 knowing that it was a small amount, but you would call me a fool for doing so. Is 40 million pounds a year necessary for multiculturalism and traditions? Would that amount not be better spen ton health care or educaiton?
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3474793.stm' target='_blank'>I do</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There have been renewed calls in the Swedish press for the abolition of the monarchy after King Carl XVI Gustaf complimented Brunei on its openness during a visit there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I think we have enough dumb celebrities who we can laugh at, so we don't need royals for that. And besides the 'we want to hold on to traditions' I can't see a one good reason to keep royals. Even that tradition one is a bit shaky.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then give me a good reason to get rid of them, that is better than a common sense of identity, the large amount of money the generate in tourism and the other factors I outlined in my previous post. What other form of government would be better and less expensive?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I could stand here and burn $5 knowing that it was a small amount, but you would call me a fool for doing so. Is 40 million pounds a year necessary for multiculturalism and traditions? Would that amount not be better spen ton health care or educaiton?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think £40 million is remarkably little when you consider it, and the government at the moment has thrown money at the National Health Service and Education and has done little to help it, but this is more of a politcal (vote Conservative) than an ideoligcal debate on the role of the Monarchy. Also £40 million a year of an instantly recognisable figure of Britain, who act as Ambassadors for us around the world who can further British interests, is very good value for money.
Yes. I suspect that the monarchy, especially the Queen, add value to this country - probably in excess of £30 million.
This whole mess has been a gigantic failure of the English language, compounded with the flaws of trying to discuss anything through text alone. The views of myself (the positive kinds of tradition positively influence a sense of nationalism) and MonsE (some traditions are crap, and I share this idea) are not at all incompatible.
Why would any tourist come to Great Britain for Queen? Tourists won't see the royals anyway, if they are lucky, a hand. What's the point? Tourists come to see the Palace or Big Ben or whatnot, not the royals, I believe.
Why would any tourist come to Great Britain for Queen? Tourists won't see the royals anyway, if they are lucky, a hand. What's the point? Tourists come to see the Palace or Big Ben or whatnot, not the royals, I believe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The closer they can get to the Royal Family is at the Wax Museum.
I still have the pic <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
I am Sleek
Our (when I say our I mean the Greek) Duke of Edinburgh is famous for them, here are a few favourites:<ul>During a state visit to China in 1986, he told a group of British students: "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed".
Speaking to a driving instructor in Oban, Scotland, he asked: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?".
Still throwing spears? (Question put to an Australian Aborigine during a visit in March 2002)
"Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed." (during the 1981 recession)
"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian." (in 1999, referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh)
"Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf." (in 1999, to young deaf people in Cardiff, referring to a school's steel band)
"You are a woman, aren't you?" (in 1984, in Kenya, to a native woman who had presented him with a small gift)
"You can't have been here that long - you haven't got a pot belly." (in 1993, to a Briton in Budapest, Hungary)</li></ul>And my personal favourite:<ul>"If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." (at a 1986 World Wildlife Fund meeting)</li></ul>Just because the Duke of Edinburgh has a cronic case of foot-in-mouth disease does not mean that the entire system of Consitutional Monarchy should be abolished.
I don't see anyone calling for the removal of the King of Sweeden, according to the article he will have to be accompanied by a Cabinet Minister to ensure he does not make political comments again, due to the fact that he is forbidden to take part in political affairs.
When referring to the Monarchy as something to represent one's nation you have to look past the actual person and to the institution itself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A lot of the Dukes comment are just the Tabloid papers twisting the facts; for example when he was in Australia and sopke to an Aborigine and asked "still throwing spears?" There was a lot more to that situation that papers like the sun etc neglected to point out.
The Tribe of Aboriginies that he was visiting he had also visited before sever years agoago and duing this visit they are having a kind of tribal dissagreement (war) with another tribe. The question he asked about the spear throwing was in reference to this.
The British tabloids just made it out that he walked up to some random Aborigine and asked him if he was a spear chucker.