• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Diamond Jubilee Concert.

Chris D

XenForo developer
Staff member
#2
I'm watching it on TiVo so not quite at the end yet! :D

Whole concert has been pretty impressive though, to be honest, I've enjoyed it.
 

euantor

Well-known member
#7
Watched it my self and it was indeed a great ending. If the Olympic ceremonies are that good we may not be a failure as I had believed...
 

Fred Sherman

Well-known member
#8
Never understood the British fascination with and tolerance of Royals. You pay hundreds of millions for your national mascots simply by accident of birth. They are simply what you turn them into. And your goal families have more blood on their collective hands than any US wartime president. Why do you tolerate it, bad hats manners and the lot?
 

akia

Well-known member
#9
Because we like our royals, and they don't cost us millions, no moren than having a president style head of state would. If they were such a bad thing then why did so many countrys around the world opt to keep them when they got independence.

Also your missing the benefit of having a head of state that isn't elected who knows the goings on of the last 60 years of government, who isn't chasing votes, her experience and advice is invaluable to any prime minister. In fact all the prime ministers have said how important the weekly meetings are to them, being able to discuss matters and know they are not going to be leaked to the press, or that she's not going to try to score political points out of it etc etc
 

Quillz

Well-known member
#10
If Elizabeth II is still on the throne in 2015, I believe she overtakes Queen Victoria for the longest reigning monarch in European history.
 

Fred Sherman

Well-known member
#11
Because we like our royals, and they don't cost us millions, no moren than having a president style head of state would. If they were such a bad thing then why did so many countrys around the world opt to keep them when they got independence.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family#Estimates_of_costs_and_wealth
£36 million per year

US President - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Compensation
$596,000

Not even close.

Also your missing the benefit of having a head of state that isn't elected who knows the goings on of the last 60 years of government, who isn't chasing votes, her experience and advice is invaluable to any prime minister. In fact all the prime ministers have said how important the weekly meetings are to them, being able to discuss matters and know they are not going to be leaked to the press, or that she's not going to try to score political points out of it etc etc
Maybe its an American viewpoint, but the idea of an unelected, hereditary head of state is abhorrent. We aren't subjects and we aren't ruled. We are governed by our consent, not ruled by divine right. I think if you had Hollywood, you wouldn't need royals. We'd be willing to make a deal. Most of them want European socialism anyway. Win/win.
 

a legacy reborn

Well-known member
#12
Because we like our royals, and they don't cost us millions, no moren than having a president style head of state would. If they were such a bad thing then why did so many countrys around the world opt to keep them when they got independence.

Also your missing the benefit of having a head of state that isn't elected who knows the goings on of the last 60 years of government, who isn't chasing votes, her experience and advice is invaluable to any prime minister. In fact all the prime ministers have said how important the weekly meetings are to them, being able to discuss matters and know they are not going to be leaked to the press, or that she's not going to try to score political points out of it etc etc
I will just comment on the bolded text. It seems that countries that change governmental systems when they had a monarch tend to keep them for the purpose of having a symbolic figure that really does nothing, because the people are used to it. Also, if you want to make that statement then you might also want to add that when people decide to keep their monarch they also tend to form a government similar to that of the U.S. It is not that they think the monarch is particularly good at anything it is just that they don't want to change something that the people have grown up with. If there is ever some drastic change people cling to whatever brings a sense of normalcy, in this case, monarchs.
 

oman

Well-known member
#13
I added this to my Foxtel planner, because I wasn't entirely sure whether it would be worth watching... I must watch it! :)