Newest Review: ... i don't understand is how people from America love the royals yet when asked if they want royals of their own they simply don't want them, ... more
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypoc ...
Should the monarchy be abolished?
Member Name: Plumptious
Should the monarchy be abolished?
Date: 10/02/01, updated on 12/02/01 (167 review reads)
Advantages: It would be nice to have something good to measure up against.
Disadvantages: They don't measure up, nor do they deliver.
~~~ Prince Philip ~~~
It seems unsporting to aim low blows, especially if the person is unable to answer them directly. It is for this reason that I would have liked to have avoided the fact that he was not born a British national, for that in itself doesn't seem much of a reason to discriminate against him. He is, after all, naturalised by virtue of his marriage to a rather well known British personage, and has lived here long enough to regard this as his home.
His role, as one of the senior royals, is that of diplomat. Regardless of how much anyone may protest about him, he is very much in the public eye and he can influence our relationship with the rest of the world. This is a fact that I consider to be irrefutable. If you disagree, then consider how much influence you would have over Britain's relationship with a foreign nation and then compare it to the influence he can wield.
Much of the justification of his allotment from the public purse is based on just this role. As a citizen of a free country, he is entitled to his personal views.
The problem I have is his predilection for uttering the most inane thoughts publicly. Has he even considered how ridiculous he sounds when he makes xenophobic remarks about immigrants? Equally, I think that it is ridiculous that a man with at least four legitimate children should castigate the Chinese for having too many. The tabloids wait with bated breath every time he goes abroad, or indeed comes into contact with anyone.
He is entitled to sound stupid, but not on the public purse. If his justification for his demands on the public purse is for his role as a diplomat, then I, for one, declare him to be an incompetent one, and would cast my vote for him to be struck off it.
~~~ Prince Char
The prince is known for his crusade against unsatisfactory architecture and inner city deprivation. I therefore found it of particular interest that a recent survey found Cornwall to be the most economically deprived area of our fair isles. Whilst I accept that statistics can distort figures, I somehow doubt that these figures could have been so far wrong as to point the finger at Cornwall if it were indeed amongst the most economically buoyant areas.
So what is my point? I shall simply leave you with the words "Duchy", "Cornwall", "house" and "glass".
And another thing ...
Decades ago, an on-going scandal titillated the general public. You all know the story; the incumbent king fell in love with a divorcee. They were quite open about their feelings for one another. Eventually, the king abdicated, and the present queen's father acceded to the throne.
Today, Prince Charles and Mrs Parker-Bowles are an item. I must admit that I personally do not have any proof, but it is an accepted fact. If anyone would like to dispute this fact, please do speak up.
Going forward on the assumption that this is indeed true, then it seems only fair that Charles should never accede to the throne. After all, the only reason his mother is on the throne is that his uncle, finding himself in the same situation, abdicated.
For the House of Windsor to recognise Charles' claim to the throne smacks of hypocrisy. Mrs. Simpson, at least, was divorced. Mrs. Parker-Bowles is still married. This makes the relationship adulterous.
I try to avoid forcing my moral standards on others as far as possible, but have a problem when I come across individuals not adhering to the moral standards which they profess to embrace.
I am also led to understand that this particular lady's grandmother played the same role to the royal family in her time. It would
seem to be something of a family profession. I find unpalatable that individuals like these should benefit from what is after all, currently an illegal profession. The only difference is that her family seem content for their daughters to continue in the tradition and that they enjoy the patronage of royalty. Unlike many in this line of work, they can scarcely plead poverty.
~~~ The Firm ~~~
I believe that the royal family refer to themselves by some such pseudonym. The intention is a laudable one, recognising the family unit of which they are a part.
~ Arranged Marriages ~
It is recognised by a significant proportion of the world that an arranged marriage takes into account the aspirations of both the families involved. I have friends from various cultures - Greek, Indian and Egyptian - who have been involved in these arrangements, and can see how it can be a good thing as well has when it can go wrong.
After all, I know that many young adults take their parents with them when purchasing their first house or car. They don't necessarily feel bound to accept all the advice dispensed by their loving parents, but appreciate the security of a point of view from someone who is in their corner. Even the modern Western world of "unarranged" marriages practices the ritual of "meeting mother".
Witness the example of my friend. It was always understood that her marriage would be arranged. A minor member of the Saudi royal household offered for her hand. Her parentage was an unusual mixture of Arabian countries, making the resulting political alliance a highly advantageous one.
Economically, and in terms of status, it was the best offer she had had. However, the ardent petitioner was a Muslim with a reputation for divorcing his wives. It would have been very civilised, and she would have been retired off comfortably with any children they would have had. Deciding that she w
ould better off with a lifelong mate, her parents decided against that match. She's now happily married to a handsome accountant.
~ Lady Diana ~
The arranged marriage I have described took interest of the individual into account.
The marriage of Lady Diana to the heir apparent obviously involved consent between the two families. The stakes were high, and many stood to gain by it. Diana's character was such that she needed a high amount of love and attention. Those who knew her would have known that. But no one from the family who was supposed to have supported her seems to have objected to the marriage. The stakes were too high.
The royal family, with their stake in the leadership in the Church of England, should have felt obliged to act conscientiously in accepting the nineteen year old girl. In lieu of her own family doing the decent thing and regarding her interests, the royal family should have done so. If it had done so, knowing the way Charles intended to treat the marriage, they should have at least insisted on a brood mare who did not require as much attention.
Again, morally, they have failed.