Period Royal Wedding

[robgil]

didnt a high court rule that they could return to their island but the monarchy over ruled this decision? i think thats how it went. they all live in Croydon now.

 

[robgil]

I love the Queen. And the Royal family. They do silly things sometimes but I think on the whole they make a pretty dignified job of it, and how horrible to live your life so constantly under scrutiny, especially in our time of the Internet and the all prevalent power of the media. I wouldn't change places with Her Majesty, though I'd be in my element in a palace.

you have a little palace there all of your own Joce, i think you already are in your element. :wink:

 

[Nigel Watts]

I believe that parliament has to approve the monarch's appointment, which presumably means they also have the power to choose someone else. However it suits PMs of whatever party very well to have a constitutional arrangement such as ours.

I dont agree with Tony Benn on many things, but I do concur with his critique of the Royal Perogative. Since this is exercised by the PM on the monarch's behalf it gives the Prime Minister huge powers. An elected or appointed head of state would not be so compliant as they would feel less inhibited and that they had more of a mandate to interfere.

Although our royal family has been pretty expert in shooting itself in the foot over recent decades, continuing with our constitutional monarchy still seems the best option. Some on the left have suggested, for example, that the Speaker should be our Head of State. Enough said I think, especially after seeing Mrs B on Have I Got News for You last week.

 

[Flyfisher]

this is true, but what qualifications do you have to have to be a future king of a country? and how do we know any of the queens children hold such qualifications?

There may not be any formal qualifications (B.Tech in Being King ?) but I'm sure heirs/heiresses are heavily tutored as to their duties from the moment they are born, poor things.

As others have pointed out, the actual powers of the monarchy are largely theoretical in practice these days, which makes it, I think, a pretty thankless position. Basically, it's a duty over which the people concerned have little or no choice. I think the Queen is exemplary in her role because she appears to treat it as her duty to be a ceremonial but effectively mute figurehead. Few people, I suspect, would really like to live their entire lives in such a manner. I wouldn't.

 

[CatherineB]

I guess, on the bright side, we know who our HoS is going to be for the next 50 years or so...
(and longer, just as soon as Wills sprogs :mrgreen: )

 

[Flyfisher]

And I though this sort of reporting would only be in Private Eye:
http://caledonianmercury.com/2010/11/16/couple-who-met-at-university-to-marry/0011924

 

[Flyfisher]

So, Friday 29th April 2011 for the royal wedding and a public holiday for everyone.

Not that it particularly bothers me one way or another, but is there any reason why they can't get married at the weekend, like the majority of weddings, and therefore not incur all the costs of a public holiday?

 

[robgil]

they like to have their weekends off like every one else, they would only charge us an over time rate anyway.
Ive been reading people moaning about tax payers footing the bill or at least some of it , is this true?
if it is their timing is extracting the micheal a bit isnt it?whith all these public spending cuts and all the job cuts etc etc. surely they cant be that insensitive?

 

[Moo]

whith all these public spending cuts and all the job cuts etc etc. surely they cant be that insensitive?

I'm sure there will be quite a lot of criticism along those lines during the run-up to the event. But the view of The People will be expressed in the TV viewing figures and the crowds along the route on the day

 

[skier-hughes]

I believe The Royal family and the Middletons will bear the cost of the wedding, the reception and the honeymoon, although any associated costs such as security, policing and cleaning streets will be picked up by the taxpayer

“The details of who pays for what haven’t been worked through yet but the Middleton family are very, very keen to contribute,” said Mr Lowther-Pinkerton. "

According to the papers

 

[robgil]

so how come we havent been invited then? :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

To be honest, I'm not overly fussed who pays for the wedding. There may be all sorts of arguments about having a monarchy but I really don't think it's a cost issue. I read an interesting stat the other day along the line that it costs everyone 69p per year for the monarchy and £58 for something else, but I can't remember what the something other was - but it seemed to put things in perspective at the time.

Anyway, public money seems completely unreal these days. A few weeks ago the UK was skint and everyone was busy trying to cut our budget deficit. Yesterday, we managed to find a spare £7bn to rescue Ireland's economy. Against all that, I doubt the cost of a royal wedding even registers on the Chancellor's spreadsheet.

so how come we havent been invited then? :lol:

We are - and there'll be tens of thousands turn up. My dear departed mother-in-law camped out overnight to secure her viewing spot for Princess Di's wedding. Anyone else planning a similar outing?

 

[skier-hughes]

I had hoped when I saw the Queen last week I might get a personal invite........ no such luck