What's the general feeling about the Royal Family.
I personaly think Queenie should not bother with charlie and give the crown to William.
The Queen is incredibly...distant.

The Queen is "regal", not distant. She maintains dignity. As a head of state, it's expected.

An I agree that Wills should be next, not Charlie.

I'm in two minds about this subject. Some of 'em serve a purpose. The others don't.

I don't really mind having them knocking about. The civil list seems rather overbloated at times though... Must we pay for quite so much in it?

I don't know about the general populas but I feel more in touch with Harry after he was caught smoking pot and having a few bevvies.
Made me laugh how Charlie took him to a rehab clinic..had to set an example i spose.

i think it's a bit silly how people fawn over them. It's not like they've done anything important other than take people's money and wave. And to me, that don't really have an impact. Prince Edward (The earl of Wessex) is coming to our town tomorrow and my dad and mom are going to shake his hand or summat. They got this big list about what they can and can't do. you can not touch him unless he shakes your hand. can't call him Prince Edward, must refer to him by his title of Earl of Wessex and then 'sir' you have to be at the place before him and leave after him...blah blah blah. What happens if we call him Eddy? Does the British secret service kick our arses? arrest us for treason? If he did anything important or meaningful with his life I might have respect for him. as it is I don't give a rats arse whether he comes to town or not.

You know, I bet being a royal is by turns boring and aggravating. Touring countries, waving at people, going to grand openings of a billion stupid little things, and then getting chased by papparazi and hounded by the press and the public for no other reason than for your genes.

We have a saying round these parts concerning blue bloods and their ilk "They're so well bred, they're inbred"

you gotta admit Diana was a good person. that whole head down, eyes up look was weird tho.

I think she did a lot of good things for charity and the such. I can still remember when she died. I had just woke up in the back of a van with my mom (long boring camping story) and my dad told us. Was shocking at the time.

Queenie and co bring lots into the UK via tourism and such and I think its good for our culture. I dont mind the immeadiate royals but the tag alongs irritate me. I also think the fuss over camilla is a little overated. Diana had affairs to, many argue she had hewitts love child (conpare harry and him). And the whole "their the head of the church" argument holds no water as the whole cofE was set up so Henry eith could get a divorse.

I agree with Skitz, the major royals are fine, lots of tourism etc etc, , but minor royals are just a waste of time, i mean theres a Prince of Kent, common! what a waste of money! kinda met the queen once actually, played in a Sea Cadet Band for her, lol its quite funny to be complemented for having shiney cymbals and they are part of our identity as a nation

If it wasn't for the vast amount of money they bring into the economy on account of tourism, I'd say get rid of them. They're redundant relics of a past age.

However, because of that economic boost, they're kind of self-justifying.

(i apologise now if this is unreadabele, been celebrating my last exam)

i think the royals are a waste of time, space, cash and effort. i think someone should only be given that power, status and cash if the friggin earn it. theyre paracites the lot of em what with their not doing anything. and sure thy may bring tourism, but thats because theyre an outdated novelty to the reast of the world and many people visit for the history and culture not the royals. to get rid of the royals would cause such unrest it would boots tourism for deacades.


excuse me while i go phone someone now...

Often wondered about that one myself... Yo! Edster! How's it hanging?

*thump, thump. Ow! Lay off!*

I honestly think that the media should just leave those damn boys alone. Who really gives dog poo if they smoked pot at a party, lots of teens have so why is it so important that he did it and when princess Diana died(very sad time) they had live media coverage but knowone cares when a poor person dies on the street. Now I love the royal family and what they stand for but I ask you is it faveritism ?

I reckon that Dianas Death was the result of a big bad business deal gone wrong between wasisface (owner of Harrods) and one of his clients.

I have a lot of respect for the Queen. She's very well-informed, very intelligent and full of advice for her Prime Ministers. She remains a non-partisan figure, is extremely dignified, rarely speaks her mind (in fact, when she spoke her mind on the issue of global warming a few days ago, it was the first time in practically her entire reign), and has thus far proven to be an excellent head of state.

However, this was very much the luck of the draw. We were lucky to have two good eggs in a row - George VI and Betsy. Charles, though, is a fine example of where monarchies can go wrong. He's an idiot and probably won't make a very good King. I'd very much prefer it if the crown were to go straight to William, who seems to have a good head on his shoulders. Harry and Charles are both very human - they show their flaws to the public (though Charles's flaws aren't very human in themselves ) - but that's not what you want from a monarch. You want someone who'll respect the constitution, keep their mouth shut and do as they're told by Parliament. They also need to be pretty smart, so that they can advise and guide their Prime Ministers properly and protect the country and the Commonwealth's interests.

I don't think Charlie would be any good at that, and I have no idea whether an elected President would. I haven't looked at what's experiences republican countries have had, but they don't seem as stable or progressive as the monarchies of north-western Europe. Possibly this is just the way history has turned out, possibly this is because Presidents are inherently less reliable than monarchs. I'd like to see some good evidence that a President would be a significant improvement on the Queen before deciding to chuck out the entire institution of monarchy, which has, after all, had a long time to develop a finely-tuned relationship with Parliament and the nation.

Jaq looks like about a year ago, she summed up my feelings exactly. Funny that, us being friends and both sharing our anti-monarchist sentiments in times gone past.

For Canada, I see the queen as a ridiculously old-fashioned, out-dated model of government. It flies in the face of a liberal democracy. The inbred joke is almost cliche in Canada. Honestly, I think one of the most intelligent directions Canada could move would be to throw out the Parliamentary system and move to something more Republic-like.

As for her reign in Britain, I don't honestly care. She's your figure-head, you deal with her.

I think Harry should be King. Just because he'd be closer to the people. I know the monarchy are supposed to be regal, and above us and all, but there'd be a nicer attitude towards them if they weren't so...Charles-like. Don't like the man. *shrugs*
Don't mind them in general...except for the fact I'll probably resent them if I have to pay too much of my own money to fund their "diplomatic trips"...