Was Prince Charles 'Gay'?

by ISP 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Simon

  Royalty serves in regard to the power that it prevents rather than any power that it might impose.

  I'd rather have a proper consitution for that.
• 

  expatbrit

  Simon:

  Interesting. I'd like to ask you though, what makes the Windsors any worse than pretty much any other extended family in the UK today? They basically seem to consist of a Dad and Mum, adult children of whom the majority have had unhappy marriages resulting in divorce, an airheaded bimbo who gets herself killed through daft behaviour, and a number of grandkids who haven't yet made a mark on the world one way or the other.

  I'm pretty sure that if you put any UK family under the spotlight as closely and as lengthily as the Windsors, you'll see just as much of a soap opera. Quite why anyone expects the Royals to be paragons of virtue escapes me. It seems to me that those who are so shocked and scandalised are falling for the idea that Royalty is somehow different from the rest of us plebs. Isn't this idea a myth mainly cultivated by Queen Victoria that still pervades society? The fact is that the Royals influence other people, but they also reflect the society of their times. If you look at the last thousand years or so, you'll see Royal behaviour that makes today's look like an episode of Romper Room.

  Royalty itself is a very good tourist attraction, as can easily be seen by the hordes of Americans swarming around the palaces, stately homes, castles, cathedrals, universities etc. which are the result either directly of Royal building programmes or indirectly through Royal patronage. British historical heritage is second to none, and this is largely due to the ego of Royalty and the Upper Classes.

  The Windsors themselves may frequently be silly (although I think the Queen herself is wonderful. She was about the only person in Britain who maintained any dignity when Diana went to the wall). Fair enough, it's the institution of Royalty that I respect and see the value of, not any one individual who is part of it. The Monarchy, and particularly the growth to Constitutional Monarchy, have been a very important factor in Britain being one of the most stable (and thus successful) countries of the past 500 years. We don't need a written constitution.

  Expatbrit
• 

  expatbrit

  Simon:

  I just thought of something amusing. Having been to Canada you know that the Royals are, if anything, more popular here than back home in the UK. Sometimes even I'm left shaking my head at it. And of course, the Royals love Canada. Jolly good skiing, you know, and the Subjects are suitably overawed with a Royal visit, hemhem.

  I'd bet a large sum of money that if the UK ever does terminate the institution of Monarchy, they'll end up over here. I can just imagine you emigrating and getting away from the Windsors, and then they go and bloody well follow you! They'll probably get a nice bungalow in Alberta to be close to the Rockies, you know. Just think, Simon and Her Maj, neighbours! Muah!

  Expatbrit