Bear in mind that the Royal Family pays as tiny an amount of tax as they can get away with, and for every year upto just a decade or two ago, the Queen paid no tax at all. Since then there has been a special unit in the tax office to make sure the minimum is paid, and at no cost to the Royals, but borne by the Nation. Yes, you expected me to bring this up. It was either me or Godders who was going to do it.
Good point Second, this issue really pees me off. What is it with the monarchy ? - out of touch with reality (like Michael Jackson!), or lacking plain decency, or dishonest ?
I dislike the Monarchy as much as the next guy but there are figures floating around the web that prove that they bring in more from tourism that they cost to "maintain" as it were.
I just think the principle is wrong. Why should one collection of human beings live a gilded life, where the slightest stress is taken care of, while everybody else, including the working wealthy, as well as the poorest no-hopers, have zero chance of filling their positions..? The Queen re-pledges her life to the service of her nation. But no ordinary people will get the chance anyway. Frankly, I know many people who would love to pledge their lives to the kind of service she was born into. They'll never get the chance. In fact, they are actually barred from it. Maybe the Royals do bring in lots of tourist money. Or maybe it's just the palaces and costume. The French seem to get along with lots of tourist money, and with not a Royal in sight. Plus, they don't have to pay for the hangers-on, and the French people can rightfully feel that they are first citizens in their own country. It may not seem important to some, but when other people sing their National Anthems, they are re-pledging their allegiance to their homelands. We British may love our country, but we don't get to pledge our allegiance to it. Only to its representative, whether we like it or not. Hey, perhaps it's why English footballers so regularly under perform at international level..? They don't feel the national fervour that other countries players feel.
Where to start? 1) The National anthem isn't for the English, it's British! The Scots and Welsh should be singing it as much as us.The English should be singing an English anthem. 2) GSTQ is an uninspiring dirge. 3) It doesn't cater for republicans. 4) On the other hand, the French seemed even less interested than us. 5) English players seemingly under perform because they aren't very good. The team performed to par in this tournament. 6) We are taught that "national fervour" is a bad thing - one step from racism. Then we are expected to rekindle it at tournaments. 7) Even national fervour does not compensate for poor ball skills. Don't tell me that the Scots and Welsh don't work themselves into a nationalistic fervour before matches (with their own national anthems)- and they are still crap. Similarly, the English cricket team plays Jerusalem before matches- but then again, they're good!
Some agreement, some disagreement there, breconsaint. I can't make my mind up which is which though..‽
Our anthem is simple and recognisable...fans seem to find it rousing enough. Never heard another anthem that I fancy, though the USA and Germany have decent ones. Jerusalem is great for large groups, but can't imagine the average football player singing it to any effect.
Off topic, but the Italian national anthem is great. The last verse is Let us join in a cohort, We are ready to die. We are ready to die, Italy has called, yes! Singing the national anthem is almost like a Haka for the Italians.
Pity the Spanish. Their national anthem has no words.Watch their fans singing "la,la,la" Doesn't stop them from playing great football, though. Maybe something to do with their talent?
To be fair, God Save the Queen can be pretty powerful depending on how it's performed. Usually in sporting events they play a rather mediocre version of it, but during Royal Events they often play a really good, powerful rendition of it such as during the Queen's Jubilee Concert. The Russian national anthem is by far the best though. France's is pretty good as well, I think I Vow To Thee my Country would make a great English national anthem though.
They're not the only ones, the Irish, Portuguese, Americans and Argies are more than happy to sing about death, slaughtering their enemies and so on. And in most cases that's probably the British!
There's the bit in the Spanish anthem which reminds me of the old Standard Fireworks TV advert from the 1960s. Every time Jorge Lorenzo wins another MotoGP race, they play his anthem and I think... Please do remember the 5th of November. As for an English anthem, if Land of Hope and Glory wasn't so outwardly jingoistic, I'd pick that one. If people remember the Manchester Commonwealth Games, several years back, where each British country compete separately, the English used LoHaG as their medal winning anthem, and I can tell you, the stadium audience bloody well loved it. It was sung with far greater enthusiasm than I've ever heard God Save Us From The Queen [sorry, couldn't resist], being sung by the general public.
This is such a flawed point. The Monarchy bring in such a vast amount of money into the economy through, among other things, tourism. Yes they may not pay much tax, but the wealth they bring to many local areas is invaluable. Also gives a good spirit nationally (among a majority) - when taking things such as the recent jubilee into account. Also, I would like to add (after a previous comment) that I do agree with paying tax, but was merely sympathising with how Carr is being shunted. When we finally get a Government who have the slightest ounce of common sense (both Labour and Conservatives have failed, albeit the Conservs haven't had as long), they might actually give us a PM who will put our tax to good use. Television sets and games consoles for prisoners is a joke. The NHS is awful. The funding of a pointless war is un-necessary. The MP priviledges are horrendous. The list goes on. A Government will hopefully soon see that there are so many wasted things which billions of pounds worth of tax is being wasted on. Then and only then would we start to feel less agrieved when they rob us of our money.
As I said further down the thread, it makes no difference that they possibly bring in more money than they cost. The principle of a set of humans, elevated above others, and completely untouchable, is inherently wrong.
It's not like they have any power though really, it's most ceremonial and personally I think Britain might be a far duller place if you got rid of them. Would you really deny the country the opportunity to unite in celebration as they have done during the Jubilee and Royal Wedding in recent times? In the last Commonwealth Games, they sang Jerusalem with the men's teams singing the first verse and the women's team singing the second verse. I totally agree. I presume you're talking about Afghanistan here, and I must say I'm not one of those people who say we should get out yesterday. We should only leave when the Afghan population are fully capable of providing their own security rather than abandon it to become another failed state, pulling out too early would be disrespectful to those who lost their lives in Afghanistan.
I think the Royal family are part of the tapestry of British life. They certainly makes historical periods easier to remember. It makes us different from most other states and brings in the tourists. Better than some bland politician who was elected President because he annoyed no one. Doubt anyone would turn out for the wedding of a grandchild of any President.
In a way, I agree. We should never have gone in the first place, but now that we're there, it's only right that we finish the job. However, I fear that the job will never really be finished.
As a Humanist, I totally agree with this view. The Royal Family's ancestors gained their exalted position through violence, not because they are ordained by some higher being to rule over the rest of us. If we are to develop as civilized humans where war eventually becomes redundant, then the old causes for conflict such as birthright, territory and religion must surely be superceded by more tolerence and understanding of each other.
