And they are different to the others who were in the desert and South Atlantic in what way?

Who would have thought that the lovely posters of the Sin Bin would be out of touch with public opinion on the monarchy

Quote: Exiled down south "Did the ginger one not do a spell in the desert, and the one who married the ginger one not do his bit in the South Atlantic.'" See my reference to "everything they do is exaggerated". Prince Andrew ? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 54205.html Useless, overweight parasite.

Quote: Exiled down south "Did the ginger one not do a spell in the desert, and the one who married the ginger one not do his bit in the South Atlantic.'" See my reference to "everything they do is exaggerated". Prince Andrew ? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 54205.html Useless, overweight parasite.

There are times when a monarchy is a good thing. The Roman Empire was repeatedly rocked by internal strife precisely because Augustus and his successor emperors never managed to solve the problem of succession. If there is no clear and unambiguous mechanism by which power transfers from a dying emperor to his successor then it's a free-for-all with myriad factions all competing for the throne. Before long violence breaks out and the matter is invariably settled by the candidate with the most soldiers behind him.

IIRC the people of Rome once witnessed power transfer through five emperors in a single year.

Part of the reason America is currently going down such a worrying route is precisely because they've never had any kind of monarchical system which, in conjunction with its supportive class, forms The Establishment. As contemptible as it is - you need such a power bloc to function as a bullwark against the excesses of the business and military classes.

In the United States these special interest groups have really grown out of all control and this is why it's currently teetering right on the edge of fascism. Of course, the Americans didn't help themselves when they foolishly threw open their doors to thousands of card-carrying Nazis (whose crimes are unspeakable) after WWII. In their haste to use these people against the new Russian menace they never once stopped to think what effect they might have on the nation ...

Well done Your Maj!

Isn't it 'doff' the cap btw?

You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx

You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx

history may beg to differ on several areas of your post. As an example until the 60's the monarch had a say in who the Conservative party leader would be.

It's a measure of mainstream journalism in this country that so much can be said about the life and times of the Royal Family without even a vague inference written about the strange similarities in appearance of a certain prince and a certain "Cad"...

Wow, this got a bit messy – anyhow, well done Lizzie for living a long time .

It won’t go down as a classic event in my lifetime, but that record will take some beating. But then again who knows, in another hundred years some poor buggers will be living to one fifty.

Its a shame Roy Castle and Norris McQuirter aren't still around. It'd be great to see her on Record Breakers in between the woman with the world's longest fingernails and the geek who holds the world record for the Rubik's cube. She could even ask Norris a question (he'd probably point out that her record is only British, not world, and that she has some way to go to (20+ years in fact, and that's assuming the Thai king doesn't outstay her).

I just don't understand how anyone with a vaguely rational mind can countenance a royal family (and all it stands for) in the 21st century.

I guess it depends on what you think the royal family actually is and stands for.

If you see it as a monarch who is the ultimate power in the state and there only through birth and is the leader of her subjects etc etc, then yes I agree with you.

However I see the royal family as a link to our nations history (both good and bad), fulfills a ceremonial role for the nation and allows us to have some of the patriotic flag waving that happens in all countries from time to time, without it getting too xenophobic.
I also think it takes that ceremonial role away from the alternative, which would have to be some form of elected President. I don't necessarily think that that is any better. Especially as despite being a monarch, she's only there because the people allow her to be.

So for me its not a major issue and I think there are far, far bigger issues that threaten British people's lives and freedoms than the royal family.