You write off the £85,000 car the British taxpayers gave you, and the next day they give you another one. I hope the accident wasn't his fault otherwise we'll be paying the bloody fine as well. 'double-whammy' or what? "Prince Philip crash: Duke takes delivery of another Land Rover" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...-duke-takes-delivery-another-land-rover-will/
Not being British and only looking in from the outside, isn't have a queen and the royal family a bit outdated? It seems to me they are glorified dignitary greeters and mall openers with no real purpose in the running of the British government. I do appreciate the historical purpose of the royals, but as society moves on putting someone in such a high place for simply being born seems to me to be very much against what society has moved to. Especially in a country with many liberal leaning people who keep telling everyone how every is equal.
'a bit outdated'? That's the understatement of all time - 'anachronistic' is what it is; this country is stricken with mindless celebrity-worship, and the worship of the royals is the purest form of it. I think it's a combination of the herd instinct and a childlike devotion toward privileged strangers merely for what they are rather than who they are; and as if that isn't bizarre enough, that devotion is generously given to a handful of people who couldn't give a **** about them?
Ok so what purpose does the queen really serve in today's running of the country. I am not trying to be an ass I really do not know. It just seems redundant to have a queen when you have the parliament and the prime minister . Aren't the the one who are actually making laws and running the country?
Brenda is the glue which holds the elitist establishments together. She also gives simple-minded folk someone to look up to, which is what simple-minded folk need.
....sorry for the delay in replying its a wee bit busy at the moment. For me the Royal family is an important tradition that I don't see any reason to get rid of as a short term fad. I like tradition and I like the fact that we have a constitutional authority over and above the house of commons and its' members of parliament; even though de facto control lies with them - there is still an important distinction. Likewise in terms of members of parliament usurping power there is still the fact that members of the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch not parliament to which I feel more comfortable with. The Monarch is also head of the Commonwealth of Nations (take that as you will) and to a certain extent the Monarch's status transcends that of the British Prime Minister or the UK as enabling the Monarch to the "glue" that maintains the whole - the Monarch is viewed as a kind of neutral broker or arbiter so to speak and transcends, as it were, the diplomatic nuances of the UK Government of the day. Parliament/Governments of whatever nature and levels of confidence come and go the Monarchy remains constant and aloof. I like this - its a constant in a world in flux. Don't you think there needs to be some form of innate national stability in an institution that the people can look to? I don't just mean today or tomorrow but for future generations. The role as we have said is really one of ceremony, however, that can change should there be some form of crisis that develops in the future where an authority that transcends parliament where the forces of state are sworn to an alternative ultimate authority. I like back stops.
