h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In some contries they work in ours I think it is out dated and useless. I mean really what do they do aother than live the life of rily and then complane when the press writs stuff about them. there is no chance for another family to become "Royel" because we dont have the opertunaty to elect them. they are suposed to be nutiral, but they seem to be conservative, they are suposed to represent the people but support lots of things most people dont(like fox hunting) they have a nice cushylife off the state and the one who did have a job couldent make it without name dropping its pathetic it really is why canrt we retier them an elect someone so at least then we will have a choice who is the head of state

Agree with a lot of what you say, but I thought Charles and Anne both paid their own way by farming?

a pernikity anarchist called Ben

Agree with a lot of what you say, but I thought Charles and Anne both paid their own way by farming?

a pernikity anarchist called Ben

Pernickertist.

ok the bit I was on about was sophy the Pr women..but charles farm just about stays in the black it is really to small and I am not shure about Annes. I chrls was anyone els he would have gon it to bancrupcy years ago

ok the bit I was on about was sophy the Pr women..but charles farm just about stays in the black it is really to small and I am not shure about Annes. I chrls was anyone els he would have gon it to bancrupcy years ago

Given the state of British agriculture at the moment, that is probably true.

a country lass called Ben

It worries me that people in the public eye aren't able to hold opinions about people (at least not ones they even give a hint about), and that the press can get away with underhand and sneaky tactics to find out what they are. The whole Sophie business (what I found out about it before I had to stop lest I do something inadvisable in my frustration at the sensationalism of it all) was just really, really silly.

in some ways yea because they where complaning that the royels dont earn mony..but..how well would she have done if she wasent name dropping about her conections that she only got because she was born in the right family..thats what bothers me

Well, she seemed to be doing ok before she met Edward. He's the one who has poured millions year after year into his enternainment company. But it seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Dunno what the answer is.

agcB

>support lots of things most people dont(like fox hunting)<

They really should come out to aust and kill ours for us. bloody nuisance.

Though can you explain why you seem to want to know so much about them? Last year on my way home every day I'd buy the paper, and every week glance at the cover of the "UK Express" or something like that, I'm not quite sure of the name, and for that entire year the royal family was on the front page, every edition. why? I don't understand it!

also, can I just say from the point of view of relatives of mine who voted no for the aust republic, it wasn't about keeping the royal family, it was about keeping british ties.

actually I carnt care less what they do. the only thing that bothers me is that I am payen for them to do it. they sponge off the state swon around the world on skiing trips and the like and maby set up a charity. and as I said it is only one family and there is not much chanche that the family will change, we dont get to choose them yet they are suposed to represent us??
If we had to have one couldent we at least get a choice about who it is, and atleast if we elected a poltishion to be head of state we would know what we are geting iseted of a suposdly nutral conservative.

how would you get rid of it? what exactly could britain do? Do you think you'll get rid of it before say ...2100?

Horrible, stupid, dumb, boorish, inbred, web-toed, plummy-voiced, money wasting wastrels that they are, but for all they spend, they bring in even more through tourism. Do you know what one of the most popular holiday destinations is for Americans? That's right, London. Home of the stupid Monarchy.

They may be as pointless as a fudge pencil, but they don't half bring in the revenue.

mmm...fudge...

and do you know the most recognizable tourist symbol in america? the kangaroo... (piece of pointless fudge pencil info I heard on the news)

But we don't want to know about them. The press think we do, but they're wrong.

And also, if we had an elected politician as a head of state, then that'd just be asking for trouble. I mean, look at the USA. I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like the President of the USA has far too much power. Ideally of course there would be no single person as head of state, but in practical terms that doesn't work all that well, so why not have someone who has no more choice about becoming head of state than we have in having them as head of state, but making sure that their powers are limited. And how much tax money does go directly to them anyway? I imagine the income from the Royal estates is quite considerable, considering how they own a large proportion of the country.

Also something else to think about - had we no Royals, what would have happened to the Royal parks in London? Buildings, perhaps?

I like them. They give the government a sense of historical continuity, and the tourist trade is very useful indeed. Plus, who would we get to open things if we didn't have the Queen? I wouldn't want a politician to come...

the wqueen has no power any way it is just a pointles ceramony..and for the cash they bring in they spend at least three quarters of it renavating the enormas houses they think are necessary. the monorky although makeing mony for the actual traders and the like still do never make (or encoradge) enough to break even..well maby only just break even if they where a buisness they would have gon bankrupt in the last century..face it they are dated and worthless and ther is a dam site better things we could have other than them. and do the people come to londone for the monerky or the city itself because evien without buckingahm palice londone is a great place to go

You haven't heard of emergency powers then, have you?

And technically, the Queen has to approve every law that is passed, so she could block anything she felt like, although I think if she did that then we would suddenly become a republic.

>the wqueen has no power any way

technically, through the governor general, she has quite a lot of power here too. Our governor general sacked prime minister whitlam... thats certainly a huge amount of power.

the pwoer of the brittish monerky was vertually destroyed by cromwell. wen they took back another king he had som many rules, the monerky are a figer head nothing more if the queen did not call the parlemnt to session how many of you actually think people would listen to her..really..she has no power!!