Home Politics & Debate

Jubilee Celebrations - damp squib?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Oh dear, the government don't seem to want a party, do they? Street party organisers are being forced to cough up large sums to pay for insurance and planning permission. There won't even be a naval review. This is wrong.

This is a golden jubilee for heavan's sake. They don't happen very often so I want big flag-waving parties, I want commemerative mugs, I want parades. What am I getting? Bored shrugs. Have we resigned to the fact that we live in an age of global corporations and political correctness? Is there no room in this modern world to celebrate the romanctic (in my opinion) notion of monarchy? Is patriotism dead?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We probably arent having big parties or massive celebrations in case we offend the people who have CHOSEN to come and live in this country. It's just another sign of us losing our cultural identity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I remember the silver jubilee and it was really exciting even though I was brought up to kind of not like the monarchy. My dad wouldn't let me join the brownies cos you had to swera allegience to god and the queen but my parents did let me enter a crown making competition and dress up.
    It's a shame there isn't the same kind of excitement now but 1977 was another of those hot summers (not as hot as the previous year) and perhaps people were more up for partying?
    Perhaps people are more cynical about the royals because of all the stuff that's happened.
    I think the 70's were quite a boom time for the royals so we all enjoyed the flag waving and stuff. Mind you then there was punk...perhaps that blew away all respect?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Our council (Kingston) are giving the residents association in our area a grant so we can shut down our street, pay for catering and also have lots of live music. (one part of which may be my band.. hurrah!) If that grant runs out, it'll either be privately funded or lottery based, thought I reckon people will be less loath to dip into their own pockets than take money away from a worthier cause. We should have the vast majority of the neighbourhood attending, from the residents of the local old people's home to the nearest primary schools. So Byny... no worries... that kind of sentiment isn't dead, thought I think people veiw it more as a thing to firmly establish a sense of community and have a bloody good knees up than celebrating anything the queen has done....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont think its anything to do with a lack of support for the Queen. Most people in this country are still monarchists.

    The problem is society and community. We no longer have any. Most people know their immediate neighbours but nobody else on the street. The insurance thing is just another indicator of todays world. I have no doubts that today, if someone was hurt at one of these parties, they would sue the living shit out of anything that moved. That wouldnt have happened in the 70s so they didnt need insurance.

    This country is just a shittier place than it was in the 70s. Peoples attitudes are so much worse these days <IMG alt="image" SRC="frown.gif" border="0">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>I dont think its anything to do with a lack of support for the Queen. Most people in this country are still monarchists.

    The problem is society and community. We no longer have any. Most people know their immediate neighbours but nobody else on the street. The insurance thing is just another indicator of todays world. I have no doubts that today, if someone was hurt at one of these parties, they would sue the living shit out of anything that moved. That wouldnt have happened in the 70s so they didnt need insurance.

    This country is just a shittier place than it was in the 70s. Peoples attitudes are so much worse these days <IMG alt="image" SRC="frown.gif" border="0"></STRONG>


    I agree, I would love for our street t have a celebration of some sort. A lot of people know each other on our street but I don't know if we have a residents association or anything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh dear, as a piss up it would be great.

    I just can't seem to get excited about the prospect of celebrating the coronation. In 1977, I was 7 and didn't know any better. Now I can see that monarchy for what it really is.

    Why should we spend more public money celebrating her birthright?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>Why should we spend more public money celebrating her birthright?</STRONG>
    IMHO It doesn't really matter what the cause is, a party is always good for community spirit and happy neighbours. I think the jubilee could be a great excuse for a national party, but no-one seems to want to get involved. We may have lost our sense of community in the UK but we shouldn't lose the ability to have some fun.

    I remember my road had a massive VE day street party a few years ago, and it was great fun. I don't think anyone thought about what we were celebrating - not really. But it was a good day and we met neighbours we never knew existed!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Golden Jubilee is not important to us, young people of the 21st century. The monarchy is only token and has no relevance on our lives. They consume our money for doing what? They don't bother having jobs as they have all the money that the government gives them. I think that we should definately cut them off without any money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Agrofrog:
    <STRONG>The Golden Jubilee is not important to us, young people of the 21st century. The monarchy is only token and has no relevance on our lives. They consume our money for doing what? They don't bother having jobs as they have all the money that the government gives them. I think that we should definately cut them off without any money.</STRONG>
    Deary me, another anti-monarchist without facts to support the rhetoric.

    The monarchy easily pays for itself. Buck House and Windsor Castle being two examples of royal tourist attractions.

    Also, this country relies heavily on tourism . A lot of tourists come here for the history, not the weather or the theme parks. Most of our history involves the monarchy, and most of our tourist attractions revolve around the pomp of the monarchy.

    Even if tourism is the only good thing the royals do for this country then I believe it is worth having them. They don't cost us anything, so what is the problem?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>The monarchy easily pays for itself. Buck House and Windsor Castle being two examples of royal tourist attractions.

    Also, this country relies heavily on tourism . A lot of tourists come here for the history, not the weather or the theme parks. Most of our history involves the monarchy, and most of our tourist attractions revolve around the pomp of the monarchy.

    Even if tourism is the only good thing the royals do for this country then I believe it is worth having them. They don't cost us anything, so what is the problem?</STRONG>

    France has no monarchy and yet people still manage to visit the Palace of Versailles...

    As you said it is the BUILDINGS that people come to see, not the monarch.

    And I am <STRONG>not</STRONG> a republican. I just don't see the point of celebrating someones birthright. If we celebrate VE it is because it is because it is a national achievement, rather than the fact that her dad died and she was nect in line. So she has 'ruled' us for 50 years. So what?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Agrofrog:
    <STRONG>The Golden Jubilee is not important to us, young people of the 21st century. The monarchy is only token and has no relevance on our lives. They consume our money for doing what? They don't bother having jobs as they have all the money that the government gives them. I think that we should definately cut them off without any money.</STRONG>

    Being queen might not seem like a "real" job, but I can assure you it is. The queen spends most of her time doing government paperwork, and of course their are the weekly meetings with the Prime minister. The trouble is, I don't think enough people realise just what the queen does for a living. The public only sees the foreign visits, the walkabouts and the trips to the races. As for the Minor Royals, they have to find their own work. Prince Edward unfortunately has been criticised for having a real job. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't. And don't forget that Charles and Andrew spent some time serving in the Royal Navy. What is that if not a real job?
    Only the Queen, Prince Philip and the Queen mother are paid directly from the civil list. Charles gets his income mainly from the Duchy of Cornwall. Presumably other more minor royals get money from their land too.
    You say the monarchy isn't relevant to the ordinary people. I think that is a fault of today's society, with globalisation and the prying media. No-one wants the monarchy because it is seen as old. But how do you modernise without taking away some of the traditions and mystique that make the monarchy what it is. Its a bit of a problem. Modernise and you risk devaluing the monarchy. Keep the status quo and people will see the monarchy as distant and irrelevant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>France has no monarchy and yet people still manage to visit the Palace of Versailles...

    As you said it is the BUILDINGS that people come to see, not the monarch.

    And I am </STRONG>not<STRONG> a republican. I just don't see the point of celebrating someones birthright. If we celebrate VE it is because it is because it is a national achievement, rather than the fact that her dad died and she was nect in line. So she has 'ruled' us for 50 years. So what?</STRONG>
    France has better weather though. I agree that they have nice buildings without a monarchy to put in them, but a lot of buildings in this country would become redundant without the monarchy. We haver the changing of the guard/trooping of the colour etc which only exist because of the queen.

    I also agree that if you actually analyse the monarchy it is totally ridiculous. As you say, celebrating someone's birthright. What makes her so special?

    Well, nothing. But I don't think that matters. The royal family represents the country and brings in the tourists. And that isn't a bad thing by any means.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am a Republican and damn proud of it.The royalty have no role in modern society,they consume large amounts of public money and give nothing in return. I'm sure the Queen does a lot of work but she does not have to, she is redundant.
    If people want to celebrate then they should, htere is nothing wrong with a party, heres a suggestion why dont the royals pay for it I'm sure they could scrape the money together
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>I am a Republican and damn proud of it.The royalty have no role in modern society,they consume large amounts of public money and give nothing in return. </STRONG>
    That's simply not true. See above. <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The pathetic "bring in the tourist" argument has been disproved, there have been surveys of tourists that have found there would be no decline in tourism if there were no monarchy.

    Tourism is affected more by economic conditions.

    France has more tourists than us as mentioned
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I assume you can provide a source for that claim Toadborg? I will look forward to reading it.

    France has more tourists than us because of the weather.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The survey was in the Guardian so it may be on there Webpages.

    To what extent is the royal family the main attraction anyway?If a tourist wants to come and see something royal then they can look at the castles and the jewels it is not as if you can see them themselves!!!!

    If the family weren't there then all the tourist attractions still would be.Maybe they would be more popular, come and see the home of the last British monarch, the point has already been made about Versaille.

    The tourist argument is comprehensive and utter bollocks
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the family weren't there then all the tourist attractions still would be.

    You do realise that a large amount of the cash the Queen gets is spent on the upkeep of the physical assets. If the Royals werent there then that money would still need to be paid.
    The tourist argument is comprehensive and utter bollocks

    So you keep saying and yet can provide no proof of these surveys.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I said look on the Guardian site. The damn assets can look after themselves, maybe use them for something more profitable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Look on the Guardian site? First of all, the burdon of proof is on you as you made the claim. Secondly, the Guardian site is fucking huge and I dont know where to start looking. Can you give me some more details other than that its a tourism survey?
    The damn assets can look after themselves, maybe use them for something more profitable.

    By assets I meant the castles and jewels which you mentioned above. IE, the reasons tourists come to this country in your view. They money will have to be paid to look after them whether the monarchy is around or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>The tourist argument is comprehensive and utter bollocks</STRONG>
    No it's not.

    The queen doesn't cost us anything because she has a lot of land, charges entry into her homes, and pays taxes like you and I. The civil list is more like a rebate than a salary, so you cannot say that the royal family drains money out of the country.

    Not only is the queen a tourist attraction (yes she is, don't try and deny it), but she is a figurehead. And not only of the UK, but the Commonwealth too.

    Would you destroy an important part of this country's history and society on a whim?

    If you don't like the royal family, why does it matter that other people do. They don't directly affect your life so stfu.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cmon then all those non-English posters answer this

    1.What would be the main reason for visiting England/Britain

    2.If one of these reasons was something royal associated would you still come if the actual bleeding family weren't there but everything else was

    It shouldn't be a matter of money, they are undemocratic, it is a question of principles
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah so now its not actually that they cost too much but because its undemocratic?

    Can you tell me the last time the Monarch used their veto? What exactly have they done in the last say 50 years that is undemocratic? What have the done that has impacted on politics whatsoever in that time?
Sign In or Register to comment.