[cardguy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/q...-down.html

Quote:

A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area.

Coral has temporarily halted all bets on whether the Queen will hand over the reins to Prince Charles until further notice following the £200 stake placed today.

Is a £200 bet enough to close the book on this one? Seems a small wager to me.

[Teedub]

Really not bothered either way. Doesn't affect any of our lives one iota.

[cardguy]

[cardguy]

Ha - just kidding, Teedub! Couldn't resist the meme.

Still - I am surprised a 200 pound bet is enough to frighten the bookies.

[commiejoe]

Ok, so what happens afterwards?
Why does this scare bookies?
I'm in the US, so I really have no frame or context of this situation.

[Ocelot]

(01-20-2014 03:24 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Ha - just kidding, Teedub! Couldn't resist the meme.

Still - I am surprised a 200 pound bet is enough to frighten the bookies.

The odds are probably set at something stupid like 1,000,000 to one though. That'd be £200 million, but if a couple of other people decided to make the same bet, it could quickly run into the billions. My guess is they probably automatically suspend betting on anything when the potential loss is above a certain amount.

[cardguy]

What happens if the Queen abdicates?

Prince Charles becomes King. And Camilla will probably become Queen (which will cause alot of shit with the wimminz in the country).

It is no secret that Charles feels like his whole life has been on hold until his Mum dies. Problem is that she will probably live for about another 10 years. Which means Charles would be about 75 when he becomes king.

Prince Philip (who is the ultimate alpha in my opinion) is married to the Queen. And the Queen loves him more than anything. But his health is getting bad - and if he dies before the Queen (which he will) - I don't think the Queen will have the same enthusiasm for public engagements (which she barely has at the moment in any case).

The Queen of Holland abdicated last year to make way for her son. And most of the European monarchs are related to each other. So - I can definitely see a precedent being formed here.

The only thing that made me think otherwise was that apparently the Queen is very serious about her 'duty' to uphold the throne and devote her entire life to being Queen. But nobody knows for sure either way - so on balance, in light of this bet, I am definitely warming to the idea that the Queen might abdicate.

It is silly shit either way. But makes for fun gossip here in the UK. Particularly since Charles will be pretty controversial (since he is very political) when he is King.

The UK is about to switch over to plastic currency. And I wonder if the timing of that changeover will fit in with a new monarch being on placed on the banknote.

[cardguy]

To add to the above. I am convinced that the UK will become a Republic in the next 100 years. There is no way the politically correct 'equality is the most important concept in the world' will rest until it happens.

Labour secretly wants the Queen gone. And as Peter Hitchens correctly points out - there is no way the Conservatives would fight to retain her - if the popular mood was against it. Since the Conservartives haven't stood up and fought for true conservative principles for the past 30 years.

Labour changes the country. And the suppine principle-less Conservatives - when in power - come in and pretend that everything is fine. And the country should stay as it is.

They never dream of actually reversing any of the changes that Labour bring in. It is a ratchet effect where Labour changes things - and then the Conservatives fight to preserve those changes. Before Labour swing in again and enact more changes. And so on...

[Quintus Curtius]

Didn't the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 trigger a minor crisis?

[Mekorig]

I think the british would benefit if they become a republic and bury all the monarchy nosense.

[Benoit]

(01-20-2014 04:10 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Didn't the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 trigger a minor crisis?

He walked off to marry a divorcee, and an American one at that. The crisis was the events leading up to the abdication, not anything specifically following it.

Charles is the heir to the throne. Despite his ridiculous views on many things, a lot of people in the UK feel sympathy for him due to his mother's resistance to doing the decent thing and dying so that he gets to wear the fancy hat for a bit.

[Truth Teller]

(01-20-2014 04:10 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Didn't the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 trigger a minor crisis?

Kind of but not really. He basically set up a minor crisis in terms of what the line of royal succession would be. As the oldest male child, Edward's progeny with Wallis Warfield Simpson would've become king/queen. However, since she was grossly unfit to be Queen (being divorced and the like), there was a minor crisis, but it was really resolved by Edward's abdication.

[Truth Teller]

(01-20-2014 04:33 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  

I think the british would benefit if they become a republic and bury all the monarchy nosense.

The monarch has very little power as it is. The power is really in the hands of the voters (they determine the party in charge).

[kosko]

(01-20-2014 03:45 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

To add to the above. I am convinced that the UK will become a Republic in the next 100 years. There is no way the politically correct 'equality is the most important concept in the world' will rest until it happens.

Labour secretly wants the Queen gone. And as Peter Hitchens correctly points out - there is no way the Conservatives would fight to retain her - if the popular mood was against it. Since the Conservartives haven't stood up and fought for true conservative principles for the past 30 years.

Labour changes the country. And the suppine principle-less Conservatives - when in power - come in and pretend that everything is fine. And the country should stay as it is.

They never dream of actually reversing any of the changes that Labour bring in. It is a ratchet effect where Labour changes things - and then the Conservatives fight to preserve those changes. Before Labour swing in again and enact more changes. And so on...

It's hard to fight something you have no control over. The Queens has all UK'ers as subjects, only blood or money will make the German house of Windsor flee off into the night back to the woods they came from.

Uk's best scenario is what she has done with Canada. She basically scrubbed herself from petty political matters aside from her financial interests and granted us a full constitution but she still owns our asses by default (by owning our assets) and forever will.

The structure of power and money between te Banks, the Monarchy, and Westminster forever holds lower with the Queen forever until he UK ceases to rely on perpetual debt via its central bank. Your only breaking these things with a barrel of a gun and not much else. What reason does the Bank or Queen have to grant UK people anything? I'm very blunt because it's just realltalk. You have no ability to get anything granted to you, she is sovereign for a reason and it's equal to a control nation pitting against it's colonial subject. Look how easy India broke free from your shackles in its day and all the blood that was drawn, it's more or less the same principal. The British had to help kill a million of my people before my country fell into such a mess they had to patch it to back together and wash there hands of it (Nigeria).

She won't grant shit. Both Labour and Conservatives are hacks on his subject as both sides perpetuate the need for debt which is a key factor in the Monarchs control in the first place.

Here is a relevant post of mine on he power relationships between the Queen and the Bankers of Central City London:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-26133-...#pid496230

[cardguy]

The interesting thing about the Queen - is that when she was a child, she never expected to become Queen. Because at the time - her Uncle was next in line to the throne. And if he had any children - they would follow him onto the throne. So the Queen spent her early life as a commoner like the rest of us.

She was ten when she would have know she would one day be Queen. Which I guess is young enough for her to never remember anything else.

The Royal Family is in a very weak position. The support for them (80%) is broad but shallow. And these days the support for William and Kate lies in silly PR stunts based around trying to make them into likeable middle class 'yummy mummy' celebrities. If Kate wanted to she could turn the country into a Republic by simply doing something very unpopular or shocking. In becoming Queen one day - she has to be as bland as shit for the rest of her life since the press and the public will turn on her in an instant. That is the problem when you trade respect based on duty and tradition for one based on the whims of the press and celebrity.

And when the shit hits the fan - the Conservatives will be ducking for cover leaving the Royals to be eaten alive. The Conservatives didn't fight to retain the House of Lords - and they sure as hell won't fight to save the Royal Family.

It is just a matter of time before the support for the Royals goes into decline. The only reason the Queen is even vaguely popular is because she has literally done nothing controversal in the past 60 years.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-20-2014 03:45 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

It is a ratchet effect where Labour changes things - and then the Conservatives fight to preserve those changes. Before Labour swing in again and enact more changes. And so on...

This is true in American politics as well. Many examples, but one example is the passage of the Civil Rights Laws in the 1960s. Many southern politicians in Congress secretly wanted it to pass - or knew that there was no turning back - but publicly put up a "last stand" to show to their constituents that they did all they could do but that the majority of the country disagreed. This serves multiple benefits. One, it preserves the politicians' political futures in that they not only voted in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, but made a public show about it. Two, it makes it easier for their constituents to move on since they realize their politicians expressed their wishes but that it still wasn't good enough. This helps them heal and allows the nation to move on.

The health care law is another example except one within a party. Many moderate Republicans either supported the law (though not publicly) or simply accepted it as inevitable given Obama's reelection and the Supreme Court vote that upheld the law. Yet, leaders of the party allowed the minority but influential Tea Party members to make a big show about it, even though it was unlikely to succeed. Again, same scenario. Many of these Republicans could lose an election to someone that runs further to the right if they're perceived as weak or compromising. Also, once the effort fails, their constituents are more likely to accept the result knowing that everything was tried to change its course.

[bojangles]

Monarchy will survive, it's been one the constant in England and Scotland since 800AD, personally from a historical value the death of the monarchy, one of the oldest surviving in Europe and the world would be a shame.

[CJ_W]

(01-20-2014 04:33 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  

I think the british would benefit if they become a republic and bury all the monarchy nosense.

[Truth Teller]

(01-21-2014 12:21 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

The Royal Family is in a very weak position. The support for them (80%) is broad but shallow. And these days the support for William and Kate lies in silly PR stunts based around trying to make them into likeable middle class 'yummy mummy' celebrities. If Kate wanted to she could turn the country into a Republic by simply doing something very unpopular or shocking. In becoming Queen one day - she has to be as bland as shit for the rest of her life since the press and the public will turn on her in an instant. That is the problem when you trade respect based on duty and tradition for one based on the whims of the press and celebrity.

The idea that Kate is a fabulously attractive woman was only started by the media because she was a commoner, rather than actually a member of the royal family. In reality, she's a 7 at best, and I don't think she's actually much higher than that at all. William, on the other hand, is trying to become a Scandinavian style monarch, which isn't what the royal family is or ever should be.

They're separated from the people for a reason, something that neither William nor Kate actually understands. Sadly, however, once Charles dies, there won't be another member of the family like him. Whereas the royal family used to practice a detached form of parenting (which made them cold and indifferent to the people), Diana decided to be far more involved, which never gave Harry and William a proper idea of what it is to be a member of the royal family.

[cardguy]

The Royal family is screwed either way.

In the long term - playing the celebrity game and courting the press will end badly.

But in the short term - society has changed and most people don't give two shits about duty, tradition and the unwritten constitution which has served Great Britain for the past thousand years.

It is an impossible situation. The Royal Family knows this which is why they have so many experts in PR advising them. They are just going to make do and see how things turn out. But Britain will definitely lose its monarchy one day. There was even talk of Prince William not wanting to be King in the aftermath of the tragic death of his mother.

And on top of everything else. Most young people today see royalty as an anachronism. And that includes the young peopel in the Royal Family. It is clear that Princes William and Harry want nothing more than to lead normal middle-class lifestyles. Which is why they are always itching to be let out into military situations where they are treat as 'one of the lads'.

The Royals are no more immune to the currents of fashion and culture. And they deep down they would trade their royal statuses just to be ordinary cool happy rich people like the rest of us aspire to be.

Being born a royal is more a blessing than a curse in this day and age. Particularly since the Windsors would be worth hundreds of millions of pounds even if they were not royality. It is a duty which is imposed on them and which robs them of alot of the fun that most rich families in England get to enjoy away from the spotlight.

I bet none of Prince William's rich Eton friends would swap places with him.

[Mekorig]

(01-21-2014 03:50 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 04:33 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  

I think the british would benefit if they become a republic and bury all the monarchy nosense.

Very interesting. The own land worth 160 millong pounds/years and cost 40/year. Why not just taking that land and gvigin it to the country? The you get the 160 milllon pounds. And yes, they create a lot of money by beign just tourist traps...yay!!!

Could be my liberal education, or the values that hold the founding father of my nation, but i do not like monarchies, even if they are plastic ones. I still belive that people from england and the british islands would be better without them.

[teh_skeeze]

Correct me if I'm wrong Cardguy, but Kate will only been queen in name. Wouldn't her proper title be King's Consort? Another question, the media claims that they are more of a tourist attraction than anything else. That's not really true, is it?

[Goldin Boy]

(01-20-2014 03:04 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Really not bothered either way. Doesn't affect any of our lives one iota.

^^^This.

No offense but, the monarch is the appendix in the British body politic: It used to have a role once upon a time but it is just there taking up space presently.

So what if the figurehead quits and is replaced by another figurehead?

[Excelsior]

(01-21-2014 09:53 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  

Very interesting. The own land worth 160 millong pounds/years and cost 40/year. Why not just taking that land and gvigin it to the country?

I mean, why stop there? Why not take all private lands from wealthy families and give it to the country?

These are not things you can legally do in a democracy.

Quote:

The you get the 160 milllon pounds.

The country (UK) already gets that money:

Quote:

The cost to maintain the royal family today is 40 million pounds per year.

But the revenue paid to the UK from the royal lands is 200 million.

200 million in revenue subtract 40 million in salary costs equals 160 million pounds in profit.

That’s right: The United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the Royal Family.

That isn't counting all of the income the royal family generates via its appearances, events, media profile, ability to draw tourists, etc, etc.

Quote:

Could be my liberal education, or the values that hold the founding father of my nation, but i do not like monarchies, even if they are plastic ones. I still belive that people from england and the british islands would be better without them.

You've a right to your opinion, but in this case it's just not a practical one. The monarchy costs the UK very little money, but provides plenty. Its historical significance and status draw substantial income from across the planet via tourism, media and marketing. It is one of the few fundamental aspects of English cultural identity/history that remain in an age when Britain is a shell of its old self (no more empire, no more global superpower, minimal remaining industry thanks to globalization, etc, etc), and it's profitable to boot:

Quote:

Don’t forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists.

Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube and refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, travel ludicrously short distances by public transport, and generally act silly a long way from home.

Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is.

And who are the biggest spenders? The Yanks.

After they’ve finished buying maple syrup and cheap, pharmaceuticals, Tijuanaian professional services and illegal pharmaceuticals, where do they go next?

The United Kingdom.

Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren’t plastic.

And why do the Americans think Frances castles are so boring and stinky and the UK’s castles so awesome? Because real monarchs still use them.

The tower of London is so stunning to visitors because the Royal Crest on the Yeomen Warders Uniform is real. It’s not a lame historical re-enactment or modern LARPing.

It’s the embodiment of the living, breathing queen.

Everywhere you look she’s sprinkled fairy dust on banal objects to make them magically attractive to tourists.

12 million of whom visit every year spending 7,000 million [7 Billion] pounds.

Which suddenly makes those direct profits look like rather small change.

There's just no good reason to get rid of it. The elimination of the monarchy provides zero practical benefit (the royals have no actual political power and don't cost anything) while also bringing substantial losses (removal of one of the last remaining fundamental pieces of English cultural identity and removal of one of the few solid economic contributors the UK has that provides a stupendously high return on investment and cannot be outsourced).

Anti-monarchists would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It just wouldn't make sense.

[teh_skeeze]

(01-21-2014 03:50 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  

Stopped 30 seconds in. I refuse to listen to any anit-monarch rants from an American. We already proved our point 230 years ago (201 if you wish to consider the War of 1812 and extention).