Maybe their SHiiii*T don't stink???????????
The only ROYAL thing about them is the ROYAL PAIN IN THE A*S THEY GIVE US ALL!!!
2007-12-10 22:04:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
I suggest you learn a few thing the money the royal family get does not go into their own pockets the money goes toward running the house hold i.e wages for their staff the up keep of the palaces etc also the country gets a lot more from the Royal Family than it ever gives they pay tax as well for more information go to
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp
2007-12-11 04:57:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
That's an excellent question!
Well, as I understand it's all to do with their 'bloodlines' - in other words, the inter-breeding of powerful families through generations to create a 'royal' lineage.
Many people in places of power in the world today are from these 'royal' bloodlines - not only the British royal family, but apparently even George Bush!
So it just goes you don't need to be smart... just be from the right bloodlines going right back to the ancient civilizations and ancient Egypt, when someone decided they were more 'superior' to someone else.
It's all completely ludicrous.
I can't undestand why people idolise the royal family!!!
Well they're not superior to ME or YOU.
2007-12-10 22:18:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Canndyman 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
So royal considers when a daughter of a Emperor and Queen Marries a son of a king and queen of another empire. Like King Frederick IX Youngest son of Shengen Scandinavia Empire Marries the daughter Emperor of Switzerland/Germany/France/Greece. Crown of Farnesse. Joining Two Empire is considered so royal.
But if a daughter of an emperor marries a son of a king of only one kingdom it does not gurrantee royalty. and when an emperor daughter marries commoner it get her out from the realm considered commoner. And if this persons assert royalty they will be in a treasonous case against the state. Thats where the constitutional monarchy invented. For the so called "Queen Elizabeth II" of no state power but atleast in hollywood look a like monarchy.
Shes beautiful before....just wonder today she turns undefined for my brush to paint her. That my hands always rested in laziness. It shatters thy eyes of mine! and the clock in our wall stands still...
2007-12-14 20:06:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by PRINCESS AQUIRAH 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Normally, 'royal family ' reign, they do not rule.
They are the nearest to the public within their domain.
They are easily accessible. They have plenty of time to listen to individual complaints and normally find ways of resolving same.
Rulers in Government respect their voices as it is believed that their utterances are the wishes of the public.
Because of endless entertainments from all quarters, ornaments, jewelleries, expensive dressings, continuous refurbishment of palaces, furnitures and fittings, government normally set aside millions to finance these expenditures.
In answer to your question, ROYAL FAMILY, KINGS AND QUEENS offices are tradition and no one can wipe these offices off.
2007-12-10 22:37:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Michael A 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
you're right but alas it's their birth that makes them 'royal'. goes back to ancient times when kings and later queens were the second to the top of the pyramid (pecking order of importance). what's the saying? "he who holds the gold makes the rules?" true then - true today. their power has waned in the last 100 years but some of us pay more than lip service to the royals. in the usa, we have the movie 'stars' that wouldn't be anything unless we go to their movies, rock 'stars' who would be collecting trash if we didn't buy their product, large political families (i.e., the kennedys, rockefellers, vanderbilts,etc.) who got rich off of people who bought into their fantasy & maybe their products, too). i've never understood why the general public worshipped their antics but then and since i never did, it remains a mystery to me as well. the brits, however, pay through the taxes and i think the brits pay waaaaay too much. this is why hamilton and his ilk split from the royal way when forming the usa.
2007-12-10 23:07:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by blackjack432001 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
During the weeks before Ash Wednesday, the kings and queens pretend to rule. The people pretend to beg for favors. Most people get drunk and have a good time.
You people have Mardi Gras year round. What is the problem?
2007-12-14 12:24:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Wayne P 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
These days it's a blood line that makes them royal and that's the way it will continue. What do you want, a president who'll be voted in by a small percentage of the populace? The monarch represents the UK, hopefully with dignity, with no poltical statement to endorse. It's part of our identity, one of the few things that unite us these days, do you seriously want to get rid of it...and replace it with what?
2007-12-10 22:32:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ern T 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
They're not royal. Their whole line is illegitimate.
Edward IV was illegitimate. When Richard III (last of the legal kings of England) was killed, Henry Tudor (illegitimate) married Edward IV's daughter to legalise his claim to the throne. Unfortunately, she was also legally illegitimate because of her father being born on the wrong side of the blanket.
The whole sorry mess of royalty since then has had no legal claim to the throne.
I understand that the current legal king of England (direct descendent in the Plantagenat line) is a rice farmer living in Australia.
2007-12-10 22:11:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by skywise012000 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
If being royal means drinking, smoking, doing drugs and acting like a total prat (yes, harry, I mean you), then any twit can be 'royal'.
2007-12-11 00:36:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by daveygod21 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Its complete madness in this day and age we still accept clansman-ship, if you employed your family in business, we all know its unprofessional, so the question is why do we accept it in a country that is supposed to be a democracy.
After the queen goes people will be more open to debate this issue
2007-12-10 22:10:15
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋