<p>I wish I could have watched more of the festivities. I love the atmosphere in London right now and would have loved to have been there in the middle of it
It sure beats seeing all the negative news of zombie attacks and all the other nastiness of the world</p>
<p>My DH has worked for international companies. The employment policies are tight there, so in some places they didnt work any overtime, and in the summer months, especially August- fuggedaboudit. Couldnt get a darned thing done. They were all on holiday. Yet never fails-- they needed stuff done the beginning of a month or an end of a quarter (think Memorial day, 4th of July, thanksgiving, etc) the overseas folks people would schedule meetings that HAD to be held on all our holidays. Grrr… They even pulled it on new years sometimes.</p>
<p>You think the English taxpayers get hit to support the royalty? I wonder how much US taxpayers get soaked from churches paying no property tax and no income tax as a general rule along with income tax deductions for donors for even the weekly donations made to the churches.</p>
<p>Anyone have any idea of the comparative hit to taxpayer in the two countries on a per capita basis?</p>
<p>Not going to work, holiday or not, this was only the beginning this summer for England.</p>
<p>Next up Euro 2012, followed by the Olympics.</p>
<p>07DAD: that’s an interesting question. I don’t think churches should get any tax breaks. </p>
<p>I also think monarchs should work for their livelihood, and I mean a real job not parading and waving your hand. In the UK there is definitely an anti-monarchy growing group, but one you don’t see in US news
Why do some people are so in awe on monarchy and think they live of “their own money” is beyond me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could it be that, in terms of opening ceremonies, some might want to forget about it. Perhaps it was the incredible difficulty to follow the Chinese masterpiece or the inherent difference between summer and winter Olympics in terms of budgets. However, it does not change the fact that the Vancouver opening was a massive dud, and a yawner. I still wonder how the athletes stayed awake through that ordeal. And, if there is one thing I remember about that show was an otherwise pretty good Canadian singer channeling Liberace. </p>
<p>London and the UK should and will do better, even if sleepwalking through the process.</p>
<p>As far as the contribution to her people, the Queen --as can be seen in the images-- provides the perfect rallying banner for most of her citizens. While Europeans are usually just as divided politically as we are, they tend to set their differences aside when it comes to their monarchs. The citizens tend to enjoy the pageantry and the uniqueness of having a monarchy, all the while being happy with their very limited political roles. </p>
<p>Without getting too deep in politics, it is a luxury we do not have as our politicians are dividers with our current “monarchs” hopeless ones to boot. </p>
<p>And here is a trivia question: When and why did the royal family adopted the more British House of Windsor and “abandoned” its name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is more problematic than one thinks. This has been a problem for the family members who are not in a reasonable line to become King or Queen. While some have access to the family coffers (often quite substantial and confidential) many depend on the State to cover their livelihood. </p>
<p>One of the problems is that the job that corresponds the best to their skills would be in PR or peddling … influence. Would England be better with Prince Charles being a partner at an IB or being the spokesman for Kleenex or Pepto Bismol, or Camilla being the spokesperson for the Kentucky Derby?</p>
<p>answering xiggi’s bonus with my hand raised - 1917 - George V changed the name to discount the German connections in light of WWI. I wouldn’t be suprised if Prince Charles were to rename the house Mountbatten-Windsor. It’s his perogative and would recognize his father’s side of the family and recognize that Prince Philip is also a descendant of Queen Victoria. It would also recognize the role Louis Mountbatten, Philip’s uncle and another descendant of Victoria, played in his life. The Queen supposedly hurt her husband’s feelings by not taking the name Mountbatten-Windsor upon her accension, but she did decree that grandchildren and other descendants would use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor in the sixties.</p>
<p>Heck, I’m more English than the German Windsors and Mountbattens, at least I can trace my mothers side all the way back to the 14th century England and my paternal grandmother’s side back to the 16th century. If the whole game is about heredity… I want my crown or at least a suitable ceremony my next trip back to the UK. I come from good stock, with very few divorces and just a modicum of beheadings AND I will do the whole show for half the price.</p>
<p>I’ll be British only if I can keep my American teeth.</p>
<p>Um, that’s not quite correct… let me rephrase that. Being of English, Scots-Irish and a dash of other European descent, I HAVE British teeth, but was blessed with parents who believed in modern dentistry and orthodontia. </p>
<p>I’ll be British only if I can keep my American dentist and orthodontist. :)</p>