Royal Scandal, A
Grow Your Network With Kaazi.com
|
IMDB rating: 7.10 Plot: Catherine The Great had been portrayed by Mae West, Elizabeth Bergner, Marlene Dietrich, and Pola Negri. She lived to be 67 years old. Amazing, if we are to believe her amorous ways. Lubitsch was to have directed this, but he became ill and the reins were handed to Preminger, with Ernst looking over his shoulder and making sure that Otto’s customary heavy hand was somewhat lightened. The ancient Biro/Lengyel play “Czarina,” which had been used as the basis for other movies about the Russian queen, was adapted this time by Mayer and Frank, veteran screenwriters who knew what they were doing. To Bankhead’s St. Petersburg castle comes Eythe, a young cavalry officer who has ridden for days to tell her of a coup planned by two generals. Eythe admits that he has plenty of energy left despite the travel, so Bankhead requests that he return later that night for a “private interview.” Eythe is handsome, albeit a bit sappy, but he must have some ability in the lovemaking department, because his rise to the rank of general is rapid. Eythe is soon in love with Baxter, a virginal woman who is a lady in waiting. Bankhead falls hard for Eythe, and, when she learns that he is affianced to Baxter, the young woman is sent away. Eythe is heartbroken but still owes allegiance to his queen, so he helps overcome the plot to dethrone her. Bankhead is so happy at what he’s done, she allows Eythe and Baxter to reunite while she finds new thrills in the arms of Price, the French ambassador. With all of the sleeping around Bankhead does, it’s a wonder any state business ever got done in the years when Catherine was Great. A few laughs, but Bankhead chews up the scenery and the pacing is off a beat. Lubitsch had filmed this as FORBIDDEN PARADISE in 1924. |
Actors: Coburn Charles,Eythe William,Price Vincent,Auer Mischa,Ruman Sig,Sokoloff Vladimir,Rasumny Mikhail,Baratoff Paul,Beday Eugene,Brecher Egon,Carter Harry,Chaliapin Jr. Feodor,De Linsky Victor,Comedy,Drama,
Why aren't people angry about the Royal family's expenses?
British only please. No offence!
There has been 4 weeks or so of this scandal over MPs expenses. Rightly so, people are angry that elected officials are pissing away their money on tampons and islands for ducks. But what of our unelected officials? The Monarchy was given, with no expenses regulation, ?40 million pounds last year of our money. This is a institution that has ?7 billion in assets (mostly land) that it has managed to plunder from us since 1066. This surely dwarfs the amount MPs have stolen from us. Prince Andrew spent ?30,000 of taxpayers money helicopter flights around golf courses on a recent holiday, which was also tax payer funded. Was he sacked? No.
The great thing about MPs is at least we can vote them out. This is not true of the monarchy. They would receive these unearnt salaries even if they do no charity work or foreign visits (holidays).
People say "Would you prefer President Brown?". Well, no he’s useless, but that’s not the point. We could vote for anbody we want, talented and hardworking people, and vote them out if they don’t live up to their promises.
Britain is mature and smart enough to ealise now that we don’t need to respect those who have simply earnt it by being born. Britain is worth a constitional, republican government.
Unfortunately Ron, we ’subjects’ don’t have that option. I resent paying a penny.
I don’t think the function of a head of state in the 21st century is to be a glorified Chessington World of Adventures. Tourists come to see the crown jewels, palaces and castles, not the Queen in person.
The Kaiser abdicated because of the World War he started and lost.
Either way, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom was noted fascist and even visited his chum Hitler in Germany. Luckily, we were saved his rule because of the Mrs. Simpson scandal and his abdication.
The amount stolen, Richard.
How did the Royals get that land and those palaces and diamonds? I’d be fascinated to know. Did they buy them?
Tradition means nothing. Human sacrifice was tradition to the aztecs. Let’s just evaluate thing on what they are rather than how long they’ve been around.
Last surviving Royal families?
There’s a reason that the isn’t many left.
Costs More than 2p as well. Try 74p per year. Either way it’s too much!
They have no real power, but they contribute a lot? Contradiction, Paul? What can they do that a diplomat or charity in any republic can not? Why must the HRH be head of state to do this?
Their power is used by the PM and the cabinet. Look up the royal prerogative. It’s used more than you think.
This is why we need a constitution with separation of powers and an elected head of state.
Paul, I’d prefer if the money wasn’t given to unemployed millionairres of any nationality.
That ?200 million from tax is from assets their ancestors stole, by conquest.
They did not buy, or earn that property they pay tax on like the rest of us.
How could I be envious of those who did not earn or inherit earnt wealth and power? Can I aspire to be the King?
I am not envious of the heirs of thieves.
I simply cannot understand your argument about democratic leaders not representing our views. How do you know what the views of the Queen are?
She never expresses any, but she must have some, and there must be those who are opposed to those opinions. She is not braindead.
She may be above politics, but what of Charles?
The role of an elected President, in say Italy or Germany, is to say above politics. They do not get involved in the running of the country unless their constitutions compel them to, under grave circumstance working within agreed law. Our monarch is bound by no such laws.
Her massive reserve powers are used politicians to bypass the rule of law. Just one example of many is the GCHQ unions case in the 1980s.
In a republic, the law is king.
This is monarchy at the moment. I don’t think Gordon Brown represents the views of the majority. Your argument is invalid.
And Frank, seeing as you are somewhat sympathetic to the BNP I at least hope she is in disagreement with you. Most people of a moderate education are.
Of course I am arguing that I am right?! Don’t we all?
Why would I be arguing with you that you are right and I am wrong?
That’s how debate works!
"It was a toss up between BNP and UKIP" Frank , in another question.
Seems like some sympathy, sir.
It is demonstrabely true that, on average, BNP supporters are less likely to have been in Higher education or hold Qualifications beyond GCSE than any other party. Second comes Labour, which I do not support. I am a little sympathetic to UKIP.
Having evidence on my side is not discrimination or biggotry, Sir, apart from discrimination against ignorance perhaps. I tend to trust the opinions of those who can demonstrate critical analysis over the fawning of thugs.
Now, refute my previous arguments on the monarchy.
Not all opinions are equal. Otherwise we would teach Astrology in schools.
Evidence and reason must be trusted.
Why would I be arguing against myself?
That’s not how debate works, sir.
The short answer to your question is ‘never assume’. I for one object to a single penny of my hard earned money going down the Royal Pan. I would hope that many others would see it the same way, but I believe the vast majority are brainwashed from an early age to support this parasitic organisation. I would convert them into a charity so that those that wanted to finance them could do so without the unwilling remainder having to.
BARRY B | Jun 04, 2009
I think the royal fairytale is over it’s time for them to go. Princes and princesses should stay in story books
ordoabchao2100 | Jun 04, 2009
I agree, why should we pay for these people who are no different from us to do what the hell they like?
XD woo XD | Jun 04, 2009
Well like aint fair and they aren’t special…still a small cost, when you consider their influence and counter weight to political forces…also good for tourism…so in a way they come cheap
Ding says New labour snouts out! | Jun 04, 2009
you people have got got be joking. Have you any concept at all of the vast amount this country makes of the backs of the Royals each year? seriously, tourism as we know it in this country would end without them. I am not a royalist, i give them little thought, but i am not daft enough to believe we would be better of without them, financially at least.
littleredhen | Jun 04, 2009
People aren’t flipping about this because as you quite rightly said, they’ve been doing this to us and far worse for over 900 years. Kind of used to it by now.
By the way, I couldn’t agree with you more on the tourism bit. I don’t see the royal artifacts of France suffering simply because they have no Royal Family anymore.
To the guy below. Yes, there are cases where overthrowing a Monarchy has lead to even worse Governments, but it’s also lead to far better ones, so that’s not an argument for keeping them.
Having a Monarch actually increases the chance of an uprising. An unelected person getting free money from you and me? A pretty strong revolutionary statement I’d say.
DON'T VOTE BNP | Jun 04, 2009
The Royal Family do, however, serve a purpose. There have been many attempts in the past to overthrow governments because each member of Parliament only has the support of the public who want to overthrow them. As the Royal Family (the reigning monarch at the time in particular) are born into leadership, and cannot be voted out, it reduces the chances of an uprising, and possibly the creation of a leader who believes they should have powers to create and destroy laws at will.
For example (a particularly severe case, granted), the Nazi party, and the development of an all-powerful Fuhrer, could only come to power because the Kaiser (effectively the King of Germany) had to abdicate for the preservation of the German government.
I think that the British public are paying good money to keep their country in-tact and stable. The case of the MP’s expenses is a different case. I would rather pay money tho keep Britain from falling into a dictatorship, than to know some MP has a nice clean moat, or a fully paid mortgage.
EDIT:
I did note that it was an extremely severe case, and I was not noting the fascist government in particular. I was pointing out what can occur if the Royal Family is removed from the system. Hitler could only have gained his power due to the absence of the Kaiser, by using the political loophole that had been opened up, regardless of why the Kaiser abdicated.
I agree that the Royal family’s purpose is obviously a topic of debate, yet I do not believe it has anything to do with the MP’s expenses.
ThisAin'tVegas | Jun 04, 2009
I dont like where this question is going.
I truly respect the Queen as someone who does what she does because she thinks it’s in the best interests of the country and stands up for the church of england also.
The Royal family is a part of our heritage and our history and they do actually work on our behalf as ambassadors for the country carrying out foreign visits, they do alot of charity work and the Queen plays an important role in overseeing government and if it ever came to it would have the power to dissolve parliament.
If you seriously were interested in the expenses of having a monarchy rather than just having a rant then you’d know that they costs the tax payer about 2 pence each which is miniscule and regardless of what you think the Royal family generate a huge amount of money for us in tourism alone because people want to visit the home of one of the last surviving royal families, not some castle or palace that hasn’t been used for hundreds of years. The amount of money the Royal family makes for Britain dwarfs the amount that they cost us.
By the way, if you value democracy then you might have noticed that in any opinion poll the general opinion is that we should keep the monarchy and that they are popular.
Richard