Should the Monarchy..

Cleat Eastwood

Be privatised.

Hard working people who dont agree with the concept will have to fork out extra cash to keep the new sprog in a life of luxury.

If, as sure as eggs is eggs, he grows up to be used a calling for investment in the uk, surely those businesses who benefit should have some say/ownership of him/her.

VTech

For the past few hundred years the monarchy have not cost us a penny.
I can't understand why people suggest otherwise when facts are facts and they bring in huge investment and cash.

VTech

For the past few hundred years the monarchy have not cost us a penny.
I can't understand why people suggest otherwise when facts are facts and they bring in huge investment and cash.

The Little Onion

Because that is the biggest load of cobblers ever:
They cost us the civil list, plus the cost of maintaining their "private" estates, plus their security (though I don't begrudge them that). On top of that they don't pay tax on their income (e.g. the duchy of cornwall). All in all, they cost several hundred million per year.

As for the whole bringing in tourists - when I visited the Eiffel tower, you could hardly move for people saying "well, Paris is lovely but it just needs a hereditory head of state. I really must check the constitutional arrangements of the places I intend to visit before booking my next holiday"... :roll:

daviesee

Meh.
Whether the head of state is born or elected, you will pay for it, and it's family.

Just look at the current elected lot to see what you get with that route.

Lose, lose from what I see. At least this method keeps some of the population happy.

VTech

The Little Onion wrote:

Because that is the biggest load of cobblers ever:
They cost us the civil list, plus the cost of maintaining their "private" estates, plus their security (though I don't begrudge them that). On top of that they don't pay tax on their income (e.g. the duchy of cornwall). All in all, they cost several hundred million per year.

As for the whole bringing in tourists - when I visited the Eiffel tower, you could hardly move for people saying "well, Paris is lovely but it just needs a hereditory head of state. I really must check the constitutional arrangements of the places I intend to visit before booking my next holiday"... :roll:

You will not find posts from me being rude as its not my style (controversial maybe but not rude) but.....
You seem to lack the k ow ledge widely known the world over and that being that the monarchy make vast sums for this country, way more than the cost.

It's like having solar panel that costs you £100 per year to run yet generates you £750 in income and moaning abou the running costs when you shoul be thinking of the income.

It's a way of life really, I see it in all aspects of life, wether personal or business. People focus on the wrong thing and because of that they don't succeed. They waste valuable effort focusing on negatives without realising the positives.

Like someone having a great wife and shagging someone whilst away on holiday risking the best thing they have ever had for a quickie that lasts an evening.
People are overall foolish is what in getting at.

The Little Onion

So please list all the ways in which the monarchy makes money

(or am I being actually really thick and not realising that your comment is tongue in cheek? If so, it is because I am annoyed at my royalist in-laws who keep baning on about this bloody baby)

team47b

VTech wrote:

It's like having solar panel that costs you £100 per year to run

What are you using to power your solar panels, I use the sun, are you using light bulbs powered by the grid?

VTech

team47b wrote:

VTech wrote:

It's like having solar panel that costs you £100 per year to run

What are you using to power your solar panels, I use the sun, are you using light bulbs powered by the grid?

Solar panels for a house are not free, you need power to distribute the power, back to the grid etc where you then generate income.

hipshot

Ignoring for a moment the incredibly insulting elitism at the heart of it I would be happy to have a privatised monarchy funded by monarchists.

Just dont ask me to pay for them when a third of UK children are in poverty.

VTech

hipshot wrote:

Ignoring for a moment the incredibly insulting elitism at the heart of it I would be happy to have a privatised monarchy funded by monarchists.

Just dont ask me to pay for them when a third of UK children are in poverty.

Without wishing to offend you, the royalty do more for those kids than you could ever possibly imagine.
Aid into the UK, charity work for kids and kids illnesses are so much better for having royalty backing.

Without royalty you would see a decline so fast that were you riding it on a bike you would shiat yourself beyond belief.

The Little Onion

Yep, apologies. I now realise you are being tongue in cheek.

hipshot

VTech wrote:

Without royalty you would see a decline so fast that were you riding it on a bike you would shiat yourself beyond belief.

Anything to get my average speed up.

ballysmate

First let me declare that in general I am for keeping the monarchy, albeit in a slimmed down fashion. That said, I am not one of the ardent supporters who hang on their every utterance and act. If we were to move to being a Republic, I can't see how we would gain much. I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of the monarchy, that has been done to death.
What I would like to hear, is what sort of Head of State would you be in favour of. An executive President like the US or an apolitical President like a lot of others democracies, with the same political power as ...erm the Monarch has now?

The Little Onion

I like the Irish system - a president who is elected directly by the populace, but who has minimal political powers. It acts as a minor check on the powers of government, but it is largely symbolic and ceremonial. And of course, it is democratically accountable to the populace, not parliament. The germans have a different version, where the president has similar powers but is elected by parliament. In either case, the president has much less power than in the executive model.

The irish model has worked very well. The key is that the president has fewer powers than the British monarch, but is democratically elected rather than inherited.

ballysmate

The Little Onion wrote:

I like the Irish system - a president who is elected directly by the populace, but who has minimal political powers. It acts as a minor check on the powers of government, but it is largely symbolic and ceremonial. And of course, it is democratically accountable to the populace, not parliament. The germans have a different version, where the president has similar powers but is elected by parliament. In either case, the president has much less power than in the executive model.

The irish model has worked very well. The key is that the president has fewer powers than the British monarch, but is democratically elected rather than inherited.

Interesting. I am aware that prima facie the Monarch has certain powers left, such as dissolving Parliament and refusing the Royal assent, but they are surely notional, as their use would finish the Monarchy. In reality they just follow protocol. I find it interesting that you would prefer to go to the time and trouble of electing someone who has no power, so landing up with a system not radically different from the status quo.
Change of title, yes, but no change of authority.

lemoncurd

All their cash should come from voluntary donations.

Get the nipper on the streets with a collection pot.

ballysmate

lemoncurd wrote:

All their cash should come from voluntary donations.

Get the nipper on the streets with a collection pot.

So your objection is financial and not ideological?

VTech

I wouldnt protest for the right of the monarchy, I just see the good that it does for the country and its people.

You dont find instances of the queen skrewing the system like politicians and look at the state of Ireland !!!

I tend to find people who argue against the monarchy of the same ilk as people on the dole who blame immigrants for taking there jobs as they get out of bed at 11am to watch tv then off to sign on.

Or people who blame government yet cant be bothered to go and vote.

Sorry if thats offended anyone here (although if you do belong to either of those categories I wouldn't be bothered anyway)

The Little Onion

The monarchy do have real powers, and do use them - they get consulted on various bits of legislation unrelated to their ceremonial duties, Charles is notorious for lobbying politicians (see the recent court case over the freedom of information request over his letters to ministers) yet we can't find out what they say because they are supposedly apolitical. It is a kafka-esque scenario where we can't find out what political lobbying they do, because the letters show that they were being political, yet releasing them would undermine Charles' ability to be an apolitical monarch. Plus there was the scandals over the Chelsea barracks and the sacking of Prof Edward Ernst. The monarch do use their powers, they are not purely ceremonial.

Paulie W

I've always been ideologically opposed to monarchy.

I hear the argument that they are net contributors to economy and society - although I would be interested to have this broken down by those emphasising that point here, that means you VTech - but that in itself does not override my own ideological belief: there are plenty of examples of an institution being a net contributor to economy but which all right thinking people would oppose.

I also recognise that the monarchy seems to make some people very happy: who am I to want to undermine those people's happiness? It troubles me though that someone when interviewed outside the hospital yesterday described it as the best day of their life and that person was not Kate or William. This makes me suspect that, for some of these people at least, happiness is a concept they havent fully got to grips with.

Pituophis

VTech wrote:

I wouldnt protest for the right of the monarchy, I just see the good that it does for the country and its people.

You dont find instances of the queen skrewing the system like politicians and look at the state of Ireland !!!

I tend to find people who argue against the monarchy of the same ilk as people on the dole who blame immigrants for taking there jobs as they get out of bed at 11am to watch tv then off to sign on.

Or people who blame government yet cant be bothered to go and vote.

Sorry if thats offended anyone here (although if you do belong to either of those categories I wouldn't be bothered anyway)

Here we go again :roll:
You say you don't like to offend people and like to see the best in people etc, and yet you still love to type cast everyone on the dole as bone idle. Now you seem to be suggesting that they are all racist too :shock:
And why apologise, and in the same sentence say you don't apologise?
Which categories of people exactly are you not bothered about? Poor people in general or people on the dole? Anti Royalists? Or people who don't vote?
Have you thought about setting up camps to dispose of these people? I hear gassing is cheap.

seanoconn

Pituophis wrote:

VTech wrote:

I wouldnt protest for the right of the monarchy, I just see the good that it does for the country and its people.

You dont find instances of the queen skrewing the system like politicians and look at the state of Ireland !!!

I tend to find people who argue against the monarchy of the same ilk as people on the dole who blame immigrants for taking there jobs as they get out of bed at 11am to watch tv then off to sign on.

Or people who blame government yet cant be bothered to go and vote.

Sorry if thats offended anyone here (although if you do belong to either of those categories I wouldn't be bothered anyway)

Here we go again :roll:
You say you don't like to offend people and like to see the best in people etc, and yet you still love to type cast everyone on the dole as bone idle. Now you seem to be suggesting that they are all racist too :shock:
And why apologise, and in the same sentence say you don't apologise?
Which categories of people exactly are you not bothered about? Poor people in general or people on the dole? Anti Royalists? Or people who don't vote?
Have you thought about setting up camps to dispose of these people? I hear gassing is cheap.

I've written on a piece of paper what I believe will be VTechs response to the highlighted comment and have sealed it in an envelope. Which I will open and display after V's reply

Cleat Eastwood

To be fair - children have done a lot for the royal family too

Charles, who led tributes when Savile died, aged 84, in October 2011, had sent him cigars and gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday.

A note with the gifts read: “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country, Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.”

laurentian

By way of trying to provide an answer to the original question, does anyone know of any other privatised head of state?

VmanF3

Privatised, like the thinking!

Buck Palace sponsored by Cillit Bang....can you imagine, utterly dreadful.

It's always a rather tedious argument for/against old Bertha and her cronies. I believe there are figures that prove net worth and will prove net loss, depending on which side of the fence you choose. They're a bit 'marmitey' aren't they, you either like 'em or you don't. No minds are going to be changed on a cycling forum, although it does make for interesting reading for five minutes.

The Little Onion

Thomas Paine - one of the greatest writers on monarchy - argued that the original monarchs and aristocrats were essentially privatised anyway, in that their positions were bought but then retained by their descendents. To some extent, with cash for honours and peerages, the trend has continued.

I was a monarchist until reading Paine and other arguments on monarchy, as well as the various woefully under-reported scandals (on Edward Ernst, etc) that the Windsors have been up to.

daviesee

VmanF3 wrote:

Privatised, like the thinking!

Buck Palace sponsored by Cillit Bang....can you imagine, utterly dreadful.

It's always a rather tedious argument for/against old Bertha and her cronies. I believe there are figures that prove net worth and will prove net loss, depending on which side of the fence you choose. They're a bit 'marmitey' aren't they, you either like 'em or you don't. No minds are going to be changed on a cycling forum, although it does make for interesting reading for five minutes.

Awww. Don't spoil the fun by posting something concise.

VTech

Pituophis wrote:

VTech wrote:

I wouldnt protest for the right of the monarchy, I just see the good that it does for the country and its people.

You dont find instances of the queen skrewing the system like politicians and look at the state of Ireland !!!

I tend to find people who argue against the monarchy of the same ilk as people on the dole who blame immigrants for taking there jobs as they get out of bed at 11am to watch tv then off to sign on.

Or people who blame government yet cant be bothered to go and vote.

Sorry if thats offended anyone here (although if you do belong to either of those categories I wouldn't be bothered anyway)

Here we go again :roll:
You say you don't like to offend people and like to see the best in people etc, and yet you still love to type cast everyone on the dole as bone idle. Now you seem to be suggesting that they are all racist too :shock:
And why apologise, and in the same sentence say you don't apologise?
Which categories of people exactly are you not bothered about? Poor people in general or people on the dole? Anti Royalists? Or people who don't vote?
Have you thought about setting up camps to dispose of these people? I hear gassing is cheap.

I quite rightly removed any argument that bought all unemployed into the equation and aimed my comment directly at the lazy type, the type that folks like me (and hopefully you) pay to keep in a life of dormant being.

ballysmate

The Little Onion wrote:

The monarchy do have real powers, and do use them - they get consulted on various bits of legislation unrelated to their ceremonial duties, Charles is notorious for lobbying politicians (see the recent court case over the freedom of information request over his letters to ministers) yet we can't find out what they say because they are supposedly apolitical. It is a kafka-esque scenario where we can't find out what political lobbying they do, because the letters show that they were being political, yet releasing them would undermine Charles' ability to be an apolitical monarch. Plus there was the scandals over the Chelsea barracks and the sacking of Prof Edward Ernst. The monarch do use their powers, they are not purely ceremonial.

The Queen obviously does have an opinion on matters of state, but the final and only say rests with the Government. It may be that Her Maj tells Dave every week that he is talking bollox and she will not sign the legislation. But that is as far as it goes or can go. His reply would be and always would be, that she has to sign whatever he puts in front of her. He could not go back to the cabinet and say, 'Sorry boys. The old girl won't sign'.

Charles, it has to be said, comes across as a bit dim. This could be because it is difficult for him to find a subject to speak publicly about without causing a stir.
Given the extraordinary times we have experienced in recent times, if these are the greatest examples of the Royal political influence, they don't wield a lot of power do they?

VTech

Ive just been reading up on the costs and gains of the monarchy.

I was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off !

They make us tens of billions, not just in tourism, but royal seals, promotion etc etc etc.

Apparently, at least £70,000,000,000.00 yearly.
They do cost us around £35m though so maybe we should get rid of them after all ?