Should the Monarchy..
Comments
-
We have a monarchy, I'm no royalist but if they were deposed/replaced what would we get.
Let them remain and if tourists want to come and see them fair do's. However the Windsors have plenty of wealth and don't need any money from the state purse. They should still be eligible for child benefit though.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:We have a monarchy, I'm no royalist but if they were deposed/replaced what would we get.
Let them remain and if tourists want to come and see them fair do's. However the Windsors have plenty of wealth and don't need any money from the state purse. They should still be eligible for child benefit though.
Thats the thing, they dont take any money.
Its like a business charging VAT and people thinking they are having a great time with the money when in fact is is just sitting ready to be paid out.
Taking 30 something million and paying back 380 something million from the revenues of the estate to which they claim the 30 something million.
Think of it like a business with a running cost of 30 million but generates a direct income of 380 million.
We wouldnt say it costs 30 million, we would say it generates 350 million.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:Frank the tank wrote:We have a monarchy, I'm no royalist but if they were deposed/replaced what would we get.
Let them remain and if tourists want to come and see them fair do's. However the Windsors have plenty of wealth and don't need any money from the state purse. They should still be eligible for child benefit though.
Thats the thing, they dont take any money.
Its like a business charging VAT and people thinking they are having a great time with the money when in fact is is just sitting ready to be paid out.
Taking 30 something million and paying back 380 something million from the revenues of the estate to which they claim the 30 something million.
Think of it like a business with a running cost of 30 million but generates a direct income of 380 million.
We wouldnt say it costs 30 million, we would say it generates 350 million.
It's not that simple though. The Crown Estate generates far more income than the sum provided to the Queen through public funds as you suggest. But there is a whole debate to be had about the ownership of this estate. This land, property, etc would not be handed over to Elizabeth and her family if the monarchy was to be abolished.0 -
mattitheowl wrote:
Come on man, have you read nothing from above.
An american conspiracy theorist ffs
Common economics offsets costs with income.
The cost of running a business is imaterial, it doesnt matter.
What matters is the offset of income against profit.
If the cost is £100 and you generate £80 you have a loss.
If the cost is £100 and you generate £120 you have profit.
The royal family make us money, we need to forget the costs, that comes with all business, concentrate on the profits.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:mattitheowl wrote:
Come on man, have you read nothing from above.
An american conspiracy theorist ffs
Common economics offsets costs with income.
The cost of running a business is imaterial, it doesnt matter.
What matters is the offset of income against profit.
If the cost is £100 and you generate £80 you have a loss.
If the cost is £100 and you generate £120 you have profit.
The royal family make us money, we need to forget the costs, that comes with all business, concentrate on the profits.
You didn't watch the video did you?0 -
mattitheowl wrote:VTech wrote:mattitheowl wrote:
Come on man, have you read nothing from above.
An american conspiracy theorist ffs
Common economics offsets costs with income.
The cost of running a business is imaterial, it doesnt matter.
What matters is the offset of income against profit.
If the cost is £100 and you generate £80 you have a loss.
If the cost is £100 and you generate £120 you have profit.
The royal family make us money, we need to forget the costs, that comes with all business, concentrate on the profits.
You didn't watch the video did you?
As I was saying, what a wonderful, clearly thought out bit of detective work you showed there sir
/me must allow myself to spend 4m40s watching a whole youtube clip as apposed to just the first 30 seconds so as to not look like a complete fool
Living MY dream.0 -
I do not mind either way as to whether the monarchy is or is not in existence. However i would object to getting rid of the monarchy and replacing it with some other institution no doubt headed by a egomaniac slowly working his way round London shagging anything in his sights. Keep it or get rid of it. No half way house please.0
-
bdu98252 wrote:I do not mind either way as to whether the monarchy is or is not in existence. However i would object to getting rid of the monarchy and replacing it with some other institution no doubt headed by a egomaniac slowly working his way round London shagging anything in his sights. Keep it or get rid of it. No half way house please.
Someone slowly working round london shagging anything in his sights? Sounds like quite a few kings/princes of the past. And princesses (thinking of Harry's father)0 -
I think, in this (supposedly) modern first world country it's embarrassing, 364 years after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world dispensed with such feudal relics, we're still lumbered with this archaic system for a constitution. It gives us a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system which its next three heads of state have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings.
Far from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege and the class system at the heart of public life.0 -
I take it you are against the Monarchy then?Xascent wrote:I think, in this (supposedly) modern first world country it's embarrassing, 364 years after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world dispensed with such feudal relics, we're still lumbered with this archaic system for a constitution. It gives us a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system which its next three heads of state have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings.
Far from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege and the class system at the heart of public life. None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
The system we have regards Monarchy and Government is pretty unique - the Crown and People (i.e. the Govt) are the stop and check on each other. The Armed Forces belong to the Crown, but cannot be used without Govt assent. The Treasury is Crown, but is spent by the Govt, controlled to such an extent that the Crown's income from its own theoretical purse is set by the Govt. On the flipside, Govt cannot form with the permission of the Crown, nor can it convene parliament without the Crown, and laws it wants to pass to statute can only be done so with final assent of the Crown.
Compared with Westminster, the select genepool of close cousins is a veritable bargain. Neither, it should be said, does it seek to gain power by making empty promises to the mob. The bawdy house known as parliament costs the country, society, and individual far more each year as careerist politicians serve their own ends by foisting idealistic beliefs of how they think we should live on everyone.
We'd do far better tearing down that system and rebuilding it.0 -
dynamicbrick wrote:The bawdy house known as parliament costs the country, society, and individual far more each year as careerist politicians serve their own ends by foisting idealistic beliefs of how they think we should live on everyone.
We'd do far better tearing down that system and rebuilding it.
The difference being that the members of parliament are people who we choose (albeit in an imperfect manner), their decisions are public (see this for contrast - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/ ... low-appeal), and if we don't like them we can elect someone else next time. Not so with the royal family0 -
The Little Onion wrote:dynamicbrick wrote:The bawdy house known as parliament costs the country, society, and individual far more each year as careerist politicians serve their own ends by foisting idealistic beliefs of how they think we should live on everyone.
We'd do far better tearing down that system and rebuilding it.
The difference being that the members of parliament are people who we choose (albeit in an imperfect manner), their decisions are public (see this for contrast - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/ ... low-appeal), and if we don't like them we can elect someone else next time. Not so with the royal family
Imperfect? What, like a choosing whether you get alive by a crocodile or a shark?0 -
Xascent wrote:I think, in this (supposedly) modern first world country it's embarrassing, 364 years after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world dispensed with such feudal relics, we're still lumbered with this archaic system for a constitution. It gives us a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system which its next three heads of state have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings.
Far from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege and the class system at the heart of public life.
I'm not sure millions agree with you though.
The monarchy is an excellent part of the UK. It does us proud.
By your reckoning our army is a raping breed of thieves and murderers who kill the men of the countries they invade, take the kids as soldiers and rape the women as they go.
Now of course this was true, we have some I the worst war crimes of all nations in our history but its not like that now so likewise, the mo archly can't be set against those of hundreds of years ago.
They have made up, have do e good, real good and in the most vast majority are pretty flawless at it.Living MY dream.0 -
Which got me thinking.........VTech wrote:They have made up, have done good, real good and in the most, vast majority are pretty flawless at it.
Now I am no monarchist but I have to ask, who would you have as head of State out of those likely to apply?
Then ask yourself if they would do a better job than the Queen. :?:None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
As a republican, I do have to say that the Queen has been a relatively good monarch (as in, the least bad of the recent lot). The meddling Charles does not look such a good prospect. I relish the time when he comes to the throne, as the inevitable continuation in abuse of power will lead to a rise in the republican cause. Of course, if he does do a bad job, we won't be able to get rid of him easily.0
-
daviesee wrote:Then ask yourself if they would do a better job than the Queen. :?:
Precisely. One is reminded of the wise words of the learned Antipodean scholar K. Minogue, OBE, PERT, BOT, who famously said 'better the devil you know'.0 -
Lets push this on a little further;
How are you to rid the nation of the Royal family?
Do it Russian style?
Strikes me that anything less would pretty much leave them as a royal family without any accountability to the nation. Still requiring protection, still in the media glare, still very wealthy and still a royal family.Big Red, Blue, Pete, Bill & Doug0 -
VmanF3 wrote:Lets push this on a little further;
How are you to rid the nation of the Royal family?
Do it Russian style?
Strikes me that anything less would pretty much leave them as a royal family without any accountability to the nation. Still requiring protection, still in the media glare, still very wealthy and still a royal family.
Just imagine the stories the Queen could tell about the shady world of Government once freed from Royal Protocol0 -
Xascent wrote:I think, in this (supposedly) modern first world country it's embarrassing, 364 years after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world dispensed with such feudal relics, we're still lumbered with this archaic system for a constitution. It gives us a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system which its next three heads of state have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings.
Far from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege and the class system at the heart of public life.
millions? extremely doubtful. most people dont care much but quite like the idea of it. like it or not this country is quietly right of centre, and will never become a republic. give people in other nations the choice and they would have a monarchy like ours, it is the envy of other countries, just look at how mental the states has gone over it.
its a curiosity and a interest that makes us fairly unique (most of the european monarchies are not like ours, and of no interest to the rest of the world).
The United KINGdom will never ever becoem a republic, no matter what sourfaced right on left wingers think/hope.
personally, im not interested in them much or what they get up to, but like the fact they exist and make this country more unique and retain our history etc.0 -
daviesee wrote:
Which got me thinking.........VTech wrote:They have made up, have done good, real good and in the most, vast majority are pretty flawless at it.
Now I am no monarchist but I have to ask, who would you have as head of State out of those likely to apply?
Then ask yourself if they would do a better job than the Queen. :?:
another good point, some career politician. the like of prescott and his ilk.0 -
VTech wrote:Xascent wrote:I think, in this (supposedly) modern first world country it's embarrassing, 364 years after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world dispensed with such feudal relics, we're still lumbered with this archaic system for a constitution. It gives us a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system which its next three heads of state have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings.
Far from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege and the class system at the heart of public life.
I'm not sure millions agree with you though.
The monarchy is an excellent part of the UK. It does us proud.
By your reckoning our army is a raping breed of thieves and murderers who kill the men of the countries they invade, take the kids as soldiers and rape the women as they go.
Now of course this was true, we have some I the worst war crimes of all nations in our history but its not like that now so likewise, the mo archly can't be set against those of hundreds of years ago.
They have made up, have do e good, real good and in the most vast majority are pretty flawless at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8 ... dh&index=80 -
Xascent wrote:VTech wrote:Xascent wrote:I think, in this (supposedly) modern first world country it's embarrassing, 364 years after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world dispensed with such feudal relics, we're still lumbered with this archaic system for a constitution. It gives us a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system which its next three heads of state have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings.
Far from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege and the class system at the heart of public life.
I'm not sure millions agree with you though.
The monarchy is an excellent part of the UK. It does us proud.
By your reckoning our army is a raping breed of thieves and murderers who kill the men of the countries they invade, take the kids as soldiers and rape the women as they go.
Now of course this was true, we have some I the worst war crimes of all nations in our history but its not like that now so likewise, the mo archly can't be set against those of hundreds of years ago.
They have made up, have do e good, real good and in the most vast majority are pretty flawless at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8 ... dh&index=8
I realise you posted the video in response to VTech, but the irony of it being posted in support of an anti monarchy theme on the thread hasn't escaped me.
The war was apparently driven by an elected President with Executive powers, supported by an elected Congress. For our part, the war was driven by an elected Parliament headed by a PM and his Cabinet. No involvement at all from our Head of State, a Constitutional Monarch.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Xascent wrote:VTech wrote:Xascent wrote:I think, in this (supposedly) modern first world country it's embarrassing, 364 years after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world dispensed with such feudal relics, we're still lumbered with this archaic system for a constitution. It gives us a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system which its next three heads of state have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings.
Far from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege and the class system at the heart of public life.
I'm not sure millions agree with you though.
The monarchy is an excellent part of the UK. It does us proud.
By your reckoning our army is a raping breed of thieves and murderers who kill the men of the countries they invade, take the kids as soldiers and rape the women as they go.
Now of course this was true, we have some I the worst war crimes of all nations in our history but its not like that now so likewise, the mo archly can't be set against those of hundreds of years ago.
They have made up, have do e good, real good and in the most vast majority are pretty flawless at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8 ... dh&index=8
I realise you posted the video in response to VTech, but the irony of it being posted in support of an anti monarchy theme on the thread hasn't escaped me.
The war was apparently driven by an elected President with Executive powers, supported by an elected Congress. For our part, the war was driven by an elected Parliament headed by a PM and his Cabinet. No involvement at all from our Head of State, a Constitutional Monarch.
Yeah, when it suits your argument; f~#k democracy.0 -
hipshot wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Xascent wrote:VTech wrote:Xascent wrote:I think, in this (supposedly) modern first world country it's embarrassing, 364 years after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world dispensed with such feudal relics, we're still lumbered with this archaic system for a constitution. It gives us a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system which its next three heads of state have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings.
Far from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege and the class system at the heart of public life.
I'm not sure millions agree with you though.
The monarchy is an excellent part of the UK. It does us proud.
By your reckoning our army is a raping breed of thieves and murderers who kill the men of the countries they invade, take the kids as soldiers and rape the women as they go.
Now of course this was true, we have some I the worst war crimes of all nations in our history but its not like that now so likewise, the mo archly can't be set against those of hundreds of years ago.
They have made up, have do e good, real good and in the most vast majority are pretty flawless at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8 ... dh&index=8
I realise you posted the video in response to VTech, but the irony of it being posted in support of an anti monarchy theme on the thread hasn't escaped me.
The war was apparently driven by an elected President with Executive powers, supported by an elected Congress. For our part, the war was driven by an elected Parliament headed by a PM and his Cabinet. No involvement at all from our Head of State, a Constitutional Monarch.
Yeah, when it suits your argument; f~#k democracy.
How? I have argued on here that the Queen wields no power. What input did she have in taking us to war?
All I said is that it is ironic to use a clip concerning (mis)deeds of politicians to further the anti monarchy argument, when the monarchy had nothing to do with the events.0 -
Don't get me wrong I wouldn't wish any harm on the Royal family, they seem like decent people. My problem is with the system that they perpetuate.
This thread is about privatisation of the monarchy. They do and always have regarded themselves as Monarchy PLC, the aims of which are and always have been to enrich and maintain their wealth and privilege.
The marketing of this business they label as patriotism and most sheeple are awed by it. They would do well to think a little deeper and see what is really going on. It ain't right.0 -
Xascent wrote:Don't get me wrong I wouldn't wish any harm on the Royal family, they seem like decent people. My problem is with the system that they perpetuate.
This thread is about privatisation of the monarchy. They do and always have regarded themselves as Monarchy PLC, the aims of which are and always have been to enrich and maintain their wealth and privilege.
The marketing of this business they label as patriotism and most sheeple are awed by it. They would do well to think a little deeper and see what is really going on. It ain't right.
You couldn't be further from the truth.
They would be far richer if not head of state as they would legally be entitled to revenue from their land and estates.Living MY dream.0 -
Pah, who cares anyway?
I just wish they'd called the new sprog 'Keeboots'.
Not a good name for a prince, but oh so good for a King.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
