So, What's The Deal With Prince Harry...

bianchimoon

prince Harry in Brazil just happens to be same time as world cup visiting brazillian hospital (WTF)?, I'll say one thing for these royals they don't let problems/issues in the UK get in the way of their jollies do they :roll:

Daz555

No problem with having a Royal Family. Budget needs a cut of course but the most important thing is to reduce the monarchy to figurehead and remove the archaic and undemocratic powers which remain in the monarch's control.

MaxwellBygraves

I've posted before on my disdain for the monarchy. I find the whole bunch of parasites repellent and I hope in my lifetime we have the good sense to boot them out. They have an excellent PR machine though, I'll give them that.

Colinthecop

VTech wrote:

As I was posting this a very well worded reply from mambo80 mentions wills and kate, 2 excellent role models who not only generate wealth for the country but are excellent ambassadors of the country. is there anyone who could honestly deny that ?

Role models...?

Despite having a job and being from one of the wealthiest familys in the country, they get the taxpayer to stump up £4,000,000 on a revamp of their house...? £180,000 alone on the kitchen that now has 3 sinks.

I guessed they missed the speech about 'being in this together'...

mamba80

Colinthecop wrote:

VTech wrote:

As I was posting this a very well worded reply from mambo80 mentions wills and kate, 2 excellent role models who not only generate wealth for the country but are excellent ambassadors of the country. is there anyone who could honestly deny that ?

Role models...?

Despite having a job and being from one of the wealthiest familys in the country, they get the taxpayer to stump up £4,000,000 on a revamp of their house...? £180,000 alone on the kitchen that now has 3 sinks.

I guessed they missed the speech about 'being in this together'...

of course they or any of the ruling elite aren't in this together anyone who believes that speech is crazy!
if we were to have an elected or other type of republican system, do you think the newly elected President would pay for their own renovations/new build to their huge multi staffed cutting edge designed offices?
does Cameron for example pay for any of this at no 10 or chequers despite having huge personal funds?

as I said, the Royal family is not perfect but some of the replies on here just smack of small minded jealousy and naivety.

bianchimoon

What I will never get is why some people need to put themselves in a rank below other people, to think of themselves as a lower class, to courtsey, bow or genefluct before others. Fair enough if someone has worked harder, is more intelligent and gains more in life for that, but for people to come on here and say no Bianchimoon this family deserves more privileges in life, education and a social setting than you because....? the only answer I seem to be getting is that "they were born into it so they deserve it. It is what has always been, and for you to think they don't deserve all this privilege over other 'human beings' is because you're 'jealous and naive'... i must be so incredibly stupid not to get this.

bdu98252

The Queen has done a great job as the head of state of balancing the job and keeping her personal views out of it. I don't mind the royal family because of this. Charles on the other hand has a history of trying to influence policy which in many cases is based around his privileged views and suits his substantial business interests mainly in agriculture. Charles will become a liability if he takes over he is the polar opposite to a Queen who is seen as not party political and does not try to heavily influence policy leaving that to elected politicians. When was the last time the Queen was quoted as saying some ridiculously racist, homophobic or blatantly stupid comment. You don't need to look far from the queen to find a royal that has ticked all of the above boxes in the last 10 years.

If there is no queen then I am happy with nothing more than is currently in place. We need a president like we need a hole in the head. A Prime minister is perfectly able to run a country of our size effectively.

imposter2.0

bdu98252 wrote:

When was the last time the Queen was quoted as saying some ridiculously racist, homophobic or blatantly stupid comment.

When was the last time the queen was quoted as saying anything at all, to anyone, about anything (outside of the annual xmas speech, obviously).

bdu98252 wrote:

A Prime minister is perfectly able to run a country of our size effectively.

Nobody has suggested that an elected head of state should actually run the country.

mamba80

bianchimoon wrote:

What I will never get is why some people need to put themselves in a rank below other people, to think of themselves as a lower class, to courtsey, bow or genefluct before others. Fair enough if someone has worked harder, is more intelligent and gains more in life for that, but for people to come on here and say no Bianchimoon this family deserves more privileges in life, education and a social setting than you because....? the only answer I seem to be getting is that "they were born into it so they deserve it. It is what has always been, and for you to think they don't deserve all this privilege over other 'human beings' is because you're 'jealous and naive'... i must be so incredibly stupid not to get this.

who said they are better than you or I ? they are human and their xxxx stinks just like mine and yours! you are reading too much into my reply, I just don't waste my time begrudging their wealth and privilege.
they "deserve" nothing but that's not how the world works, why should Bob Diamond earn 1000x plus more than a nurse? who does he save? or I more than a teacher?
My argument is that the Queen makes a good head of state and the Royals are generally respected, my previous reply states why I believe a President would be a mistake and certainly would not be a panacea for all those that think Harry shouldn't go to Brazil or Kate and William should live in a 2up 2down.

nathancom

At least a bad politician can be voted out. We are stuck with a poor monarch until they die. I can't see how a president would cost us over 30 million a year. They could be given the same powers as the monarch too so would be essentially non political as in many other nations.

4kicks

Not sure why Im wading into this but I believe one needs to separate between if a modern state NEEDS a monarchy (we dont) from if the state values one (we should). Leaving aside VTechs arguments (tourists come to visit buildings, not the queen and 'er lot) and skipping on to more adult themes, I personally think there is a value associated with our Monarchy simply due to its history and the need, as a nation, to be more than the sum of its parts. Or another way, do you really want David Cameron and the current Archbishop of Canterbury (name him, go on, I dare you) to be the figureheads of this nation. I would, however, make one change, and do as the Belgians do in allowing us the people to elect the next hear of state from the current royal family. Edward for king!!

finchy

I don't get this idea that they are such wonderful people. From an outsider's viewpoint, it really does seem like the family shoved Charles into a loveless marriage with Diana used as a baby factory. He certainly didn't marry the woman he loved (first time around) and if that's how they treat their nearest and dearest, I fail to see why I would want them representing me on the world stage. At least David Cameron and Tony Blair seem to genuinely love their families.

sloppyschleckonds

4kicks wrote:

I personally think there is a value associated with our Monarchy simply due to its history and the need, as a nation, to be more than the sum of its parts.

What value does the history have?

imposter2.0

4kicks wrote:

the current Archbishop of Canterbury (name him, go on, I dare you)

Elton Welsby..??

bdu98252

Imposter wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

When was the last time the Queen was quoted as saying some ridiculously racist, homophobic or blatantly stupid comment.

When was the last time the queen was quoted as saying anything at all, to anyone, about anything (outside of the annual xmas speech, obviously).

bdu98252 wrote:

A Prime minister is perfectly able to run a country of our size effectively.

Nobody has suggested that an elected head of state should actually run the country.

A few pages back a list of people was given who support the removal of the royal family and an elected head. Therefore whilst you may not have said it others certainly implied that that is what they would like.

bdu98252

nathancom wrote:

At least a bad politician can be voted out. We are stuck with a poor monarch until they die. I can't see how a president would cost us over 30 million a year. They could be given the same powers as the monarch too so would be essentially non political as in many other nations.

The bulk of the 30 million is maintaining building that we as a nation own i.e not the queen. If you are proposing demolishing the building post monarchy then yes you can have a cheaper head of state. In reality the assets are reasonable or good value for money from a purely tourist dollar perspective.

nathancom

bdu98252 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

At least a bad politician can be voted out. We are stuck with a poor monarch until they die. I can't see how a president would cost us over 30 million a year. They could be given the same powers as the monarch too so would be essentially non political as in many other nations.

The bulk of the 30 million is maintaining building that we as a nation own i.e not the queen. If you are proposing demolishing the building post monarchy then yes you can have a cheaper head of state. In reality the assets are reasonable or good value for money from a purely tourist dollar perspective.

Which buildings does the grant help maintain that give access to the public. The Royal Palaces are not open to the public except for Buckingham Palace which is open for 2 months a year and which generates a further 11 million a year for the Queen.

If these Palaces were handed over to the National Trust then they would inevitably attract tourists and would pay for their own upkeep. It is the Royal family's problem if they want to have so many palaces that do no good for anyone but themselves.

The Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster lands also provide a further £30 million a year to the Royal family. This is yearly income, a huge sum of money. Prince Charles has a Crown exemption from paying Income Tax on this money so he pays basically what he feels like paying via voluntary payments.

Security costs for the army and police are not included in any of these sums. They are an expensive anachronism and it is objectionable that we are subjects of the Queen. We should be citizens with a written constitution that guarantees our rights and makes explicit our obligations.

bianchimoon

nathancom wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

At least a bad politician can be voted out. We are stuck with a poor monarch until they die. I can't see how a president would cost us over 30 million a year. They could be given the same powers as the monarch too so would be essentially non political as in many other nations.

The bulk of the 30 million is maintaining building that we as a nation own i.e not the queen. If you are proposing demolishing the building post monarchy then yes you can have a cheaper head of state. In reality the assets are reasonable or good value for money from a purely tourist dollar perspective.

Which buildings does the grant help maintain that give access to the public. The Royal Palaces are not open to the public except for Buckingham Palace which is open for 2 months a year and which generates a further 11 million a year for the Queen.

If these Palaces were handed over to the National Trust then they would inevitably attract tourists and would pay for their own upkeep. It is the Royal family's problem if they want to have so many palaces that do no good for anyone but themselves.

The Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster lands also provide a further £30 million a year to the Royal family. This is yearly income, a huge sum of money. Prince Charles has a Crown exemption from paying Income Tax on this money so he pays basically what he feels like paying via voluntary payments.

Security costs for the army and police are not included in any of these sums. They are an expensive anachronism and it is objectionable that we are subjects of the Queen. We should be citizens with a written constitution that guarantees our rights and makes explicit our obligations.

couldn't agree more!

imposter2.0

bdu98252 wrote:

A few pages back a list of people was given who support the removal of the royal family and an elected head. Therefore whilst you may not have said it others certainly implied that that is what they would like.

Having an elected head of state does not imply that the aforementioned elected HoS will actually 'run the country' - any more than the Queen 'runs the country' at the moment.

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

A few pages back a list of people was given who support the removal of the royal family and an elected head. Therefore whilst you may not have said it others certainly implied that that is what they would like.

Having an elected head of state does not imply that the aforementioned elected HoS will actually 'run the country' - any more than the Queen 'runs the country' at the moment.

But whoever is chosen or elected will still need to be funded to an expected (high) level to at least be on a par with the foreign dignitaries.
This would include accommodation, offices, staff, transport, expenses, and on, and on.
In other words, expensive.

bianchimoon

but there would only be one head to pay for at a time rather than the 24 there are at the moment sharing 20+ royal residences/transport/protection etc

imposter2.0

PBlakeney wrote:

Imposter wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

A few pages back a list of people was given who support the removal of the royal family and an elected head. Therefore whilst you may not have said it others certainly implied that that is what they would like.

Having an elected head of state does not imply that the aforementioned elected HoS will actually 'run the country' - any more than the Queen 'runs the country' at the moment.

But whoever is chosen or elected will still need to be funded to an expected (high) level to at least be on a par with the foreign dignitaries.
This would include accommodation, offices, staff, transport, expenses, and on, and on.
In other words, expensive.

You really think that would be more expensive than the current £30 million or so that it costs to run the Royal Household..??

Monkeypump

nathancom wrote:

We should be citizens with a written constitution that guarantees our rights and makes explicit our obligations.

Why should we? What practical difference would it make?

Heard on the radio this morning that the royal family cost each of us (in the UK) 56p last year. Most of us can probably afford the equivalent of a bag of crisps to fund such an 'expensive anachronism'.

bdu98252

Imposter wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

A few pages back a list of people was given who support the removal of the royal family and an elected head. Therefore whilst you may not have said it others certainly implied that that is what they would like.

Having an elected head of state does not imply that the aforementioned elected HoS will actually 'run the country' - any more than the Queen 'runs the country' at the moment.

I am quite happy with a Queen that with the exception of making a few speeches that are mainly written by the government does not interfere with government policy. I am even happy to pay your £56 pence per year if that is what it takes to prevent us having another elected guy at the top supposedly representing us. Look at the struggle within the Euro with countries like Britain trying to role back powers and the guy from Luxemberg trying to get elected so that he can create an even bigger super state. I have a clear view on this. If you decide that you don't want the monarchy then fine get rid of them but do not give me a replacement head of state who will try to wrestle powers from Westminster. It is human nature.

bianchimoon

Basically, you are mugged for the 56p for this 'expensive anachronism'. How would you feel if another law was made saying there's a religious tax of 56p as well, to keep all the churches/abbeys and bishops etc or a 56p tax for the benefit of conservative/labour/Ukip.
It should be an opt in tax, that would make things interesting

imposter2.0

bdu98252 wrote:

If you decide that you don't want the monarchy then fine get rid of them but do not give me a replacement head of state who will try to wrestle powers from Westminster. It is human nature.

The alternative to a constitutional monarchy doesn't have to be a fascist dictatorship....

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

You really think that would be more expensive than the current £30 million or so that it costs to run the Royal Household..??

I honestly wouldn't know but I suspect there would be less in it than you think.
I tried to find out the cost of Joachim Gauck but failed to find any source.

The cynic in me suspects that it may be high.

Any takers to enlighten us as I am genuinely interested?

Richard_D

As always some of the arguments on here are based prejudice rather than fact. People put forward the facts that support their case and ignore the ones that don't.

With respect to the palaces I can not remember which is which but some of them are state owned and some are the property of the crown.
As for which present palaces are open to the public there are at least another 2 that are open some of the time. The palace of Westminster and Windsor Castle. As for handing them over to the National Trust, English Heritage, etc. They have enough trouble raising the money to look after and update the properties they already control. I know that from direct experience.
Would a written constitution be any better than one based on precedence, looking at many of the countries that have one I see little evidence.

On the whole my feeling is would the pain be worth the change. And such a major change to our customs and systems would cause pain. My opinion is no.

nathancom

The cost suggested to be about £0.60 a year per person is only for the Sovereign Grant. They cost the state many times that figure both in the income from lands granted to them and in security and administration costs.

What value do they provide? So far the best reason given is that the Queen doesn't say much...

re a written constitution: a codified constitution limits the power of parliament and elected governments and gives clarity to the rights and obligations of citizens. It protects all of us from the abuse of power and tyranny of the state dependent on the specific articles.

Richard_D

nathancom wrote:

The cost suggested to be about £0.60 a year per person is only for the Sovereign Grant. They cost the state many times that figure both in the income from lands granted to them and in security and administration costs.

What value do they provide? So far the best reason given is that the Queen doesn't say much...

In a couple of years time if you vote yes this summer you will be able to tell us how much cheaper King Alex is compared to Queen Elizabeth. How much did your new parliament building cost in the end and where are you going to impress foreign dignitaries after independence.

Most countries, if not all, that have had such a major change of head of state have done it via conflict; civil or external.