NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm


The question is, with the amount of money they bring in, are they worth it?

Coup D'etat!

Coup D'etat!

I second though I am not british! LOL

i read another article in the times a few years back that said most tourists to the UK - especially american ones - when polled said they would still visit the royal tourist attractions even if the monarchy wasn't actually in existance anymore... i think a thread & poll would be useful for a bit of NS local research on this ;)

oh but with one provisio - that the changing of the guard still takes place at buck house




as for the article here, i'm against the monarchy on ideological grounds anyway - while their predecessors may have warrented/deserved the power, wealth and office that being monarch entails, these lot have done nothing to deserve thier status other than be born into it. i'm not against a (constitutional democratic) monarchy per se, just against any hereditary form of government or power. also one of the reasons why i'd like to see wealth taxes introduced (as they are on the continent) and inheritance tax raised... but that's another issue


...with a flight taken by the Duke of Edinburgh to Toronto costing just £12,800
:eek:

Departing: 21:05, Heathrow, London Departing: 18:15, Pearson Int'l, Toronto
GBP 367.90 Price per adult including taxes and booking fees

:rolleyes:

I'd never have guessed :p :D

I second though I am not british! LOL


EDIT: Damend people with names beginning with C....

*remembers his real name*

bugger :(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm


The question is, with the amount of money they bring in, are they worth it?
yes

:rolleyes:
He flew the batplane

Ihatevacations']He flew the batplane
ah ok fair enough. batman charges outrageous prices for renting that thing :rolleyes:

I'd never have guessed :p :D
Hey don't stuff words in my mouth! That was Corneliu!

Hey don't stuff words in my mouth! That was Corneliu!

But it was your suggestion Colodia. Your just as much at fault! :D

Nope, get rid of them. The trouble is, we need another word beginning with 'K', lest we stop being the UK.

But it was your suggestion Colodia. Your just as much at fault! :D
I'm just looking to spread freedom and democracy all around the world...the AMERICAN way!

...*snicker* "Fools..."

I've always hated the monarchy, anyway.

Scrap the inbreds!

Down with Norfolk!

...with a flight taken by the Duke of Edinburgh to Toronto costing just £12,800
:eek:


Departing: 21:05, Heathrow, London Departing: 18:15, Pearson Int'l, Toronto
GBP 367.90 Price per adult including taxes and booking fees
:rolleyes:
i'm sorry but really, you can't seriously expect the Royal Family to fly on a plane with other people, think of the security issues, it would cost more because they'd need extra bodyguards and stuff

I'm just looking to spread freedom and democracy all around the world...the AMERICAN way!

...*snicker* "Fools..."

HAHA!! Now that's origninal :)

I've always hated the monarchy, anyway.

Scrap the inbreds!

Down with Norfolk!
I've yet to come across a Scottish person who likes the monarchy

i'm sorry but really, you can't seriously expect the Royal Family to fly on a plane with other people, think of the security issues, it would cost more because they'd need extra bodyguards and stuff

Besides, could you put up with Prince Phillip for 8 hours?!?! no me neither...

Besides, could you put up with Prince Phillip for 8 hours?!?! no me neither...
exactly! it's for the good of public health!

Nope, get rid of them. The trouble is, we need another word beginning with 'K', lest we stop being the UK.

United Kleptocracy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

i'm sorry but really, you can't seriously expect the Royal Family to fly on a plane with other people, think of the security issues, it would cost more because they'd need extra bodyguards and stuff

Exactly why we should bin them.

Well here's a question for someone from the UK:

What else would 61p buy you, and would it provide as much entertainment value as another years' worth of follies from the House of Windsor?

Exactly why we should bin them.
no, they bring a lot of money into country and good publicity (some bad too but more good than bad)

What else would 61p buy you, and would it provide as much entertainment value as another years' worth of follies from the House of Windsor?

A condom, and yes, it would.

Well here's a question for someone from the UK:

What else would 61p buy you, and would it provide as much entertainment value as another years' worth of follies from the House of Windsor?

A bar of Galaxy.

I'd rather eat chocolate than listen to meaningless nhit about the Royals.

A condom, and yes, it would.
you can get condoms for free.....

no, they bring a lot of money into country and good publicity (some bad too but more good than bad)

I suppose so.

Although do they need to be able to dissolve Parliament?

It's the power that bugs me.

you can get condoms for free.....

And still have 61p for chocolate.

you can get condoms for free.....

Unlike the royal family.

Ergo prophylactics > royalty.

And still have 61p for chocolate.

Eating chocolate whilst having sex as a free citizen, rather than a subject: these are the things of for which we fight.

I suppose so.

Although do they need to be able to dissolve Parliament?

It's the power that bugs me.
i think that's a good thing, they won't use that power unless they need to, and i like the thought that if the government screws up then we have another chance before the whole country descends into anarchy

Unlike the royal family.

Ergo prophylactics > royalty.
but they're not exactly mutually exclusive......

i think that's a good thing, they won't use that power unless they need to, and i like the thought that if the government screws up then we have another chance before the whole country descends into anarchy

I've always felt the chance of a power hungry monarch > the chance of the government collapsing.

I've always felt the chance of a power hungry monarch > the chance of the government collapsing.
i really can't see either happening any time soon to be honest

I hate monarchs. Can't they just run for office like everyone else? It's bad enough we have government. We don't need to be handing people high ranks for no reason other than birth.

i think that's a good thing, they won't use that power unless they need to, and i like the thought that if the government screws up then we have another chance before the whole country descends into anarchy

Should this powere really lie in the hands of people that received a B and a C (Charles) or a B and a D (Harry) in their A-levels? I could throw a stone at a crowd on my street and nine times out of ten hit someone with a much better educational record.

i really can't see either happening any time soon to be honest

Thus making your own argument void.

i'm sorry but really, you can't seriously expect the Royal Family to fly on a plane with other people, think of the security issues, it would cost more because they'd need extra bodyguards and stuff
4 bodyguards on the plane with guns loaded with something like glaser safety rounds. A little over a tenth of the price.

Should this powere really lie in the hands of people that received a B and a C (Charles) or a B and a D (Harry) in their A-levels? I could throw a stone at a crowd on my street and nine times out of ten hit someone with a much better educational record.
but they've been brought up learning how to run the country, i hardly think it matters how well they did in french and art

Thus making your own argument void.
and yours which just leaves us with the fact they bring a lot of money into the country and the good publicity

4 bodyguards on the plane with guns loaded with something like glaser safety rounds. A little over a tenth of the price.
Assuming he flies in coach. Yeah right.


So four bodyguards and him in first class, about 1,000$ a seat. 5000$, and that's not including everyone else he drags along.

4 bodyguards on the plane with guns loaded with something like glaser safety rounds. A little over a tenth of the price.
you'd have to me pretty daft to think that's all they'd have

but they've been brought up learning how to run the country, i hardly think it matters how well they did in french and art

No they haven't. They have been brought up learning how to shake hands and ask 'So, what do you do?'. That and a spot of military service. The lowliest local councillor has more experience and knowledge about how to run tha country than this bunch of inbred freaks.

No they haven't. They have been brought up learning how to shake hands and ask 'So, what do you do?'. That and a spot of military service. The lowliest local councillor has more experience and knowledge about how to run tha country than this bunch of inbred freaks.
well you seem to know a lot about how the Royals are brought up, have you been working at Buckingham Palace for long?

i'm sorry but really, you can't seriously expect the Royal Family to fly on a plane with other people, think of the security issues, it would cost more because they'd need extra bodyguards and stuff
if the royal family weren't "royal" they could fly just like everyone else and save the taxpayers' money



but they've been brought up learning how to run the country
and exactly how much running of the country do they do, then? :rolleyes:

and yours which just leaves us with the fact they bring a lot of money into the country and the good publicity

Okay then, here's a different slant:

What gives someone the right to have more power than elected leaders just because their parents got horny in a four poster bed?

well you seem to know a lot about how the Royals are brought up, have you been working at Buckingham Palace for long?

You are suggesting that the heirs to the throne have been given a rigorous and entirely secretive ongoing course in how to actually run the country (presumably on the basis of pre-1909 politics)?

no, they bring a lot of money into country and good publicity (some bad too but more good than bad)
see my first post in this thread http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9113732&postcount=4

where exactly is the evidence that they bring a net benefit to the UK's tourism industry?

Okay then, here's a different slant:

What gives someone the right to have more power than elected leaders just because their parents got horny in a four poster bed?
what gives them the right to have so much money and wealth that they didn't have to work for, either?

Oh c'mon, think of all the horrible things that would happen if you did away with them.


like ....................















hmmm....










Oh wait! I know! Think of all the poor fucking tabloids with no royals to chase after anymore? IT would be horrible - all of those intrusive assholes with no-one to chase but each other. You'd see those poor, destitute gaggles of ex-papparazi huddled outside former palaces offering to jab their fucking camera in your nose for a few lousy pence..... it would just be so... sad if those fine and fair purveyors of editorial accuracy couldn't find work wouldn't it?


Won't somebody please, please think of the paparazzi? Isn't 61 measly pence worth it just for them? They ask SO little, and they give SO much....


:D

Overthrow the queen and cut their blood line. Democracy shall exist.

Overthrow the queen and cut their blood line.


If only it was as simple as that: the Great Royal Debate* remains unanswered.







*Do we hang them or shoot them?

*Do we hang them or shoot them?
i say we give em a nice house in a council estate in mid wales, in the heart of the old, now desperatley deprived, coal mining districts ;)

take all their thousands of acres of land and use the non SSSI/areas of natual beauty bits to build the 100s of thousands of new houses that are needed for the people, and to help lower house prices (so first time buyers can do just that, buy)
then sell off the rest (non SSSI etc of course) to private landowners and give the profits directly to the people in tax rebates (or use it to pay off national debt, maybe)

i say we give em a nice house in a council estate in mid wales, in the heart of the old, now desperatley deprived, coal mining districts ;)

take all their thousands of acres of land and use the non SSSI/areas of natual beauty bits to build the 100s of thousands of new houses that are needed for the people, and to help lower house prices (so first time buyers can do just that, buy)
then sell off the rest (non SSSI etc of course) to private landowners and give the profits directly to the people in tax rebates (or use it to pay off national debt, maybe)

Sounds better than the idea of letting them stay in power.

i say we give em a nice house in a council estate in mid wales, in the heart of the old, now desperatley deprived, coal mining districts ;)

I think it would be more fitting to put Thatcher on a state pension and relocate her to Wales.

People this visit Potsdam in Berlin without Royality being there so i don't see the end of the monarchy damaging Britains tourism.

Also the Germans as i shall now call them, own the peoples art collection...how many of the people of this country have acutally sene it? Not many as it's all in the various palaces. If memory serves this colection is worth something like £40billion.

Getting rid of the monarchy and charging £5 a head to Buckingham palace and a new art gallery would help things.

The fact is the monarchy has been unpopular for a very long time, and pagentry of the Trooping of the Colour dates back to the mid 19th century when the monarchy was unpopular.

Personally i see the death of the monarchy comming when Charles is on the thrown.

I think it would be more fitting to put Thatcher on a state pension and relocate her to Wales.
i can't express how much i would love to do that.

and then maybe put her in a ditch filled with quick-dry concrete... sod pacifism for once! :p



edit: even better! put her in one of the mines she shut down and collapse it ;)

Personally i see the death of the monarchy comming when Charles is on the thrown.

That is IF he takes the throne. I think his oldest son will be the next monarch and not Charles.

i can't express how much i would love to do that.

and then maybe put her in a ditch filled with quick-dry concrete... sod pacifism for once! :p

Nah: concrete doesn't make a particularly good dance floor.

Nah: concrete doesn't make a particularly good dance floor.
:p :p

that reminds me of that thread "what song shall i sing while i dance on Thatcher's grave?" :D



Personally i see the death of the monarchy comming when Charles is on the thrown.
for some reason i see Charles dissolving the monachy himself, on his own terms, rather than see it come crashing down around him - he's quite a smart cookie, that one

The fact is the monarchy has been unpopular for a very long time, and pagentry of the Trooping of the Colour dates back to the mid 19th century when the monarchy was unpopular.
Yeah, the monarchy was unpopular in the mid-19th century, wasn't it? I mean, people hated the fact we had the largest empire in the world. They also despised Prince Albert...possibly the most popular member of the royal family ever (so much so in fact, that there's an interesting body piercing named after him) [/sarcasm]
Moral: If you're going to get your facts wrong, at least make sure you don't reference a period when the monarchy was at its most spectacularly popular.

I can definatly see Charles being a popular king...

Apprently the republican movement in the UK is at its strongest since Victoria went into mourning after albert's death, and never came out in public. Bet the monarchy wasnt so expensive then!

I personally don't care how much or how little the monarchy costs. I'm always going to be against it. I don't think that political power should ever be considered property that can be handed down in a family. I believe in a meritocratic society. I realise that getting rid of the monarchy wouldn't suddenly make Britain a meritocracy but it's a step in the right direction.

I also think there's too much of an assumption that making Britain a republic would make us exactly like America. We could give the monarch's duties to a non-partisan president, like in Europe.

They also despised Prince Albert...possibly the most popular member of the royal family ever (so much so in fact, that there's an interesting body piercing named after him) [/sarcasm]

Said piercing was given the name in the 1970s by Douglas Molloy, one of the founders of the Muzak corporation, when he shifted into running piercing parlours and sought to give historical respectability to his trade. There is no evidence whatsoever of any other link.

Im a loyal monarchist and subject of her majesty. The attitude of the republican cohorts appals me. They seek to destory everything Britain is a reduce it to yet another featureless European republic. As far as I am concerned, 61p is a small price to pay for keeping this great institution in order. For shame, republicans, for shame!!
And i think youll find the majority of Britons are pro monarchists. The monarchy has, like all institiutions, been unpopular in the past, but its history is that of Britain. It is the story of our nation and to cast it cheaply aside would kill our nation and reduce us to a collection of moronic, boring socialists with nothing whatsoever to be proud of.

Im a loyal monarchist and subject of her majesty. The attitude of the republican cohorts appals me. They seek to destory everything Britain is a reduce it to yet another featureless European republic. As far as I am concerned, 61p is a small price to pay for keeping this great institution in order. For shame, republicans, for shame!!
And i think youll find the majority of Britons are pro monarchists. The monarchy has, like all institiutions, been unpopular in the past, but its history is that of Britain. It is the story of our nation and to cast it cheaply aside would kill our nation and reduce us to a collection of moronic, boring socialists with nothing whatsoever to be proud of.
wrong. we can be socialists, proud of the progressive future we are creating rathter than pathetically clinging on to a dead history and past "glories".
i think you'll find that the majority of republicans don't care at all for "tradtion" or any of that nonsense - what matters is what is now (and the future or course), not what was; and right now the monarchy does nothing for the people of the UK.

i ask again: what right do they have to hold ANY political power? what authority? the fact they were born into it? that holds no weight with me, i can tell you.
similarly what right do they have to have all that wealth and money that could go to much better use in the pockets of UK citizens!?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm


The question is, with the amount of money they bring in, are they worth it?
I find it worrying, though not unexpected, that the Queen's financial advisors either:

a) can't handle simple arithmetic; or
b) don't the meaning of the word 'taxpayer'.

Also, note the exclusion of security costs from the figure.

Im a loyal monarchist and subject of her majesty. The attitude of the republican cohorts appals me. They seek to destory everything Britain is a reduce it to yet another featureless European republic. As far as I am concerned, 61p is a small price to pay for keeping this great institution in order. For shame, republicans, for shame!!
And i think youll find the majority of Britons are pro monarchists. The monarchy has, like all institiutions, been unpopular in the past, but its history is that of Britain. It is the story of our nation and to cast it cheaply aside would kill our nation and reduce us to a collection of moronic, boring socialists with nothing whatsoever to be proud of.

And what makes it so great?

It is the story of our nation and to cast it cheaply aside would kill our nation and reduce us to a collection of moronic, boring socialists with nothing whatsoever to be proud of.

As opposed to the current system or moronic socialism where everybody is taxed in order to support a family of unemployed dysfunctional basketcases?

I just can't stand the fact that Charles will get the throne. Unless he dies before his mother, he will get it because of "tradition" And when he gets the throne, I think many Commonwealth Nations, ie Canada, Aussies, ect will cut monarchy ties that are long overdue, and then the monarchy will fall.

I can't believe that anyone in this day and age would still think that a person has the right to that much power because of a sperm race. That doesn't seem right to me...

You don't even get good national holidays because of them anymore. If they tossed a few more of those around the 61p might be worth it.

Ian Heslop's point about the modern royals was the most telling though: In the old days, royals like the queen mum were useful because they went round doing all the british things that needed to be done but that no-one could be really arsed with - crap like highland games at braemar and trooping the colour. Now that the modern royals seem to spend inordinate amounts of time skiing in Switerzland, driving sports cars, clubbing in the south of france and playing with speedboats, the rest of the population has, understandably, become a bit jelous. This has brought into question the whole institution.

wrong. we can be socialists, proud of the progressive future we are creating rathter than pathetically clinging on to a dead history and past "glories".
i think you'll find that the majority of republicans don't care at all for "tradtion" or any of that nonsense - what matters is what is now (and the future or course), not what was; and right now the monarchy does nothing for the people of the UK.

i ask again: what right do they have to hold ANY political power? what authority? the fact they were born into it? that holds no weight with me, i can tell you.
similarly what right do they have to have all that wealth and money that could go to much better use in the pockets of UK citizens!?

I pity you for the distaste you show to your own history and culture. We have a glorious and long history which is worth celebrating. The "progressive" future you forecast will come to nothing. What future may I ask, do we have to look forward to? Is it, therefore, a terrible crime for me to be proud to be British and proud to the history of my nation?
Would you prefer that we received a president? Perhaps the glorious Blair? Would you rather we rejected the millions of pounds of tourist money, which far far outweighs the cost of the monarchy? Because, whether you hate this or not, people come from across the world to see the heritage of our Royal Family.
To be honest, I am mildly disgusted at your viewpoint on our history and I urge you reconsider your dim view of everything it stands for. Perhaps if all of this was taken from us by people like you then you would realise what you had lost.
The "now" as you refer to it, is nothing without the past. How did you get to today without yesterday? Your argument is therefore flawed. It is only through history that people learn from their mistakes and see how to make things better. It is by following the examples of our great historical figures that we can learn to better our nation.
And when you consider the costs of other political figureheads, such as that afforded to the Italian people by their president ( a lot lot more than that of the monarchy) you see that we are not suffering under a great burden to pay for the monarchy anyway. And perhaps you get more money into the "Pockets of UK citizens" if you took the money back which the government spends on its various failing adventures.

As opposed to the current system or moronic socialism where everybody is taxed in order to support a family of unemployed dysfunctional basketcases?

That sounds like a capitalist's argument against socialism. Have you turned to capitalism since the last time we talked?

Would you prefer that we received a president? Perhaps the glorious Blair? Would you rather we rejected the millions of pounds of tourist money, which far far outweighs the cost of the monarchy? Because, whether you hate this or not, people come from across the world to see the heritage of our Royal Family.
To be honest, I am mildly disgusted at your viewpoint on our history and I urge you reconsider your dim view of everything it stands for. Perhaps if all of this was taken from us by people like you then you would realise what you had lost.
The "now" as you refer to it, is nothing without the past. How did you get to today without yesterday? Your argument is therefore flawed. It is only through history that people learn from their mistakes and see how to make things better. It is by following the examples of our great historical figures that we can learn to better our nation.
And when you consider the costs of other political figureheads, such as that afforded to the Italian people by their president ( a lot lot more than that of the monarchy) you see that we are not suffering under a great burden to pay for the monarchy anyway. And perhaps you get more money into the "Pockets of UK citizens" if you took the money back which the government spends on its various failing adventures.

A president is democratically elected, not the result of intercourse in a bed.

Royal institutions can bring in money without the family, as was said earlier.

What would we lose? A slice of the past. What would we gain? A slice of the future.

Great historical figure? Not today's monarchy.

At least the people had a say in the people who made those failed ideas.

And btw, ventures is the word you want, not adventure.

I pity you for the distaste you show to your own history and culture. We have a glorious and long history which is worth celebrating. The "progressive" future you forecast will come to nothing. What future may I ask, do we have to look forward to? Is it, therefore, a terrible crime for me to be proud to be British and proud to the history of my nation?


I can hardly see how loyalty to the royal family can be classed as the only way to love one's nation. If the royal family embodies British Socirty and history, affairs, scandals and elitism is not the sort of figurehead that I want. The love of a nation is to it's people NOT the government.

Would you prefer that we received a president? Perhaps the glorious Blair? Would you rather we rejected the millions of pounds of tourist money, which far far outweighs the cost of the monarchy? Because, whether you hate this or not, people come from across the world to see the heritage of our Royal Family.

The entire population of britain camps out in Europe. Bar Belguim, Luxembourg and Spain (i remember off the top of my head), Europe has disposed of its monarchies. The Palace of Versailles earns far more money than Windsor Palace/Buckingham Palace, since it it totally opened up. And frankly, earning money is a feeble excuse to keep en entire governmental institution.

To be honest, I am mildly disgusted at your viewpoint on our history and I urge you reconsider your dim view of everything it stands for. Perhaps if all of this was taken from us by people like you then you would realise what you had lost.

Bump.

The "now" as you refer to it, is nothing without the past. How did you get to today without yesterday? Your argument is therefore flawed. It is only through history that people learn from their mistakes and see how to make things better. It is by following the examples of our great historical figures that we can learn to better our nation.

Learning from our mistake MEANS CHANGE. Probably our greatest leader, Winston Churchill even talked of a United States of Europe, which would have to be a republic.


And when you consider the costs of other political figureheads, such as that afforded to the Italian people by their president ( a lot lot more than that of the monarchy) you see that we are not suffering under a great burden to pay for the monarchy anyway. And perhaps you get more money into the "Pockets of UK citizens" if you took the money back which the government spends on its various failing adventures.

The people of Italy can vote out Berlusconi. Can we vote for a different head of state than Lizzie, and then Charles? No. We could create our own republic which does not have to be a copy of the USA, Italy, or any other country you can think of. Not all governments are perfect, but a democratic and constitutional one is another step on the ladder. We want the future, not clinging to the past.

A president is democratically elected, not the result of intercourse in a bed.

Royal institutions can bring in money without the family, as was said earlier.

What would we lose? A slice of the past. What would we gain? A slice of the future.

Great historical figure? Not today's monarchy.

At least the people had a say in the people who made those failed ideas.

And btw, ventures is the word you want, not adventure.

I dont believe I ever questioned whether or not a president is democratically elected. Not being entirely stupid, I had realised this before.
And we would not lose a slice of the past. We would lose the cake! We would gain more bereaucracy.
And curiously when I usede the term "great historical figure" I was referring to the past. Not today.
And yes people had a say in these failed dreams, but that isn't to say they made the right decision. Perhaps they were swooned by a series of promises that the current government seems completely incapable of keeping.
Oh and thankyou for the little grammatical lesson. I have learnt the error of my ways.

I pity you for the distaste you show to your own history and culture. We have a glorious and long history which is worth celebrating. The "progressive" future you forecast will come to nothing. What future may I ask, do we have to look forward to?

a future with greater equality, where a select and priveliged few hoarde wealth, power, and money having done nothing for it (talking about the monarchy there in case y'all couldn't tell ;))
a future of change, of progress



Is it, therefore, a terrible crime for me to be proud to be British and proud to the history of my nation?

not a crime, no, but if you pity me, i pity you. i am quite opposed to nationalism and staunch patriotism - though i can be proud of many aspects of my nation (although i believe the 'nation' to be nothing more than an artificial construct used by those in power in the past to keep their power, and has now become institutionalised).
i can be proud that we have freedom of speech here in the UK, that the people are not starving, of many, many things i can be proud and thankful. put that does not mean i have to be loyal or patriotic to the country itself.


Would you prefer that we received a president?
i never said that. why would getting rid of the monarchy neccessitate such a change of political system?
could the PM not gain the few powers the Queen has left?

Would you rather we rejected the millions of pounds of tourist money, which far far outweighs the cost of the monarchy? Because, whether you hate this or not, people come from across the world to see the heritage of our Royal Family.
where is the evidence for this? the figures?
as i said in post 4 of this topic, there was an article i remember reading in the times a few years back that said that, following research, most tourists said they would still visit the royal tourist spots even if the monarchy were no longer existent



To be honest, I am mildly disgusted at your viewpoint on our history and I urge you reconsider your dim view of everything it stands for. Perhaps if all of this was taken from us by people like you then you would realise what you had lost.
i am not specifically against the history of the monarchy, just i realise that the monarchy no longer serve any meaningful purpose. the present means more to me than history does.
"yesterday's answers have nothing to do with today's questions"

would it suprise you to learn i'm also a communist? :p




The "now" as you refer to it, is nothing without the past. How did you get to today without yesterday? Your argument is therefore flawed. It is only through history that people learn from their mistakes and see how to make things better. It is by following the examples of our great historical figures that we can learn to better our nation.

better "our nation", what a delightfully narrow-minded view :(
you see, i'm not in it just for our nation. i would much rather let our nation suffer a little - we are prosperous enough - if it meant improving equality throughout the world. "our nation" means nothing - 60 million people in a world where over 5 BILLION suffer in poverty and from disease
and yes, history teaches us lessons - but does not give us answers. just because the monarchy has always been does not mean they should be today.
the hereditary element of the monarchy sickens me - what have they done to deserve their position??

And when you consider the costs of other political figureheads, such as that afforded to the Italian people by their president ( a lot lot more than that of the monarchy) you see that we are not suffering under a great burden to pay for the monarchy anyway. And perhaps you get more money into the "Pockets of UK citizens" if you took the money back which the government spends on its various failing adventures.
well evidently we have opposing political and philisophical beliefs here - i think we're going to have to agree to disagree. after all i would rather see government expenditure rise.
its not just the cost element that makes me republican, but the philisophical/egalitarian element as stated above. actually, its more the latter than the former.

And we would not lose a slice of the past. We would lose the cake! We would gain more bereaucracy.

We could lose the cake abd bake a better one.

Removing the royal family would also remove the Lords/Dukes and other hireditary titles, meaning we would lose the House of Lords. Cut swathes of beauraucy and another undemocratic institution.

That is IF he takes the throne. I think his oldest son will be the next monarch and not Charles.

Yeah. Charles really gives off the impression that he doesn't /want/ to be king. My current theory is that he's waiting for Mummy to die, so she doesn't get upset, and then he'll pass it on to William.

And with a (relatively) young King on the throne... who knows what will happen?

Yeah. Charles really gives off the impression that he doesn't /want/ to be king. My current theory is that he's waiting for Mummy to die, so she doesn't get upset, and then he'll pass it on to William.

And with a (relatively) young King on the throne... who knows what will happen?

I don't know but it'll be fun to watch :)

And as a Scot (Although i've lived in England for awhile now) I feel that the head of state for every nation in Great Britain should be anyone born en England, Ireland Scotland or Wales. Most people outside of England don't want the royal family. It's not just na English choice, which seems to dominate government.

The King or Queen holds the power to dissolve parliament not the whole royal family and whether it holds weight with you or not that wont change.
The wealth and the money, well they have that because their ancestors had the drive and determination to become the rulers of a nation, and jealous whining wont change that one bit either.
It is because of the actions of our Kings and Queens that gave us the British Empire that governed two thirds of the globe, made the British army the most feared soldiers in the world and gave us the massively disproportionate voice in global politics, considering the size of our nation, which we used to enjoy and now our political leader at the moment is throwing it away and doing what France did in WW2, massive bluster to start with followed by immediate capitulation and submission to foreign demands.

and yours which just leaves us with the fact they bring a lot of money into the country and the good publicity
So you keep an expensive and potentially political power just to create a tourist trap? (thats just what it sounded like)

a future with greater equality, where a select and priveliged few hoarde wealth, power, and money having done nothing for it (talking about the monarchy there in case y'all couldn't tell ;))
a future of change, of progress.


All this talk of social justice is making me itch. I think you'll find we'll never agree on this one.


not a crime, no, but if you pity me, i pity you. i am quite opposed to nationalism and staunch patriotism - though i can be proud of many aspects of my nation (although i believe the 'nation' to be nothing more than an artificial construct used by those in power in the past to keep their power, and has now become institutionalised).
i can be proud that we have freedom of speech here in the UK, that the people are not starving, of many, many things i can be proud and thankful. put that does not mean i have to be loyal or patriotic to the country itself.

Conspiracy theories hold no ground in the real world.

i never said that. why would getting rid of the monarchy neccessitate such a change of political system?
could the PM not gain the few powers the Queen has left?

Have you ever looked at how this country is run? It wouldn't be the united KINGDOM with no royal family. It would mean the greatest change to the running of britain ever scene. Reforms on biblical proportions actually.


where is the evidence for this? the figures?
as i said in post 4 of this topic, there was an article i remember reading in the times a few years back that said that, following research, most tourists said they would still visit the royal tourist spots even if the monarchy were no longer existent

Ill go and look for some, although i hardly see the point as it's not going to convince anyone anyway.


i am not specifically against the history of the monarchy, just i realise that the monarchy no longer serve any meaningful purpose. the present means more to me than history does.
"yesterday's answers have nothing to do with today's questions"

No but today's questions would not exist without yesterday's solutions.


would it suprise you to learn i'm also a communist? :p

No not really.




better "our nation", what a delightfully narrow-minded view :(
you see, i'm not in it just for our nation. i would much rather let our nation suffer a little - we are prosperous enough - if it meant improving equality throughout the world. "our nation" means nothing - 60 million people in a world where over 5 BILLION suffer in poverty and from disease
and yes, history teaches us lessons - but does not give us answers. just because the monarchy has always been does not mean they should be today.
the hereditary element of the monarchy sickens me - what have they done to deserve their position??

Narrow-minded? Oh forgive me! I forgot, Im must be such a bigot to refer to my own country. I was, by saying "our nation"," trying to be inclusive. I thought you commies liked that sort of thing. Clearly I was wrong. *writes this down in note book*

well evidently we have opposing political and philisophical beliefs here - i think we're going to have to agree to disagree. after all i would rather see government expenditure rise.
its not just the cost element that makes me republican, but the philisophical/egalitarian element as stated above. actually, its more the latter than the former.

Yes, we are. You have put forward very good and well-though points. A well-fought argument. Unfortunately I remain in my current position. I understand why you think what you do, but im afraid I shall never agree we you.

Yes, we are. You have put forward very good and well-though points. A well-fought argument. Unfortunately I remain in my current position. I understand why you think what you do, but im afraid I shall never agree we you.

Oh dear. Ive accidentally put my argument in the quote. Sorry about that. Must learn how to do it properly. Im technologically inept.

The King or Queen holds the power to dissolve parliament not the whole royal family and whether it holds weight with you or not that wont change.
The wealth and the money, well they have that because their ancestors had the drive and determination to become the rulers of a nation, and jealous whining wont change that one bit either.
It is because of the actions of our Kings and Queens that gave us the British Empire that governed two thirds of the globe, made the British army the most feared soldiers in the world and gave us the massively disproportionate voice in global politics, considering the size of our nation, which we used to enjoy and now our political leader at the moment is throwing it away and doing what France did in WW2, massive bluster to start with followed by immediate capitulation and submission to foreign demands.
A lot of us have ancestors that did a lot for people or countries in a lot of ways ? does that mean we support them financially now for no other reason? Does that mean we put them up to a pedestal for just having descended from someone good.

The King or Queen holds the power to dissolve parliament not the whole royal family and whether it holds weight with you or not that wont change.

Point is?

The wealth and the money, well they have that because their ancestors had the drive and determination to become the rulers of a nation, and jealous whining wont change that one bit either.

Drive and determination gives the right to have what you want? Please... Hitler had the 'drive' and 'dertimination' to murder millions and become leader of a nation.

It is because of the actions of our Kings and Queens that gave us the British Empire that governed two thirds of the globe, made the British army the most feared soldiers in the world and gave us the massively disproportionate voice in global politics, considering the size of our nation, which we used to enjoy and now our political leader at the moment is throwing it away and doing what France did in WW2, massive bluster to start with followed by immediate capitulation and submission to foreign demands.

The British Empire. THEY CHUCKED US OUT! The countries we occupied didn't want us. Therefore the Empire is nothing to be proud of.

Having the most feared soldiers is not necessairily a good thing, being able to go to war. But it is the fighting spirit and courage of the Privates, not the Monarch, that keeps the Army going. Even in WW2 it was Churchill - not the Royal Family, that knited te nation together.

Last I looked Blair, for once, wan't giving into Chirac. And apart from the EU, (Another waste) i Don't understand what power we're giving away.

I may be a Communist Traitor, but i'd rather be a traitor to the Royal Family than to myself and my comrades (Which includes you too)

A lot of us have ancestors that did a lot for people or countries in a lot of ways ? does that mean we support them financially now for no other reason? Does that mean we put them up to a pedestal for just having descended from someone good.

Good point. Nick Soames decends from Churchill (I'm mentioning him alot!) so should he be made PM, sice he is related to a good leader?

Good point. Nick Soames decends from Churchill (I'm mentioning him alot!) so should he be made PM, sice he is related to a good leader?
Exactly his ancestor had amazing insight and drive to help the UK in what was a very difficult time … does that mean his decedents deserve to be supported by the country (even if it is a long standing tradition)

Good point. Nick Soames decends from Churchill (I'm mentioning him alot!) so should he be made PM, sice he is related to a good leader?

Who cares if you uncle's coison's sister's brother was the queen's daughter's second coison twice removed. It doesn't mean that you will become a great ruler. Sure, you may pick up a few tips, but that doesn't mean squat. Every person deserves an equal chance to be the PM/ Pres/ ruler of a nation, because that is the way that you can get the best rulers possible.

Who cares if you uncle's coison's sister's brother was the queen's daughter's second coison twice removed. It doesn't mean that you will become a great ruler. Sure, you may pick up a few tips, but that doesn't mean squat. Every person deserves an equal chance to be the PM/ Pres/ ruler of a nation, because that is the way that you can get the best rulers possible.
Assuming your “weeding out” process is up to the task (many aren’t but that is a separate issue)
But a monarchy has no real weeding out procedure at all … so you are really left to chance and the hope of good genetics

Assuming your “weeding out” process is up to the task (many aren’t but that is a separate issue)
But a monarchy has no real weeding out procedure at all … so you are really left to chance and the hope of good genetics

Good genetics?

You do know that most monarchies are inbred? :D

Point is?

Someone said earlier that the royal family holds a lot of power in this nation that it shouldn’t have, I was just clarifying that it’s the head of the royal family that has this power not the whole royal family.

Good genetics?

You do know that most monarchies are inbred? :D
Yeah yeah but I was being generic …. About the only thing going for a theoretical monarchy is control of genetics A single family like

Kind of like a pure bread dog lineage (theoretically) The problem is no one remembered to keep that lineage clean … or keep it from looping back on itself
:p

Drive and determination gives the right to have what you want? Please... Hitler had the 'drive' and 'dertimination' to murder millions and become leader of a nation. [/QUOTE]

If it was for Britain holding out against the Nazi military, until Germany declared war on America in support of japans attack on pearl harbour, then all of Europe would have been called Germany now, and your point, Hitler’s drive and determination were let down by his inability to govern Germany properly and his lack of trust in his higher ranking officers, leading to disastrous decisions such as the invasion of Russia before Britain was secure, and if he had won WW2 then I doubt we would have ever heard of his disgusting slaughter camps.

Drive and determination gives the right to have what you want? Please... Hitler had the 'drive' and 'dertimination' to murder millions and become leader of a nation.


How does your point dispell his of "determination entitles you to nothing"?

oh no, in 3 years my 61p will be going to them, planning to live to 149,

:eek:

ah hem, upwardthrust

Drive and determination gives the right to have what you want? Please... Hitler had the 'drive' and 'dertimination' to murder millions and become leader of a nation.

If it was for Britain holding out against the Nazi military, until Germany declared war on America in support of japans attack on pearl harbour, then all of Europe would have been called Germany now, and your point, Hitler’s drive and determination were let down by his inability to govern Germany properly and his lack of trust in his higher ranking officers, leading to disastrous decisions such as the invasion of Russia before Britain was secure, and if he had won WW2 then I doubt we would have ever heard of his disgusting slaughter camps.

Hell of a run on sentence. But you have a problem. If it wasn't for Normandy, Europe would've fallen to the USSR and not to Germany. Germany was tossed out of the USSR by the time the allies landed at Normandy and began their push into Germany. If Normandy failed, Hitler still would've been defeated but not by a combined allied force but by the Soviets alone. I shudder at what history would've been like if that happened.

Yes they are.

The British Empire. THEY CHUCKED US OUT! The countries we occupied didn't want us. Therefore the Empire is nothing to be proud of.

Last I looked Blair, for once, wan't giving into Chirac. And apart from the EU, (Another waste) i Don't understand what power we're giving away.

I may be a Communist Traitor, but i'd rather be a traitor to the Royal Family than to myself and my comrades (Which includes you too)


As far as I am aware the British Empire began to crumble during WW2 when Japanese soldiers destroyed the myth that the white man was all powerful by their rapid advance across China and Burma and so on.

Last I heard Chirac wanted our rebate and Mr Blair despite his earlier bluster that it was not up for discussion is now describing it as an anomaly that needs addressing.

The fact that you are a communist doesn’t make you a traitor; it just means that you believe in a system that has failed a few times before.

That sounds like a capitalist's argument against socialism. Have you turned to capitalism since the last time we talked?

Nope. However, you must agree that taxing the majority so that the minority can live lives of luxury is someone ludicrous.

Nope. However, you must agree that taxing the majority so that the minority can live lives of luxury is someone ludicrous.

Err, doesn't that just about describe every society in history.

Err, doesn't that just about describe every society in history.

Still doesn't make it right.

yes
61p a year is in no way bad at all, but What's so great about the monarchy? What does anyone get out of it?

The entire British Empire did not just consist of where Japan invaded. However, this is not the point.

The Monarchy is not the wonderful figurehead that it claims to be. The British Empire has been and gone. It is all that it is: history, something to be left to the past so that we can move onto the future. Those so-called "glory days" are over.

And technically being a communist, or even a republican, is High Treason from the treason act (Waging war against the Monarch). Although it does date from 1351.

Woo, my first thread to read over 100 replies *proud*

Woo, my first thread to read over 100 replies *proud*

So you should be.

Congratulations.

[sarcasm]

61p a year? Oh yes, far too expensive, I mean who can afford that gross and unfair sum?

In the UK with the fourth biggest economy in the world, with some of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe and a social security system which means the trully poor don't have to pay such taxes?

Where the government spends millions more per annum on travesties like the Millenium Dome which even today continues to make a loss?

Where the government spends millions on military helicopters which don't actually work because the computers use American codes and they won't give us these codes?

Oh yes, 61p per person is obviously far in excess of what your average taxpaying Britain can afford. I mean I am sure they would like to contribute that 61p a year to perhaps spending more money on their binge drinking or maybe funding the next New Labour gimmick that walks down the high street.

[sarcasm]

61p a year is nothing. A 5 year old child can afford it, let alone most taxpaying adults. Even collectively, the cost is less than £50 million a year. £50 million a year is toilet paper in government spending terms.

The charity work and diplomatic service they do is more than worth that 61p, not too mention the enormous sense of tradition they give the country. Without them, the UK would just become another republic in a world full of ten a penny republics so depriving our government of its unique status as a balance between people, Parliament and monarch.

What does the royal family even do? It's the Prime Minister and Parliament that deals with all the politics.

What does the royal family even do? It's the Prime Minister and Parliament that deals with all the politics.

Scratch themselves?

I just love ill-informed posts.
People just love quoting the cost of the royal family, demanding that it should be abolished etc.

A couple of years ago I watched a televised debate on the future of the Royal Family. Both "panels" had people on them known for their views, and a lot of "expert" witnesses spoke in addition to the panels themselves.

At the start of the debate a poll of the studio audience was made, with about 30% being in the "abolish the royal family" camp. At the end of the debate it was down to less than 5%.

A lot of myths and misconceptions were addressed in the debate, but it became clear at the end that:
1) There was no actual alternative system that was proven to be better.
2) Any alternative system would cost the taxpayer vastly more money that the current one.
3) That royalty in general (and not just in the UK) are better ambassadors for a nation than elected or appointed persons.
4) That there WOULD be losses in tourist income.
5) That some trade agreements that are in existance would not have been signed without the royal familiy.
(There were more points, but it was a couple of years ago, and I cannot remeber them all).

At the end of the debate some of the people on the "Abolish the Royal Family" panel had actually changed their minds and decided that it was not in the best interests of the nation (Most of the rest were of the opinion that the Royal Family should be abolished regardless of what harm or cost it may be to the nation).

Nope. However, you must agree that taxing the majority so that the minority can live lives of luxury is someone ludicrous.

I didn't know the unemployed and mentally ill lived in luxury.

If I contribute 61p, can I purchase a member of the Royal Family?

What I like about the monarchy is that theres an apolitical head of state, who doesnt have to concern themselves with making popular decisions to get reelected every 4 years

what I dont like is that they inherited it.

Not sure how to reconcile those views...

However, the Royal Family is not fully Apolitical. In fact, her political alliance is to the Largest party in Parliament, since that party can tell her to do:

* The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
* The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;
* Clemency and pardon;
* The awarding of dignities and honours;
* The declaration of war;
* The declaration of an emergency;
* The granting of Charters of Incorporation;
* The collection of tolls;
* The minting of coinage;
* The issuance and revocation of passports;
* The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;
* The creation of new common law courts;
* The creation of new universities;
* The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of
England;
* The printing of the authorised Church of England version of The Bible;
* The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and
Orders-in-Council.

The Prime minsister can tell her to do any of these things without even consulting Parliament.

If I contribute 61p, can I purchase a member of the Royal Family?

Let's float them on the stock exchange.

I call for a public execution and a formal grave-dancing afterwards with tea and biscuits.

I didn't know the unemployed and mentally ill lived in luxury.

Only those unemployed and mentally ill who happen to be members of the royal family.

However, the Royal Family is not fully Apolitical. In fact, her political alliance is to the Largest party in Parliament, since that party can tell her to do:

* The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
* The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;
* Clemency and pardon;
* The awarding of dignities and honours;
* The declaration of war;
* The declaration of an emergency;
* The granting of Charters of Incorporation;
* The collection of tolls;
* The minting of coinage;
* The issuance and revocation of passports;
* The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;
* The creation of new common law courts;
* The creation of new universities;
* The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of
England;
* The printing of the authorised Church of England version of The Bible;
* The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and
Orders-in-Council.

The Prime minsister can tell her to do any of these things without even consulting Parliament.
Alot more apolitical than an elected President. I would rather have people who dont have to stand for election....can you imagine a smarmy Head of State like Blair doing all they can to get reelected every four years?

[sarcasm]

61p a year? Oh yes, far too expensive, I mean who can afford that gross and unfair sum?

It is not a matter of being able to afford it or not: rather the question of being able to chose whether to support it or not. That and the whole citizens/subjects malarky. I don't know about you, but I feel a tad narked when a political system exists which tells me I am inferior because of the very nature of the blood that flows in my veins.