NationStates Jolt Archive

And what better way to learn it than singing?

Sitting down and reading the words? Listening to a recording of it being sung? Letting them what want to sing it sing it, while them what don't want to sing it listen to them?


Thus no clash of conscience.

Sry i was just sayin, wot this all the terrorism going around, and the additude certain politicains hav and many tabliods, sooner or later it feels lik they will be deporting anyone with brown skin who offends the british state, i wish they get round to Bernard Manning

Hasn't the PM said that isn't going to happen? (after our cheif muslim guy got turned away from the states when going to a confrance?)

(Sorry, can't spell)

Its acctualy quiet a laugh but just watchin ppl get embarrsd when thy sneeze on bus and they think 'im making a scene, GOD WILL HATE MEE!!' it bring joy to my heart

Sitting down and reading the words? Listening to a recording of it being sung? Letting them what want to sing it sing it, while them what don't want to sing it listen to them?


Thus no clash of conscience.

My point stands.

I havent a clue wot going on with this anti terror rubbish, i just hope they deport the BNP after all they go against everyting Britain stands for too, so why should we put them on house arrest, they spread hate and thats wot the PM and Charles Clake bang on about stopping the people who spread this hate

My point stands.

However, I'm arguing that people should not be forced to sing 'God Save The Queen' in school if they do not want to do so, not that singing it must be excluded from the schools in the same way that the Americans have excluded prayer.

I understand why you don't like the monarchy. I'm from Denmark and I don't like the danish monarchy either. But think of the bonus it comes with.
It is much more impressive to let the queen/king greet foreign leaders, rather than the prime minister. And it's great advertise for your country too.

Anyways I think you should refuse singing. No one can force you to do anything you don't want. Why don't you try passive resistance. It works for me when there's something I don't want to do.

Sorry if I misspelled. :rolleyes:

I understand why you don't like the monarchy. I'm from Denmark and I don't like the danish monarchy either. But think of the bonus it comes with.
It is much more impressive to let the queen/king greet foreign leaders, rather than the prime minister. And it's great advertise for your country too.

Anyways I think you should refuse singing. No one can force you to do anything you don't want. Why don't you try passive resistance. It works for me when there's something I don't want to do.

Sorry if I misspelled. :rolleyes:

Yeah but to be fair you have a way better looking monarchy even if you do have to import australians :p

Yeah but to be fair you have a way better looking monarchy even if you do have to import australians :p
lol :D
by the way she's tasmanian... I think :confused:

lol :D
by the way she's tasmanian... I think :confused:

Same country, but yes, sometimes we too wonder if those Tasmanians are from a different planet. :p

Same country, but yes, sometimes we too wonder if those Tasmanians are from a different planet. :p
Well she's quite pretty for all that...
And the crown prince really seem to like her :fluffle:

Well she's quite pretty for all that...
And the crown prince really seem to like her :fluffle:

If you Europeans keep taking all our attractive women, I guess i'll just have to move there too. :p

If you Europeans keep taking all our attractive women, I guess i'll just have to move there too. :p
As long as you arrive in a chopper like Bush did, you'll be welcomed by the queen herself. I think she's taking her job a bit too serious :D

As long as you arrive in a chopper like Bush did, you'll be welcomed by the queen herself. I think she's taking her job a bit too serious :D

Hang on - the male members of your royal family go around the globe stealing attractive young ladies from other countries and the female members warmly welcome anyone with a big chopper? I didn't know the Danes were that depraved.

Hang on - the male members of your royal family go around the globe stealing attractive young ladies from other countries and the female members warmly welcome anyone with a big chopper? I didn't know the Danes were that depraved.
Are you insulting me? :eek:

I love the royal family!!!!!

Hang on...
I think this conversation is getting a bit far out.
The topic was about a british person refusing to sing "god save the queen"
Lets just stick to that ok ;)

However, I'm arguing that people should not be forced to sing 'God Save The Queen' in school if they do not want to do so, not that singing it must be excluded from the schools in the same way that the Americans have excluded prayer.

It hasn't been excluded form schools though, has it? So therefore you still are obliged to sing it.

not fair, but don't get too worked up about it

It hasn't been excluded form schools though, has it? So therefore you still are obliged to sing it.

I'm saying that it should have the same kind of status as certain religious education affairs had at my school: you had an option not to attend them.

Hang on - the male members of your royal family go around the globe stealing attractive young ladies from other countries and the female members warmly welcome anyone with a big chopper? I didn't know the Danes were that depraved.

LOL!!!

I'm all for singing the Sex Pistols version of the song. If you sing nothing your tutor will simply punish you. If you sing the Sex Pistols version s/he will punish you and think twice before requiring a student to ever sing God save the queen again.

Of course... My bias is sorta clear *points at sig*

There's seems to be a lot of fussing over whether the Queen deserves her title or not. Do you deserve to be british? How unfair is it that you should get to be British and prosperous and some poor kid in Africa isn't?

Actually thinking about it, there are people who would die to be british.

The randomness of birth isn't about deserving. Children of clever parents don't deserve to be clever.

Secondly, I agree that the monarchy has no real use. It's just nice and gives us a prettier figurehead for the nation than Tony Blair. Also it's about history. We're not about the change the Union Jack just because everyone prefers green nowadays.

That's me.

There's seems to be a lot of fussing over whether the Queen deserves her title or not.

It's a side issue which is sparked by asking whether there should be a monarchy or not. I don't think anyone here is championing the cause of some pretender to the throne.

Wouldn't it be easier to just sing it? I mean why spend a week fussing and complaining over it, when you could sing it it two minutes and be done?
Its so unimportant...
As for the dictator supporter....if you didn't sing it, you'd get executed more than likely, i'd say thats a tad worse than 15 minutes detention (sp?) or 100 lines on 'I must respect the anthem'.

Mind you being Welsh, we always sang land of my fathers, so I guess it doesn't matter. As for the Queen issue, if Henry the 7th hadn't become King I wouldn't give a toss...but he had a slight bit of Welsh in him. All Kings before that were foreign and had no business on this island.

The last true royal to me was Llewellyn the Last. If Wales became independent, we'd be another dull Republic with no real tradition...So the Queen will do the Job fine..wish they would dump the 'Prince of Wales' title though...that's just offensive. :)

Wouldn't it be easier to just sing it? I mean why spend a week fussing and complaining over it, when you could sing it it two minutes and be done?


At least if he refuses to sing it he's sticking to his principles and I have a lot more respect for such a person than those that would just sing it without meaning a word

Just mime it, dude. Whatever. That's what I generally did for any song in school.

I'm British and i refuse to sing the national anthem. I intentsly dislike the monarchy but my form tutor is planning on forcing me to sing it. Unfair?

care to elusidate on your anti- british beleifs?...

The Monarch is in need of money, the M.O.D. is now selling the Queen off.

As if the £40 per person in the country isn't enough.

I see the Monarch as nothing but a representation of Britains former "Glory", I see Britain clinging onto that, wasting thousands upon thousands of pounds on the Monarch, which could be put to better use.

Well; it's not my country, so it doesn't really bother me.

The Monarch is in need of money, the M.O.D. is now selling the Queen off.

As if the £40 per person in the country isn't enough.

I see the Monarch as nothing but a representation of Britains former "Glory", I see Britain clinging onto that, wasting thousands upon thousands of pounds on the Monarch, which could be put to better use.






Well; it's not my country, so it doesn't really bother me.[/QUOTE]

you concern yourself with whatever country you come from, we will concern ourselves with ours

And the crown prince really seem to like her :fluffle:

Always helps.

You have to sing it ITS YOUR NATIONAL ANTHEM! Its your duty.

See. British people are unpatriotic. And it is of course twats like this.... WHo made Britain change from an Empire of a Nation

To a whore of a Nation.

Your a disgrace to your country.

And if I saw you in the street id spit at you.

SCUM!

I don't know what the argument here is.

However, my country dishes out millions of dollars a year to accomodate the Royal Family on their visits, and to accomodate our politicians to visit them in England.

I really fucking resent this, considering my country was started as a way for them to ditch their undesirables.

Also, they don't DO anything important.

Also I have never met an English person who didn't think the Monarchy should be disbanded.

I know this isn't productive, I just dislike the entire concept.

Come on, the National Anthem doesn't actually mean anything if you look at it. I hate the monarchy but I'm not going to stop singing along just to end up in detention.
God save our gracious Queen (seems fair enough, nothing too offensive I hope, it's only like saying your prayers and including one more person)
Long live our noble Queen (everyone's entitled to a long life, and technically she is noble)
God save the Queen (see line 1)
Send her victorious (well really that's just saying "let England be victorious" since it uses the Queen to mean England...)
Happy and glorious (she's allowed to be happy, if glorious is a bit much replace it with a 3 syllable word)
Long to reign over us (OK, this line I don't like, but just replace it with something suitably anti-monarchy that fits in well)
God save the Queen (see line 1)
It's just a load of words, just consider yourself lucky you don't have to pledge allegiance to the Queen every morning at school...

If you're really unhappy with singing it, get your parents to talk to your form tutor and point out it's infringing on your human rights or something, freedom of speech should mean freedom not to speak (or sing) too etc etc.

You have to sing it ITS YOUR NATIONAL ANTHEM! Its your duty.

See. British people are unpatriotic. And it is of course twats like this.... WHo made Britain change from an Empire of a Nation

To a whore of a Nation.

Your a disgrace to your country.

And if I saw you in the street id spit at you.

SCUM!




not all....

Britain is not a country, england,wales,scotland and northern ireland are countries which together combine to create the UK. Britain is not a physical place, it is not geographical..it exists in the minds of true Britishers the world over.

you concern yourself with whatever country you come from, we will concern ourselves with ours

To this I have to respond with: Duh.

I stated so. That was my opinion, and outisde view on your Monarch, a view that sees it as pointless and inefficient, and not blind patriotism - Personally, I try to find problems with my country, so I can better it - To me, that is true patriorism, not this bullshite "w00t g0m g0e uz!1! we r teh bestest!1", ignoring all problems within the country.

Yes but these countries become one country. And might i add they united under the Crown. Not any other reason. Monarchy holds this union together.

And Britain in its term. Is Wales,Scotland and England. This will be seen on all maps which includre these three nations.

Still on you all go. Treasonous twats.

To this I have to respond with: Duh.

I stated so. That was my opinion, and outisde view on your Monarch, a view that sees it as pointless and inefficient, and not blind patriotism - Personally, I try to find problems with my country, so I can better it - To me, that is true patriorism, not this bullshite "w00t g0m g0e uz!1! we r teh bestest!1", ignoring all problems within the country.


Ah you think i am some blind patriot who agrees with everything my country does?..then you know not I!
I am fully aware of the problems in the Uk and i am active in trying to sort them out..

Say we were to drop th emonarchy...we would become..a republic..like France! god no..anything but that!

Yes but these countries become one country. And might i add they united under the Crown. Not any other reason. Monarchy holds this union together.

And Britain in its term. Is Wales,Scotland and England. This will be seen on all maps which includre these three nations.

Still on you all go. Treasonous twats.

Sir i am no traitor to the country nor the crown.

uh, I sung that dong once. volunterily. I was on a project in another country and they'd asked us for a culture show, including a recital of the national anthem. All of us together only new the first verse or something. So we only sang that verse, but I just felt so violated from singing it.

I do however prefer a monarchy to a presidential system with the head of state combined with the head of government. Just no. Never.

And anyone who thinks disbanding the monarchy will save money hasn't quite thought it through. All these castles and palaces will be needed to maintained if you care for heritage. Also, consider other states with presidents rather than monarchs. Presidents don't exactly come cheap. Just think about america's air force one.

Just refuse to sing it, what's the worse this tutor guy can do to you if you don't.

Yes it's unfair. The same thing is happening to me at our speech day in September (I happen to be one of the best singers in the school). Protest, protest, protest, my compatriot - it's your right.

Just refuse to sing it, what's the worse this tutor guy can do to you if you don't.

Absolutely nothing...nothing within the law anyway..and that could be a more serious problem, the lack of national identity is beleived by menny to be a main factor in the amount of muzlim extreemists here in blighty.

Anthems and flags are security blankets for nationalistic fools (quite a few of which seem to have commented in this thread!). Shall we ask an Irishman what he thinks of the "British" anthem? Or a Native American what he thinks of the American anthem? What about a Tibetan's thoughts on the Chinese national anthem? Why would their opinions be any less valid than the opinions of the people who treasure them?

The form teacher forcing his/her student to sing the anthem could do so much more to instill true values and pride in his student. Of all countries in the world, one might think England would have learned by now that empire and all it's glories are fleeting... and that the trappings and symbols of power inevitably become quaint, empty, sometimes amusing... and other times painful reminders of what once was.

Anthems and flags are security blankets for nationalistic fools (quite a few of which seem to have commented in this thread!). Shall we ask an Irishman what he thinks of the "British" anthem? Or a Native American what he thinks of the American anthem? What about a Tibetan's thoughts on the Chinese national anthem? Why would their opinions be any less valid than the opinions of the people who treasure them?

The form teacher forcing his/her student to sing the anthem could do so much more to instill true values and pride in his student. Of all countries in the world, one might think England would have learned by now that empire and all it's glories are fleeting... and that the trappings and symbols of power inevitably become quaint, empty, sometimes amusing... and other times painful reminders of what once was.


pray we never meet for i posess a hunting rifle :p

an interesting look on the topic and once again ENGLAND IS NOT BRITAIN! tell me..what country if any do you call home?

Yes but these countries become one country. And might i add they united under the Crown. Not any other reason. Monarchy holds this union together.

And Britain in its term. Is Wales,Scotland and England. This will be seen on all maps which includre these three nations.

Still on you all go. Treasonous twats.
Britian is not a country. It's an island. The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland - that's a country. The monarchy isn't necessary for the nation's continuance, nor is it likely to prevent Scotland eventually breaking away. You clearly have no idea what 'treasonous' actually means.

*reads further up the thread*

Ah...

You have to sing it ITS YOUR NATIONAL ANTHEM! Its your duty.

See. British people are unpatriotic. And it is of course twats like this.... WHo made Britain change from an Empire of a Nation

To a whore of a Nation.

Your a disgrace to your country.

And if I saw you in the street id spit at you.

SCUM!
Mate, you're a fuckwit on an epic scale.

to what point and prupose would scotland break away from the common wealth?..there are no signs of such a happening..not within this century anyway..

Ah you think i am some blind patriot who agrees with everything my country does?..then you know not I!
I am fully aware of the problems in the Uk and i am active in trying to sort them out..

Say we were to drop th emonarchy...we would become..a republic..like France! god no..anything but that!


No, every country has problems, France aswell as Britain. These slanders against France are irritable.

If you're aware of the problems within the UK, then you should realise that you're wasting £40 per person on the Monarch, with a population of... Last time I checked, 60,000,000? So, 40 x 60,000,000 is £2,400,000,000. You're sending £2,400,000,000 (This is Pounds Sterling, so that's a feck lot more in Euro and Dollars) to one family, who sit about, doing nothing but representing your country? In a Republic, such as mine, our president is not paid as much as that, and she sits on her arse, and commands our armed forces, can give pardons to criminals, must sign a law before it is allowed to be put in force - to name a few things.

Not only that, but with the M.O.D. selling the Queen off at £1,750 per ticket, I think that's very wrong, if you're a patriot, you'd be sternly against such a move. But oh, they have no money. What should you do? Waste £2,400,000,000 per year and sell off the Queen, or just get rid of the Monarch, and spend that money on something useful such as healthcare/NHS?

Getting rid of the Monarch, will be getting rid of the Queen of Australia and New Zealand (She has a seperate title there), now that would push them towards more of a Republic status, but I don't see why it would break up the Commonwealth, or Great Britain (I.e. England, Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland and other areas).


Scotland has a large Scottish Nationalist population. They are indifferent to Britain. They have their own parliament. They have their own Nationalist Party. It will be a slow process, yes, but most indefinatly not a one hundred years, and then again, most probably not fifty.

Read this Irish empire

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

No, every country has problems, France aswell as Britain. These slanders against France are irritable.

If you're aware of the problems within the UK, then you should realise that you're wasting £40 per person on the Monarch, with a population of... Last time I checked, 60,000,000? So, 40 x 60,000,000 is £2,400,000,000. You're sending £2,400,000,000 (This is Pounds Sterling, so that's a feck lot more in Euro and Dollars) to one family, who sit about, doing nothing but representing your country? In a Republic, such as mine, our president is not paid as much as that, and she sits on her arse, and commands our armed forces, can give pardons to criminals, must sign a law before it is allowed to be put in force - to name a few things.

Not only that, but with the M.O.D. selling the Queen off at £1,750 per ticket, I think that's very wrong, if you're a patriot, you'd be sternly against such a move. But oh, they have no money. What should you do? Waste £2,400,000,000 per year and sell off the Queen, or just get rid of the Monarch, and spend that money on something useful such as healthcare/NHS?

Getting rid of the Monarch, will be getting rid of the Queen of Australia and New Zealand (She has a seperate title there), now that would push them towards more of a Republic status, but I don't see why it would break up the Commonwealth, or Great Britain (I.e. England, Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland and other areas).


Scotland has a large Scottish Nationalist population. They are indifferent to Britain. They have their own parliament. They have their own Nationalist Party. It will be a slow process, yes, but most indefinatly not a one hundred years, and then again, most probably not fifty.


its only £40 per person i would hardly call that a problem.

The commonwealth would be sure to brake up in the event of the dislodging of the monarchy, not to mention the paper work, the ardouse problems faced with such a proposition all in all it would save a lot of energy, time and effort to not change. I do not agree with the "selling off".I am on private health care so the NHS can go burn for all i care.What else?..ah yes..you can not persuade me to change my mind any more than i can change yours...it is an ongoing cycle idf you wish to continue so be it..i have nothing else to do..

No, every country has problems, France aswell as Britain. These slanders against France are irritable.

If you're aware of the problems within the UK, then you should realise that you're wasting £40 per person on the Monarch, with a population of... Last time I checked, 60,000,000? So, 40 x 60,000,000 is £2,400,000,000. You're sending £2,400,000,000 (This is Pounds Sterling, so that's a feck lot more in Euro and Dollars) to one family, who sit about, doing nothing but representing your country? In a Republic, such as mine, our president is not paid as much as that, and she sits on her arse, and commands our armed forces, can give pardons to criminals, must sign a law before it is allowed to be put in force - to name a few things.

Not only that, but with the M.O.D. selling the Queen off at £1,750 per ticket, I think that's very wrong, if you're a patriot, you'd be sternly against such a move. But oh, they have no money. What should you do? Waste £2,400,000,000 per year and sell off the Queen, or just get rid of the Monarch, and spend that money on something useful such as healthcare/NHS?

Getting rid of the Monarch, will be getting rid of the Queen of Australia and New Zealand (She has a seperate title there), now that would push them towards more of a Republic status, but I don't see why it would break up the Commonwealth, or Great Britain (I.e. England, Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland and other areas).


Scotland has a large Scottish Nationalist population. They are indifferent to Britain. They have their own parliament. They have their own Nationalist Party. It will be a slow process, yes, but most indefinatly not a one hundred years, and then again, most probably not fifty.
Your monarchy gives your country a Queen who is:

an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests

a focus for national unity, national awards and honours and national institutions
a Head of State whom we share with 16 other independent countries because she is their Queen too and that links us all together amazingly and most valuably.

the Head of the Commonwealth because all 54 countries recognise her as this and so she is a special unifying symbol for them too

the centrepiece of colourful non-political ceremonial and national celebrations
separate from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), unlike in some countries where the two are combined, often with difficulty

able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc

a Head of State completely under the democratic control of Parliament but not having to change every few years in divisive elections

at the head of a Royal Family who can share the duties and represent the Queen

a constant, lasting symbolic head of the country with links back through our whole history and assured lines of continuity into the future

a worldwide well-known and respected symbol of our country carrying out State Visits and goodwill tours in other countries

An article on the cost of monarchy:

THE COST OF THE MONARCHY
Compares most favourably with costs of Heads of State elsewhere.

There are many misunderstandings about the cost of the monarchy, many of them perpetuated by republicans and journalists who deliberately give inaccurate information. For example, as to how many members of the royal family are receiving income from the Civil List. The following sets out to explain the facts and to equip members to challenge any inaccuracies which they see or hear in the media.

The Queen and her household has four sources of funding-the Civil List, Grant-in-aid, the Privy Purse and private income. The first two, which cover official expenditure, are not taxed. The Privy Purse is fully taxable subject to a deduction for official expenditure. The Queen pays tax on her personal income and capital gains. The Civil List is the sum provided by Parliament to meet the official expenses of the Queen as Head of State. About 70 per cent of Civil List expenditure goes to pay the salaries of staff working directly for the Queen. Their duties include dealing with state papers and organising the Queen's public engagements, meetings, receptions and official entertainment including royal garden parties. In other words the whole range of activities expected of the head of state, whether president or monarch.

The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for the year ending March 31st, 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy. The Queen's Civil List has been fixed at £9.7 million per annum until 2011. Full details of royal household expenditure are published. A summary of these follows. The annual cost of the monarchy is approximately £37 million.

Prince Philip is the only member of the royal family to receive an annuity from the Civil List of £359,000. The annuities of other members of the Royal Family who carry out engagements are provided by the Queen from the Privy Purse. The Revenue for this is obtained from the Duchy of Lancaster, an independent possession of the Sovereign since 1399. It is not included in the National Asset Register of government holdings published by the Treasury. The Prince of Wales derives his income on which he pays tax. The occupied royal palaces- principally Buckingham Palace, St. James's Palace, Clarence House, parts of Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle - are funded by grant-in-aid. Obviously they would be maintained by the state whether Britain were a monarchy or not. The unoccupied palaces such as the Tower of London and Hampton Court Palace are maintained from visitor admissions.

Royal transport, required to enable the royal family to carry out almost 3,000 engagements year is also funded by grant-in-aid. Of course official travel would have to be paid for if Britain were a republic.

Privately the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham and some smaller properties. Estimates of the Queen's wealth often mistakenly includes items which are held by the Queen as sovereign. These include the royal palaces and art collections. It is interesting to note that far from being Britain's wealthiest person the Queen is 105th on the Sunday Times 2001 Rich List!

In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for and official and historic residences maintained. And there is the added expense of periodic elections. Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of the heads of state but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably.


Head of State Expenditure met from Public Funds
Year to 31st March 2003

Year to 31st March 2003 2002

£m £m
The Queen’s Civil List * 9.7 8.2
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 1.0
Grants-in-aid 21.4 21.1
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments
and the Crown Estate 4.7 5.0
Total 36.2 35.3

Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate.
Head of State expenditure for 2002-03, at £36.2 million, is 2.5% higher than in the previous year (a decrease of 0.6% in real terms). The £0.9 million increase is mainly attributable to increased expenditure on the Property Services Grant-in-aid with a large building project (the refurbishment of Clarence House) undertaken during the year, expenditure on The Queen’s Golden Jubilee and increased Information Technology expenditure. This is offset by a reduction in Parliamentary Annuities following the death of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and reduced spending on ceremonial occasions since there were no State Visits during 2002-03.
Head of State expenditure has reduced from £87.3 million (expressed in current pounds) in 1991-92, a reduction of 59%.
Head of State expenditure excludes the costs of Police and Army security and of Armed Services ceremonial, as figures are not available.
Figures are for calendar years 2002 and 2001

The Queen's Civil List


Year to 31st December 2002 2001

£000 £000
9,759 8,153

The Civil List is the funding provided by Parliament, on a 10 yearly cycle, to meet the central staff costs and running expenses of Her Majesty’s official Household. 70% of the Civil List is spent on salaries and other employment costs. Civil List expenditure increased by 19.7% during 2002 as a result of the Golden Jubilee (£0.4 million mainly temporary staff )x, increased Information Technology expenditure (£0.2 million), inflationary increases and the full year impact of the transfer of expenditure to the Civil List from other funding sources (£0.5 million). This transfer was with effect from 1st April 2001, to utilise the Civil List reserve brought forward at the beginning of this 10 year funding period. Because the Civil List and the other
funding sources have different financial year ends, only nine months of this expenditure is charged to the Civil List in 2001 and the full impact seen in 2002. The expenditure transferred is principally in respect of: (a)
pension contributions for Civil List staff (from the Consolidated Fund), (b) porters and non-domestic cleaners at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, furnishings and the State Apartments at St. James’s Palace (from
the Property Services Grant-in-aid), and (c) information technology equipment (from the Cabinet Office).
A detailed annual report showing how the Civil List has been spent during 2002 is available from the Deputy Treasurer to The Queen, Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA.

Parliamentary Annuities

Year to 31st March 2003 2002

£000 £000
359 1,000

The Parliamentary Annuity was paid to The Duke of Edinburgh (and also Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother in 2001-02). The annuity was primarily to meet official expenses incurred in carrying out his public
duties. Parliamentary Annuities paid to other Members of the Royal Family are reimbursed by The Queen.

Grants-In-Aid

Year to 31st March 2003 2002

£000 £000
Property Services 16,627 15,522
Communications and Information 526 643
Travel by Air and Rai l 4,241 4,936
Total 21,394 21,101

Grants-in-aid are provided to the Royal Household annually by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for Property Services and Communications and Information, and by the Department for Transport for Travel by Air and Rail.

Property Services

The Grant-in-aid is to meet the cost of property maintenance, and of utilities, telephones and related services, at: Buckingham Palace, St. James’s Palace, Clarence House and Marlborough House Mews, the residential and
office areas of Kensington Palace, the Royal Mews and Royal Paddocks at Hampton Court, and Windsor Castle and buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor. These Palaces and buildings are used by The Queen in fulfilling the role and functions of Head of State, and also need to be maintained as important parts of the national heritage. Approximately 1,000 people work in them, with approximately 70,000 guests annually and 1.6 million paying visitors. The most significant project during 2002-03 was the refurbishment of Clarence House which is due for completion in summer 2003.
x Government Departments’ expenditure in support of the Golden Jubilee will be set out in “Her Majesty The Queen’s Golden Jubilee: Official Report” to be published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Communications and Information
The Grant-in-aid is to meet the cost of communication and information services in connection with official royal functions and engagements in England and Scotland. Expenditure is incurred principally in respect of
press officer support for royal visits (at 99 locations during 2002-03) and the development and maintenance of the Royal Website (there were 60 million page references in 2002-03).

Royal Travel
The Grant-in-aid is to meet the cost of official royal travel by air and rail. It is an important part of The Queen’s role as Sovereign, supported by the Royal Family, to act as a focal point for national life and to bring
people together across all sectors of society. Approximately 2,300 official engagements were undertaken by Members of the Royal Family in 2002-03. These involved a significant amount of travel that needs to be undertaken in a way which meets efficiency, security and presentational requirements.
Detailed annual reports on how the Grants-in-aid have been spent are available from the Deputy Treasurer to The Queen, Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA.

Expenditure Directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate

Year to 31st March 2003 2002


£000 £000
Administration of honours 410 432
Equerries and orderlies 957 914
Maintenance of the Palace of Holyroodhouse 2,253 2,147
State Visits to and by The Queen and liaison
with the Diplomatic Corps 310 575
Ceremonial occasions 52 312
Maintenance of the Home Park at Windsor Castle 587 592
Notional pension contributions 43 45
Other 56 24
Total * 4,668 5,041



Administration of honours
This expenditure is to meet the cost of the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood. It is responsible for administering and maintaining the records of the Orders of Chivalry, for organising the investitures at which the honours are presented by The Queen and for the distribution of the insignia.

Equerries and orderlies
Equerries and orderlies are seconded from the Armed Services to assist The Queen and other Members of the Royal Family in undertaking their official duties. Baggage transport is also charged to this heading.

Maintenance of the Palace of Holyroodhouse
The Palace of Holyroodhouse is The Queen’s official residence in Scotland. Members of the Royal Family stay there for several weeks during the year, while undertaking official duties. The Palace is also open to the public with 232,000 paying visitors in 2002-03. The Queen opened the new Queen’s Gallery on 30th November 2002 which attracted 28,000 paying visitors in 2002-03.
• Figures not audited

State Visits to and by The Queen and liaison with the Diplomatic Corps
During 2002-03 The Queen made a Royal Visit to Canada. In 2001-02 there were two outward State/Royal Visits and two inward State Visits. The Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps is responsible for liaison with the
Diplomatic Corps in London. An annual reception for the Diplomatic Corps is held at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle.

Ceremonial occasions
The costs are to provide stands, barriers, flags, daises and canopies for State Visits and other ceremonial occasions. The decrease in expenditure reflects the fact that there were no inward State Visits in 2002-03 and two in 2001-02.

Maintenance of the Home Park at Windsor Castle
The Crown Estate is responsible for the maintenance of the Home Park at Windsor Castle and for its day-today security. The Home Park provides accommodation and sports grounds for staff. Part of it is farmed with
rent payable by the Privy Purse to the Crown Estate.

Costs Funded From Other Sources

Duchy of Lancaster
Income from the Duchy of Lancaster, which is subject to tax in the normal way, funds the Privy Purse. It is The Queen’s private income although largely used by Her Majesty to meet official expenditure, in particular
reimbursing Parliamentary Annuities and meeting expenses of other Members of the Royal Family. The Privy Purse also pays for the upkeep of Balmoral, The Queen’s estate in Scotland. Accounts for the Duchy of
Lancaster are published and laid before Parliament annually.

Duchy of Cornwall
Income from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is also subject to tax in the normal way, funds the official duties of The Prince of Wales. Accounts for the Duchy of Cornwall are published and laid before Parliament annually.

The Royal Collection
The Royal Collection consists of works of art of all kinds and is held by The Queen as Sovereign in trust for her successors and for the nation. All costs, except for some building occupancy costs, are met by the Royal
Collection Trust from visitor admissions to the occupied palaces and from related activities. Five million people saw the Royal Collection in royal palaces during 2002-03. In addition over 1,300 items were loaned
to special exhibitions or formed part of the Royal Collection’s own travelling exhibitions. During 2002-03 £872,000 was spent on conserving items from the Collection and £2.1 million on new galleries, in which
works of art from the Collection are displayed to the public. The Royal Collection receives no funding from the Government or the National Lottery.

Few Quotations in Support of Monarchy:

I devote all my attentions to improving the welfare of my subjects, since I wish to save my soul and go to Heaven.
King Charles III of Spain, 1750.
If a nation does not want a monarchy, change the nation’s mind. If a nation does not need a monarchy, change the nation’s needs.
Jan Christian Smuts, Prime Minister of South Africa 1939-1948.

I am a true servant of my King and country, not only as a dutiful subject but because I am a convinced monarchist, politically and intellectually. I mean by that, quite apart from myself and my relationship to my Bavarian and German fatherland, I believe monarchy to be the most successful form of government that the history of mankind has known.
Adolf von Harnier, on trial for treason, Germany 1938.

If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler. A democratic basis of society might have been preserved by a crowned Weimar in contact with the victorious Allies.”
Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946.

In Italy they are already speaking about a republic, but keep in mind that there is nothing less suited to Italians...... The Italians are individualists and a republic will become the cause of confusion and disorder. Certainly of corruption. I have no doubt of it. When all this comes to pass who will profit from it?
King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, 10th April 1944.

Remember that life is made up of loyalty: loyalty to your friends; loyalty to things beautiful and good; loyalty to the country in which you live; loyalty to your King; and above all, for this holds all other loyalties together, loyalty to God.
Queen Mary, Buckingham Palace, 23rd March 1923.

Politicians debating the future of our monarchy resemble a poachers’ convention deliberating on the future role of the gamekeeper.
Malcolm Winram, The Times, 9th March 1996.

(King George VI) represented, for us, a model of character and deportment for those in high places. Our respect for him as an inspirational force was equalled by our affection for him as a gentle human being.
General Dwight D Eisenhower, 7th February 1952.

Impartiality and continuity are important aspects of government, and it is doubtful whether any form of democratic government yet discovered provides these to any greater extent than does constitutional monarchy
Sydney D Bailey, British Parliamentary Democracy, Harrap, 1959.

This war would never have come unless, under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones. No doubt these views are very unfashionable....
Winston Churchill, 8th April 1945.

The public are sick and tired of politics, they are sick and tired of the machinations of elected office in a media age, and I think it’s quite good having a Head of State that’s completely to one side of that.
Simon Upton, New Zealand Environment Minister, March 1994.

I notice that the constitutional monarchies are the most democratic countries of Europe. I can’t understand how there could be any debate about it.
Jack Lang, French Minister of Culture, October 1993.

If constitutional monarchy were to come to an end in Britain, parliamentary democracy would probably not survive it. It is, after all, through the monarchy that parliamentary control over the armed forces is mediated and maintained.
Conor Cruise O’Brien, The Independent, 25th June 1993.

I am personally still convinced that there are safeguards in the constitutional monarchy that an elected head of state just would not possess.
Roger Stott MP, The Independent on Sunday, 7th September 1997.

The Prince of Wales, as so often, has demonstrated his common sense in the words he spoke on Wednesday (during his visit to southern Africa). His demeanour is a perfect illustration of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy. In the heat of euphoria, in the midst of all the blather about a “new” this and a “new” that, his is a message of modernisation and wisdom. We would do well to heed it.”
Kwasi Kwarteng, The Daily Telegraph, 31st October 1997.

Anyone who fears that by becoming a republic we would condemn ourselves to a presidency held by a perpetual succession of superannuated politicians - at the moment presumably a choice between Heath, Kinnock, Thatcher and Major - is an optimist.

The alternative nightmare scenario looks not to the European model but to the American, where the essentials for election to the presidency appear to be ruthless ambition, access to vast wealth, reckless promises of patronage and preferment, effective control of a big slice of the media and a plausible TV manner.

We don’t know when we are well off.
Gordon Medcalf, The Independent, 10th September 1997.

The Queen Mother is one who knows how to be Queen, how to preserve mystery and yet be accessible, one who knows how to epitomise the higher aspirations of a people, yet retain both humanity and humour.
Sir Roy Strong, January 1998.

I write by the light of two eternal truths: religion and monarchy, those twin essentials affirmed by contemporary events, and towards which every intelligent author should seek to direct our country.
Honore de Balzac, 1842.

Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all.
Aristotle, 322-384 BC.

Being a nation of hypocrites, we have for years looked to the Royal Family to embody the values we’re not prepared to embody ourselves.
Serena Mackesy, The Independent, 10th December 1996.

The Queen’s appearances abroad do more in a day to gain goodwill for Britain than all the politicians and diplomats lumped together could achieve in years.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Prime Minister 1963-64).

Why has destiny willed the downfall of this Sovereign? He is endowed with every kingly quality; he is courageous, generous, and magnanimous; he has a fine intellect and a well-balanced mind; and his name bears the tradition of a thousand years of history. Who better than he to symbolise the unity of the country, and act as supreme moderator in party strife?
Aldo Castellani, Physician to Umberto II of Italy, June 1946.

The Tarquins, meanwhile, had taken refuge at the court of Lars Porsena, the King of Clusium. By every means in their power they tried to win his support, now begging him not to allow fellow Etruscans, men of the same blood as himself, to continue living in penniless exile, now warning him of the dangerous consequences of letting republicanism go unavenged. The expulsion of kings they urged, once it had begun, might well become common practice; liberty was an attractive idea, and unless reigning monarchs defended their thrones as vigorously as states now seemed to be trying to destroy them, all order and subordination would collapse; nothing would be left in any country but flat equality; greatness and eminence would be gone for ever. Monarchy, the noblest thing in heaven or on earth, was nearing its end.
Livy, The History of Rome from its Foundation, Book II.

Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians.
Baroness Thatcher, November 1995.

Canadians should realise when they are well off under the Monarchy. For the vast majority of Canadians, being a Monarchy is probably the only form of government acceptable to them. I have always been for parliamentary democracy and I think the institution of Monarchy with the Queen heading it all has served Canada well.
Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, 1973.

If to be a Republican is to hold, as a matter of theory at least, that is the best government for a free and intelligent people in which merit is to be preferred to birth, then I hold it an honour to be associated with nearly all the greatest thinkers of the country and to be a Republican. But if a Republican is one who would thrust aside the opinion and affront the sentiment of a huge majority of the nation, merely to carry to a logical conclusion an abstract theory, then I am far from being a Republican as any man can be.
Rt Hon Joseph Chamberlain (1836-1914) in 1875.

The State functions more easily if it can be personified. An elected President who has stepped out of politics, like the French President, is no substitute for a King who has stepped in by right of inheritance. Still less is an active politician, like the President of the United States, a substitute. We can damn the Government and cheer the King.
W Ivor Jennings, The British Constitution, 1943.

Modern monarchs neither have nor need executive power. Integrity and continuity are their stock in trade. These qualities are becoming more precious when European political parties, many of them in power for a decade or more, are increasingly judged arrogant or corrupt or both. Politicians could with profit learn not to treat modesty as merely a royal prerogative.
Editorial, The Times, 2nd August 1993.

To be a King is dedication, patience and moderation, self-denial, statesmanship, national unity and, above all, having faith in one’s people.
HM King Simeon II of the Bulgarians, October 1968.

The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing.
Earl Russell, The Spectator, 11th January 1997.

Monarchy is first proved to be the true and rightful form of government. Men’s objects are best attained during universal peace: this is possible only under a monarch. And as he is the image of the divine unity, so man is through him made one, and brought most near to God. There must, in every system of forces, be a ‘primum mobile’; to be perfect, every organisation must have a centre, into which all is gathered, by which all is controlled. Justice is best secured by a supreme arbiter of disputes, himself untempted by ambition, since his dominion is already bounded only by ocean. Man is best and happiest when he is most free; to be free is to exist for one’s own sake. To this noblest end does the monarch and he alone guide us; other forms of government are perverted, and exist for the benefit of some class; he seeks the good of all alike, being to that very end appointed.
James Bryce’s summary of Dante’s De Monarchia.

I think it is a misconception to imagine that the monarchy exists in the interests of the monarch. It doesn’t. It exists in the interests of the people.
HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1969.

The fact that the Monarchy can unify in this way - can comfort and exhilarate and embrace - remains, as Cameron (James Cameron, republican journalist) put it, its great ‘gesture to all the forces of logic’, the power before which the neat rationality of republicanism wilts.
Robert Harris, Mail on Sunday, 7th September 1997.

For any country it is better to have a monarch than an elected president of the republic ..... monarchies provide the continuity of states, while prime ministers come and go. Elections are all very well for the designation of the prime minister or of the party which should take power, but not for the Head of State, who should be above party.

(Unlike a president) in all probability the monarch who succeeds to the throne has been trained for this exalted post by having spent many years by the side of his predecessor.

A monarch, however, cannot declare that he is ready to throw in his hand. The personal conveniences of sovereigns are of little importance. What is important is that Great Britain needs them.
George Brown (Foreign Secretary in the Wilson government), Daily Mail, November 1969.

Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.
C S Lewis.

The Royal tour (of South Africa) gives reassurance that when it comes to flying the flag nobody does it quite as well as the Queen.
The Guardian, 22nd March 1995.

A priest who is not a monarchist is not worthy to stand at the altar table. The priest who is a republican is always a man of poor faith. God himself anoints the monarch to be head of the kingdom, while the president is elected by the pride of the people. The king stays in power by implementing God’s commandments, while the president does so by pleasing those who rule. The king brings his faithful subjects to God, while the president takes them away from God.
Neomartyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev, tortured and killed by Bolsheviks on 7th February 1918.

The Queen was helpful, lively, fascinating to talk to, and very, very funny. The idea that she is out of touch is nonsense. Robert Wraith, painter of Her Majesty’s portrait, May 1998.

The monarchical principle is laughed at by vulgar and foolish people in all the suburbs of Europe. It is hated in all the gutters of the world. The reason is simple. It enshrines with a fitting dignity and elaboration the principle of authority as something independent of this or that politician. It places it above attack. It symbolises and consecrates an attitude of mind essential to the happiness of peoples.
D’Alvarez, Storm Over Europe, by Douglas Jerrold (1930), Chapter XII.

The British love their Queen, their Queen Mother, Prince Charles, and the comforting security of their hereditary constitutional monarchy, an institution of which the characters are beyond the manipulation of man, an institution guaranteeing continuity, overriding the dissensions of politics. The best governments are constitutional monarchies, and we may yet see some restored in eastern Europe.
Lord Menuhin, The Daily Telegraph, 2nd July 1998.

In republicks there is not a respect for authority, but a fear of power.
Dr Samuel Johnson (Boswell’s Life, p 464).

The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other.
Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 1867.

I think the family has got to streamline itself but the core members have a brand personality that a business would die for. You might say they’re the brand identity of Britain: ask any American what they’d give to have a Royal Family.
Jack Stevens, advertising agent, The Independent, 30th June 1998.

Above the ebb and flow of party strife, the rise and fall of ministries, and individuals, the changes of public opinion or public fortune, the British Monarchy presides, ancient, calm and supreme within its function, over all the treasures that have been saved from the past and all the glories we write in the annals of our country.
Sir Winston Churchill.

To be a king and wear a crown is more glorious to them that see it than it is a pleasure to them that bear it.
Queen Elizabeth I.

Parliaments and Ministers pass, but she abides in lifelong duty, and she is to them as the oak in the forest is to the annual harvest in the field.
William Gladstone, writing about Queen Victoria.

Russia under Nicholas II, with all the survivals of feudalism, had opposition political parties, independent trade unions and newspapers, a rather radical parliament and a modern legal system. Its agriculture was on the level of the USA, with industry rapidly approaching the West European level.

In the USSR there was total tyranny, no political liberties and practically no human rights. Its economy was not viable; agriculture was destroyed. The terror against the population reached a scope unprecedented in history.

No wonder many Russians look back at Tsarist Russia as a paradise lost.
Oleg Gordievsky, letter to The Independent, 21st July 1998.

Americans also seem to believe that the monarchy is a kind of mediaeval hangover, encumbered by premodern notions of decorum; the reality is that the British monarchy, for good or ill, is a modern political institution - perhaps the first modern political institution.
Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, September 29th 1997.

There is nothing about which I am more anxious than my country, and for its sake I am willing to die ten deaths, if that be possible.
Queen Elizabeth I, in 1564.

Parliamentary monarchy fulfils a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians’ thirst for power because with it the supreme office of the state is occupied once and for all.
Max Weber, German economist.

Anyone who has walked through the deserted Palaces of Versailles or Vienna realise how much a part of the life of a nation is lost when a monarchy is abolished. If Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle were transformed into museums, if one politician competed against another for the position of President of the Republic, Britain would be a sadder and less interesting place. Our politicians are not men such as could challenge more than a thousand years of history!
William Rees-Mogg, former Editor of The Times.

[A] king is a king, not because he is rich and powerful, not because he is a successful politician, not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world - the accident of birth - Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person.
Jacques Monet, Canadian historian.

It is helpful when the personality of the head of state is not disputed or contested periodically. The monarch is the incarnation of popular hope and the repository of national legitimacy.
Henri, Comte de Paris (1908-1999).

Have a care over my people. You have my people - do you that which I ought to do. They are my people. Every man oppresseth and spoileth them without mercy. They cannot revenge their quarrel, nor help themselves. See unto them - see unto them, for they are my charge. I charge you, even as God hath charged me. I care not for myself; my life is not dear to me. My care is for my people. I pray God, whoever succeedeth me, be as careful of them as I am.”
Queen Elizabeth I, addressing her judges, 1559.

No practising politician could possibly hope to be more deeply and widely informed about domestic, Commonwealth and international affairs than The Queen. She has sources of information available to nobody else.
James Callaghan, British Prime Minister 1976-79.

Not to be a republican at 20 shows lack of heart. To be one at 30 shows lack of head.
Francois Guizot, French statesman 1787-1874.

The hereditary head of state is like the senior member of a larger household, representing the national family and its ancestral inheritance while standing above its internal disputes and intervening only if a major emergency threatens its survival.
Wade Smith, letter to The Daily Telegraph, 16th November 1999.

The value of a constitutional monarchy is to provide a figurehead to embody a sense of nationhood beyond the divisions of temporal political argument. Republicans, who choose to give the impression that the British enjoy as much power as French peasants in the reign of Louis XVI, believe that in a democracy just about everything that moves has to be elected. This callow approach would result in a polarised and unpleasant society, of which the prime example is the United States.
Melanie Phillips, The Sunday Times, 7th November 1999.

Most Australians - contrary to what is constantly claimed - are not yet republicans. The Queen, touring the country with dignity at this slightly touchy time, says that she sees herself as the servant of the Australian Constitution and of the people. It is fair to suggest that many of Australia’s republican leaders do not quite see themselves as so answerable.
Geoffrey Blainey, The Age, March 2000.

I had been told the Queen is not interested in anything political and speaks only on social issues. On the contrary, the Queen is very well informed on a number of international issues and on security matters.
Vladimir Putin, Russian president-elect, 18th April 2000.

Q is for the Queen who, in half a century, hasn’t put a foot wrong once. Her accumulated wisdom is extraordinary. Her charm is infinite. She is duty personified.
The Duke of Devonshire, The Sunday Telegraph, 23rd April 2000.

All of us who come here [to the UK] do so because the notion of Britishness is far more than merely ethnic - or at least we think it is. You may not go on about it as much as Americans do, but you also have a set of ideas attached to your national identity, and we admire them. We most admire, in fact, those bits of your national identity which you seem most keen on discarding: not just boring old political liberty and economic freedom, which we could get in America or lots of other places, but history, tradition, centuries of stability, tolerance of eccentricity, cars which drive on the wrong side of the road, flat green lawns and, above all, a Queen, together with her Heirs and Successors. After spending the first part of my life being a mere citizen, I am delighted to find myself a subject as well.
Anne Applebaum (on becoming a British subject), The Spectator, 6th May 2000.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t think I really came to appreciate what royalty meant to you Brits until I came to Wimbledon, with all its pomp and circumstance. It is tradition, it is such an important factor here and you start thinking it’s not bad when you see the effect it has on people. I suppose the monarchy is a bit like grass at Wimbledon. How long will it last? My guess is that they will both go on for many, many years to come.
John McEnroe, The Sunday Telegraph, 2nd July 2000.

I have previously observed that British republicans seem to have a blind spot about the family: they do not grasp that the Royal Family touches some chord in most of us linked with family feeling. Even as an Irishwoman, I feel a warm sense of maternal protectiveness when I pass Buckingham Palace and see the Royal Standard flying. The Queen is at home, and a benign matriarchal wisdom prevails over the land.
Mary Kenny, The Daily Telegraph, 1st July 2000.

(Kaiser Franz Josef) was especially noted for his exceptional attitude to Jewish soldiers serving in the Austrian army, concerning himself over the availability of kosher food of the highest standard, assuring them of access to the necessary religious articles and ensuring unhindered Sabbath observance. .... Many of the world’s Jews referred to him as “The King of Jerusalem.”
Menachem Gerlitz, The Heavenly City p.210, published 1979.

They tell us that all Kings are bad; that God never made a King; and that all Kings are very expensive. But, that all Kings are bad cannot be true: because God himself is one of them; he calls himself King of Kings; which not only shows us he is a King, but he has other Kings under him: he is never called King of Republics. The Scripture calls Kings, the Lord’s Anointed; but who ever heard of an anointed Republic?
Association Papers, London, 1793.

Britain’s constitutional monarchy is one of its greatest strengths as well as one of its greatest attractions. The monarch is detached from party politics in a way no president could be. For years, the existence of a monarchy was the guarantee that no would-be dictator could stage a coup by deploying troops, as the monarch controls the armed services. No latter-day Cromwell could win power by force. We have had no civil war since Cromwell’s and much of that is due to having had a constitutional monarchy as a focus of loyalty.
Ann Widdecombe MP, BBC History Magazine, September 2000.

(Europe’s monarchs are) all there to listen to the voice of the people and, without influencing politics, to protect the nation. Their example gives some credibility to those who think that restoration of King Michael of Romania might help heal recent wounds. Does the monarchy have a future? It’s a very definite reality in today’s Europe, and without it Europe would be a very different place.
Jean-Yves Masson, Eurostar Magazine, Autumn 2000.

its only £40 per person i would hardly call that a problem.

i would call it 40 pounds too much.

a president could do the same job for much less money, and wouldn't be hereditary (which sickens me)

i would call it 40 pounds too much.

a president could do the same job for much less money, and wouldn't be hereditary (which sickens me)


The monarchy is part of britains great culture and history, and even as niannorth pointed out our future a little money here and there...what is it compared to national identity?..the world becomes more obsessed with money and loses sight of culture...if i oppose the idea of the loss of the monarchy then i also oppose the loss of all british culture..if i am on the losing side of the argument then so be it i will stick to my guns!

i would call it 40 pounds too much.

a president could do the same job for much less money, and wouldn't be hereditary (which sickens me)
It's more like 50p per person.

It's more like 50p per person.

Isnt it 31p?

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

Isnt it 31p?

Edit: My mistake http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm
I'll accept that, but would pay the estra to see a few heads on spikes at tower bridge.

Isnt it 31p?

it drops every year..they dont require so much from the tax payer as they did..prince charles could live off of his buisness in the same level of comfort as he does now..when william is king it is most likely that the monarchy will sustane themselves

it drops every year..they dont require so much from the tax payer as they did..prince charles could live off of his buisness in the same level of comfort as he does now..when william is king it is most likely that the monarchy will sustane themselves And then why would they have thier lives mapped out with 370 engagements per year for nothing?
I would prefer king George to President Blair!

Your monarchy gives your country a Queen who is:

I just hope you weren't addressing me there.

I never called Australia a republic, nor almost a republic (What was the last result, 45% in favour? That was 1998 or sometime ago.). I said getting rid of a Monarch will make them a Republic too.

http://www.britishrepublic.org.uk/money.htm
http://www.republic.org.uk/theissues/index.htm
http://www.republic.org.uk/theissues/myths.htm
http://www.republic.org.uk/news/index.php

http://www.republic.org.uk/news/?command=fe_show_press_release&press_release_id=59&date_year=&date_month=&date_day=&headline=&body=

http://www.republic.org.uk/news/?command=fe_show_press_release&press_release_id=58&date_year=&date_month=&date_day=&headline=&body=

"President Blair"?

Who the feck said he'd be president? It would have to be a majority vote of the people, and even so, you'd have a Prime Minister AND a President, like France, or Ireland, where power is shared. France has more power for the President, Ireland has more power for the Prime Minister. My guess is if it were to become a Republic, it would be more like Ireland, keep the same ammount of power that your Prime Minister has, maybe a little less, and the rest for the President.

I just hope you weren't addressing me there.

I never called Australia a republic, nor almost a republic (What was the last result, 45% in favour? That was 1998 or sometime ago.). I said getting rid of a Monarch will make them a Republic too.

http://www.britishrepublic.org.uk/money.htm
http://www.republic.org.uk/theissues/index.htm
http://www.republic.org.uk/theissues/myths.htm
http://www.republic.org.uk/news/index.php

http://www.republic.org.uk/news/?command=fe_show_press_release&press_release_id=59&date_year=&date_month=&date_day=&headline=&body=

http://www.republic.org.uk/news/?command=fe_show_press_release&press_release_id=58&date_year=&date_month=&date_day=&headline=&body=
No not directed at any one, it was a cut and paste job. As if the queen is not your head of state it has nothing to do with you, if she is the quote outlines some of the benefits of the queen. and at the end of the day I will always prefer a king or queen to an elected figure head. Can't see a president in the world who has done a better job as head of state than the current queen.

I just hope you weren't addressing me there.





Who the feck said he'd be president? It would have to be a majority vote of the people, and even so, you'd have a Prime Minister AND a President, like France, or Ireland, where power is shared. France has more power for the President, Ireland has more power for the Prime Minister. My guess is if it were to become a Republic, it would be more like Ireland, keep the same ammount of power that your Prime Minister has, maybe a little less, and the rest for the President.
Can't see the point having two people to do the job then. And the majority vote, great we'll end up with Gaza or some one form big brother as President, as we all know you never get a wrong un with good old democracy.

Can't see the point having two people to do the job then. And the majority vote, great we'll end up with Gaza or some one form big brother as President, as we all know you never get a wrong un with good old democracy.

...i can imagine it now...the headlines...

"jade goodey for president"!

*shivers*

No not directed at any one, it was a cut and paste job. As if the queen is not your head of state it has nothing to do with you, if she is the quote outlines some of the benefits of the queen. and at the end of the day I will always prefer a king or queen to an elected figure head. Can't see a president in the world who has done a better job as head of state than the current queen.


By this post, I take it you haven't dared to even read a single one?

If so, that's being ignorant.

Now, I realise you do love your country and Monarch, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But, from my definition of true Patriotism and blind patriotism; you're simply being blind to a more efficient and money saving system, that could be used on better things.


I take it you're not a Democratic supporter by that post either. To tell you the truth, Democracy isn't my cup of tea, again inefficient and being representitive of everyone holds the majority back, then you have those that don't care about having their voice in the government, who just sit idly by and don't care.

But like a normal election, the president would be elected from several candidates (Usually two or three), of course it will be the majority vote, like it is for your Prime Minister. So I fail to see why it would make you cringe.

The Queen does have some power, as I'm not British, I wouldn't be able to tell you. But one Briton told me, she's able to block and create any law, which is a fascist mentality (He went on and on about how terrible that is). Don't ask me about it though, I wouldn't be able to tell you anymore than that.

Now, I realise you do love your country and Monarch, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But, from my definition of true Patriotism and blind patriotism; you're simply being blind to a more efficient and money saving system, that could be used on better things.




I'm assuming your country maintains historic buildings ,etc? Surely that money could be used for something better

I disagree with you all!!! :p

We should have a dictatorship and crush the puny Europeans and Americans, muhahahahahaha. :sniper:

etc.

I don't give a flying fuck how much money the monarchy brings in, or how it protects the political system - I'm fundamentally opposed to it on principle and any ill effects brought about by its removal are due to failings in our political system, not a flaw in republicanism.

I'm British and i refuse to sing the national anthem. I intentsly dislike the monarchy but my form tutor is planning on forcing me to sing it. Unfair?


I agree, the next time you hav e to sing it..belt out the Irish one and see where it gets you!!! Particulary if you happen to be standing next to Ian Paisley and his multiple personalities!!

Yes, I am, but in the sense that I believe that there shouldn't be a "government" and that we should govern ourselves on a community level. I am an anarcho-communist.

For anarcho-communist read: idiot

I agree, the next time you hav e to sing it..belt out the Irish one and see where it gets you!!! Particulary if you happen to be standing next to Ian Paisley and his multiple personalities!!


Er, rofl... :p

I don't give a flying fuck how much money the monarchy brings in, or how it protects the political system - I'm fundamentally opposed to it on principle and any ill effects brought about by its removal are due to failings in our political system, not a flaw in republicanism.


Whoa, take a chill pill. I'm not British so I've never taken any notice of the monarchy, yes the monarchy is a failing of the political system, but removal of the monarchy would require an enormous overhaul of the British political system, one which is so focused on tradition. If you are going to remove Lizzie and her pals you will also have to do the same with the House of Lords.
And think up of a new national anthem!

The Monarch is in need of money, the M.O.D. is now selling the Queen off.

As if the £40 per person in the country isn't enough.

I see the Monarch as nothing but a representation of Britains former "Glory", I see Britain clinging onto that, wasting thousands upon thousands of pounds on the Monarch, which could be put to better use.

Well; it's not my country, so it doesn't really bother me.

£40 per person! That is a lie. It is about 60p per person and that is very cheap for something that gives the nation so much pride.

For anarcho-communist read: idiot
*refrains from massively derogatory comment about the the moron... dammit!*

By this post, I take it you haven't dared to even read a single one?

If so, that's being ignorant.

Now, I realise you do love your country and Monarch, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But, from my definition of true Patriotism and blind patriotism; you're simply being blind to a more efficient and money saving system, that could be used on better things.


I take it you're not a Democratic supporter by that post either. To tell you the truth, Democracy isn't my cup of tea, again inefficient and being representitive of everyone holds the majority back, then you have those that don't care about having their voice in the government, who just sit idly by and don't care.

But like a normal election, the president would be elected from several candidates (Usually two or three), of course it will be the majority vote, like it is for your Prime Minister. So I fail to see why it would make you cringe.

The Queen does have some power, as I'm not British, I wouldn't be able to tell you. But one Briton told me, she's able to block and create any law, which is a fascist mentality (He went on and on about how terrible that is). Don't ask me about it though, I wouldn't be able to tell you anymore than that.
I read them, but it's not all down to efficiency and money. If it were we would be living in a ture socialist/communist state. Saving money is not what a country should be about.
So we should force democracy on the Roman Chatholic church? force them to have true election for pope? No, some system work well as they are.
Not that I am a Fascist but you use it as if it were a dirty word. If yoiu remember our great fascist leaders were in the main brought to power by a democratic system devoid of a royal head of state.

Whoa, take a chill pill. I'm not British so I've never taken any notice of the monarchy, yes the monarchy is a failing of the political system, but removal of the monarchy would require an enormous overhaul of the British political system, one which is so focused on tradition. If you are going to remove Lizzie and her pals you will also have to do the same with the House of Lords.
And think up of a new national anthem!
Yes. And? I want all of this! Thanks for your concern (I'm not being sarcastic here!), but I'm quite relaxed, just vehement in my opinions. And drunk. Yar.

I should say that, while I advocate the removal of the monarchy, I don't actively pursue it because the majority of Brits - even otherwise sensible types, sigh - do not wish this to be so. Here, I respect the democratic will.

I'm a passive republican, I suppose.

I read them, but it's not all down to efficiency and money. If it were we would be living in a ture socialist/communist state. Saving money is not what a country should be about.
So we should force democracy on the Roman Chatholic church? force them to have true election for pope? No, some system work well as they are.
Not that I am a Fascist but you use it as if it were a dirty word. If yoiu remember our great fascist leaders were in the main brought to power by a democratic system devoid of a royal head of state.


Whoa, I support Authoritarianism. I dislike Democracy.
But I was saying, if Britain is Democratic, then why not have a Democratic process for their Head of State?

Also, when you save that money, you invest it in the NHS or education etc... Where it can be put to better use.

Also, yes, I do not know where it was I read it, but it was 40 pounds, now, that is obviously incorrect.

But, if you had read those links I gave, which you obviously have not, you will see such pride is "Forced" upon the population.

For anarcho-communist read: idiot
*resists urge to flame NBG for being an assh.... ooh wait there i go :headbang: *

*waves anarcho-communist flag*

she daren't actually excersise any powers she has left

but don't you see, thats the beauty of the whole system. like a fantastic failsafe mechanism our monarchy will never abuse their power because the country wouldn't stand for it and they wouldn't want to risk their privelidged position. however, they do have the capability to stop the polititians if necessary.

also, i'm fine with it being inherited because there isnt a better way of choosing an independent ruler. elected candidates would always be trying to win the next election and the monarchy have been brought up from birth knowing exactly what their position and job in society demands.

but don't you see, thats the beauty of the whole system. like a fantastic failsafe mechanism our monarchy will never abuse their power because the country wouldn't stand for it and they wouldn't want to risk their privelidged position. however, they do have the capability to stop the polititians if necessary.

also, i'm fine with it being inherited because there isnt a better way of choosing an independent ruler. elected candidates would always be trying to win the next election and the monarchy have been brought up from birth knowing exactly what their position and job in society demands.
Of course there are better ways of determining 'rulers'. None are perfect, naturally, but handing the throne to the alleged offspring of individuals with virtually no understanding of ordinary living... bah.

Strange, I thought one of the arguments in support of fox hunting was that it was so difficult to control the fox population by other methods. You seem to be doing your bit quite well without getting all tarted up in a red coat and having a glass of sherry in your hand.*


he probably shot the same fox, wounding but not killing it - now wouldn't that fox have been better off dying quickly instead of living to get shot 85 more times? :rolleyes:

wow i don't even know you and I already hate you, i love this country. Even if i hate the monarchy

I'm also tempted to spit on you, and I'm not even British.

:sniper:

I'm also tempted to spit on you, and I'm not even British.

:sniper:
Justification, for fuck's sake?

Of course there are better ways of determining 'rulers'. None are perfect, naturally, but handing the throne to the alleged offspring of individuals with virtually no understanding of ordinary living... bah.


but they don't need any understanding. they don't make any of the decisions which affect everyday life. they just need to behave royally in public to cash in on the tourists.

but they don't need any understanding. they don't make any of the decisions which affect everyday life. they just need to behave royally in public to cash in on the tourists.
Forgive me my belief that cashing in isn't the only criteria to consider here.

pray we never meet for i posess a hunting rifle :p

an interesting look on the topic and once again ENGLAND IS NOT BRITAIN! tell me..what country if any do you call home?

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SHOULD PRAY WE NEVER MEET... FOR I POSESS LOGIC!

I AM FROM THE NUMBER ONE HOME OF BLIND AND FOOLISH PATRIOTS: THE UNITED STATES.

I'M GLAD TO READ THAT YOU'RE ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH TRYING TO SET THINGS RIGHT WITH ENGLAND'S POLITICS. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IRELAND? WHY IS IT THAT SO MANY OF MY ENGLISH FRIENDS... PEOPLE WHO I GREATLY ADMIRE AND RESPECT... SUDDENLY BECOME SLOBBERING NEANDERTHALS WHEN THE SUBJECT OF IRELAND COMES UP? AND IF YOU'RE REALLY ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH SETTING ENGLAND STRAIGHT - PLEASE MAKE SURE BECKHAM TAKES ALL CORNERS AND FREE KICKS!!!

Eh... What ABOUT Ireland...? :confused:

Of course there are better ways of determining 'rulers'. None are perfect, naturally, but handing the throne to the alleged offspring of individuals with virtually no understanding of ordinary living... bah. And a president understand what it's like to grow up in an inner city?

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SHOULD PRAY WE NEVER MEET... FOR I POSESS LOGIC!

I AM FROM THE NUMBER ONE HOME OF BLIND AND FOOLISH PATRIOTS: THE UNITED STATES.

I'M GLAD TO READ THAT YOU'RE ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH TRYING TO SET THINGS RIGHT WITH ENGLAND'S POLITICS. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IRELAND? WHY IS IT THAT SO MANY OF MY ENGLISH FRIENDS... PEOPLE WHO I GREATLY ADMIRE AND RESPECT... SUDDENLY BECOME SLOBBERING NEANDERTHALS WHEN THE SUBJECT OF IRELAND COMES UP? AND IF YOU'RE REALLY ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH SETTING ENGLAND STRAIGHT - PLEASE MAKE SURE BECKHAM TAKES ALL CORNERS AND FREE KICKS!!!
Yeh. Waht about Ireland? An entirely distinct nation. Other than part of the Island in the North which still votes to stay part of the UK.

"Slobbering neanderthals", Platini? Please don't tell me you're another one of these Americans who reckon the IRA are really quite cute and fluffy and vioence in the name of Irish union is justified...

Im sure somebody has probably mentioned this, but when the Sex Pistols made their song "God Save the Queen", many people took it the wrong way.
They assumed that becuase the Pistols were a punk band, that of course, it meant.."Fuck the Queen!".

It didnt.

Johnny Rotten said that you dont make a song like that just to say "fuck you!", you make it as a social comment on government corruption, and how wrong the system is, and how terrible it makes her look.
In essence..you do it becuase you really love the Queen.

Too bad he got the shit beat out of him, and his leg all cut up for it.

For anarcho-communist read: idiot
Yeah, that was really called for. :rolleyes:

Johnny Rotten said that you dont make a song like that just to say "fuck you!", you make it as a social comment on government corruption, and how wrong the system is, and how terrible it makes her look.
In essence..you do it becuase you really love the Queen.

I think describing his feelings for the monarch as 'pity' rather than 'love' would be closer to the mark from statements I have heard him make - she is not allowed to be a 'normal' human being, but instead a qrotesque symbol.

Justification, for fuck's sake?

For being such a pissant little weenie!

"Slobbering neanderthals", Platini? Please don't tell me you're another one of these Americans who reckon the IRA are really quite cute and fluffy and vioence in the name of Irish union is justified...
It was justified up until a certain point . But thats a Diffrent topic, personally, the thought of a queen makes me sick, i think a lot of people who support a monarchy are just blindly patriotic. I seriously don't see the point of singing god save the queen, I dont hate england, but i do hate your monarchy, its outdated and a ridiculous idea in a modern society.

It was justified up until a certain point . But thats a Diffrent topic, personally, the thought of a queen makes me sick, i think a lot of people who support a monarchy are just blindly patriotic. I seriously don't see the point of singing god save the queen, I dont hate england, but i do hate your monarchy, its outdated and a ridiculous idea in a modern society.

Although I think America rocks, I don't deny other countries the right to have a government of their own choosing. So unless you're prepared for a host of monarchists saying they don't hate America but they hate republics, put a sock in it! Besides, what did the Queen ever do to you that you should hate her?

And anyone who thinks that the IRA violence was ever even remotely justified for any reason is a sick, perverted a-hole.

I'm British and i refuse to sing the national anthem. I intentsly dislike the monarchy but my form tutor is planning on forcing me to sing it. Unfair?

To help, go to the local newsagents and buy 40 (2 packs) of the cheapest fags, smoke them all. Hopefully you would have lost your voice ;)

I'm British and i refuse to sing the national anthem. I intentsly dislike the monarchy but my form tutor is planning on forcing me to sing it. Unfair?
Not if it's for the greater good.

Although I think America rocks, I don't deny other countries the right to have a government of their own choosing. So unless you're prepared for a host of monarchists saying they don't hate America but they hate republics, put a sock in it! Besides, what did the Queen ever do to you that you should hate her?

And anyone who thinks that the IRA violence was ever even remotely justified for any reason is a sick, perverted a-hole.
1969, loyalist mobs attack and kill catholic families for being catholic, Were the IRA not justified to defend thier own people??? you obviously havnt a great deal of knowledge on the subject so i suggest you "put a sock in it".
The people of Britain never "choose" to have a monarchy, it was just instilled upon them, but in modern society most Britons dont need guidance from a Queen as the majority are probably more intellegent than herself. In a country like England a monarchy is not needed. secondly, In a country such as England that is trying to help Iraq get democracy, To have a monarchy, which is the polar opposite to democracy makes no sense.

It was justified up until a certain point . But thats a Diffrent topic, personally, the thought of a queen makes me sick, i think a lot of people who support a monarchy are just blindly patriotic. I seriously don't see the point of singing god save the queen, I dont hate england, but i do hate your monarchy, its outdated and a ridiculous idea in a modern society.

I'm welsh and deeply patriotic for my nation, even though I don't like having an English 'prince of Wales' I am a full supporter of the monarchy. Its not a blind patriotism that I have, its respect for a tradition of this country as a whole.

I guess that those nations that don't have our system just can not understand the loyalty to it. However, the thought of giving Blair, president Bush or Chirac like powers is disgusting. The Queen is the only head of state that is respected by all world leaders, and she didn't get that from luck of birth.

As for the financial status....she brings in a great deal of money into this country, and its not the castles and stuff because Wales has more castle per squre mile than anywhere else on Earth and we are not a rich people.

Also, look at the support monarchies across Europe still have...they are amongst the only institution from earlier days that is still loved by the people.

As much as I despised her...look at the effect the death of Princess Diana had on people, and the publics grief of the death of the Queen mother. These people are in effect the Public personification of the people, and I can almost guarentee that those who want to get rid of them will miss them when they have gone.....Do you think Blair and his government would cut our taxes by the amount we pay out for them when they have gone? No, they would use the money to make themselves better off or knowing Labour, betray us on the rebate and give the money to the EU.......an institution I would love to see abolished!!!

.

The Queen is the only head of state that is respected by all world leaders, and she didn't get that from luck of birth.

Would you care to tell how she was choosen then because iam pretty sure you become king/queen because who you are related to.

Hello! I would like to celebrate my first post by adding my 2p to this thread!

I think that whether you chose to sing or not should be your choice!

Its not just that i am not a supporter of the monarchy, but also that even in the classroom the freedom to form oppinions on matters like this are important.

To be honest it is, IMHO, not a good anthem - one focussed on the beauty of the country or the attributes of the people would suit me better.

Would you care to tell how she was choosen then because iam pretty sure you become king/queen because who you are related to.

Yes but she didn't get everyone's respect just through luck of birth. She got that by her actions.

Yes but she didn't get everyone's respect just through luck of birth. She got that by her actions.
She has everyone's respect??? shes done nothing to gain my respect, and thats all that matters in politics. ;)

Yes but she didn't get everyone's respect just through luck of birth.

No, but she got most people's respect simply through luck of birth. Automatic respect for the monarch is demanded in this country, regardless of the individual, and most people give it.

someone said,
you don't appreciate that without the Queen:sniper:
we would have Tony Blair:mp5:
as the head of state...

Personally, i could do without both :headbang:

1969, loyalist mobs attack and kill catholic families for being catholic, Were the IRA not justified to defend thier own people??? you obviously havnt a great deal of knowledge on the subject so i suggest you "put a sock in it".

That's saying that two wrongs make a right. It's that kind of mentality that just feeds the unending cycle of violence.


The people of Britain never "choose" to have a monarchy, it was just instilled upon them, but in modern society most Britons dont need guidance from a Queen as the majority are probably more intellegent than herself. In a country like England a monarchy is not needed. secondly, In a country such as England that is trying to help Iraq get democracy, To have a monarchy, which is the polar opposite to democracy makes no sense.

Britain's monarchy is hardly the polar opposite of a democracy. In fact, in many ways, Britain is more democratic than the U.S. If the majority of Brits decide that the monarchy is superfluous, I'm sure they'll end it. But despite the recent scandals, most of them seem to want to keep it. Whether they do or not, however, is nobody's business but theirs. So I say again: put a sock in it!

To have a monarchy, which is the polar opposite to democracy makes no sense.

You are joking, right?

Stop telling me to put socks in it!!!! And its not very hard to be more democratic than the US.

You are joking, right?

That in Britain automatic respect for the monarch seems to be demanded?

No, I'm not joking.

Stop telling me to put socks in it!!!! .

:p LOL!!!

OK, how about "put a garter-belt and a pair of fishnets in it"? ;)

She has everyone's respect??? shes done nothing to gain my respect, and thats all that matters in politics. ;)

Gaining YOUR respect is all that matters in politics???

Boy, talk about inflated egos. :p

That in Britain automatic respect for the monarch seems to be demanded?

No, I'm not joking.

Blah, sorry, I quoted and forgot to comment. -__-;; *fixes*

Blah, sorry, I quoted and forgot to comment. -__-;; *fixes*

Ahh, right. I thought it was a bit strange :)