NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone actually got any good reasons to why the Queen should be supported in Britain? Is anybody actually in favour of her?

As far as I'm aware it's "It brings torists in" and "It's tredition" and thats about it.

As far as I'm aware it's "It brings torists in" and "It's tredition" and thats about it.

As far as I'm aware it's "It brings torists in" and "It's tredition" and thats about it.

Has anyone actually got any good reasons to why the Queen should be supported in Britain? Is anybody actually in favour of her?

no reason at all.
an elected president could do her job as head of state just as well, as well as cheaper

makes money and causes Aust to spell badly whilst triple posting

edit: oh and the Queen keeps parliament in check with the army

She's just a symbol now,its the same reason we have her here in Canada,she just symbolizes....well...I dont know what.

as well as cheaper

what about Putin?

Britain needs its monarchy the way we in the US need sports and TV celebrities.

For the scandals and tabloids.

makes money and causes Aust to spell badly whilst triple posting

they cost taxpayers money and hoarde wealth that the nation could otherwise have, including vast swathes of land

as for the moneymaking tourist trade... tourists would still come to see the castles etc if the monarchy were to be disbanded. in fact, we might get more tourists if all the royal castles and palaces were opened up completely to the public

Because there's still a chance for me to be KNIGHTED. Don't you know what that means?!

Has anyone actually got any good reasons to why the Queen should be supported in Britain? Is anybody actually in favour of her?

Because every country needs a convinient way to flush tax dollars down the toilet.

Honestly, tourism? Does anyone honestly believe that? They might go to see the palace, but who gives a fuck if the Queen is home?

what about Putin?

is he british? or working within our sociopolitical system?


i think not.



Prime Ministers are fairly cheap to keep. i see no reason why a president would be any more so.

well getting rid of the queen would mess up the commonwealth... i mean she IS the head of state of some (most/all?:confused: ) commonwealth countries after all...

get rid of the queen and she moves to canada... or australia because it's warmer

The united kingdom of Great Britain is now ruled by a democracy , Thereofore a English monarch is obsolete because england is a constituant countrie of the UK

they cost taxpayers money and hoarde wealth that the nation could otherwise have, including vast swathes of land

surely you mean they provide a second treasury and maintain vast swathes of land ;)

as for the moneymaking tourist trade... tourists would still come to see the castles etc if the monarchy were to be disbanded. in fact, we might get more tourists if all the royal castles and palaces were opened up completely to the public

ah but have you seen how many people flock to royal weddings and how much is made off royal memorabilia

Dont tell me you lot didnt want to be king/queen when you were little at some point? The monarchy is just cool! And i bet half the tourists wouldnt go to buckingham palice if there wasnt an offchance of spotting the queen. And who would go round hospitals to visit sick children? Who would cut ribbons in important buildings?
I love the monarchy, and i want to marry prince william.

Because there's still a chance for me to be KNIGHTED. Don't you know what that means?!

Not really, no.

Prime Ministers are fairly cheap to keep. i see no reason why a president would be any more so.

why would we need a president at all :confused:

The united kingdom of Great Britain is now ruled by a democracy , Thereofore a English monarch is obsolete because england is a constituant countrie of the UK

the Queen is ruler of the United Kingdom not just Britain (you also seem to of lost the sense that Britain is a parliamentary democracy)

Because every country needs a convinient way to flush tax dollars down the toilet.

Honestly, tourism? Does anyone honestly believe that? They might go to see the palace, but who gives a fuck if the Queen is home?

If the Queen isn't about at all suddenly one reason for visiting Buckingham Palace. She represents traditions and helps to unite the commonwealth. Besides the social services are the way tax pounds are wasted.

i want to marry prince william.

ewwww

The English monarch is head of the commonwealth , England is basically head of the UK , so the queen / current monarch has masses of power and wealth since britain has about the fith largest economie (by GDP) she also controls british parliment and the britain military excetera why else would they be called:
The Royal Air Force (RAF)
Royal Navy (all under the term of hms - his/her majesty's ship/ submarine )

Has anyone actually got any good reasons to why the Queen should be supported in Britain? Is anybody actually in favour of her?

Because if you get rid of the Royal Family, your country will become really boring. As it is, the place verges on that now. I mean, it gets dark there at three in the afternoon this time of year.

And they do a very good job at keeping issues like being environmentally friendly in the media. They mostly act as a good example for everyone else.

surely you mean they provide a second treasury and maintain vast swathes of land ;)

lol :P

though when was the last time the crown gave cash to the government to bump up the treasury?

ah but have you seen how many people flock to royal weddings and how much is made off royal memorabilia
memorabilia and the occasional royal event are not good enough reasons for me to support an undemocratic, outdated and unfair system.

Because if you get rid of the Royal Family, your country will become really boring. As it is, the place verges on that now. I mean, it gets dark there at three in the afternoon this time of year.

There is nothing wrong with getting dark at half 3! Just because i havent seen daylight since monday....

i dunno. the only reason i can think of to keep the royal family is because they are very popular figures with certain portions of the rest of the world. i'm not entirely convinced that royal tourism would be the cash generator it is now if the actual royals were not in residence in their palaces and the gossip rags. having said that, i don't think they should get any tax money whatsoever. if they can't afford the upkeep of their palaces they should sell them to someone who can run them as proper tourist attractions like versaille or somewhere like that. i can't see any reason to strip them of their titles for the moment though, while they still serve a purpose.

As far as I'm aware it's "It brings torists in" and "It's tredition" and thats about it.
Double posting is one thing, but treble posting...

Has anyone actually got any good reasons to why the Queen should be supported in Britain? Is anybody actually in favour of her?
Well, according to most polls, only 10-20% of the population support abolishing the monarchy, although this number drops much lower when the question mentions a republic. I think the general reason for this is that we have had, throughout our recent history, and for reasons I shan't go into here, appalling governments. The monarchy, I think, is seen as a popular counterbalance to that - something to look up to when threatened by unpopular governments and change. Although, I have to confess, I hardly see Prince Andrew's dodgy dealings and Prince effin' Charles attacking meritocracy as something to look up to.

Personally, I would like to see a republic similar to that of Ireland, with the difference that there would be a federal system as opposed to a unitary state. (Obviously, the states/provinces would equate to the home countries, and possibly the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann). I don't really see why we can't pack the tourists in with the monarchy; all the crown jewels will be there, and the palaces (We could, in fact, see more of them as opposed to less) and we can still change the guard, troop the colour, etc etc.

It's just a personal preference, really. However, any President would have to be strictly ceremonial.

what about Putin?

What about him? We wouldn't just steal our head of state from another country...we're not a nation of felons, unlike Australia :p

Dont tell me you lot didnt want to be king/queen when you were little at some point?

Yes because everyone was a child once. How about giving kids a more realistic ambition like, say, becoming an elected head of state?

And i bet half the tourists wouldnt go to buckingham palice if there wasnt an offchance of spotting the queen.

We would turn it into a playboy palace and people would flock to catch a fleeting glimpse of our President's playgirls!

And who would go round hospitals to visit sick children? Who would cut ribbons in important buildings?

THE PLAYGIRLS :upyours:

I'd like to see a report into the financial implications of the getting rid of the monarchy before I make my mind up on this.

If the Queen isn't about at all suddenly one reason for visiting Buckingham Palace. She represents traditions and helps to unite the commonwealth. Besides the social services are the way tax pounds are wasted.

So giving the richest woman in the world hundreds of thousands of pounds for a single flight is fine, but giving someone without a job £40 a week is a waste? You have interesting priorities.

Because if you get rid of the Royal Family, your country will become really boring. As it is, the place verges on that now. I mean, it gets dark there at three in the afternoon this time of year.
What? As I said, all the palaces will be there, and everything in them, as well as the historical artefacts. Which is what people go to see. Nobody ever gets to see the monarchy - unless they're visiting whatever building they're opening.

Prime Ministers are fairly cheap to keep. i see no reason why a president would be any more so.

Not the current one.

WAIT!! I've just thought of a brilliant reason to keep the monarchy.
It means my sister can get the job she has jsut applied for.
She is trying to work with the royal collection, and with no royalty there would be no royal collection.

You people are evil, you all want my sister to starve!!!!

And they do a very good job at keeping issues like being environmentally friendly in the media. They mostly act as a good example for everyone else.
Good examples, eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4170765.stm
And that's just a taster.

The English monarch is head of the commonwealth

British monarch learn some History

though when was the last time the crown gave cash to the government to bump up the treasury?

well we never needed the money :p

memorabilia and the occasional royal event are not good enough reasons for me to support an undemocratic, outdated and unfair system.

Well what about all the charity work?

Not the current one.
Neither Presidents or Prime Ministers are by definition expensive. Indeed, making a head of state responsible to the taxpaying electorate will probably reduce, not increase, the costs.

Good examples, eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4170765.stm
And that's just a taster.

Well everyone buggers up from time to time. But when was the last time the actualy queen was in the news? And since diana, charles is getting less and less talked about for any misdemenours. Prince william is doing rather well at keeping a low profile too.

British monarch learn some History



well we never needed the money :p



Well what about all the charity work?

The british monarch is essentially English since England is head of britain etc , the English monarchy tookover and created great britain anyway .

The british monarch is essentially English since England is head of britain etc , the English monarchy tookover and created great britain anyway .

actually Britain became joined to Scotland when a Scottish King took both crowns (well a little while after but that is what started it) and England is sadly not head of the Kingdom the capital is just located there

Well everyone buggers up from time to time. But when was the last time the actualy queen was in the news? And since diana, charles is getting less and less talked about for any misdemenours. Prince william is doing rather well at keeping a low profile too.
Does that, by default, make them immune from criticism, and make them good examples? No. If they were perfect, we probably wouldn't be having this debate, but since they are they should get their jobs like the rest of the government do - by election.

why would we need a president at all :confused:

checks and balances of the political system. the queen does have a constitutional role, of course, and would need to be replaced in a political sense.

the Queen is ruler of the United Kingdom not just Britain (you also seem to of lost the sense that Britain is a parliamentary democracy)

a constitutional monarchy. partly democratic, partly undemocratic monarchy. its that latter undemocratic part that is (surprise surprise) undemocratic.

The british monarch is essentially English since England is head of britain etc , the English monarchy tookover and created great britain anyway .
Learn some history. The first officially British monarch (Anne) was from the House of Stuart - originally a Scottish house. The first unofficial King of Great Britian was completely Scottish. (James I)

well we never needed the money :p
*cough* country bankrupt after WW2
*cough* boom & bust fiscal policy of the 1980s



Well what about all the charity work?
ok, one good thing then.

they can do that as ordinary rich people though, not as my unelected ruler.

ewwww

hey.. she could have harry:eek:

The queen is in effect a head of state without 'exercised' political power. This is a good thing. Being the head of an entire state has a habit of going to peoples' heads, so it's desirable to seperate 'headship' from the actual reins of power.

Keeping in mind that ministers are essentially a particular type of servant to the sovereign, in effect the title 'Prime Minister' means '1st amongst a particular group of servants'. Since a prime minister ought to be a servant and routinely reminding him or her that they are a servant every time you utter their title, might help facilitate this, that's a good thing.

On a more practical note, the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth. The UK no longer retains the strong economic ties with many Commonwealth countries, yet many Commonwealth members continue to view themselves as 'connected' to the UK because of the Commonwealth and the shared head of state (the queen). It's because of this bond that many people in the Commonwealth choose to O.E. in the UK, and also look on the UK as being a social-political leader. These countries do not 'strictly follow' that leadership, but it does influence them, sometimes strongly.

Removing the Queen would likely have detrimental effects on the influence the UK has with Commonwealth nations. The fact is, despite the lack of exercised power, despite occassional calls in some Commonwealth nations to remove Queen Lizzie as head of state, the Queen as head of the Commonwealth acts to facilitate the political influence of the UK abroad and retain a sense of connection with Commonwealth members.

Although a lot of people prefer to think otherwise, the head of the Commonwealth being the Queen does add weight to UK's international political 'clout' and influence.

WAIT!! I've just thought of a brilliant reason to keep the monarchy.
It means my sister can get the job she has jsut applied for.
She is trying to work with the royal collection, and with no royalty there would be no royal collection.

You people are evil, you all want my sister to starve!!!!

after the second sentence i thought you'd say royale ass kisser.

The queen is in effect a head of state without 'exercised' political power. This is a good thing. Being the head of an entire state has a habit of going to peoples' heads, so it's desirable to seperate 'headship' from the actual reins of power.
Yep. I wouldn't want the same person as both Head of State and head of government.

Keeping in mind that ministers are essentially a particular type of servant to the sovereign, in effect the title 'Prime Minister' means '1st amongst a particular group of servants'. Since a prime minister ought to be a servant and routinely reminding him or her that they are a servant every time you utter their title, might help facilitate this, that's a good thing.
You can still have a republic with the parliamentary system that we have now. The example I gave earlier was Ireland. Others include Israel, Italy, Germany, and Portugal.

On a more practical note, the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth. The UK no longer retains the strong economic ties with many Commonwealth countries, yet many Commonwealth members continue to view themselves as 'connected' to the UK because of the Commonwealth and the shared head of state (the queen). It's because of this bond that many people in the Commonwealth choose to O.E. in the UK, and also look on the UK as being a social-political leader. These countries do not 'strictly follow' that leadership, but it does influence them, sometimes strongly.
The Queen is head of the Commonwealth, but she is not in that position by virtue of being Queen. She is actually elected by commonwealth members to that position for life. After Elizabeth II dies they could quite legally decide to have someone else as Head of the Commonwealth.

Removing the Queen would likely have detrimental effects on the influence the UK has with Commonwealth nations. The fact is, despite the lack of exercised power, despite occassional calls in some Commonwealth nations to remove Queen Lizzie as head of state, the Queen as head of the Commonwealth acts to facilitate the political influence of the UK abroad and retain a sense of connection with Commonwealth members.
There are plenty of Commonwealth republics, and they seem to be capable of their relations with other members as republics.

Although a lot of people prefer to think otherwise, the head of the Commonwealth being the Queen does add weight to UK's international political 'clout' and influence.
Evidence?

Not really, no.

Well, it means very little actually. But I could still be a knight!

Has anyone actually got any good reasons to why the Queen should be supported in Britain? Is anybody actually in favour of her?

Most of the Royal Family has land that they rent out. thats how they make their money. i think its only the queen that gets money from the gov't

Has anyone actually got any good reasons to why the Queen should be supported in Britain? Is anybody actually in favour of her?

- The tradition, there is no pressing need to be rid of her. The counter argument is that there is no need to keep her either, but if it isnt broken, do not try to fix it

- The function, the Queen is the head of state. An important ceremonial role. A president could not do that with the same kind of gravitas and majesticness that the Queen does

- The lack of need, a head of state has no political power of any kind. Thus there is no real need for their election, since they have no control over your or my life

Most of the Royal Family has land that they rent out. thats how they make their money.

Which they then don't pay any inheritance tax on.

On the tourism thing...last time I visted Versailles and the Peterhof they only had about a mile long queue to get into them.

Which they then don't pay any inheritance tax on.


Its a technicality in the system. Technically, any property owned by the Royals is by nature government property

Its a technicality in the system. Technically, any property owned by the Royals is by nature government property

Not quite true, the land classed as crown lands is as you describe but other land is owned by the royal family themselves and not part of the Queen's role as the monarch.

- The tradition, there is no pressing need to be rid of her. The counter argument is that there is no need to keep her either, but if it isnt broken, do not try to fix it



Because Britain is supposed be a free country, a democracy, and where everyone is equal under the law. As long as there's a royalty, it's almost those things, but not quite. It just goes against all these things that a hugely high-profile national post is forced on someone at birth. To give one example, the monarch is compelled to be head of the Church of England. What happens if they decide they're an atheist or a Buddhist? No-one knows...they just shouldn't do.

And surely if the property is government property, the income from it is government income? So the government does pay for minor royals.

Because Britain is supposed be a free country, a democracy, and where everyone is equal under the law. As long as there's a royalty, it's almost those things, but not quite. It just goes against all these things that a hugely high-profile national post is forced on someone at birth. To give one example, the monarch is compelled to be head of the Church of England. What happens if they decide they're an atheist or a Buddhist? No-one knows...they just shouldn't do.

And surely if the property is government property, the income from it is government income? So the government does pay for minor royals.

One argument I haven't seen is that they are trained from birth while politicians are generally not.

Also the people who tend to be politicians (not all) are those who can't get power/sucess any other way and have a tendancy to be corrupt. Recent example in the Uk would the peerages for cash scandal.

The British Monarchy is not only one of the oldest institutions in the modern world, and not only brings in tourism, but is also an active part of the British government. As The United Kingdom's Head of State, the Monarch has several constitutional powers. for simplicities sake, she is, in theory, the most powerful legislative body in Parliament. she may veto any act of parliament at her discretion, and send it back for improvement. therefore, all acts of parliament must be signed by the Queen in order to take effect. now, she does rely on ministrial advice, and would rarely go against her people, but she is needed here. she is the head of the military and judicial system, though she takes a very minimal role in these areas. she is also the single largest land owner in England and Scotland, as well as the head of hundreds of charities and organizations - without the Queen, they would not exist - and the Queen does pay taxes, therefore, quite a bit of revenue is made off of her properties, unless i'm greatly mistaken. it is also the Queen that formally represents the UK in international relations, and she is the one who receives foreign heads of state. she also holds weekly meetings with the Prime Minister (recently, the Prince of Wales has taken on this duty to a certain extent, seeing as the Queen is getting older, however she is still very active in these)(as well as others) in order to give advice and guidence on how to run the country. (she has seen around ten or so Prime Ministers, beginning with Winston Churchill - meaning she lived through World War II, and has led the country since, giving her much experience and wisdom that is greatly admired - and again, unless i'm VERY MUCH mistaken, she has access to all governmental papers, adding to this "outside view" because she is politically unbiased (to the public, she is restricted from voting)). finally, the Queen serves as a unifying figurehead, symbolising all that is good about Great Britain, leading her people with dignity. she is greatly loved by the people, and has about an 80% or so approval rate (this number could possibly be higer, or slightly lower, but not by much). that is why, in a nutshell, the British Monarchy is needed in Great Britain.

Because Britain is supposed be a free country, a democracy, and where everyone is equal under the law. As long as there's a royalty, it's almost those things, but not quite. It just goes against all these things that a hugely high-profile national post is forced on someone at birth. To give one example, the monarch is compelled to be head of the Church of England. What happens if they decide they're an atheist or a Buddhist? No-one knows...they just shouldn't do.

And surely if the property is government property, the income from it is government income? So the government does pay for minor royals.


technically, the pledge of allegiance in Britain, which pledges to the Queen, states that subjects acknowledge that Royalty is above them and that the second class is the highest they can go on the social ladder unless the Queen says otherwise (through an honour). as for if they are an athiest, they just have to live with it - it is their duty to lead the church - Charles II was a catholic sympathiser, yet he just went along with the Protestant deal - it can be done

Yep. I wouldn't want the same person as both Head of State and head of government.


You can still have a republic with the parliamentary system that we have now. The example I gave earlier was Ireland. Others include Israel, Italy, Germany, and Portugal.
Actually, I'm not thinking of you, I'm thinking of us. From my point of veiw the Queen is far away, and head of state. Someone has to be head of state or someone with high office will eventually assume that they are. Far away suits me fine. It might be less convinient to you since my 'far away' could well be your local. I'd be silly to not argue in favour of my own self-interests, if I dont, who will?

The Queen is head of the Commonwealth, but she is not in that position by virtue of being Queen. She is actually elected by commonwealth members to that position for life. After Elizabeth II dies they could quite legally decide to have someone else as Head of the Commonwealth.
An elected person other than the Queen wouldnt have the same effect. Aside from the historical-traditional aspects, the how and why of her office is relevent to how the office is (and likely will continue to be) conducted. She is the head of state because she's the queen, not because she is a political personage with ambition (enough to get themselves elected to such a post) but because she isnt a politician and she need have no ambition, nor has been raised to value personal political ambition - rather she's been raised to be a figure-head.

The Queen is not a politician, she's very circumscribed in that area. She is rich and has as much power as anyone's going to let her have, and has done so for many years. Some elected person other than the Queen is less likely to have these qualities. Essentially I like my head of state to be nothing other than a figurehead. Not so many people want to go to the trouble of getting themselves elected to be the head of state in multiple countries whilst also not wanting to assume regularly exercised powers or authority. She's a place-holder. Privledged from birth and raised to not interfere in politics or seek further power, she holds an office that could potentially be a problem were it open to ambitious folk of the kind capable and willing to get themselves elected to such a post.


There are plenty of Commonwealth republics, and they seem to be capable of their relations with other members as republics.
Of course, but the fact is plenty of people I know feel no less close and often more friendly towards the UK than they do towards our much closer neighbours (this is not in the least universal of course). This is rather odd when you consider we dont have close economic ties with the UK, we have seperated our legal system out from the UK's (we have recently abolished ties with the privy council), our regional security concerns and the UK's do not really coincide, and we live in entirely different hemispheres. I honestly cannot see what the attraction to the UK and the respect for it is about if it's not because of your Queen being our head of state. This is the reason people have given me and nothing else makes sense.

The US is a bigger more influential country and we get a lot of their cultural and material products here, Aussie is closer and most people I know have more family in Aussie - it's cheaper to visit and easier to get work legally work as a visitor.

So it's not because the UK is itself influential (the US is more influential but it's not common for me to come across people who feel as close or closer to the US than they do to all our immediate neighbours or to the UK), it's not geographical closeness (the UK is half a world away), it's not economic (we have closer economic ties within the Asia-Pacific rim these days), it's not cultural penetration via importation of material culture (we are at least as exposed to US culture and products as to UK). People who express closeness to the UK tell me it's because Queen and our head of state are one and the same...I see no reason to conclude that they are lying or mistaken in their self-expression.

I understand that politically the identification extends to other Commonwealth nations, but on a personal level (ie so far as people tell me) that isnt the case to the same degree as I've observed it being in regards to the UK. Without the queen the Commonwealth is a meaningless association to just about everyone I know who currently cares about it, no more relevent than any other number of international associations. With the Queen it's an important historical aspect of the nation, kept relevent through continuing constititional ties to a particular institution that preceeds the birth of my nation and that was a partner in its founding - the 'Royal Sovereign'.

Evidence?
My own word is evidence as good as any evidence you could ever get (although not particularly extensive and so open to 'sampling error'). It's a subjective matter (whether or not the queen makes the UK seem more relevent to a particular person). Without the Queen the UK has no modern relevence to me. It's just another country in the absence of the link that exists in the person of the Queen.

It's actually cheaper in terms of what you have to pay
It brings in more money then it spends
She is the figure head for the country
She is the legal head of the common wealth, by no legal means can you take away that title.

Because it's fun to have one.

Tradition. Money. The fact that dissidents are in the minority by a good stretch. There being no real advantage in doing away with it.

lol :P

though when was the last time the crown gave cash to the government to bump up the treasury?4

The Crown does it every year...about £200m IIRC

The Crown does it every year...about £200m IIRC

which is how keeping the monarchy costs each taxpayer 67p per year (iirc)
sounds like they cost more than they give

Has anyone actually got any good reasons to why the Queen should be supported in Britain? Is anybody actually in favour of her?

Yes, I'm in favour of her. And the House of Lords.
Last thing we need are any more popularity-courting self-interested elected muppets cluttering the place up; the unelected parts of our government protect us from them.
Down with the Parliament Act, I say.

which is how keeping the monarchy costs each taxpayer 67p per year (iirc)
sounds like they cost more than they give

Sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about :p

The Crown and the Treasury have an agreement whereby the Public Purse gets turned over to the Treasury every year. Public Purse money comes from things such as the Crown Estates, and amounts to around £180m/year (in 2003-2004 it was about that).

From that, the Treasury "pays" the Crown an allowance; the Civil List.

The Civil List is fixed at £7.9m/year, and provides for only the official expenses (travel costs, upkeep of buildings, staff wages etc.) incurred by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Queen also has the Privy Purse (as opposed to the Public Purse). This is her private income from things she has inherited and owns herself, mostly the Duchy of Lancaster, which aren't part and parcel of the office of "The Crown". This amounts to around £8m a year as well, and pays for other members of the Royal Family to go about their business.

So there you have it :)

You shouldn't be cruel to the Queen, you're supposed to act nicely to old ladies. :mad:

Let her keep her title.

Sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about :p

The Crown and the Treasury have an agreement whereby the Public Purse gets turned over to the Treasury every year. Public Purse money comes from things such as the Crown Estates, and amounts to around £180m/year (in 2003-2004 it was about that).

From that, the Treasury "pays" the Crown an allowance; the Civil List.

The Civil List is fixed at £7.9m/year, and provides for only the official expenses (travel costs, upkeep of buildings, staff wages etc.) incurred by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Queen also has the Privy Purse (as opposed to the Public Purse). This is her private income from things she has inherited and owns herself, mostly the Duchy of Lancaster, which aren't part and parcel of the office of "The Crown". This amounts to around £8m a year as well, and pays for other members of the Royal Family to go about their business.

So there you have it :)

I wonder how that 7.9 million per year cost compares to other heads of state?

I wonder how that 7.9 million per year cost compares to other heads of state?

Couldn't say for sure, but favourably I'd expect.

Why don't we discuss Euthanasia and Abortion after this? That would be terribly original as well.

Historical importance? Tradition? I mean, it honestly can't be that expensive, and the tourism that royal sites bring has to more than compensate for the cost of maintaining those institutions.

Why don't we discuss Euthanasia and Abortion after this? That would be terribly original as well.
As far as I remember, we haven't had a thread on this for a while, although it does crop up from time to time.

While the whole idea of a monarchy is stupid, they bring in more money than they cost, and it seems mean to get rid of them, when they have devoted their lives to their jobs. People bitch about all the money they get, but for major ones like the queen, its not like they spend it on yachts and shit, they have to be their position 24/7. every act is scrutinised and they cant do anything fun. Seems fair to me.

The way i see it, the monarchy's role needs to be strengthened. For example, the Queen's honours list would be improved immesurably if it was the Queen's honours list and not an excuse for the idiot in charge to reward his cronies and fund givers.
Nothing wrong with the Royal family, lots of tradition and continuity and such, none of the corruption you'd get automatically from an elected head of state, a bit of deniablity, i.e. 'they're only a bunch of inbred Germans, i didn't vote for them' vs. 'Well he is an idiot and he's making our country look bad because we did vote form him'.

The way i see it, the monarchy's role needs to be strengthened. For example, the Queen's honours list would be improved immesurably if it was the Queen's honours list and not an excuse for the idiot in charge to reward his cronies and fund givers.
Nothing wrong with the Royal family, lots of tradition and continuity and such, none of the corruption you'd get automatically from an elected head of state, a bit of deniablity, i.e. 'they're only a bunch of inbred Germans, i didn't vote for them' vs. 'Well he is an idiot and he's making our country look bad because we did vote form him'.
I agree that there is a definite need for the honours to be depoliticised, and the Lords shambles proves that.

Has anyone actually got any good reasons to why the Queen should be supported in Britain? Is anybody actually in favour of her?



You are not going to get rid of a centuries old symbol of the UK. More than the UK still have their monarchies. Spain, Netherlands...etc etc etc. Just give it up and have some pride in your history for once.

I love the monarchy, and i want to marry prince william.

you would have to wear a HAT all the time!

i saw his current gf on tv this morning. they were at some official ...thing. she was wearing a great big black hat. what self-respecting 20something wears a HAT? they are not even engaged for god's sake.

its creepy and its wrong.