The royal family - should they still be there ?
- Thread starter Dark_Angel
- Start date
What?
How about there international influence? which no leader could ever achieve. Because they haven't been raised from birth to mix and mingle with such people and taught how to act and behave.
Excuse me, but who are you to say who gets Royal status and who doesn't?
Their status is a right which they inherit and I don't see how or why we should be taking away other peoples rights just because we don't like/disagree with them.
As for the honours system - thats not been under Royal control for a very long time.
EDIT: That might have come across as a bit harsh/an attack. Its not meant to be.
They pretty much can.
Don't see why they should go, they bring in a lot of tourism, not much else really.
All I did was share my opinion as I was invited to do by the OP. I would love to know why you think your opinion is more worthy than mine.
Nonsense. Royal Status is not a right and never has been. It's a privilege granted by the British people. Unless you're one of the people who think the monarch is appointed by God?
I appreciate that Downing Street makes the decisions but as the Queen is involved in the ceremony, I thought I would include it.
Just as well I thought better of posting an image of a guillotine. Just imagine the response that would have provoked!
I love the people who talk about the "work" they do. If you call work eating the finest food off the finest china, drinking the finest wine and cutting ribbons work then that's fine.
They should pay there own way, not a penny of tax payers money should be given to them to furnish their over indulgent lavish lifestyle.
They should pay there own way, not a penny of tax payers money should be given to them to furnish their over indulgent lavish lifestyle.
so doing political work on behalf of the country is not work?
Why Shouldn't they get paid for doing there job.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
The crown surrendered it's private lands to the government in return for a regular source of income from those lands. Crown Estates makes around £180m a year, of which around £40m goes to supporting the Royal Family.
Prince Andrew is well know to abuse his position in order to play the odd round of golf at our expense.
Prince Edward exploits his royal position to further his "career" in the media and arts world, can we be sure no taxpayers money is being used to fund this?
Prince Edward exploits his royal position to further his "career" in the media and arts world, can we be sure no taxpayers money is being used to fund this?
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
I find myself attracted to agreeing with this ^
it's there pay.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
From Wikipedia:
Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Duke receives £359,000 per year. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family are funded from a Parliamentary Annuity, the amount of which is repaid by the Queen from the monies put into the Privy Purse from income from the Duchy of Lancaster. The money repaid by the Queen can be claimed against her personal tax bill however, meaning she makes profit of over £500,000 annually due to this arrangement. Money from the Privy Purse also goes towards royal charities, including the Chapel Royal.
I guess we fund them to the tune of £500k a year then.
Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Duke receives £359,000 per year. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family are funded from a Parliamentary Annuity, the amount of which is repaid by the Queen from the monies put into the Privy Purse from income from the Duchy of Lancaster. The money repaid by the Queen can be claimed against her personal tax bill however, meaning she makes profit of over £500,000 annually due to this arrangement. Money from the Privy Purse also goes towards royal charities, including the Chapel Royal.
I guess we fund them to the tune of £500k a year then.
I'd like us to keep them.
Does the Queen have the power to dissolve parliament over this 42 day fiasco by the way? For arguements sake, Lords say it's a load of rubbish and reject, then that plank at No.10 tries to force it through with the parliament act, could she just then dissolve parliament and force a general election?
Does the Queen have the power to dissolve parliament over this 42 day fiasco by the way? For arguements sake, Lords say it's a load of rubbish and reject, then that plank at No.10 tries to force it through with the parliament act, could she just then dissolve parliament and force a general election?
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
The Queen can dissolve parliament if she's constipated. I don't think she needs a reason. Of course, she won't (for ANY reason), because if she did, the government/public wouldn't recognise it and the Monarchy would be abolished, imho. She should've devolved it the second dictator brown entered the fray.
EDIT - I was wrong. The queen can only dissolve parliament if approached to do so by the PM. Well, she could anytime, but it'd be a constitutional nightmare.
Last edited: