The royal family - should they still be there ?

Haiku said:
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.
Click to expand...

I apologise - I seem to be in a snappy mood today.


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?
Click to expand...

Have to disagree here, think you are confusing Monarchs with politicians. We grant power (temporarily) to politicians. Neither you nor I have the power to give or take Royal Status, otherwise my dear old Nan would be a Royal!

:D
 
Slinwagh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Given that the queen pays a hell of a lot more in taxes then you do, should we get rid of you because you're no real use?

If you can't see the contribution to tourism that the royal family makes then you need your roundhead blinkers taking off.
 
Moley said:
Neither you nor I have the power to give or take Royal Status, otherwise my dear old Nan would be a Royal!
Click to expand...

Actually we do, we just don't exercise it. The existance of the Royal Family depends entirely upon us allowing them to be in that position. If we actually, as a nation, felt strongly about it then republicanism would be just around the corner.
 
Slinwagh said:
They are funded by 62p per day per taxpayer I think it is.
Click to expand...

Considering the Civil List is less that £40m, I very much doubt that is right. Additional expenditure such as the upkeep of various castles, houses and palaces would still take place without the RF as they are historical monuments.
 
bennyboy2606 said:
How would we get rid of them? Who has the power to rid our country of monarchy?
Click to expand...

Our politicians could quite happily restructure the workings of our government if there was enough appetite for it. There is nothing the RF would be able to do about it other then show their value and worth to us.

It's probable that Australia will move to an elected head of state when QE2 steps down as I can't see them carrying on with Charlie.
 
Haiku said:
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?
Click to expand...

So the fact that our Kings and Queens have made the country what it is today should be thrown aside because you don't like people having royal status?
 
It's the nepotism that gets me. I don't see why the head of state should be an unelected, unaccountable figure. It's an outdated, outmoded system that doesn't really have any place in the modern world apart from a tourist attraction - which is, imo, all they are.
 
well concidering we have elected blair, major, thatcher ... its not like we have much to choose from. Id rather have the monarchy because we'd only elect someone who we end up whining about.
 
Masterdog said:
It's the nepotism that gets me. I don't see why the head of state should be an unelected, unaccountable figure.
Click to expand...

It's the fact that they are unelected that makes them useful. If the figure were to be elected then it would have to be made into a role that people desired, something that would require more rewards and greater powers.

Just as we don't get to choose who will be out King or Queen, neither to they most of the time. You are born and you are told that you now have to carry the dignity of a nation and that your private life will be intruded upon constantly and that you will never be able to make decision about most of the basic things in life that we take for granted.

I wouldn't want to do the job in it's current format.
 
Slinwagh said:
They are funded by 62p per day per taxpayer I think it is.
Click to expand...
Rubbish.

[DOD]Asprilla;11955122 said:
Considering the Civil List is less that £40m, I very much doubt that is right.
Click to expand...
The civil list is considerably less. It has been fixed at £7.9m per annum from 2005 until 2010, when it will be reviewed.

In addition to this, 70% of the civil list goes on staff wages, not the Queen or her family. The purpose of the civil list is to meet the Queens expenses for official duties, which like it or not do affect us. Official state dinners, official duties around the world and so on.

She receives a property services grant, which goes exclusively on maintenance of her properties, which given their heritage status is hardly questionable.

Every year, the royal family engages in roughly 3,000 state visits, the costs of which are met by a grant.

The Privy Purse and Duchy of Lancaster amount to roughly £8m in income per annum, and go to meet the costs of things that the civil list doesn't cover.

The Queens private income is derived from investments she has made personally, and she pays capital gains and income tax on it just like everyone else.
 
Masterdog said:
It's the nepotism that gets me. I don't see why the head of state should be an unelected, unaccountable figure. It's an outdated, outmoded system that doesn't really have any place in the modern world apart from a tourist attraction - which is, imo, all they are.
Click to expand...

Nice way to just disregard there international statues on the political arena and the work they do for the uk.
 
Masterdog said:
It's the nepotism that gets me. I don't see why the head of state should be an unelected, unaccountable figure. It's an outdated, outmoded system that doesn't really have any place in the modern world apart from a tourist attraction - which is, imo, all they are.
Click to expand...

The head of state of our country is unelected and this is a good thing. She has no politics has to remain completely neutral in political matters and is here for the long run.

Unlike politicians who usually run for 10 or so years trying to do as much as they possibly can during that time - all politically correct in order to protect their position - the Monarchs position is a longer term (life sentence in fact) position with duties that must be carried out - whether she likes it or not.

On top of that she can't change her job one iota. The duties are set by tradition and parliament and she's not even allowed to quit if she wants!!!

There is no right of abdication given to our monarchs and the last monarch to Abdicate actually had to get parliaments permission to do so - which required an act of parliament to be passed to allow it.

Granted she probably loves her job, but we all have days when we would like to quit and I reckon she does too. But can't.

I think the Monarchy has a very special place in the Modern world and sixteen other countries who choose to have her as their head of state agree. She must be doing something right.
 
Slinwagh said:
They are funded by 62p per day per taxpayer I think it is.
Click to expand...



err wouldn't that come to tens of billions of pounds?

edit:

62 * 365 * 50 million (lets say there are 10 million+ non taxpayers) /100 = £11,315,000,000

err yea don't think thats accurate :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom