Poll: Royal Engagement

Do you care about the royal wedding?

  • Yes, it'll be a great national occasion

    Votes: 204 19.5%

  • Yes, but only for the bank holiday

    Votes: 218 20.9%

  • I'm indifferent

    Votes: 140 13.4%

  • I don't really care for it.

    Votes: 157 15.0%

  • What a waste of public money - sod them

    Votes: 205 19.6%

  • Pancake.

    Votes: 121 11.6%
  • Total voters
    1,045
Oxymoron ?

Perhaps it's just me but I can't see how such a system is undone at the click of a finger ?

I will take the current monarchy and PM system we have over a president ( which would likely have a PM under him or her anyway ).

Of course, I can only speak for myself. :)
 
Yes, a constitutional monarchy is a bit of an oxymoron to me.

Completely superflous. It should really be one or the other, that's where the accusation of pomp and ceremony come from. Because the royal function, really, is just that.

We don't need a queen to make a government. We can do it with out royal involvement.

How do revolutions take place? etc

I never said at the click of a finger, but if a political party with that aim was voted to power with a manifesto with referendum... and people said yes... something would have to happen wouldn't it?

Write a constitution. Could start that way perhaps.

Who knows.

As I said, I don't care. I'm just not seeing that much in the way of concinving arguments otherwise!
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Despite reports to the contrary, The Crown Estate has never been the private property of the reigning monarch and therefore cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report.
Click to expand...

And, straight from the 'Horses Mouth' so to speak...

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm


Who owns The Crown Estate?

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the sovereign.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation – established by statute – headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels – part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.
Click to expand...
£38.2Million is the Official Cost Figure, there are also highly biased Republican based Estimates that the cost is more like £180Million and still some of this is not entirely clear cut as the Monarch has 'Special' Secret(As in the real Amount) Tax breaks regards Inheritance Taxes allegedly indirectly costing the UK around another £200Million in lost Tax Revenue. As ever two sides have different figures, the TRUE Figures will probably not be known, so research what you can and ignore anyone who states figures as Facts that they cannot possibly have.

And as always remember the most expensive additional Cost by far is the Security Costs which are unknown as the Govt. will not disclose them, the Security costs will completely eclipse any other costs, look at accessible figures from other Countries that may have disclosure to get a good idea, things like the 4-day Pope Visit to UK @£10Million, US Inauguration @$160Million for example.
 
doofer said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate



And, straight from the 'Horses Mouth' so to speak...

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm


£38.2Million is the Official Cost Figure, there are also highly biased Republican based Estimates that the cost is more like £180Million and still some of this is not entirely clear cut as the Monarch has 'Special' Secret(As in the real Amount) Tax breaks regards Inheritance Taxes allegedly indirectly costing the UK around another £200Million in lost Tax Revenue. As ever two sides have different figures, the TRUE Figures will probably not be known, so research what you can and ignore anyone who states figures as Facts that they cannot possibly have.

And as always remember the most expensive additional Cost by far is the Security Costs which are unknown as the Govt. will not disclose them, the Security costs will completely eclipse any other costs, look at accessible figures from other Countries that may have disclosure to get a good idea, things like the 4-day Pope Visit to UK @£10Million, US Inauguration @$160Million for example.
Click to expand...

The entire inauguration cost $160m, not the security. Besides the security costs would remain even if we replace the Monarchy with a Presidency, for both the defunct Monarchy and then the added expense of the Presidency also.

If your whole argument revolves around Security costs and secret stuff no-one knows about then it's pretty weak tbh.

Also you will hit some pretty significant legal issue with who owns what if the agreements like the Civil List no longer hold.
 
Castiel said:
The entire inauguration cost $160m, not the security. Besides the security costs would remain even if we replace the Monarchy with a Presidency, for both the defunct Monarchy and then the added expense of the Presidency also.
Click to expand...

I disagree, a Presidency would be far more manageable and have far less 'Hangers-On' it would also be more Accountable.

Castiel said:
If your whole argument revolves around Security costs and secret stuff no-one knows about then it's pretty weak tbh.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing anything, I am merely pointing out that what is commonly thought of as facts about the Crown Estate and Royals Costs/Benefits are not really facts as there IS 'secret stuff no-one knows about' I didn't make it secret, it's not MY fault you can't know the Security Costs. Which also comes around to unknown Facts making a 'pretty weak' (Argument?) then you need to accept that any case FOR Royal Benefits is as invalid as any case Against as they are BOTH based on the same unknown. YOUR unknown is no more right than MY unknown, I just don't claim my unknowns as Facts.

Castiel said:
Also you will hit some pretty significant legal issue with who owns what if the agreements like the Civil List no longer hold.
Click to expand...

I won't need anything, I don't care either way, I'm not a republican and I actually find the Royals quite amusing (A bit like your Ego :)) so would miss them if they were gone. Anyway, enough of this, it is boring now. :)
 
I wish them the best, shes pretty & seems real decent so mission accomplished for him lol.

Having said that I dont wanna hear about it 24/7 and yea bring on da bank holiday!

But I will make you feel better. My mates back in the US say its RELENTLESS coverage there...they are mental over it..you know how OTT they are there haha.
 
who gives a **** this is just the perfect smokescreen for the rich tories to shaft the workers, same with thatcher with charles and di, what a load of **** I hope the royals spontaneously combust!
 
What about the crown estates income that gets given to the state as part of the civil list agreement, that is circa 4x the size of the civil list payment?
 
doofer said:
I disagree, a Presidency would be far more manageable and have far less 'Hangers-On' it would also be more Accountable.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but what do you suggest we do with the Royals once they have been replaced. The security concerns and the inherent cost will still be there just with the added cost of a President and his not so insignificant entourage, unless you are going to ask the French to dust off a guillotine or two.;)



doofer said:
I am not arguing anything, I am merely pointing out that what is commonly thought of as facts about the Crown Estate and Royals Costs/Benefits are not really facts as there IS 'secret stuff no-one knows about' I didn't make it secret, it's not MY fault you can't know the Security Costs. Which also comes around to unknown Facts making a 'pretty weak' (Argument?) then you need to accept that any case FOR Royal Benefits is as invalid as any case Against as they are BOTH based on the same unknown. YOUR unknown is no more right than MY unknown, I just don't claim my unknowns as Facts.
Click to expand...

£226m profit from the Crown Estate is not an unknown. The only unknown is the cost of security and as pointed out the security cost would remain for the Royal Family even if the Queen was not the Head of State and we would have the added costs of a Presidency to add to that. Also the State would in all likelihood lose the profit from the Crown Estates as that is paid to the State on the condition that the State finance the Civil List among other things, it would be a political and legal minefield that frankly is not worth the bother.



doofer said:
I won't need anything, I don't care either way, I'm not a republican and I actually find the Royals quite amusing (A bit like your Ego :)) so would miss them if they were gone. Anyway, enough of this, it is boring now. :)
Click to expand...

So I am an egotistical old goat, that's ok, I learnt to live with it long ago. I am glad you find it amusing though, it gives me a nice warm feeling inside that it is good for something at least.:)
 
MrMoonX said:
who gives a **** this is just the perfect smokescreen for the rich tories to shaft the workers, same with thatcher with charles and di, what a load of **** I hope the royals spontaneously combust!
Click to expand...

Shaft them how ?

Will the smokescreen of a royal wedding allow Cameron to raise income tax by 10p without batting an eyelid or perhaps stick VAT up another 2.5% ?

Also, how did Thatcher shaft the workers when Chrales and Di married ?
 
simulatorman said:
Why so?
Click to expand...

Because it is used as argumentative premise that if we had a constitutional re-arrangement tourism would suffer. Nonsense.

Also the figures were for all of the heritage, not just the active monarchy as is banded about.

People would still be interested in visiting the country regardless of the Queen opens parliament or not.
 
It's a wonderful time. I get to pack my bags next Thursday evening, taxied to the airport the next morning and I won't be back until May the 2nd. Just happy to miss the forced-upon happiness and superficial melodrama that the wedding would be ... and getting paid for it at the same time!

Long live this mob of Germans!
 
Parsifal said:
There's no reason to hate the monarchy other than jealousy.
Click to expand...

Or indifference. The majority of this country just don't give a flying **** about them. I wish them no harm nor do I spend time hating them. I simply do not think about, or care about them. How you arrived at 'jealousy' only you would know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom