More than likely. I bet most don't realise how many diplomacy type meetings they do, or how well respected they are. Partly because they transcend governents. Something an elected official never could as they'll have terms to serve. Just think how good that continuity is when in chats.
Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?
- Thread starter theforce
- Start date
More than likely. I bet most don't realise how many diplomacy type meetings they do, or how well respected they are. Partly because they transcend governents. Something an elected official never could as they'll have terms to serve. Just think how good that continuity is when in chats.
It could be argued that the Queen pays the highest rate of tax out of anyone in the country. The Crown Estates has a surplus of income over £200m all of which is gifted to the Exchequer. The Royal Family receives something like £35m in return (including the Civil List, protection, travel, buildings upkeep etc etc). So that creates an effective income tax rate of 82.5%. So even before you consider anything else - employment, tourism, charity, ambassadorship and so forth - the Queen is a massive net financial contributor to the country.
Technically, once the Queen dies, Charles could require the return of the Crown Estates to his ownership - can't see that happening though.
Its not about the whether they do good work or just hang around the palace playing with the corgi's. Its the fact that nobody voted for them and they can never be fired, but they enjoy power and wealth from birth that the rest of cant even begin to comprehend.
They dont DESERVE to be handed the world on a plate at the expense of the taxpayer.
They dont DESERVE to be handed the world on a plate at the expense of the taxpayer.
Last edited:
Explain why.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 935
- Location
- Suffolk/Bournemouth(Uni)
Read this.
They generate money for the country. As already said they are also an important diplomat too.
Simply untrue though, they give the country far more through the crown estates than they are given by the taxpayer.
Come live in the real world. Birth rights is very much part of society and isn't and can't be removed. It's just how it is. An elected member can't and never could do the job for a multitude of reasons.
If that's what you are hung up about, open your eyes.
I don't see you wanting inheritance taken away, or people with kids to be moved to a nice area so their kids have more chance.
because we wouldn't be a kingdom for a start, centuries of what this country was built on gone, a massive void left and we lose our identity, an identity some might say we are struggling to hold onto as it is!
the royal family are active and renowned world wide.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
Seems that the forum is almost on 50/50 split on this. Quite interesting really.
Only if you amalgamate the indifferent into the antis - which is not really correct.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Are you looking at a different poll to me?
The whole constitution of the UK is built around the monarchy - from Parliament, through the legal system to the military. Even if the majority wanted to get rid of the monarchy, it would be an absolute nightmare, and hugely costly, to arrange.
One would think if one really believed in equality then the very notion of monarchy cannot exist. Everyone should be born an equal and not into nobility and prosperity.
However there isn't a country or a place on this planet where anybody could say their society is truly equal. So even if we got rid of the Royals it wouldn't make any difference overall.
However there isn't a country or a place on this planet where anybody could say their society is truly equal. So even if we got rid of the Royals it wouldn't make any difference overall.
I bet they know the difference between their, there and they're, though. So perhaps they are an higher form of life.
Sorry. Couldn't resist
[runs for the door]
not really, we wouldn't have to pay a load of birthright freeloaders every year
There's a big difference between inheritance of something that an older generations have worked hard for and inheritance that a linage of family has been born into over hundreds of years and will continue to happen because some people accept the authority of the family line.
It's a rejection of elitism on the basis past family members were elites in the social order of the country. A better comparison is the removal of hereditary peerages as they gave positions of power based on being related to people who once did something or knew someone.
So the queen hasn't worked hard? And what do you replace it with? I certainly don't wont a presidential system which changes every 4 years. No continuity.
It's a necessity and people want it changed out of spite. Rather than going actuall this a brilliant system and the inheritance actually is such a small issue it's nit worth changing for that.
It's a necessity and people want it changed out of spite. Rather than going actuall this a brilliant system and the inheritance actually is such a small issue it's nit worth changing for that.