British Monarchy - Views...

4Play · 18 Mar 2010 at 11:02

The thing is though the monarchy just simply dont have the same power as they used to. They very rarely seem to be involved with anything. What seperates her from everyone else living in England and all the rest of the so called "royal" family is beyond me.

RDM · 18 Mar 2010 at 11:04

meghatronic said:
The British Army is the Army of Parliament, with the exception of a few regiments. This is an important distinction, historically. She is the 'head' of some regiments by historical tradition - which has no bearing on anything at all. They certainly are not a 'link'.

Now it is all moot as all branches of the armed forces answer directly to the tri-service Defence Council and the MoD. The MoD in turn answers to the cabinet and the PM. Note no mention of a Sovereign here.

They do however swear an oath of allegience.

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.

So technically every serving soldier in the Army actually answers to the Queen. Same with the RAF and Royal Marines.

meghatronic · 18 Mar 2010 at 11:09

wooops.

meghatronic · 18 Mar 2010 at 11:10

RDM said:
They do however swear an oath of allegience.

So technically every serving soldier in the Army actually answers to the Queen. Same with the RAF and Royal Marines.

Well you convince the Queen to order the armed forces to invade Ireland. And we'll see what happens.

It's as much as the Royal Mail is royal, and the police being crown etc. It's as we're a monarchistic nation.

Also, you're wrong. Royal Marines fall under the Navy. Which are not covered by any such oaths (Royal prerogative).

weescott · 18 Mar 2010 at 13:07

meghatronic said:
Are you on crack?

Scotland do have a monarch, under the Act of Union 1707. If you doubt this, ask yourself why HRH appointed the First Minister of Scotland and nomination of the Scottish Parliament. Doesn't get more official than a 300yr old law.

Are you a drunk? See I can do insults too. :rolleyes:

My point was that it is in my view an English Royal family. There is no Scottish Royal family. The Merging of the crowns and the monarchy's role in the Act of Union means absolutely nothing to me in this day in age.

jas72 · 18 Mar 2010 at 13:28

starfighter said:
I don't agree with a monarchy and think a democracy is a better system. But as the Royal Family have no power they aren't much different to any other wealthy family apart from they bring in a bit of tourism which makes us more than they cost.

I say keep them just for the LOLz.

I don't agree with democracy and think the monarchy know what's best for our country and have been trained from birth to act in a certain manner.

meghatronic · 18 Mar 2010 at 13:29

weescott said:
Are you a drunk? See I can do insults too.

My point was that it is in my view an English Royal family. There is no Scottish Royal family. The Merging of the crowns and the monarchy's role in the Act of Union means absolutely nothing to me in this day in age.

It was a question, not an insult.

My point was, you said it "officially" had no monarchy. I was highlighting how wrong you were. "Effectively" may have been a better word.. but that would be true of the entire commonwealth, let alone the UK.

Your viewpoint, unless you were a dictator of Scotland, has little bearing on almost anything to do with officialdom.

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith is also Scotland's "Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle" and very much the monarch.

eatcustard · 18 Mar 2010 at 13:34

The Queen does have power

She can dissolve Parliament.

meghatronic · 18 Mar 2010 at 13:38

eatcustard said:
The Queen does have power

She can dissolve Parliament.

She 'can'. But they could just turn around and tell her to do one. And I suspect, for shame, the majority of the public would agree with them.

Tefal · 18 Mar 2010 at 13:38

only when parliament lets her.

if she just stood up one day and said "i dissolve parliament and assume control of the country muhahahahaha"

They'd just call the doctor to have a look at her and hush it up as she's clearly gone a bit senile

4Play · 18 Mar 2010 at 13:39

Realistically there is one main question with the monarchy, does the amount of money it cost to keep them outweigh the tourism they bring in or vice versa. Something we will never know.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 18 Mar 2010 at 13:59

I was all for doing away with them thinking they were a waste of money till I discovered that they make more money for the country via their estates (the government gets the profits of it) by a very large margin than they spend from their government "pocket money" (forgot the term used).

They can stay, do no harm.

Edward01 · 18 Mar 2010 at 14:08

4Play said:
Realistically there is one main question with the monarchy, does the amount of money it cost to keep them outweigh the tourism they bring in or vice versa. Something we will never know.

The money from the crown estates covers the cost to keep them, the tourism is a bonus!!

Gall1987 · 30 Mar 2010 at 12:10

Is there anywhere that I can find estimated the figures for the amount of money/vistors the Royal Family brought in to the UK last year?

I've had a search around but cannot find anything that's not from the early 00's.

Thanks

meghatronic · 30 Mar 2010 at 12:24

Gall1987 said:
Is there anywhere that I can find estimated the figures for the amount of money/vistors the Royal Family brought in to the UK last year?

I've had a search around but cannot find anything that's not from the early 00's.

Thanks

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/annual_report/ would be a good start for 'money'. And http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/annual report 0809/Two Page Summary final.pdf Bare in mind a lot of these costs would happen without a Monarchy, e.g. Honors etc.

Tourism - good luck, impossible to say.

Skidder · 30 Mar 2010 at 12:33

The Royal Family is the intellectual property of our tourism offer. Disney has Mickey, Minnie, Goofy et al. we have Phil, Liz and Charles. They differentiate us as a destination and are reasonably good value when compared to other brands with international appeal.

Drizmod · 30 Mar 2010 at 13:42

The Monarchy costs each person in the uk what 67 pence a year to run? Thats value for money if you ask me.

territt · 30 Mar 2010 at 13:49

Drizmod said:
The Monarchy costs each person in the uk what 67 pence a year to run? Thats value for money if you ask me.

I would prefer my 67 pence thanks,

Drizmod · 30 Mar 2010 at 13:52

territt said:
I would prefer my 67 pence thanks,

Sure. You will make a huge difference in the country with that 67 pence

Von Smallhausen · 30 Mar 2010 at 14:37

r3loaded said:
I can't understand the people running the "stealing their property" line - exactly what entitled them to all this property? Every new royal family that has come through has gained their position by waging war, butchering the previous royal family and nicking their stuff!!

Some have seized the crown through war such as William I and Henry VII but most transition from one bloodline to another has been nothing like you suggest.