Poll: Will you be putting up the Bunting next month?

Will you be putting up the Bunting next month?

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 8.5%

  • No

    Votes: 330 79.7%

  • Pancake

    Votes: 49 11.8%
  • Total voters
    414
  • Poll closed .
ik9000 said:
Sources for Charles views?
Click to expand...

There isn't an article I can find right now that talks about his views. But you can see from his statements over the last 50 years which way he leans on that issue. Also, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, spoke about the current arrangement in a parliamentary debate in July 2011 and got Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne to admit that: 'in the theoretical circumstances that a new monarch decided to keep the Crown Estates revenues, it would be open to such a monarch to do so'.

ik9000 said:
The 25% rate was set by the publicly elected MPs in 2012 to move from having to constantly review the civil list. Again, MPs making the financial decisions. I really don't get what you're protesting about. I'd be surprised if an elected head of state and the associated apparatus would cost any less.
Click to expand...

In 2020 the monarchies in the Netherlands and Norway cost their taxpayers less than half ours, Belgium's cost a seventh of ours, Denmark's and Luxembourg's cost an eighth of ours, Spain's and Sweden's cost under a tenth of ours. They have slimmed their monarchies right down. They maintain the minimum appropriate accommodation and modest resources with public funds.

An elected head of state could cost a lot less because he/she won't have half a dozen palaces to maintain and a large group of "working Royals" to support etc with the Sovereign Grant.

robfosters said:
Makes you think though that if we didn’t have a monarchy and elected our heads of state, the last 3 would have been Boris, Truss and Sunak.

Think about that one before you bemoan the royals.
Click to expand...

That old canard! The rules for who can be President could be set to exclude career politicians. Non-partisan people with outstanding lifetime achievements could be the only permitted candidates.
 
Maple Leaf said:
There isn't an article I can find right now that talks about his views. But you can see from his statements over the last 50 years which way he leans on that issue. Also, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, spoke about the current arrangement in a parliamentary debate in July 2011 and got Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne to admit that: 'in the theoretical circumstances that a new monarch decided to keep the Crown Estates revenues, it would be open to such a monarch to do so'.



In 2020 the monarchies in the Netherlands and Norway cost their taxpayers less than half ours, Belgium's cost a seventh of ours, Denmark's and Luxembourg's cost an eighth of ours, Spain's and Sweden's cost under a tenth of ours. They have slimmed their monarchies right down. They maintain the minimum appropriate accommodation and modest resources with public funds.

An elected head of state could cost a lot less because he/she won't have half a dozen palaces to maintain and a large group of "working Royals" to support etc with the Sovereign Grant.



That old canard! The rules for who can be President could be set to exclude career politicians. Non-partisan people with outstanding lifetime achievements could be the only permitted candidates.
Click to expand...
And what’s the point of a non politician president? What would their job consist of?
 
robfosters said:
And what’s the point of a non politician president? What would their job consist of?
Click to expand...

It would be a ceremonial position. Dealing with visiting foreign heads of state, opening libraries etc. Doing all the things the current monarch does. The monarchy is supposed to be non-political too. Why would they need to be a politician?
 
PlacidCasual said:
When you have one of the longest most stable constitutional settlements in the World you end up with constitutional monarchy. Other more incontinent countries have military rule a few Empires and the odd republic or five. I’m happy with the way the UK works why copy other largely less successful systems.
Click to expand...
So emulate the ones that work, we clearly do not.
 
Maple Leaf said:
It would be a ceremonial position. Dealing with visiting foreign heads of state, opening libraries etc. Doing all the things the current monarch does. The monarchy is supposed to be non-political too. Why would they need to be a politician?
Click to expand...
How ridiculous. Electing someone just to do meet and greets. Never heard anything so backward tbh.
 
Maple Leaf said:
In 2020 the monarchies in the Netherlands and Norway cost their taxpayers less than half ours, Belgium's cost a seventh of ours, Denmark's and Luxembourg's cost an eighth of ours, Spain's and Sweden's cost under a tenth of ours. They have slimmed their monarchies right down. They maintain the minimum appropriate accommodation and modest resources with public funds.
Click to expand...
Pay peanuts, get monkeys. No one GAF about any of those other monarchies. Waste of money. Ours is legit OG
 
dLockers said:
Pay peanuts, get monkeys. No one GAF about any of those other monarchies. Waste of money. Ours is legit OG
Click to expand...
I'd rather have that than what is increasingly becoming the Kardashians to remain 'relevant', though it would be quite funny to have King Billy have a massive dumpy.
 
Last edited:
Maple Leaf said:
There isn't an article I can find right now that talks about his views. But you can see from his statements over the last 50 years which way he leans on that issue. Also, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, spoke about the current arrangement in a parliamentary debate in July 2011 and got Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne to admit that: 'in the theoretical circumstances that a new monarch decided to keep the Crown Estates revenues, it would be open to such a monarch to do so'.



In 2020 the monarchies in the Netherlands and Norway cost their taxpayers less than half ours, Belgium's cost a seventh of ours, Denmark's and Luxembourg's cost an eighth of ours, Spain's and Sweden's cost under a tenth of ours. They have slimmed their monarchies right down. They maintain the minimum appropriate accommodation and modest resources with public funds.

An elected head of state could cost a lot less because he/she won't have half a dozen palaces to maintain and a large group of "working Royals" to support etc with the Sovereign Grant.



That old canard! The rules for who can be President could be set to exclude career politicians. Non-partisan people with outstanding lifetime achievements could be the only permitted candidates.
Click to expand...
How much revenue do those other royal houses generate?

Also why do you care so much about something that doesn't affect your life? All those people walking down the mall, do you think they are crazy or do you think they are just enjoying the moment? A moment that brings people together to enjoy for some a once in a lifetime event.
 
gingergundog said:
How much revenue do those other royal houses generate?

Also why do you care so much about something that doesn't affect your life? All those people walking down the mall, do you think they are crazy or do you think they are just enjoying the moment? A moment that brings people together to enjoy for some a once in a lifetime event.
Click to expand...
And the COOP car park was dead when I had to run in to get cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom