Home Search Calendar Help Login Register
Did you miss your activation email?
MurraysWorld Discussions  >  General Community  >  Chit Chat  >  The British Monarchy 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Poll
Question: Should the British Monarchy exist in today's world?
Yes. - 26 (51%)
No. - 25 (49%)
Total Voters: 49

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 97 Go Down Reply
Author Topic: The British Monarchy  (Read 22477 times)
AL1874
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,473

Gender: Male
Location: Edinburgh

What was I drinking last night?

The British Monarchy « on: February 09, 2008, 08:26 PM »
Reply


Yes, the queen is the head of state. In other countries, like for example, the USA, the president is head of state, and does the duties associated with that, as well as extra money spent on him because of that which we do not spend on Gordon Brown.


OK she provides a function of head of state, one which could equally be carried out by the Prime Minister.  The Prime Minister  already has round the clock protection so this expense is covered the only additional costs of taking on the role of Head of State would be some additional travel costs.

This I believe would be a lot less than £35m a year, so how is duplication of roles value to the tax payer?  


Also, a lot of damonirts have worked out that the gain from tourism because of the royal family is an extremely good investment for tax-payers money, and far outweighs the cost of their upkeep...


A nice wee link to said report and I will accept your argument otherwise it is the usual smoke and mirrors, you said I use feelings to base my decisions prove this is not just another urban myth and show me the size of your facts.

And sorry forgive me my ignorance but I’ve tried my hardest to find out what a “demonirts” is, I’ve googled it and everything and can not find it anywhere, is this a typographical error or can you please provide me with a dictionary definition of this word.

For the price of the Royal family’s upkeep we could give every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom free Sky TV, Broadband and Phone, this is not per house hold but per person.
Since each person donates £0.62 a day to keep them in the manner they have grown accustomed, I still believe them to be parasitical.

The Royals do not pay tax and the same rates as the rest of us and if I’ve got to pay 40p in the pound why should these horse-faced whore masters not have to do the same?

At the next Budget ask to make a tax contribution instead of the full amount due and see how understanding the Inland Revenue are about it. We should actually be thankful for small mercies that they have started to pay tax, until 1992 I paid more tax than reportedly the richest woman in the world and her adulterous brood each year.

If you are in the unfortunate position and a parent dies leaving you a house, you would be expected to pay inheritance tax, However when the Queen Mother died, Liz was not expected to pay the 20m inheritance tax bill that was due.

If we think of the scenario of the Monarchy getting disbanded, you suggest that tourism in London would collapse this is simply not the case, people don’t visit London only on the off chance they might get to see the queen. They are prepared to still visit and look at an empty castle through the gates, other wise each summer when they are in Balmoral the Mall would be deserted and it is common knowledge she is not there. They go to London to see numerous other attractions and to say they only vist because of the Royals is to me a joke.

They also said that the Olympics in London will produce a profit and that it will provide a lasting legacy for all of the United Kingdom, I don’t believe that one either until the accounts have been lodged it is all just hot air.

Finally for what it is worth I have met various members of the Royal family in the course of my work and my older brother has an MBE, but it would still not stop me putting the rope around their necks myself if this great nation finally came to it’s senses.


Mod NoticeSplit posts from Murray is pissing me off!, renamed thread and moved to Chit Chat.
[ Last edit by Mark February 11, 2008, 10:01 AM ] IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
*********
Posts: 16,735

Gender: Male


Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #1 on: February 09, 2008, 10:15 PM »
Reply

Awesome. Good posting!
IP Logged
eira_arian
John McEnroe
*********
Posts: 17,962

Gender: Female


Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #2 on: February 09, 2008, 10:34 PM »
Reply

I'm still a monarchist.
IP Logged
AL1874
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,473

Gender: Male
Location: Edinburgh

What was I drinking last night?

Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #3 on: February 09, 2008, 11:18 PM »
Reply

That's fine by me if we were all the same life would be a lot less interesting Smile
IP Logged
Yamor
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,663

Gender: Male

Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #4 on: February 09, 2008, 11:51 PM »
Reply

I'm sorry, i can't remember off-hand where i saw that they bring in more through tourism then the cost of their upkeep. I'll see if i can find it. 'Demonirts' was my mistake, i was trying to type 'economists' on my phone using predictive typing, and made a couple of mistakes in my haste!
I'm, of course, not suggesting that tourists won't visit if we abolish the monarchy, just its a part of the whole package, and everything adds up. The biggest draw for the Americans I know, for example, is the monarchy.
Concerning the wasted tax-payers money, you make it sound bad by saying what could be done with the money, but please remember, its a tiny tiny fraction of the UK budget. I can promise you, noone at all would feel the difference money-wise if they abolish the monarchy. I think the whole complaint about the money really stems from jealousy - I say that since nothing would change for you personally anyway by getting rid of the queen!
Another point to factor in is that the public interest in the royal family creates a lot of media attention, especially in the tabloids, and that helps sell newspapers, magazines etc. My point is, there are a lot of side effects from the monarchy which could help the economy.
This of course is besides the other benefits of the monarchy, such as helping forge closer ties to the commonwealth, which in turn gives the UK a bigger influence on world affairs in general. Also, there are certainly a lot of people in the UK who love the monarchy for itself, as well as the differences the monarchy has made, and to a limited extent still makes on our lives. Diana being the most recent example.

One final point: never ever blame the royal family themselves for what they are. Remember they were born into it, it was not their choice. I also think everyone has to agree that the queen, for example, has done a brilliant job, on the whole, of representing our nation over the last 50 odd years. You cannot fault her personally, or wish anything bad to happen to her.
IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
*********
Posts: 16,735

Gender: Male


Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #5 on: February 10, 2008, 12:06 AM »
Reply



I'm, of course, not suggesting that tourists won't visit if we abolish the monarchy, just its a part of the whole package, and everything adds up. The biggest draw for the Americans I know, for example, is the monarchy.


Prove it.


Concerning the wasted tax-payers money, you make it sound bad by saying what could be done with the money, but please remember, its a tiny tiny fraction of the UK budget. I can promise you, noone at all would feel the difference money-wise if they abolish the monarchy. I think the whole complaint about the money really stems from jealousy - I say that since nothing would change for you personally anyway by getting rid of the queen!


That's an assumption on Al's character. And just because it's a small fraction, does that make it right that's it's spent on them rather than some new equipment for hospitals, or books for schools? No, don't think so.




Another point to factor in is that the public interest in the royal family creates a lot of media attention, especially in the tabloids, and that helps sell newspapers, magazines etc. My point is, there are a lot of side effects from the monarchy which could help the economy.


That's one point I can dispute. The tabloids print ANYTHING, and they will always sell. How many tradesmen do you think buy The Sun to read about the royals.... HA! Yeah right. People will always buy papers whatever is in them. The news will always exist. Any other side effects?

 


This of course is besides the other benefits of the monarchy, such as helping forge closer ties to the commonwealth, which in turn gives the UK a bigger influence on world affairs in general. Also, there are certainly a lot of people in the UK who love the monarchy for itself, as well as the differences the monarchy has made, and to a limited extent still makes on our lives. Diana being the most recent example.


I don't think that's as true as it used to be. Sure, after WWII it mattered, but I doubt it's got quite the same impact.

 


One final point: never ever blame the royal family themselves for what they are. Remember they were born into it, it was not their choice. I also think everyone has to agree that the queen, for example, has done a brilliant job, on the whole, of representing our nation over the last 50 odd years. You cannot fault her personally, or wish anything bad to happen to her.


I don't wish anything bad to happen to her and I agree mostly. But some of them just abuse the position they are in.
IP Logged
Yamor
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,663

Gender: Male

Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #6 on: February 10, 2008, 12:18 AM »
Reply

Just realised the first point was a bit misleading. I didn't mean that i know americans come for that, i meant the americans whom i know come for that. Concerning the money point - you're right, but there are definitely less worthwhile things on the budget. The answer to this is, that you can never speak about how money earmarked for one thing could be spent for others. It just doesn't work like that. I can guarantee, the money spent on hospitals etc. would not be higher if there wouldn't be a monarchy!

Also, i never said everyone, or even a lot of people buy the tabloids for the news on the royals, but there definitely are some. Anyway, my point was more that to any economic discussion, its impossible to work out the difference it could make indirectly. People were using this argument when banning smoking was on the agenda - the effects of the hit on the tobacco companies, it was said, would be much more then the simple tax paid by these companies.
IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
*********
Posts: 16,735

Gender: Male


Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #7 on: February 10, 2008, 12:23 AM »
Reply

You can speak about how money earmarked for one thing could be spent for others. Not everything but things like :The Olympic Logo, the Edinburgh Trams, the sculptures of nothing impressive for £25,000, the monarchy..... That sort of idea anyway. You can certainly get rid of what is a waste of money which I believe the Monarchy is.

Again assumptions with the tabloid things. lol

And I don't get your last point?
IP Logged
Yamor
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,663

Gender: Male

Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #8 on: February 10, 2008, 12:36 AM »
Reply

I think it's quite a fair assumption, since, firstly, there are magazines which focus heavily on the royal family, which shows there are definitely people interested in it, and secondly, the tabloids aren't stupid - they wouldn't waste money on things people aren't interested in. The market research they carry out is more extensive then any proofs you or I could bring. I'm not saying people wouldn't buy the papers if not for the royal family, just its a part of the whole. Most single features of newspapers wouldn't affect its popularity, its a combination of everything. This is similar to my point earlier about tourism.
My last point was just that something like the monarchy could have indirect effects on plenty of other things.
IP Logged
AL1874
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,473

Gender: Male
Location: Edinburgh

What was I drinking last night?

Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #9 on: February 10, 2008, 12:53 AM »
Reply

Neil I can fight my own battles and I'm going to post later on.

Thanks but I'm a big boy.

IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
*********
Posts: 16,735

Gender: Male


Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #10 on: February 10, 2008, 12:56 AM »
Reply


Neil I can fight my own battles and I'm going to post later on.

Thanks but I'm a big boy.




I never said you weren't. I'm perfectly entitled to present my own views on someone's post. If you want a private discussion, take it to PM.

The one time I mentioned you, was because it was involved in the point and it was convenient to do so and it wasn't defending you one way or the other anyway. So if that's all that bothers you, I wasn't fighting any battle of yours. If it's the general discussion, see my first point.
[ Last edit by nkp2 February 10, 2008, 12:58 AM ] IP Logged
AL1874
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,473

Gender: Male
Location: Edinburgh

What was I drinking last night?

Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #11 on: February 10, 2008, 01:16 AM »
Reply

'Demonirts' was my mistake, i was trying to type 'economists' on my phone using predictive typing, and made a couple of mistakes in my haste!


That explains a lot, over Christmas I stopped posting a lot of the time because of bloody mobile phones Smile it caught my eye and when I goggled it with only one hit (your post) I was amazed.


I'm, of course, not suggesting that tourists won't visit if we abolish the monarchy, just its a part of the whole package, and everything adds up. The biggest draw for the Americans I know, for example, is the monarchy.


I would hazard a guess that English being the first language here would play a larger role.

Concerning the wasted tax-payers money, you make it sound bad by saying what could be done with the money, but please remember, its a tiny tiny fraction of the UK budget. I can promise you, noone at all would feel the difference money-wise if they abolish the monarchy. I think the whole complaint about the money really stems from jealousy - I say that since nothing would change for you personally anyway by getting rid of the queen!


This is not about money or jealousy on my part, it is about all men being created equal and I resent the fact that until 1983 I was classed as a British Subject and by definition “person who owed allegiance to the British Crown”.

I owe my allegiance to no man (or Woman as the case may be) it will be freely given when earned, and not by because there ancestors slaughtered and exploited the under classes to obtain their wealth or privilege.

Another point to factor in is that the public interest in the royal family creates a lot of media attention, especially in the tabloids, and that helps sell newspapers, magazines etc. My point is, there are a lot of side effects from the monarchy which could help the economy.


The papers would find another Jordan or Britney to fill the column inches to the feed to the masses and the marketing  would convince people that this weeks issue is the panacea to fill their vacuous lives, Oh I don’t read this pap so can someone tell me when the last Elizabeth II (Elizabeth I for the readers in Scotland) issue of Hello was?


This of course is besides the other benefits of the monarchy, such as helping forge closer ties to the commonwealth, which in turn gives the UK a bigger influence on world affairs in general.  


With the Emergence of the global conglomerate as you correctly pointed out in the football thread the share holder is king, so financially they (The Sax-Cobergs) are irrelevant, just as to sit at the top table in the UN on a permanent basis it is the Independent capability to produce and maintain a strategic nuclear weapons system that holds sway.

Has Liz got access to the duel key system of our D5’s and if so why were we not informed? (the groose shooting will be good this year)

Also, there are certainly a lot of people in the UK who love the monarchy for itself, as well as the differences the monarchy has made, and to a limited extent still makes on our lives. Diana being the most recent example.


I have acknowledged this in threads previously, just as there are many who think like myself it’s a big old world out there with space for us all Smile (that is probably why I'm banished to Borussia).

I may have been a bit hasty with the noose, so I will just imprison for life (Spandau is still available I presume).

Remember they were born into it, it was not their choice.


Yes they have a choice, Tony Ben fought against the Hereditary peerage system and got the law changed, if they were in any way concerned with the social injustice of their positions they would have abdicated on mass.

I also think everyone has to agree that the queen, for example, has done a brilliant job, on the whole, of representing our nation over the last 50 odd years. You cannot fault her personally, or wish anything bad to happen to her.


Yes she turned a blind eye to Prince Philips flings for which she must be applauded especially after the  fiasco with the well know Nazi sympathisers Wallis Simpson and poor old Bertie.

Oh nearly forgot she looks dam good on a stamp or a coin Smile
[ Last edit by AL1874 February 10, 2008, 02:15 AM ] IP Logged
AL1874
Top Seed
*****
Posts: 5,473

Gender: Male
Location: Edinburgh

What was I drinking last night?

Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #12 on: February 10, 2008, 01:35 AM »
Reply

Neil, I must apologise I was writing my own reply and missed yours posts at the time.

I gladly accept you cyder boot in the balls for jumping in  Crying or Very sad

Also to Yamor,

Sorry if things have already been clarified but it took time to answer your points and rather than drip feed, I went for one easy installment.

Boot in the Henry Halls also gratefully received  shocking

(I have just read that back and can I just say before Dana / Bev / Some other smart arse jumps in, I don't and never have liked getting kicked in the spuds and it is just a way of cyber penance with it being lent and all :P)

 
[ Last edit by AL1874 February 10, 2008, 02:05 AM ] IP Logged
Scottie
World No 1
*******
Posts: 10,093

Gender: Male


Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #13 on: February 10, 2008, 12:09 PM »
Reply

Pretty much agree with Als views regarding the Royal family! Are they not priveleged enough?
IP Logged
eira_arian
John McEnroe
*********
Posts: 17,962

Gender: Female


Re: The British Monarchy « Reply #14 on: February 10, 2008, 12:22 PM »
Reply

Quote
not by because there ancestors slaughtered and exploited the under classes to obtain their wealth or privilege.


Interesting view of history. The monarchy for the most part have always tended to be pretty popular among the 'under classes' - it's generally the aristocracy and 'new-money' businessmen that do the exploiting.
IP Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 97 Go Up Reply 
« previous next »