Off Topic Political Debate

About 75 million pounds per year. In order to keep that in perspective the operating costs of trident are 2-2.4 billion per year - despite being a republican I know which I would axe first.

 

More like £32M Cologne or 50p per person per year. Looking at that I think it is just a few minutes of one football match.

 

I'd say that you're both wrong actually. The cost of the Queen and other 'working' royals is covered by the sovereign support grant - the level of which has been set at 15% of surplus revenue from the crown estate. The last figure I've seen for this was for 2013/14 - £36.1m. That, however, merely covers their normal living expenses. The taxpayer also foots the security bill, which is upwards of £100m annually, and the cost of Royal visits - upwards of £20m annually. An argument could also be put forward that the taxpayer loses out on revenue from estates owned by the public - namely the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. The profits from these go directly to the Queen and Prince Charles - an estimated £90m annually.

A truer figure of the cost of the monarchy would therefore be in the vicinity of £250m per year...

 

Really find this odd. Plenty of French comment seeks to have a monarchy at whatever the costs in preference to an elected head of state. It is probably just as difficult to tie down what the cost to a country is of an elected official as it is to one who inherits the job. Of course it is not good to mention that tax is paid at the normal rates on estate profits, or that certain members of the SNP are claiming expenses from the tax payers to make their mobile phone calls or have their windows cleaned.

Seeing as we have a very left wing press that seeks to report in the most favourable way about Mr. Hollande, it is the normal person in the street who comes back and comments about the failings of the government and what we pay for it. Tonight our leader is in Cannes for the film festival, taking a few celebrities who have supported him on his private jet, and they will not be staying in the local Travel Lodge. I am not sure that we should expect all of these things on the cheap, but I do think we get a far more statesman like performance from the Queen than from many career politicians.

 

My comment was aimed more at the following

The Royals have no right to their money, they provide nothing useful to the running of this country.

I would actually be for a referendum on Europe if we were allowed to have a referendum on our continuous support for Her Maj. Leaving Europe would be catastrophic for our economy (which, tbh, is looking like a vote for it would result in us leaving ), but if they're going to give the people a say on important matters, why are we (seemingly) "foreseeably" stuck in a Monarchical system?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13378301

 

mm. very .... very .....

 

The ridiculous situation is that all MPs are required to take an oath on the Queen and her successors when taking their seat in parliament. This means that the question of the possible removal of the Monarchy (or even a referendum on the matter) cannot legally be raised in Parliament - the oath would need to be removed first. at the moment any initiative for such a referendum would have to come from a source outside of Parliament.

 

I wish I had access to it.

 

Does Robespierre have any English descendants?

 

Why? An oath is little more than a promise, and they are broken almost daily by MPs. Where does it say that an oath to a monarch is more important than a promise to the nation?

 

It's not the cost of the Windsors that I have a problem with - after all it is a fraction of the costs wasted in operating or replacing Trident. What I don't like is how whole swathes of the population can go collectively gooey eyed about royal babies - particularly just before a General Election. Did the Tories profit from a 'Baby bounce' ? Seriously my suspicion is that the existence of the royals may be a contributory factor to the political apathy of the British - it gives them a false sense of security. The second sickener for me is how royalism appears to assume a connection with patriotism or love of country - as if I am less patriotic when I refuse to stand up for, or sing a song, which has nothing to do with the nation.

 

From a nation that has a very old government system which is different in origin the Queen and the close family should be important. You just look at the people who are running countries and who have been elected. Most are politician by career, they have no experience of anything except their bubble. The Royal family all have done time in your military, perhaps not fighting but they have mixed with people outside their normal area. So could say playing at soldiers, but they have done it. Qeen Elizabeth II helped in World War II and Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan.

Most people know not who the presidents of a nation are, who is president of Germany or Italy or France (Joachim Gauck, Sergio Mattarella and François Hollande) but they know of the prime minister (Angela Merkel, Manuel Valls and Matteo Renzi), France may be the other way around. Some of presidents are well known and the nations are lucky to be able to remove them, excluding fixed elections. I would prefer Queen Elizabeth II to Valdimir Putin or Barack Obama as head of state. Most of the power is in the hands of the prime minister or chead of the deputies/senators.

One thing extra. If you visit Moscow or anywhere else now there are the buildings to look at Kremlin which is a royal palace, White House which is not really special. Britain has the Queen and all the palaces and Windsor Castle. I know where I prefer to visit, and if you can say
- I saw the Queen.
This is much better than
- I saw President ___.

Do not lose the queen. That may look a good idea, but the alternative is not good for your country. President Blair, Brown, Cameron, etc I think not.

 

I am not really a Royalist or a Republican - but thanks to Cologne for at least showing that Trident is 100 times the cost of even the higher figures quoted by Republicans.
I do not see the Oath to the Queen as a problem. It could be to the "Flag" but to whom else could it be given - ideally the "people" but what would that mean? We have no President to give allegiance to (who would want that?) The PM - well no -he is the Queen's Minister. If Republicanism took hold there would be an election where a majority had it as their intent to remove the Monarchy. Once elected those MPs would as a first act refuse the Oath and as democratically elected on that basis nobody could say they were wrong. I am sure that if the electorate wanted it the Oath would not be a problem. I would welcome a referendum as I could not care less at the outcome but my guess is that there would be overwhelming support in favour of the Monarchy (that would strengthen it paradoxically).

On cost it is another red herring really. In UK terms even £250m is not significant and many would divide that figure by 10 or more - and many Royalists would claim that the benefit to Britain of the undeniable "royal tourism" far outweighs any cost. (Personally I would not justify the Monarchy because it makes us money any more than I would condemn it because it costs us)

In fact it is very difficult to argue about true cost. For one thing holds such as the Duchy of Cornwall and others are not clear cut as to who really owns them. Many could argue they are the Royal Family's own property. Also most other Royal property was given up in exchange for payment of the Civil LIst. That argument says that the Royals are in fact only receiving payment based on their own "exchanged" property. Recent changes to the Civil List and taxation of the Royal family complicates it even further. Also the Prince of Wales surrenders the equivalent money received by minor Royals back to the Treasury. This "cost" argument could run and run. However I hope (and am confident) that for Toby, Bolton and Dan and others who are Republicans that it is principle more than cost and they would hold their views even if somebody proved that a Royal Family earned the country hundreds of millions of pounds.

FInally the Queen is head of the Church of England. Topple her and please don't tell me we go back to Popedom. I would rather have 10 Queens than 1 Pope

 

Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of people with anti establishment ideals who do not respect history and the fact that society is an evolving beast that will evolve with the survival of successful systems and marginalization of failed systems. All the ideals and theories you can think of cannot be supported unless trialed and evolved. I'm sick of all the theorists. I'm proud of my nation, the United Kingdom, I don't agree with everything any government has done but isn't it great to have a political system where I can say what I believe within the law and if I really want to can push my opinions onto the national stage through a party system that is open top all. My family has very humble history, my grandfather was a very hard working road sweeper, further back we go to the mining villages in S Wales and indeed we have a great deal of link with the Bevans of Tredegar but I've had great debate with Aneirens family on political issues and unfortunately for Labour and the trade union movement my projections, my assessments and my opinions have been proven correct over the past 30 years. The monarchy has great value, it's a big part of what makes us British, it is controlled and moderated and we all take a swipe at them regularly but I concede it has value up and above it's cost, not just in financial terms but in our national identity. I do not want to be part of a USA, Russian or federal European type of system. British poor in pocket is better than European and financially wealthy. Happiness comes through accepting ones level in society, making the best of it but we are not all created equal and its the synergy of the different levels in society that must be managed under the fairest political system to enable every strata to achieve contentment.

 

I'm not really a Republican Leo. I'm apathetic about the whole thing really. Mind you, as a more or less practising Catholic, the idea of having the Pope back in charge again could be fun..!

 

I don't really mind the monarchy... part of our heritage... just as Stonehenge... King Arthur.... etc

But NO MORE royal babies please.... mmm.. and that would end it

 

It might be worth while remembering that the hereditary monarchy has never been English (or even British) and that the system of hereditary aristocracy (of which they were the head) came over with them. They have had the laws of our land written in Latin and in French so that normal saxons could not understand them - the only Englishman to have ruled over England (since 1066) was Cromwell. Having said this, if 40% of the British want to call Elizabeth Windsor their Queen - and she wants to call herself that then there is nothing I can do about it, but she has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

 

In the days of King Arthur (better Alfred the Great) they actually elected their Kings (or rather the Witan did). They actually added titles such as 'the Witless' or `The unready' or 'The Confessor' which were descriptive of them. Since then we have had to attach numbers to them or we would not be able to distinguish one inbred moron from the other.

 

Oh the temptation to suggest some new descriptors - some of us would probably end up in the Tower