[Chronist]

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
I don't understand.

• Britain makes £200 million pounds from the monarchs, and only costs 40 million to actually have them
• The government get all the monarchs land so we're actual richer
• It encourages tourism therefore money is spent elsewhere like in Bars and Restaurants as tourists come to England. So it's not just monarchy related profits
• It brings pride to our nation
• It costs less than a £1 per person in the country
• And no if we got rid of the Monarchy it wouldn't be as popular. It's exciting to think we have our very own living monarchy in London, if they died out hundreds of years we'd get some tourism but we'd make less.

So, why do you want to get rid of the monarchy? We make money from this, and if we got rid of them profits would be less as it's not as interesting, we may aswell just go to a mueseum in that case.

Don't just neg me and not justify your point.

Post number 3 totally owned you.

[A Mysterious Lord]

(Original post by Chronist)
Post number 3 totally owned you.

By citing Republic as a source? Yeah totally owned him

Akin to citing Stormfront as a credible source in an immigration debate.

[Mike Johnston]

It's more a matter of principle than anything. Many people who look at it objectively see the monarchy as an embarrassment to the nation because it is a reminder of our imperialist, undemocratic past.

[Pindar]

(Original post by gladders)
No, that's Republic's estimate, and Republic are a crooked crank organisation with a bee in their bonnet. Moreover, this cost would remain with a republic. Your claim it would fund nurses and policemen is fraudulent, as it would be consumed by a president.

A president doesn't need golden carriages and several palaces. Stop talking out of your arse. Ireland's President costs £1.8 million. Compare that with over £180 million. Case closed.

Your figure does not include the cost of security provided by the Police and the Army, the lost revenue of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and countless other expenses.

(Original post by gladders)
But it is checked and vetted by Treasury civil servants and signed off by Parliament annually.

Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.

(Original post by gladders)
Good grief. Are you think? The £8m is not a salary - it's funding the office of head of state, and would remain with a republic. In fact the Queen receives no taxpayer funds for her own enjoyment. Knock it off.

Her "office" isn't necessary. We can pay some other twit to walk around shaking hands with people and making small talk for about a hundredth of the price. You make it sound as if the Queen actually serves some sort of useful purpose

(Original post by gladders)
That's not been the case for centuries, and you have no way to support your claim that we pay higher tax because of the monarchy.

Of course we pay higher tax because of the monarchy... where do you think that £200 million a year comes from? From thin air?

Please let me know when and with what law it changed.

(Original post by gladders)
Sure we are that 80% who support the monarchy are an inconvenience to your blinkered view of the world. Nobody laughs at Britain because of the monarchy.

Of course they do. The idea of a monarchy is antiquated and barbaric. Other countries laugh at our medieval set up, it's nothing more than a morbid curiosity to them. What's good about having a system of privileges afforded to the latest inbred snob? When the ordinary person gets nothing.

(Original post by gladders)
They have worked extremely hard, actually. You know what the President of Germany does? Do you think they have an easy life?

Yeah it's so hard going from 5 star hotel to 5 star hotel, having thousand pound meals and being on a lifelong holiday

Please do elaborate, what actual work is this that they do? Anyone can walk around shaking hands, pretending to be interested in the next person with that fake smile and making ****ty small talk. What's so hard about that?

(Original post by gladders)
Britain would be no better and no worse. Stop being so shrill.

It would be much better not having a load of snotty inbreds who think they're better than everyone else, living a life of decadent luxury at the expense of ordinary people who are living through a recession.

(Original post by gladders)
The 'no place in a modern society' argument is tired and irrelevant. Please direct me to the great cosmic calendar that says when things should be got rid of purely for their age.

It's the age where most intelligent people have clocked on that the right of divine kings is a load of old bollox used to justify enriching tyrants by stealing off their peoples.

(Original post by gladders)
It is not undemocratic, nor is it unaccountable. If the monarchy ever did something Parliament or the people did not tolerate, it would be stripped of its powers and ultimately a republic would be established.

LOL yeah where would the powers for that be? Ultimately the power rests with the monarch. Hence why she can depose elected ministers whenever she feels like it.

(Original post by gladders)
It costs us nothing - particularly as the Queen does not receive a salary. If anything, she's doing her job for free. You're the one with a rather unpleasant bee in your bonnet.

Yes the Royal Wedding, the Diamond and Golden Jubilees were all FREE. What planet are you living on? It costs millions just to keep these parasites happy and stop people from trying to kill them off.

[Chronist]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
By citing Republic as a source? Yeah totally owned him

Akin to citing Stormfront as a credible source in an immigration debate.

No, by showing rational answers to OP's points. Information about the Royal Family is not very reliable so all you can do is follow your intuition. And my intuition says that it makes sense that living such a luxury life requires more than the officially given amount of money and that some of the other points raised. Old systems will do anything to cling to the new system and survive. Still, it's old and must disappear.

[BadCoverVersion]

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
I don't understand.

• Britain makes £200 million pounds from the monarchs, and only costs 40 million to actually have them
• The government get all the monarchs land so we're actual richer
• It encourages tourism therefore money is spent elsewhere like in Bars and Restaurants as tourists come to England. So it's not just monarchy related profits
• It brings pride to our nation
• It costs less than a £1 per person in the country
• And no if we got rid of the Monarchy it wouldn't be as popular. It's exciting to think we have our very own living monarchy in London, if they died out hundreds of years we'd get some tourism but we'd make less.

So, why do you want to get rid of the monarchy? We make money from this, and if we got rid of them profits would be less as it's not as interesting, we may aswell just go to a mueseum in that case.

Don't just neg me and not justify your point.

The major difference you will have with republicans (like me) when you have this argument is not so much to do with what you think, but how you think.

Most (pretty much all) republicans argue this issue from a point of ideology and principle. We think like revolutionaries: in order to reach an opinion we envisage our ideal world. You, on the other hand, think like a conservative: you weight up practical pros and cons with regard to this issue and come to the conclusion you believe is sensible.

You won't find my way of thinking appealing in the slightest. Neither I yours.

[Раскольников]

(Original post by ForKicks)
the Royal Family have a life-time of education being prepared for the role

With this argument, why not have hereditary judges? Hereditary officers? Hereditary physicists? Even hereditary poets? Pretty much hereditary everything.


'Government ought to be a thing always in full maturity. It ought to be so constructed as to be superior to all the accidents to which individual man is subject; and, therefore, hereditary succession, by being subject to them all, is the most irregular and imperfect of all the systems of government.'

[Jon of the North]

I always get the perception that those against the monarchy are the sort of people who would ask everyone else to talk their party hats off because they don't have one. Just leave it be and stop taking yourself too seriously, yeah?

[DaveSmith99]

Because its wrong that someone should be given such an office because of who their parents are. That's just the truth.

[whitehousea]

You all know that parts of the commonwealth such as Canada help pay for the monarchy, right? The monarchy acts as a constant UK export, pulling money from overseas.
And to the people that question the tourist income, the more people you attract to buckingham, the more time and money they'll spend in London! ;D

I mean I can't tell you the figures, but I would imagine that overall they bring more in than they spend. Its not like they buy jets all day.

[Clez]

if the government decided to get rid of the monarch wouldnt that aspire to treason, and if the monarchy decided to shut down the government in retaliation who would people/police/army listen to?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Раскольников)
With this argument, why not have hereditary judges? Hereditary officers? Hereditary physicists? Even hereditary poets? Pretty much hereditary everything.


'Government ought to be a thing always in full maturity. It ought to be so constructed as to be superior to all the accidents to which individual man is subject; and, therefore, hereditary succession, by being subject to them all, is the most irregular and imperfect of all the systems of government.'

Nope, because the target of those jobs are only temporary. Building and maintaining relationships is what the monarchy does. A judge only needs to know the law, not the specific unwritten details of each individual as well as getting to know them.

The government is not a monarchy. It is the Commons that rule the country! I also think a quote from a supporter of the French Revolution is hardly fair

[ForKicks]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Because its wrong that someone should be given such an office because of who their parents are. That's just the truth.

Why?

[kka25]

(Original post by somethingbeautiful)
I don't particularly care how much we pay to keep them there, I don't care how much money they generate - so using that as an argument to convince me will not work. My main gripes with the Monarchy are:

A) They don't work for what they've got (I'll explain below).
B) The monarchy is fundamentally sexist.
C) The religious aspect.

A)They don't work for what they've got. They're born into it. And to the people who will no doubt quote me to say ''oh actually Prince Banana/Princess Spongecake did X amount of 'duties' this year'' - really? Are you really going to give me that BS? That's work is it? Showing up to the opening of crisp packets, pulling a string to open a curtain revealing a shiny plaque, then getting in to the Rolls and going home to their tea and scones is work. **** off. Get a proper job.
Prince Harry/William could be in the Army/RAF without being Royal and they would earn the normal wage - what exactly are they doing in the Army/RAF which earns them the right to have the things that normal servicemen/women don't have? Nothing. So they only have all of their luxuries (payed by the tax payer) because they are Royal - they haven't worked for it. In fact Harry wouldn't have even got into Sandringham if it wasn't for the fact the he is Royal - his A-levels were rubbish and he has no degree.

To be clear: I don't care if you're born into a middle class family and ergo get to go to a better school than me/have a bigger house than me - you parents obviously worked hard for that. But the royals have a better life than us because we pay for it - they don't have to life a finger. That's wrong.

B) The Monarchy is fundamentally sexist:

Succession to the throne depends on gender (male preference), people wonder why women are still treated as 2nd class citizens. It's ingrained into our society because of our outdated monarchy - wake up.

C) The Religious Aspect:
The monarchy is built upon the idea that God has given the King/Queen the job of ruling over us and having us as their subjects. What a load of tripe. We have to bow down at their feet because they think they have responsibilities bestowed upon them by God? They're just human like us - they're not any better than us. They are flesh and blood like us, they are not above us. It's completely outdated. The national anthem, 'God save the Queen' - why? Why not any of us? What's so special about her? We're mostly a secularized society anyway. Most people who sing the National Anthem probably do not even go to church or even practice the Christian faith. At the State opening of Parliament the other day the priests (I think they were priests) had their usual spiel - why must we accept that as a representation of the UK? Is it just a case of: 'it you're born here, then you have to put up with Christianity being shoved in you face whenever The Queen/Royals are involved, and if you don't like it move elsewhere'? Why?

I would rather lose a load of tourist revenue and become a secularized, non-sexist society that shows people that hard work will reward you than have a monarchy that puts on a nice performance whenever there is a wedding/funeral/state opening etc.

Just my opinion.

Best post for today.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by kka25)
Best post for today.

Just a shame A) and B) are *******s and C) is needless whining

Favourite part was "Harry wouldn't have even got into Sandringham if it wasn't for the fact the he is Royal"

[kka25]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Just a shame A) and B) are *******s and C) is needless whining

I agree with A. Although the law of succession has changed, bare in mind that B is written under the argument 'fundamentally'. Well if you want to call C as 'needless whining', half of the posts on this thread are needless whining as well

[ForKicks]

(Original post by kka25)
I agree with A. Although the law of succession has changed, bare in mind that B is written under the argument 'fundamentally'. Well if you want to call C as 'needless whining', half of the posts on this thread are needless whining as well

I do believe so I think the status quo is fine in that it is nothing serious enough to change. People will have their own gripes and disagreements over the principles (as with everything in life), but speaking pragmatically the monarchy works fine for now.

[Jono404]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Just a shame A) and B) are *******s and C) is needless whining

Favourite part was "Harry wouldn't have even got into Sandringham if it wasn't for the fact the he is Royal"

He is thick as **** to be fair, and while we're on that subject Prince William would never have got into St Andrew's either.

[Psyk]

(Original post by tj hughes)
IMHO Great Britain is about so much more than money. Even if it is financially advantageous to have a monarch, which I don't think it is (tourists would still visit for the heritage, history etc.) I still think we shouldn't have a monarchy. To have an unelected head of state is absolutely scandalous. How can we lecture to other countries that their dictator/monarch should step down when we have one ourselves?

I can see the objection to the monarchy, but the Queen is hardly a dictator. It's not like she gets to make any of the decisions. Even what she says in the Queen's speech is decided by the government. She's not brutally suppressing the people like al-Assad is, nor does she really have the power to if she wanted.

[Psyk]

(Original post by kka25)
I agree with A. Although the law of succession has changed, bare in mind that B is written under the argument 'fundamentally'. Well if you want to call C as 'needless whining', half of the posts on this thread are needless whining as well

If the the monarchy is "fundamentally" sexist, what about it is sexist since they changed the law? Is it sexist because the wife of the monarch gets to be Queen where as the husband of one is only a prince?