Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why would anyone want to get rid of the Monarchy?

Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    Because i value principles far above money, and the very concept of monarchism (regardless of how benign it is now) frankly disgusts me.
    Well thank goodness that the law doesn't work on what disgusts you. Imagine if we were debating gay marriage, or inter-racial adoption: if you'd said 'this disgusts me', we wouldn't be impressed.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Because I'm jealous of the royal family.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    my problem with the monachy is the principle. i think it is wrong. they gain their wealth from people poorer than them (they would have more than enough without that) and are blown up into this kind of "superior" position which they don't deserve. they don't make me proud to be british, britain is so much better than that. i love our history, but that's what it should be, history. they have no place in this day and age. i cringe at all the "jubilee" stuff... why do we need to celebrate the aniversary of the queen to be "british"? to be proud of our country? what i hate the most are the people that accuse you of being anti-britain etc. just because you dislike the monarchy. britain for me is nothing at all to do with the monarchy.
    You only want to get rid of the monarchy for your own ideological purposes. You won't physically or financially benefit from it happening. Your democratic rights will effectively stay the same as they were before. However you will get the satisfaction of removing the head of state shared by 16 countries and giving the position of head of state to another generic politician who will have a fraction of the support domestically and little presence internationally.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The idea of an unelected monarchy doesn't sit too well with me, but they keep themselves to themselves mostly and bring in a lot of tourists.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Does not follow, just because the land area is greater than the cost must be greater; look at the population, the size of the economies, and the functions of the Head of State. Britain is a world power; Ireland isn't. Therefore the Head of State will travel more and conduct more meetings.
    Meetings? :lolwut: Meetings about what? Meetings where things are discussed and decided? Why do we have an unelected upstart dictating what our diplomatic/foreign policy should be about? It's ridiculous.

    Another word for that is dictatorship.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Actually I think you'll find most were paid and and constructed by paid workers.
    Where did they steal the money to pay the underpaid workers genius?

    (Original post by gladders)
    Read it again, genius. The president and his family would continue to draw cost for security.
    What president? Where am I calling for a president. Stop attacking a straw man. I'm talking about abolishing the useless hereditary monarch.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Security costs are not counted or audited under republics either. The US President's certainly isn't. For the reason that if you state the number then you give terrorists an idea of their security coverage.
    So you purposefully knew you were lying when you said everyone has to pay the Queen £40 million a year and the figure is much higher. Security costs are still costs we have to pay, the millions of pounds doesn't come out of thin air :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    I can see you're too dense for this to get through to you, so I'll type this slowly: The. Cost. Would. Remain. Under. A. Republic. Do you think the President will do the job for free? Or that he doesn't need to hold meetings and receive VIPs, or that his official accomodation doesn't need routine maintenance?
    No. It. Would. Not

    (Original post by gladders)
    I think you'll find that every other country needs one because the job is irreplacable. How come you are able ot make such ignorant statements?
    Please do tell me why the Queen is necessary. And why millions must be spent furnishing her lavish palaces and guarding her 24/7 whilst she's paraded around in golden carriages? :rolleyes:

    Even Saddam only had the one palace.

    (Original post by gladders)
    The PM does not act as Head of State. Again: if this is so obvious, why has no other country done this? Why do you feel you are able to make pronouncements that have stumped centuries of constitutional lawyers?
    What are you even talking about? :lolwut: The PM could easily be the head of state. It's not very hard. You just go "now you're Head of State". Problem solved.

    (Original post by gladders)
    No they're not. Germany's and Italy's, for example, are not elected. Others are elected because they also exercise governmental functions. Ours is ceremonial, and therefore does not need to be elected.
    Ceremonial = therefore pointless. They serve no useful purpose except for pomp and ceremony. I don't give a **** about Germany and Italy, people who get £200 million a year of taxpayers money to do their jobs should be at least elected by those people who have to pay it. It's common sense. Which you don't have. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    Living history. Do you think we should tear down every old building as well as unnecessary?
    No we should sell, rent or open it as a museum instead of giving it to some already over privileged family.

    (Original post by gladders)
    I have already shown how there would be absolutely zero regained money from replacing the monarch with a president, and your claim we can do without a head of state reveals how few brain cells you have.
    Zero gained? :lolwut: How is over £200 million a YEAR "zero regained money"? Have you got some difficulty with numbers? £200 million a year is not zero. It's countless billions wasted over the years.

    (Original post by gladders)
    It's part of the job. Their job is partly diplomatic, receiving and entertaining visiting governments and presidents and ambassadors, making them feel welcome and making them more amenable to business deals and treaties with the host country. They also entertain groups of members of the public. You think the Queen likes those endless garden parties?
    No of course the Queen doesn't like travelling the world 1st class having millions spent on her on a permanent holiday, having endless garden parties and dining with other tyrants! :rolleyes:

    So basically you are justifying our public servants and elected representatives wining and dining themselves into oblivion with our money? Wait, no you're justifying our unelected and self-appointed *cough* dictator, I mean monarch. :rolleyes:

    Must be such a hard job! :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    Name a single diplomat employed by the UK right now, without going to Wikipedia. Is any one of them suitably charismatic or recognised by the average person? Moreover, they are government officials, paid to do exactly as the government requires them to do in all things. The Head of State is meant to be apart from all that, and also has a much broader range of constitutional duties.
    The Queen is not charismatic, she has about as much charisma as a sack of potatoes and the appearance of one to boot. She can barely deliver a speech without that monotonous drone. A diplomat does not require over £200 million a year to do their job. A diplomat does not need several multi-billion pound palaces, mansions and castles and being paraded around in a golden carriage to do their job. Get real please.

    (Original post by gladders)
    I see you have a problem with taking things literally. The Head of State is meant to be a mixture of all things so that they can perform their duties. Having a psychiatrist-for-the-government is not what I am proposing.
    WTF do we need a multi-million pound crown wearing psychiatrist for? :lolwut: Where exactly did the Queen get her qualifications in psychiatry exactly? She must be the most well paid psychiatrist in the world.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Again: if it's so obvious, why does every other country have a head of state?
    Where am I saying we shouldn't have a Head of State idiot? Stop attacking a straw to make your little worthless straw man argument. I'm saying an unelected, extremely wealthy, thieving, self-righteous, self-important, egoistical, trumped up, blood-sucking parasite shouldn't have anything to do with the running of this country, and certainly shouldn't be head of state.

    (Original post by gladders)
    The buildings you show are a mixture of those personally owned by the Queen or those which were built centuries ago. Do you think any of the latter will cease to exist without the monarchy? I'm afraid the cost of their maintenance will remain under a republic. Do you think the Queen is the only Head of State to live in palaces?
    No Head of State should live in a palace. That is exactly what is wrong with the world. They should exist to serve us, not to take our money to flutter it and lavish themselves. You're only justification is that other countries do it. That's not a justification. North Korea has a dictator, doesn't mean we should have a dictator now does it? :rolleyes:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Meetings? :lolwut: Meetings about what? Meetings where things are discussed and decided? Why do we have an unelected upstart dictating what our diplomatic/foreign policy should be about? It's ridiculous.
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    No of course the Queen doesn't like travelling the world 1st class having millions spent on her on a permanent holiday, having endless garden parties and dining with other tyrants! :rolleyes:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    What are you even talking about? :lolwut: The PM could easily be the head of state. It's not very hard. You just go "now you're Head of State". Problem solved.
    This is hilarious. I'm still deciding if your a troll or your actually this stupid. You literally have zero idea what the royal family do yet you seem to have developed extremist views against them. Ignorance at its finest.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsnake23)
    This is hilarious. I'm still deciding if your a troll or your actually this stupid. You literally have zero idea what the royal family do yet you seem to have developed extremist views against them. Ignorance at its finest.
    Please enlighten me o brainwashed one :rolleyes:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Please enlighten me o brainwashed one :rolleyes:
    Ironic. You have formed extremist opinions over the royal family yet you haven't actually bothered to research what role the royal family does and what being a head of state entails. Looks like your the brainwashed one.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The Queen is in many ways like the ideal model of how a true professional should be, in that she is never publicly "not Queen" for even a second and she always is on top of her role, her responsibilities and what the job means. I am literally in awe at times.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Meetings? :lolwut: Meetings about what? Meetings where things are discussed and decided? Why do we have an unelected upstart dictating what our diplomatic/foreign policy should be about? It's ridiculous.
    Meetings about anything the PM or a minister cares to talk about. It's purely a sounding-out device - speaking to someone to bounce off ideas or policies, and the Queen has free right of reply, but no right to insist. She has no power to 'dictate' as you claim.

    Another word for that is dictatorship.
    Quite clearly you have absolutely no idea what dictatorship is.

    Where did they steal the money to pay the underpaid workers genius?
    I think you'll find the money was granted by Parliament which had, and continues to have, exclusive control over taxation.

    What president? Where am I calling for a president. Stop attacking a straw man. I'm talking about abolishing the useless hereditary monarch.
    Which would be replaced by a president. Don't even pretend that your idea that the PM could take over is even remotely feasible.

    So you purposefully knew you were lying when you said everyone has to pay the Queen £40 million a year and the figure is much higher. Security costs are still costs we have to pay, the millions of pounds doesn't come out of thin air :rolleyes:
    I was not lying; the security costs are not included because it is a number we cannot be sure of - it is not disclosed.

    No. It. Would. Not
    So the German President works for free, does he? Again: don't even pretend your proposal would work.

    Please do tell me why the Queen is necessary. And why millions must be spent furnishing her lavish palaces and guarding her 24/7 whilst she's paraded around in golden carriages? :rolleyes:
    She does everything the Germany president does, but without a salary: regulating the relationship between government and parliament, acting as a national symbol for the country, conducting high-level diplomacy, issuing honours and awards, promulgating laws, and proclaiming national emergencies.

    The palaces would remain under a republic, and would be occupied by a president. And as for security, what do you expect? That the leader of a major world power could even for a moment wander around unescorted?

    Even Saddam only had the one palace.
    Well, the German President has two. The British monarch has several, but the taxpayer would continue to pay for them under a republic anyway. At least the Queen allows them to be partially opened for tourists to reimburse the cost a little.

    What are you even talking about? :lolwut: The PM could easily be the head of state. It's not very hard. You just go "now you're Head of State". Problem solved.
    Good grief, you're slow. I was not commenting on how to make it happen: I'm telling you it's constitutionally impossible. Giving the PM HoS powers would constitute a conflict of interest on his part - he would use them for his own advantage. You mentioned a dictatorship further up? Your proposal is the root of one.

    Ceremonial = therefore pointless. They serve no useful purpose except for pomp and ceremony. I don't give a **** about Germany and Italy, people who get £200 million a year of taxpayers money to do their jobs should be at least elected by those people who have to pay it. It's common sense. Which you don't have. :rolleyes:
    I'm growing tired of repeating myself, but as you choose to continue to ignore the facts, I'll recap for you.

    Ceremony is absolutely crucial and is a key part of national identity. Every country has developed ceremonies to tell their national story. The UK has set up the monarchy as the keystone of its ceremonies.

    If you think ceremonies are pointless then you have even less of an understanding of human nature than I thought possible.

    If you don't care about Germany and Italy, then your claim that all leaders should be elected automatically fails, as I can also claim such arrogant exceptionalism. The £200m (which is not a fact, by the way) is replicated everywhere around the world as the basic cost of a Head of State. It's not for the Queen's enjoyment at all. Your IQ seems to be too low to appreciate this.

    No we should sell, rent or open it as a museum instead of giving it to some already over privileged family.
    What building are you talking about?

    Zero gained? :lolwut: How is over £200 million a YEAR "zero regained money"? Have you got some difficulty with numbers? £200 million a year is not zero. It's countless billions wasted over the years.
    One more time...That cost would be absorbed by the president. And your idea that the PM could take on the HoS role is impractical and exposes your utter ignorance of constitutional science.

    No of course the Queen doesn't like travelling the world 1st class having millions spent on her on a permanent holiday, having endless garden parties and dining with other tyrants! :rolleyes:
    So are you implying that the people of Germany or America deliberately said 'I know, what we need is an office which gives someone a permanent holiday for five years, and call it President!'

    I think what is more likely is that the job is essential and you're too pent-up in your jealousy to appreciate that.

    So basically you are justifying our public servants and elected representatives wining and dining themselves into oblivion with our money? Wait, no you're justifying our unelected and self-appointed *cough* dictator, I mean monarch. :rolleyes:

    Must be such a hard job! :rolleyes:
    You have no idea what a dictator actually is. You also have no idea how diplomacy works. A huge amount of it is down to charm, ceremony, and generosity. If that means the UK gets better trade deals and agreements at the end of the day, I'm totally okay with that.

    The Queen is not charismatic, she has about as much charisma as a sack of potatoes and the appearance of one to boot. She can barely deliver a speech without that monotonous drone.
    Here we go, imposing your view of the Queen on everyone else. Let others make up their mind, yeah?

    A diplomat does not require over £200 million a year to do their job. A diplomat does not need several multi-billion pound palaces, mansions and castles and being paraded around in a golden carriage to do their job. Get real please.
    Yes they do. Heard of embassies?

    Moreover, those carriages were bought and paid for centuries ago - any new ones acquired are gifts, without any taxpayer's money in them. It's that or a fleet or cars - take your pick.

    WTF do we need a multi-million pound crown wearing psychiatrist for? :lolwut: Where exactly did the Queen get her qualifications in psychiatry exactly? She must be the most well paid psychiatrist in the world.
    Good grief, don't take it literally, I did say it's a polyglot job. She's the person a stressed out besieged minister can let off steam in front of, and unwind, without any risk of their rant leaking to the press or affecting their career prospects. Understand?

    Where am I saying we shouldn't have a Head of State idiot? Stop attacking a straw to make your little worthless straw man argument.
    You earlier claimed that you could make the PM head of state. How in any way does that not mean you don't think we should have a head of state?

    I'm saying an unelected, extremely wealthy, thieving, self-righteous, self-important, egoistical, trumped up, blood-sucking parasite shouldn't have anything to do with the running of this country, and certainly shouldn't be head of state.
    Ad hominem.

    No Head of State should live in a palace. That is exactly what is wrong with the world. They should exist to serve us, not to take our money to flutter it and lavish themselves. You're only justification is that other countries do it. That's not a justification.
    My justification is that other countries do it because there is a clear need. If a visiting VIP or president visits the country, they are expected, by strongly felt diplomatic niceties, to be hosted by the head of state. This means a large building, pleasing to the eye, is to be made available. Moreover, the palaces are no longer palaces for the monarch's personal enjoyment - they are active office blocks and conference buildings.

    If you can't understand the importance of meetings, conferences and lunches to grease the wheels of diplomacy, you're either mad or bad. Go off and sulk that the world shouldn't be this way - it is and we have to accept that if we're to get anywhere. Just waste your time wishing humanity was different and keep out of everyone else's way.

    North Korea has a dictator, doesn't mean we should have a dictator now does it? :rolleyes:
    We don't have a dictator. Give up.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsnake23)
    Ironic. You have formed extremist opinions over the royal family yet you haven't actually bothered to research what role the royal family does and what being a head of state entails. Looks like your the brainwashed one.
    In my world it is extremist to demand the British people pay £200 million pounds per year for a figurehead.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Meetings about anything the PM or a minister cares to talk about. It's purely a sounding-out device - speaking to someone to bounce off ideas or policies, and the Queen has free right of reply, but no right to insist. She has no power to 'dictate' as you claim.
    Why are we paying £200 million a year for a "sound-out device" who we haven't elected?

    If ministers need a shrink they should pay for it out of their own pocket. Not go to the Queen who is clearly unqualified. Apart from this fantasy being completely untrue, it would be an idiotic idea.

    This woman shouldn't have anything to do with how this country is run at all. She has no right.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Quite clearly you have absolutely no idea what dictatorship is.
    Unelected, unaccountable Head of States who demand millions from their people to pay for them to live in Palaces, decadent luxury, be paraded around in golden carriages and force national holidays to celebrate their glorious reign over us.

    Sounds about right :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    Which would be replaced by a president. Don't even pretend that your idea that the PM could take over is even remotely feasible.

    I was not lying; the security costs are not included because it is a number we cannot be sure of - it is not disclosed.

    She does everything the Germany president does, but without a salary: regulating the relationship between government and parliament, acting as a national symbol for the country, conducting high-level diplomacy, issuing honours and awards, promulgating laws, and proclaiming national emergencies.

    The palaces would remain under a republic, and would be occupied by a president. And as for security, what do you expect? That the leader of a major world power could even for a moment wander around unescorted?
    WHAT GIVES HER THE RIGHT TO BE THE LEADER OF ANYTHING?

    No... presidents shouldn't live in overly luxurious palaces. That is a waste of taxpayers money.

    "Regulating relationship between government and parliament" should be done by a constitution and a supreme court if necessary.

    "Acting as a symbol" a £200 million a year symbol is a waste of money. What a terrible symbol, hey look we're Britain and we give millions to already over privileged unelected Kings and Queens to lord their wealth over us! :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    Well, the German President has two. The British monarch has several, but the taxpayer would continue to pay for them under a republic anyway. At least the Queen allows them to be partially opened for tourists to reimburse the cost a little.
    :facepalm: Why should the taxpayer have to pay for already extremely wealthy people to live in palaces?

    Stop making comparisons to the German Presidency which is well known for being undoubtedly corrupt and extravagant in its spending. It's really not helping your argument one bit.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Good grief, you're slow. I was not commenting on how to make it happen: I'm telling you it's constitutionally impossible. Giving the PM HoS powers would constitute a conflict of interest on his part - he would use them for his own advantage. You mentioned a dictatorship further up? Your proposal is the root of one.

    I'm growing tired of repeating myself, but as you choose to continue to ignore the facts, I'll recap for you.

    Ceremony is absolutely crucial and is a key part of national identity. Every country has developed ceremonies to tell their national story. The UK has set up the monarchy as the keystone of its ceremonies.

    If you think ceremonies are pointless then you have even less of an understanding of human nature than I thought possible.

    If you don't care about Germany and Italy, then your claim that all leaders should be elected automatically fails, as I can also claim such arrogant exceptionalism. The £200m is replicated everywhere around the world as the basic cost of a Head of State. It's not for the Queen's enjoyment at all. Your IQ seems to be too low to appreciate this.
    :facepalm: Yes. Ceremonies are pointless. Paying millions for someone to be a "symbol" is pointless. Why are we paying so much for a "symbol"?

    I just don't understand how someone can be so fundamentally stupid to think this a good way to waste hard earned taxpayers money during a recession.

    £200 million a year for a "symbol" :rolleyes: A symbol of how backward we are in this country.

    It's not a basic price for a Head of State, as I've already pointed out, Ireland next door only pays £1.8 million per year for theirs. That's a far cry from over £200 million.

    (Original post by gladders)
    One more time...That cost would be absorbed by the president. And your idea that the PM could take on the HoS role is impractical and exposes your utter ignorance of constitutional science.

    So are you implying that the people of Germany or America deliberately said 'I know, what we need is an office which gives someone a permanent holiday for five years, and call it President!'
    :facepalm: No you idiot. The US's President actually does a JOB, which isn't purely ceremonial. And he's actually ELECTED.

    How is this not getting through to you?

    (Original post by gladders)
    I think what is more likely is that the job is essential and you're too pent-up in your jealousy to appreciate that.
    How is it "essential"? :lolwut: And jealousy? :lol: I'm doing the most humane thing by pointing out to the British people that they're being scammed out of their hard earned cash by oligarchs and you accuse me of jealousy? :rolleyes: Can I accuse you of idiocy?

    (Original post by gladders)
    You also have no idea how diplomacy works. A huge amount of it is down to charm, ceremony, and generosity. If that means the UK gets better trade deals and agreements at the end of the day, I'm totally okay with that.
    Yeah let's spend £200 million pounds a year for a diplomat to entertain tyrants in their multi-billion pound palaces so the corporations can get even richer. Good idea! :rolleyes:

    You have a seriously naive idea of how the world works.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Here we go, imposing your view of the Queen on everyone else. Let others make up their mind, yeah?
    You said the Queen is charismatic. Something she is clearly not. In the film Helen Mirren unrealistically gave 100x more charisma to the Queen's speeches than the Queen ever did. The Queen can't even hold a proper conversation without being incredibly cold and rude.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Yes they do. Heard of embassies?

    Moreover, those carriages were bought and paid for centuries ago - any new ones acquired are gifts, without any taxpayer's money in them. It's that or a fleet or cars - take your pick.
    Embassies are not gigantic palaces full of expensive works of art idiot. They aren't usually lived in by one family in the home country. And if they are then that is another gigantic waste of money.

    If the only thing you can use to justify gigantic wastes of money is other gigantic wastes of money, then you truly are an idiot.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Good grief, don't take it literally, I did say it's a polyglot job. She's the person a stressed out besieged minister can let off steam in front of, and unwind, without any risk of their rant leaking to the press or affecting their career prospects. Understand?
    Since when do ministers go to the Queen to blow off steam about their daily lives? Wtf is this bizarre fantasy you've dreamt up.

    (Original post by gladders)
    You earlier claimed that you could make the PM head of state. How in any way does that not mean you don't think we should have a head of state?
    :facepalm: So earlier I said you could make the PM Head of State.... therefore I said we shouldn't have a Head of State. Wtf?

    Do you have a problem with logic? Did you actually just contradict yourself in the same sentence? :confused:

    (Original post by gladders)
    Ad hominem.
    :facepalm: I am actually lost for words. Please do show me WHERE there was an ad hominem. Do you even know what it means?

    Where in me calling the Queen a unelected, extremely wealthy, thieving, self-righteous, self-important, egoistical, trumped up, blood-sucking parasite in any way an "ad hominem", (which btw is basing your argument on the negative qualities of your opponent, i.e. you.) :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    My justification is that other countries do it because there is a clear need. If a visiting VIP or president visits the country, they are expected, by strongly felt diplomatic niceties, to be hosted by the head of state. This means a large building, pleasing to the eye, is to be made available. Moreover, the palaces are no longer palaces for the monarch's personal enjoyment - they are active office blocks and conference buildings.

    If you can't understand the importance of meetings, conferences and lunches to grease the wheels of diplomacy, you're either mad or bad. Go off and sulk that the world shouldn't be this way - it is and we have to accept that if we're to get anywhere. Just waste your time wishing humanity was different and keep out of everyone else's way.
    My point is we shouldn't be paying millions to rich people to make deals on how to make themselves richer. In particular dictators and criminals. Anyone who's not an idiot would agree with me.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Why are we paying £200 million a year for a "sound-out device" who we haven't elected?
    Why should we? An elected official runs a very high risk of using their position for political gain.

    If ministers need a shrink they should pay for it out of their own pocket. Not go to the Queen who is clearly unqualified. Apart from this fantasy being completely untrue, it would be an idiotic idea.
    Not a shrink - a sympathetic and neutral ear. Do you think Ministers will open up to a shrink they don't know who would be tempted to sell it to the papers?

    This woman shouldn't have anything to do with how this country is run at all. She has no right.
    She doesn't run the country, still less does she impose upon ministers. Calm down.

    Unelected, unaccountable Head of States who demand millions from their people to pay for them to live in Palaces, decadent luxury, be paraded around in golden carriages and force national holidays to celebrate their glorious reign over us.

    Sounds about right :rolleyes:
    'Force' national holidays? Haha! Hilarious. Tell you what, let's cancel Christmas too, as that's forced upon us also.

    The fact that the Head of State is not elected is irrelevant. In fact, it's the point - it's meant to be a continuing office, to remain relatively static while all else changes, a fixed point. It also insulates the office from politics.

    WHAT GIVES HER THE RIGHT TO BE THE LEADER OF ANYTHING?
    The British people will it so.

    No... presidents shouldn't live in overly luxurious palaces. That is a waste of taxpayers money.
    Who says? You? People expect their Heads of State to be adverts for their country, and that includes occupying grand residences which also become national symbols. And I said before that they are also conference centres and reception suites. You can't pack a presidential visitor and his entourage in a terrace house.

    "Regulating relationship between government and parliament" should be done by a constitution and a supreme court if necessary.
    Not sufficient - a constitution can only at best give a suggestion of what course to follow, but can never account for all possible incidences that could occur. There will always - always - be room for abuse, which a human element will have to unpick.

    Secondly, I find it ironic that you consider a supreme court perfectly okay when these people will interfere with our elected parliament far more than the Queen ever would.

    "Acting as a symbol" a £200 million a year symbol is a waste of money. What a terrible symbol, hey look we're Britain and we give millions to already over privileged unelected Kings and Queens to lord their wealth over us! :rolleyes:
    'Hey look, we're Britain and we pay for our Head of State just like everyone else does, but some people are too think to understand this.'

    The £200 million pays for building maintenance, staff, travel costs and the cost of hosting events. It's the basic cost of running the office, in whatever guise it appears. You can rant and rave all you like, but until you can explain where savings can take place (hint: there aren't many), you haven't got a leg to stand on.

    :facepalm: Why should the taxpayer have to pay for already extremely wealthy people to live in palaces?
    Once again: they are not paying the person, they are supplying the office with its necessaries. The Queen is not paid.

    Stop making comparisons to the German Presidency which is well known for being undoubtedly corrupt and extravagant in its spending. It's really not helping your argument one bit.
    Evidence of this corruption please. I suspect you are making this claim because, in fact, it's an inconvenient thorn in your baseless claims.

    :facepalm: Yes. Ceremonies are pointless. Paying millions for someone to be a "symbol" is pointless. Why are we paying so much for a "symbol"?
    Then you must be a robot, or something. Again: basic cost of the office.

    I just don't understand how someone can be so fundamentally stupid to think this a good way to waste hard earned taxpayers money during a recession.
    Basic cost of the office.

    £200 million a year for a "symbol" :rolleyes: A symbol of how backward we are in this country.
    Basic cost of the office.

    It's not a basic price for a Head of State, as I've already pointed out, Ireland next door only pays £1.8 million per year for theirs. That's a far cry from over £200 million.
    Ireland's Head of State is president of a small, economically tiny and militarily weak country which historically is highly neutral and parochial. Britain is the opposite of that in every way. Ireland is in no way a fair comparison.

    :facepalm: No you idiot. The US's President actually does a JOB, which isn't purely ceremonial. And he's actually ELECTED.
    Because his job is governmental, as you point out. But if you look at the majority of other countries, which are parliamentarian in nature, they emulate us. Such as Germany, Italy and so on.

    But going back to the US president, he still has extensive ceremonial duties. Do you think he considers these a break from the routine?

    How is it "essential"? :lolwut: And jealousy? :lol: I'm doing the most humane thing by pointing out to the British people that they're being scammed out of their hard earned cash by oligarchs and you accuse me of jealousy? :rolleyes: Can I accuse you of idiocy?
    Only if I can accuse you of ignorance. Somehow, by some miracle, you are sufficient evolved above us mere mortals to know how to have a head of state who is free of charge.

    Yeah let's spend £200 million pounds a year for a diplomat to entertain tyrants in their multi-billion pound palaces so the corporations can get even richer. Good idea! :rolleyes:

    You have a seriously naive idea of how the world works.
    Troll boy is trolling.

    [quote]You said the Queen is charismatic. Something she is clearly not. In the film Helen Mirren unrealistically gave 100x more charisma to the Queen's speeches than the Queen ever did. The Queen can't even hold a proper conversation without being incredibly cold and rude.[/quote

    I guess she's so cold and rude that she pissed off the 15% of the country that want a republic then?

    Embassies are not gigantic palaces full of expensive works of art idiot. They aren't usually lived in by one family in the home country. And if they are then that is another gigantic waste of money.

    If the only thing you can use to justify gigantic wastes of money is other gigantic wastes of money, then you truly are an idiot.
    You need to read more about basic diplomacy.

    Since when do ministers go to the Queen to blow off steam about their daily lives? Wtf is this bizarre fantasy you've dreamt up.
    Try reading ministerial biographies.

    :facepalm: So earlier I said you could make the PM Head of State.... therefore I said we shouldn't have a Head of State. Wtf?

    Do you have a problem with logic? Did you actually just contradict yourself in the same sentence? :confused:
    Now you're being pedantic. You argued that we could do without a president or Queen by giving those powers to the PM. I have pointed out that such a thing would be constitutionally dangerous and reckless. Understand?

    :facepalm: I am actually lost for words. Please do show me WHERE there was an ad hominem. Do you even know what it means?

    Where in me calling the Queen a unelected, extremely wealthy, thieving, self-righteous, self-important, egoistical, trumped up, blood-sucking parasite in any way an "ad hominem", (which btw is basing your argument on the negative qualities of your opponent, i.e. you.) :rolleyes:
    You're just throwing off insults which the majority of the rest of the country wouldn't agree with. Heck, many other republicans would concede the Queen herself is a good person. You're just bitter.

    My point is we shouldn't be paying millions to rich people to make deals on how to make themselves richer. In particular dictators and criminals. Anyone who's not an idiot would agree with me.
    We're not paying them for such a thing. The Queen herself is unpaid.

    I guess the majority of the country are idiots then, and you are so supremely intelligent we should just hand over the country to you.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Looks like this thread has gone from decent debate to stupidity, shame.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    • Not at all, the 40m figure is woefully innaccurate - the estimated cost of the monarchy is actually £150m. And where does this £200m figure come from?
    • How so? That land would be ours anyway without the Monarchy.
    • The Monarchy contributes pretty much nothing to tourism (less than 1% of tourist revenue) - only one Royal residence makes it on to the top 20 tourist attractions: Windsor Castle (17th, well behind, for instance, Legoland). If we look at the Tower Of London (6th), tourism would arguably be better off without the Monarchy.
    • That's a matter of opinion, how can you prove that the royals bring pride to our nation? Certainly many people have no pride in them, quite frankly I'm more ashamed of them, given the antics of Prince Phillip when on foreign business.
    • Again, a lie spread by the Royal's PR team - that figure is gained by dividing the 40m "cost" by 60m (the population) rather than those that actually pay taxes. Take the estimated cost (£150m) and the number of tax payers (in 04-05, 29.5m - bottom of page 7) and the cost is closer to £5 per year than 67p. It also costs 100 times that of the Irish presidency.
    • What wouldn't be as popular? and as I've already said, the tourism idea is a lie.


    http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we...ment/index.php
    I was far too tired to respond to OP with all that, but thankfully you did it for me! Thank you for having sense. + rep if I had any.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Why should we? An elected official runs a very high risk of using their position for political gain.
    An unelected official is not accountable and has a high risk of abusing their position for personal gain. Which she does.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Not a shrink - a sympathetic and neutral ear. Do you think Ministers will open up to a shrink they don't know who would be tempted to sell it to the papers?
    Still not worth £200 million a year. You really are failing to sell me this amazing "good value for money" service the Queen apparently provides :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    She doesn't run the country, still less does she impose upon ministers. Calm down.
    She has ultimate power over the country. An unelected tyrant with the ultimate power to suspend Parliament at any time they wish and run the country through the Privy Council, sack Prime Ministers, with complete control over the armed forces. Plus being one of the richest women in the world she still demands the taxpayer to pay £200 million a year for her family's living expenses.

    If that isn't a dictatorship, I don't know what is. If you don't think it is, you must have a funny definition of dictatorship. Dictatorship is one person having ultimate sovereign control over the country.

    (Original post by gladders)
    'Force' national holidays? Haha! Hilarious. Tell you what, let's cancel Christmas too, as that's forced upon us also.
    Did we get a choice in funding the incredibly expensive Golden and Diamond jubilees? Paying millions for security for countless Royal Weddings? Didn't think so.

    (Original post by gladders)
    The fact that the Head of State is not elected is irrelevant. In fact, it's the point - it's meant to be a continuing office, to remain relatively static while all else changes, a fixed point. It also insulates the office from politics.
    You know that's also what a hereditary dictatorship is meant to be. Wait, that's EXACTLY what it is.

    (Original post by gladders)
    The British people will it so.
    :rolleyes: Yes because they do have a choice!

    Btw that's exactly what Gaddafi said. Maybe you're as deluded as he was? Thinking that the British people can magically will someone to have ultimate control over their country without having ever voted for it :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    Who says? You? People expect their Heads of State to be adverts for their country, and that includes occupying grand residences which also become national symbols. And I said before that they are also conference centres and reception suites. You can't pack a presidential visitor and his entourage in a terrace house.
    Yes, people "expect" public servants to occupy grand palace and mansions using their money to fund it :rolleyes:. Just because it's what we've got used to doesn't make it right. You're deluding yourself.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Not sufficient - a constitution can only at best give a suggestion of what course to follow, but can never account for all possible incidences that could occur. There will always - always - be room for abuse, which a human element will have to unpick.
    Because the Queen is so immune from corruption and committing abuse :rolleyes: God such naivety, it's ridiculous.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Secondly, I find it ironic that you consider a supreme court perfectly okay when these people will interfere with our elected parliament far more than the Queen ever would.
    Because the Queen has NEVER interfered with an elected parliament :rolleyes:

    Do you even know anything about this mortal you worship?

    (Original post by gladders)
    The £200 million pays for building maintenance, staff, travel costs and the cost of hosting events. It's the basic cost of running the office, in whatever guise it appears. You can rant and rave all you like, but until you can explain where savings can take place (hint: there aren't many), you haven't got a leg to stand on.
    Again, why are we paying for some family to have servants running around for them, pay for them to go on holiday around the world at our expense and constantly host lavish parties?

    It's not the "basic cost" which is the lie you've been led to believe, there is nothing basic about the maintenance of the Royal Family's many palaces. It's the outrageous extravagant waste of public money. And if you're not outraged, you should be.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Once again: they are not paying the person, they are supplying the office with its necessaries. The Queen is not paid.
    Yes, because when you are hired to do a job they pay for all the furnishing of your many multi-billion pound homes, all your trips around the world, all your hired help :rolleyes:. Does whenever the Queen gets up in the morning count as 'work'? It's such a ridiculous scam. The fact you are too blind to see this makes me think you are either an unashamed fascist who thinks having unelected dictators is a good thing, or seriously brainwashed.

    Travelling around the world 1st class, hosting lavish parties and wining and dining yourself is not "work" no matter how you try and spin it.

    Of course it's not "payment" when you are paid to live an extravagant lifestyle at the taxpayers expense. What would you need money for when your job is what you'd be doing anyway?

    (Original post by gladders)
    Evidence of this corruption please. I suspect you are making this claim because, in fact, it's an inconvenient thorn in your baseless claims.
    Insider trading, price-fixing, money laundering, complicity in drug trafficking, covering up child abuse. Need some more?

    (Original post by gladders)
    Then you must be a robot, or something. Again: basic cost of the office.
    You must be an idiot or something. What is basic about extravagant palaces, golden carriages, gold trimmed Royal barges, lavish parties and 1st class treatment wherever you go?

    An "office" where it is your job to spend as much money on yourself as possible! Good job! :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    Ireland's Head of State is president of a small, economically tiny and militarily weak country which historically is highly neutral and parochial. Britain is the opposite of that in every way. Ireland is in no way a fair comparison.
    And that would affect the price of running the same office by multiplying it 100 x larger.... how?

    (Original post by gladders)
    Only if I can accuse you of ignorance. Somehow, by some miracle, you are sufficient evolved above us mere mortals to know how to have a head of state who is free of charge.
    One which doesn't have to live in palaces which cost millions to run each year? One which doesn't require being paraded around in golden carriages with national holidays thrown to celebrate their glory? :rolleyes:

    Just a few ideas.

    (Original post by gladders)
    You need to read more about basic diplomacy.
    You need to read more about democracy. You know, how it's ultimately better and fairer to the people. Your love of fascism should have died with Hitler. Maybe read about dictatorships, tyranny, elitism, scams etc?

    (Original post by gladders)
    Try reading ministerial biographies.
    Try not basing all your opinions on self-serving highly biased biographical sophistry.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Now you're being pedantic. You argued that we could do without a president or Queen by giving those powers to the PM. I have pointed out that such a thing would be constitutionally dangerous and reckless. Understand?
    Not as dangerous as having ultimate power lie with the unelected self-serving monarch.

    (Original post by gladders)
    You're just throwing off insults which the majority of the rest of the country wouldn't agree with. Heck, many other republicans would concede the Queen herself is a good person. You're just bitter.
    The Queen is a good person?! :lol: Please, don't make me laugh.

    You really are very deluded.

    Well done for failing logic and not understanding the definition of an ad hominem btw. :congrats:

    (Original post by gladders)
    We're not paying them for such a thing. The Queen herself is unpaid.

    I guess the majority of the country are idiots then, and you are so supremely intelligent we should just hand over the country to you.
    :facepalm: Yes, unfortunately a lot of the country are very ignorant, just like you. Mainly because people like you keep peddling this warped view of the UK's state of affairs and propaganda portraying this self-appointed tyrant as the UK's last beacon of hope or something. You'd be more suited in North Korea worshipping Dear Leader. I guess you'll be the one sobbing hysterically in the street when old Queenie finally pops it.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    In conclusion, you don't need to be of a certain political persuasion to be against the monarchy. You simply need common sense and a sense of justice.

    Anyone who's in favour of the monarchy if they had the choice to get rid of it, is either; seriously deluded about their role, their powers, their cost, their wealth, their benefits, their benevolence, their extravagance, their waste, their opinion of commoners such as themselves or they are simply sentimental idiots trying to find some sort of meaning to their lives and their identity by thinking that by adulating these inbred tyrants it somehow makes them better Britons and more "British".

    If the most significant part of your identity is your allegiance to some inbreds and your perceived nationality, then you are really lacking in any remote sense of individuality.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    An unelected official is not accountable and has a high risk of abusing their position for personal gain. Which she does.
    Then do you wish the entire civil service to be elected too? All half a million of them?

    She has zero ability to force her will. She can only make her opinion heard, when it is asked of her.

    Please give an example of when the Queen used this for personal gain. You can't? Thought not.

    Still not worth £200 million a year. You really are failing to sell me this amazing "good value for money" service the Queen apparently provides :rolleyes:
    Then please give an example of how it can be cheaper.

    She has ultimate power over the country. An unelected tyrant with the ultimate power to suspend Parliament at any time they wish and run the country through the Privy Council, sack Prime Ministers, with complete control over the armed forces. Plus being one of the richest women in the world she still demands the taxpayer to pay £200 million a year for her family's living expenses.
    What part of 'she doesn't get to spend that money as she wishes' don't you understand?

    All those powers you list are long in desuetude - do you really think the country would tolerate their use?

    If that isn't a dictatorship, I don't know what is. If you don't think it is, you must have a funny definition of dictatorship. Dictatorship is one person having ultimate sovereign control over the country.
    She has sovereign authority but not sovereign control. You're the only person in the country who seems to believe she's a dictator. If we replaced her with a president, our democratic freedoms would not change one iota.

    Did we get a choice in funding the incredibly expensive Golden and Diamond jubilees? Paying millions for security for countless Royal Weddings? Didn't think so.
    Do Americans get a choice in funding the 4th of July celebrations, or the French Bastille Day? On the contrary, are they very popular occasions? Yep.

    You know that's also what a hereditary dictatorship is meant to be. Wait, that's EXACTLY what it is.
    No it's not. Please give an example of when the Queen last used her 'dictatorial' powers to force the government to do something against its will.

    :rolleyes: Yes because they do have a choice!
    Absolutely they do. Do you think we'd be discussing it here if we didn't? What do you think would happen if Parliament decided to do away with the monarchy?

    Btw that's exactly what Gaddafi said. Maybe you're as deluded as he was? Thinking that the British people can magically will someone to have ultimate control over their country without having ever voted for it :rolleyes:
    Please provide a new item that indicates the British people are clamouring to remove the monarchy. I can quite easily provide one showing the monarchy's widespread support.

    Again: you don't need to elect something for it to be endorsed - its tolerance by the people is sufficient, especially for a ceremonial position.

    The current generation of Americans never voted on whether or not they want to continue to be governed by the US Constitution - do you then believe that the US Constitution is illegitimate?

    Yes, people "expect" public servants to occupy grand palace and mansions using their money to fund it :rolleyes:. Just because it's what we've got used to doesn't make it right. You're deluding yourself.
    How would you expect VIPs, guests and staff to be houses, along with conference rooms? A TARDIS?

    Because the Queen is so immune from corruption and committing abuse :rolleyes: God such naivety, it's ridiculous.
    She is less capable by virtue of having no executive role and also being materially secure. She has no need to secure a 'legacy' or accrue material wealth because she already has them.

    Because the Queen has NEVER interfered with an elected parliament :rolleyes:
    Evidence, please.

    Do you even know anything about this mortal you worship?
    Apparently, a lot more than you. You seem fond of making up accusations!

    Again, why are we paying for some family to have servants running around for them, pay for them to go on holiday around the world at our expense and constantly host lavish parties?
    The monarchy is busy liaising with the government and conducting the duties of the office. The staff it has are needed to support that office.

    You do not pay for holidays. If they go abroad on public money, it is because the government has directed the monarchy to conduct diplomatic functions. Same for the 'parties'. As I said, it's very important for greasing diplomatic wheels.

    It's not the "basic cost" which is the lie you've been led to believe, there is nothing basic about the maintenance of the Royal Family's many palaces. It's the outrageous extravagant waste of public money. And if you're not outraged, you should be.
    Please give a suggestion for how money can be saved. Hint: moving out of the Palace doesn't work. The Palace would still be there and would require constant maintenance, and you'd need to house them elsewhere to conduct the office.

    You can say 'lies' all you like: unless you provide evidence to the contrary, you're making this up.

    Yes, because when you are hired to do a job they pay for all the furnishing of your many multi-billion pound homes, all your trips around the world, all your hired help :rolleyes:. Does whenever the Queen gets up in the morning count as 'work'? It's such a ridiculous scam. The fact you are too blind to see this makes me think you are either an unashamed fascist who thinks having unelected dictators is a good thing, or seriously brainwashed.
    Unlike you I have studied this subject for years - having once been a firm republican I was subsequently informed. It is you who seems to have a problem with making up stories and forming your opinions without the facts.

    Check out the royal website for an example of the Queen's typical day.

    Travelling around the world 1st class, hosting lavish parties and wining and dining yourself is not "work" no matter how you try and spin it.
    Yes it is. The parties and travel are only the surface, which you are incapable of penetrating. They are platforms on which diplomatic negotiations take place.

    It's like being a celebrity - and you know how many celebrities succumb to drink and drugs, right? Because of the intense stress of publicity?

    Of course it's not "payment" when you are paid to live an extravagant lifestyle at the taxpayers expense. What would you need money for when your job is what you'd be doing anyway?
    So the Queen's idea of a good time is paying staff pensions, renovating a palace to the same design constantly, talking with the government and Parliament, conducting the same annual ceremonies and meeting VIPs every year? Curious.

    Insider trading, price-fixing, money laundering, complicity in drug trafficking, covering up child abuse. Need some more?
    I said evidence. Listing types of corruption is not evidence. Please give a news article, helpfully with a headline something like 'Queen found guilty of money laundering/child abuse'. Can you find one?

    You must be an idiot or something. What is basic about extravagant palaces, golden carriages, gold trimmed Royal barges, lavish parties and 1st class treatment wherever you go?
    Basic to the needs of the office, for diplomatic purposes. Do you think we should host visiting VIPs, such as the US President, or a country we're desperately trying to establish trade relations with, in a council flat?

    An "office" where it is your job to spend as much money on yourself as possible! Good job! :rolleyes:
    Nope. None of it is spent on the Queen directly.

    And that would affect the price of running the same office by multiplying it 100 x larger.... how?
    Really? You don't know? Travelling further and more frequently; meeting and receiving more international diplomatics and VIPs; visiting more of the country and the public on a much more constant basis; visiting military establishments and meeting commanders much more regularly; talking with the government much more frequently about legislation and policy; conducting more ceremonies for the enjoyment of the public.

    One which doesn't have to live in palaces which cost millions to run each year? One which doesn't require being paraded around in golden carriages with national holidays thrown to celebrate their glory? :rolleyes:

    Just a few ideas.
    Name them.

    You need to read more about democracy. You know, how it's ultimately better and fairer to the people. Your love of fascism should have died with Hitler. Maybe read about dictatorships, tyranny, elitism, scams etc?
    Strawman. I am absolutely a 'fan' of democracy, which I why I believe in a constitutional monarchy.

    Try reading the Democracy Index: monarchies dominate it.

    Try not basing all your opinions on self-serving highly biased biographical sophistry.
    Okay! I'll base it on a jaundiced, baseless prejudice like yourself then.

    Not as dangerous as having ultimate power lie with the unelected self-serving monarch.
    Sorry, no. If the Queen ever tried anything, she'd be stripped of her crown. Want to try again?

    The Queen is a good person?! :lol: Please, don't make me laugh.

    You really are very deluded.
    Evidence of the Queen being a bad person? And somehow you, superior being, have avoided the delusion of liking the monarchy, against the 80% of the country who must be sub-human compared to you!

    :facepalm: Yes, unfortunately a lot of the country are very ignorant, just like you. Mainly because people like you keep peddling this warped view of the UK's state of affairs and propaganda portraying this self-appointed tyrant as the UK's last beacon of hope or something. You'd be more suited in North Korea worshipping Dear Leader. I guess you'll be the one sobbing hysterically in the street when old Queenie finally pops it.
    I love how you think you're getting me angry you have a very high opinion of yourself for someone who has made a lot of claims without a shred of evidence, and doesn't even seem to understand what evidence is!
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I can't see the context of the post when I'm quoting, so I'll just take the self explanatory points:

    (Original post by gladders)
    Then do you wish the entire civil service to be elected too? All half a million of them?
    They're chosen on merit, not on whose legs they fell between.

    (Original post by gladders)
    She has zero ability to force her will. She can only make her opinion heard, when it is asked of her.
    I doubt anyone would be happy if it transpired that the PM being called to weekly meetings with Rupert Murdoch. Same thing.

    (Original post by gladders)
    No it's not. Please give an example of when the Queen last used her 'dictatorial' powers to force the government to do something against its will.
    Irrelevant. The very fact that she could do is reason enough for her not to have them.


    (Original post by gladders)
    Please provide a new item that indicates the British people are clamouring to remove the monarchy. I can quite easily provide one showing the monarchy's widespread support.
    Monarchists' numbers are falling, something like 20% fewer people saying Britain would be worse without the royals since the wedding.



    (Original post by gladders)
    How would you expect VIPs, guests and staff to be houses, along with conference rooms? A TARDIS?
    That last suggestion would certainly impress the other countries

    (Original post by gladders)
    It's like being a celebrity - and you know how many celebrities succumb to drink and drugs, right? Because of the intense stress of publicity?
    Which is why it's cruel to force people into said limelight from when they're a baby. Wills has expressed his wish to be left alone on more than one occassion.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think the fact that the monarchy deliberately shroud themselves in secrecy, particularly when it comes to their finances, makes it impossible to have a serious national debate. Even more worrying is that the government allows them to do this.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 11, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.