What does good does the Monarchy really do ?

The ignorance in this thread is astounding. We only "pay" the monarch due to a deal between a long-ago parliament, which made royal land public. This public land, whilst still owned by the royals, the funds it produces go to the public coffers which exceeds the royal budget. We profit from them way before their tourism dorra.

Also, you are suggesting that traditions are pointless, social cohesion is pointless, national identity is pointless. Why are you against these things and how do we benefit from not having an identity? Monarchy is the rule of one; everyone looks to the monarchy as a pillar of excellence to be mirrored throughout our own lives. Well spoken, well mannered, artistic and strong family values and a sense of communal duty. Without a monarch to constrain our democracy, it's pure mob rule.

And having a president that needs reflecting every four years would change that how?

Out of interest, which self interests have the royal family served? They've had year on year reductions in expenditure. Lost the royal yacht. Had the queens flight reduced and been more transparent than ever .

I can't see how you think the royals waste tax payers money. UK Plc spent £30 billion last year servicing debt. Most of which was run up fundinh the nhs and welfare spending. Let's talk about those debt payements for a waste.

Where is your evidence Blair would be re-elected? Who are you to denigrate whoever the public chose in any case?


Posted from TSR Mobile

If you don't like Tony Blair, you don't have to vote for him as your head of state. That's the beauty of it.

Getting the idea?

Where your evidence he wouldn't have?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-84803/Mo-attacks-President-Blair.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9641302/Tony-Blair-the-EU-needs-a-president.html


Just from his previous and current behaviour.

I think Charles' letters would tell you about self interest were we allowed to see them. Of course we aren't, which is very transparent as you say.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You made the statement, the onus is on you to back it up. Your stories, one of which is 14 years old, talk about Blair but not his popularity in Britain. Where are the stories which show people want him back as leader? Never mind, Charles III will do better than any commoner could wish to.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh do me a bloody favour, many countries worldwide do not descend into anarchy without a monarchy to tell them how to live. When was the last time Lizzie had to worry about paying the bills like millions of her subjects? She has nothing in common with an overwhelming majority of the British people and is unfit to be a figurehead to rally around. For you to talk about social cohesion when we bestow wealth, status and power to people because of their ancestry is simply laughable.

I don't like the idea of a politician becoming a president.

presidents tend to be retired politicians.

And as MatureStudent says, I would be amazed if there's anything Charles has done for personal gain. He writes to ministers about subjects he's concerned about, but none of them, to my knowledge, are things he would personally benefit from.

If they were, it's pretty clear what would happen - ministers would reject his views and warn him to not trouble them with such a matter again.

Which issues has he allegedly got involved in for personal gain?

I'm a staunch republican and I get a lot of hatred from the vast majority of people when I say that I am - they seem to think I'm attacking our national values or something. What I would really like to know if you are a monarchist what good do you think they have done our country ? because I can't think of anything, but then again I'm biased

The monarch is able to obstruct legislation if it conflicts with their personal interests.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Very, very few of the elected politicians have anything in common with the people. So why do you think election would solve this apparent problem?

For the record, the attitudes of the previous monarchs of the past century, when their thoughts have been disclosed, has shown that they have considerably more sympathy with the downtrodden than most people in their governments. So the concept that you have to be of a people to understand them is utter rot.

An elected president could do this.

What personal interests has Prince Charles interfered with?

You Seem to be dealing an awful lot with supposition....things that could happen but haven't happened in centuries.

Not if we legislated against it. Charles has applied pressure to ministers and we have been prevented from knowing the details on the grounds that it might ruin his supposed impartiality in the eyes of the public. To me that means he has shown a personal bias on unspecified issues.

If the courts give permission to publish the letters we will know.


Posted from TSR Mobile

It's sometimes good for somebody who's apolitical to question politicians.

You may want to read up on his interference. Questioning government on behalf of political minority groupings is often a good thing to do.

The monarch is able to obstruct legislation if it conflicts with their personal interests.

Yes so much so that it took Lizzie almost 40 years to agree to pay tax.

The Duke of Edinburgh's bigotry which is seen as funny rather than a national
embarrassment.

Harry dressing like a Nazi and talking about his 'paki' mates in the army.

How easy it is to express sympathy when you live in a palace and have no cares in the world-at least an elected figure must show some effort in serving the public so as to be re-elected.

That is the beauty of people being accountable for their behaviour.