How the British Royal Family earns YOU £2.60 every year Watch

toofaforu
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#181
Report 7 years ago
#181
all of you arguing against it are morons. if the royal family was lose their land so the state can benefit, then why shouldnt any family who have had land passed down for generations? e.g. duke of westminster?
0
reply
OdinsThunder
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#182
Report 7 years ago
#182
We should consider ourselves lucky that land and valuables are held in possession of the Crown. If they were owned by the state, they would have probably been sold off for pocket change by now.
0
reply
FlamingIceCubez
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#183
Report 7 years ago
#183
Thanks for posting this!
0
reply
simon-leeds
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#184
Report 7 years ago
#184
The Royal Family is part of our national identity in a way that it isn't in any other country in with a monarchy. Ignoring the factual benefits and moving to ideology, what if America and their wonderful republic elect Sarah Palin as their head of state, and she and her tea party majority decide that she should become supreme overlord of the USA until she dies. Who's there to stop her?
0
reply
Darkphilosopher
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#185
Report 7 years ago
#185
(Original post by Reformed2010)
Here I go again, one more time!. Please read what I say

Thanks to the Protestant reformation no British monarch may marry a catholic. Our head of state as of now, can never be of catholic faith. The head of state is a job and this job is denied to 8.87 % of the nation (5,264,000 people according to figures). That my friend is what we call religious discrimination 101.
One of the roles of the King/Queen is to be the head of the church of England. This would obviously cause conflict. Although I personally think that religion should have no affiliation with government.

If Kate and William have a daughter first and then a son after. The daughter is denied inheriting the throne from her dad (William) and her brother will become king. Simply because he is a boy. That my friend is what we call gender discrimination 101.
The queen and government are undergoing talks to change the Act of Settlement (this and your previous point). It is not the "political institution" that is sexist, it is old outdated legislation that is being reviewed for change.

Fail. The house of Lords is not elected by us and neither is the prime minister. The central government is cherry picked by the party leaders and constantly changed year after year. Did you have any say on who became the Chancellor? and we don't vote for the prime minister we vote for the party. Let me repeat, half of our parliament is not elected at all by the citizens.
The house of lords is meant to be impartial and keep check over the government.
Surely you could see the implications of having them being elected in?
People tend to elect others who represent their views, this could potentially lead to misguided judgement within the house of lords.

People don't vote for politicians, they vote for group who best represent their views. To elect every single MP would be time consuming and expensive, something which of course would be passed on to the citizens in the form of tax. I'm sure that the majority of the country would be much less happy if they had to pay extra taxes for something that they're not too bothered about.

No I am not. Do you have any idea of what the function of a head of state is? it can be either simply ceremonial (like UK), have reserved powers (like UK) or have direct power (like the USA). But it is fundamentally mean't to be the representation of a nation and its citizens. You don't think the best way for a person to argue he or she legitimately represents a body of people, to be chosen by the said group of people? Imagine being in a group of your friends. How would you want to pick who represents your friends to other people? By that person's son or by you all selecting the best person? Get it now?
(Original post by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state)
A head of state is the individual that serves as the chief public representative of a monarchy, republic, federation, commonwealth or other kind of state. His or her role generally includes legitimizing the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted to the head of state in the country's constitution and laws. In nation states the head of state is often thought of as the official "leader" of the nation.
The head of state (the Queen) does represent the nation and it's people. She does this by granting an elected parliament the power to control legislature.

There are a plethora of countries like France, Germany, USA who all have operated well without a Royal family. Where is the evidence that we as the great nation we are cannot function like the USA without a Royal family? how insulting! You actually think Britain needs Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York, Catherine Duchess of Cambridge or Prince Harry of Wales to function? to do business? to win wars? to pass laws? to hold meetings? to what?
The majority of the UK's citizens don't want the UK to function like other countries though.

Wait so you actually think Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York performs duties no other British person can do? what like hold parties, raise funds or wave on stake occasions?. No seriously what does she do you think no one in a population of 60 million cannot do? so you got MP's running the entire country. You got business woman and men in charge of multi billion pound companies. But Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York, for example, has something special that no one has, right...
The royal family are respected figureheads in British society, they represent our history and culture as well as performing these tasks. When dealing with foreign countries (especially monarchies), they receive more respect than a leader who will only be in place for a few years. This cannot be achieved by say, a businessman.

Lastly, how do you know she is better at her 'job' (what the heck IS her job?) than anyone else? no one else has had a chance to compete. You can't argue some one is best at their job if you've not had anyone to compete it too! :facepalm2:

WHAT IS HER JOB.
The point is that her job is too big to describe. I doubt another single person would be able to deal with all the duties she has.
1
reply
mel0n
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#186
Report 7 years ago
#186
(Original post by sandeep90)
I saw a counter video to that a few days ago;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw
That guy's attitude is horrible. I turned it off before it even got half way because it's just tedious and annoying to listen to.
0
reply
Reformed2010
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#187
Report 7 years ago
#187
(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
One of the roles of the King/Queen is to be the head of the church of England. This would obviously cause conflict. Although I personally think that religion should have no affiliation with government.


The queen and government are undergoing talks to change the Act of Settlement (this and your previous point). It is not the "political institution" that is sexist, it is old outdated legislation that is being reviewed for change.


The house of lords is meant to be impartial and keep check over the government.
Surely you could see the implications of having them being elected in?
People tend to elect others who represent their views, this could potentially lead to misguided judgement within the house of lords.

People don't vote for politicians, they vote for group who best represent their views. To elect every single MP would be time consuming and expensive, something which of course would be passed on to the citizens in the form of tax. I'm sure that the majority of the country would be much less happy if they had to pay extra taxes for something that they're not too bothered about.





The head of state (the Queen) does represent the nation and it's people. She does this by granting an elected parliament the power to control legislature.


The majority of the UK's citizens don't want the UK to function like other countries though.


The royal family are respected figureheads in British society, they represent our history and culture as well as performing these tasks. When dealing with foreign countries (especially monarchies), they receive more respect than a leader who will only be in place for a few years. This cannot be achieved by say, a businessman.


The point is that her job is too big to describe. I doubt another single person would be able to deal with all the duties she has.
She is not dealing with any duties, she is studying at University. So now that I know your not even bothering to argue with evidence, but merely supporting them for the sake of it. I think its best I'll leave it at that, its not worth a long response.
0
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#188
Report 7 years ago
#188
(Original post by iainthegreat)
This thread proves TSR is a very much full of elitist, middle class toffs. Despite the counter video showing how the royal family does not earn you £2.60 per year, would that 0.712p per day be worth what the royal family stands for? An unfair, unjust, class dictated system in which we all men are not born equal.
We would live in such an unfair system regardless of whether the royal family were here or not. It isn't just the royals who have wealth and power, and it isn't just the royals who will give their own wealth and power to their children (they are just a prime example of it). I mean I hate to break it to you but life is fundamentally unfair and getting rid of the royal family would not change that.
0
reply
Darkphilosopher
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#189
Report 7 years ago
#189
(Original post by Reformed2010)
She is not dealing with any duties, she is studying at University. So now that I know your not even bothering to argue with evidence, but merely supporting them for the sake of it. I think its best I'll leave it at that, its not worth a long response.
I was referring to the queen. Beatrice will take up many of the jobs later in her life.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#190
Report 7 years ago
#190
I haven’t read the thread so I’m sorry if this has already been said.

The royals cost us £40 million a year. Wrong
They don’t pay any inheritance tax and we can’t actually do anything on “their” land! I haven’t had time to do the sums but I’m sure this would exceed £100 million.

Surely if the land was owned by the state then we wouldn’t have to pay them the £40 million and we’d take the profits and even increase them, due to people paying tax that otherwise wouldn’t be.

Anyone who says ‘we can’t take their land they own it’. Well obviously they only own the land because they took it off the people and passed laws to keep it.

If that’s not enough, people talk about tradition. What exactly is the royal family’s tradition? A throwback to an elitist class system filled with oppression, famine, and inequality. Who in their right mind would be proud of that?
3
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#191
Report 7 years ago
#191
Doesn't matter. Some people just don't like them. I think as long as they have either a positive net effect on our country, or none at all, they should stay. But for many people it's a principled issue rather than a matter of logic.
0
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#192
Report 7 years ago
#192
The argument is poor. The royal estates are the property of the state, not the personal property of the royal family, and have been exempted from tax for that reason.

Think about it: is it really justifiable for the state to endlessly protect the rights of a single family to large swathes of land, and is it really accurate to say that the (below what it could be if the land were utilised economically as it would in a free market) income from that land belongs to the person the state protects? Very difficult to justify in my view. If Mubarak used force of arms to take large swathes of Egypt, and over a period of time the state protected his family's rights to that land, is it really right to say that his descendants "own" the land? Same situation with the royal family...

There are countles other counter-arguments. To treat income from the crown-estate as a "gift" or a "benefit" is stretching the truth... I do wonder whether people are shutting their eyes to the obvious because they like the Queen, and whether threads like this would go the other way if we had a mad king (George III) or Nazi supporter (Edward VIII) on the throne.
0
reply
Woffles
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#193
Report 7 years ago
#193
(Original post by Rant)
So make it fair. It's not rocket science.
HAHAH make life fair? When you come up with a solution to that, get back to me.
0
reply
IWantSomeMushu
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#194
Report 7 years ago
#194
(Original post by mel0n)
That guy's attitude is horrible. I turned it off before it even got half way because it's just tedious and annoying to listen to.
How unfortunate.
1
reply
So I am
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#195
Report 7 years ago
#195
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I always wondered why this is never mentioned in the media. They always say the Royal Family only cost £40 million a year as an argument for keeping them, but surely the fact that they generate a tidy profit is a better argument?
Good question,
they should say this in the media,
also the tourism factor as the royal family brings tourists

but I don't think people are only bothered about the money earned by the royal family, it's the whole 'royalty' thing that bothers - may be the inner motivation is that people want equality and these times of socialism.

Nevertheless, I like the royal family, and still think they bring a lot to the kingdom- I can't imagine the UK w/o the royal family
1
reply
Cheesecakefactory
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#196
Report 7 years ago
#196
(Original post by Tommyjw)
You should give her the same amount of respect you would give anyone.
And you should, if you were a decent person, give anyone plenty of respect no matter if they have 'earned it' or not.
I meant I'm not going to call her 'your royal highness' and grovel at her feet. I'd give her the same amount of respect that i'd give anyone else, and no more.
0
reply
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#197
Report 7 years ago
#197
(Original post by kerily)
I'd easily forgo £2.60 if it somehow meant Britain would no longer have a royal family.
Exactly. Plus, it may 'make us £2.60 a year' but what about the cultural cost?
0
reply
honoris
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#198
Report 7 years ago
#198
All the counter arguments that claim the monarchy makes money throught tourism is just propaganda.
Same as how every BBC show, tv or radio were forced to mention the royal wedding in a positve manner constantly.
The fact that they pay for some things with 'their' estate, which previous monarchs stole from the public, building up through slavery.
Many costs are hidden from the public. I'm not particularly against the monarchy, just saying
It is a nice tradition, however it is an odd somewhat outdated dictatorship of a system, as there is no choice.
God save the queen.
0
reply
kerily
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#199
Report 7 years ago
#199
(Original post by MTR_10)
Exactly. Plus, it may 'make us £2.60 a year' but what about the cultural cost?
Sadly, looking at the general consensus of the thread, I don't think anyone else agrees with us :teehee:
0
reply
Rant
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#200
Report 7 years ago
#200
(Original post by Woffles)
HAHAH make life fair? When you come up with a solution to that, get back to me.
K, try socialism first. Might not be perfect but beats the hell outta crapitalism.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (129)
38.51%
No - but I will (19)
5.67%
No - I don't want to (25)
7.46%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (162)
48.36%

Watched Threads

View All