Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Get Rid of Monarchy Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we get rid of the monarchy?
    Yes
    41.07%
    No
    58.93%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Not a bad gig for £30 million a year, along with a family monopoly over exercise of the executive function.
    You're comparing apples and oranges. Saying that the Queen gets £30m a year for her personal enjoyment is like saying Obama gets $1.2bn a year for his.

    Again, your knowledge of royal finances is woeful. The *Duke* of Edinburgh (not "Prince of Edinburgh") received a parliamentary annuity, which the Queen refunded to the Exchequer in exchange for an equal offset in her income tax. Essentially, revenue neutral and a parliamentary expense.

    I think you've rather handily demonstrated your lack of knowledge of royal finances (not to mention the actual title of the royal consort)
    Again, I haven't seen anything to corroborate your claim that the Queen can repay this as her income tax payments.

    Edit: in fact, I've just skimmed over the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding on royal taxation, and it appears that the Queen pays additional tax for these repayments.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    the Queen pays additional tax for these repayments.
    And yet you were claiming only one post back that no such payments were made whatsoever? Not only are you hopelessly confused by financial and taxation issues (for example, the nature of a tax offset which renders something revenue neutral), but your ridiculous bluster sees you denying the existence of things you admit only a post later.

    Are you drunk?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Who's arguing that? Nobody is saying tourism is the primary concern of what type of Head of State we have. But in the long list of pros and cons, it can be put on there
    It's like adding to the list of pros and cons for marrying your wife "She's never been a prostitute". It's nonsensical, and sounds desperate and sad.

    I haven't seen this corroborated anywhere, and seeing as you believed we salary obscure minor royals I have no reason to believe it's true.
    Sorry, you were saying.... in light of your claim below that the Queen pays "additional tax". Aside from your flawed understanding of accounting, is she paying additional tax on something non-existent?

    I agree. So why should we change that to a president?
    Self-respect? A sense of valuing our own people and institutions? Not entrenching into law that someone is better than another person simply because they came out of a magic vagina? Because all the claims of monarchists, that if we switch to a Republican system there will be screwing in the streets and the collapse of civilisation, are the baseless claims of frightened, unimaginative individuals?

    Sure, some people will turn republican. But those people are dumb. You don't approve of a system based on who is in office, you base it on how the system has functioned over time.
    These "dumb" people will be the same cheap Republicans who are currently cheap monarchists... the kind to go out and wave their stupid little flags at the royal wedding... the kind who in years past would have gone to see a public execution or a bearded lady.

    I agree that you don't approve a system based on who's in office, which is exactly what you seem to be doing; judging all monarchy by your own, limited experience of one particularly good monarch.

    The hopes of republicans that somehow Charles will turn the country into a republican are massively overblown, and strike me as a little bit desperate.
    It's quite funny how little you know how much even the aristocracy and royal flunkies despise Charles and don't think he'd be suited to be king. Maybe you just don't move in those circles.

    Then again, my experience is that those most in favour of the monarchy are usually those who benefit least from it. Quite sad and a bit pathetic, really.

    By the way, what shall we do if Wills and Kates child is a retard?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)

    At a time when people hate benefit scroungers, why do they fawn over the biggest one - Elizabeth Windsor
    Monarchy or no monarchy, SHAME on you for calling an 86 year old woman who has worked ceaselessly for our country for the last 60 years a benefit scrounger. She has continued to work at an age when all if not most people of her age would have retired.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    And yet you were claiming only one post back that no such payments were made whatsoever? Not only are you hopelessly confused by financial and taxation issues (for example, the nature of a tax offset which renders something revenue neutral), but your ridiculous bluster sees you denying the existence of things you admit only a post later.

    Are you drunk?
    I'm sorry? I said you haven't cited anything to corroborate your claim that the Queen gets to offset her tax payments with the services the minor royals charge for, and I've simply read the Memorandum of Understanding. Seeing as you claimed that minor royals get salaried when they categorically don't, I don't think you can accuse me of blustering.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    It's like adding to the list of pros and cons for marrying your wife "She's never been a prostitute". It's nonsensical, and sounds desperate and sad.
    So you're saying that any pros in favour of the monarchy don't count, only the cons. How convenient for you.

    Sorry, you were saying.... in light of your claim below that the Queen pays "additional tax". Aside from your flawed understanding of accounting, is she paying additional tax on something non-existent?
    I think you need to understand how the minor royals get public money. It's only when they are specifically carrying out a specific public duty requested by the Queen or by the Government. That's not a salary, it's a stipend to cover the costs of the function. The Queen then covers that cost with the money from the Civil List.

    Self-respect? A sense of valuing our own people and institutions? Not entrenching into law that someone is better than another person simply because they came out of a magic vagina? Because all the claims of monarchists, that if we switch to a Republican system there will be screwing in the streets and the collapse of civilisation, are the baseless claims of frightened, unimaginative individuals?
    Who honestly argues that? Do you get your summary of monarchist arguments from a comic book? My argument is that becoming a republic will do nothing to improve or demonstrate our self-esteem; rather, removing the monarchy would reveal we're very worried about our self-esteem and are seeking a very expensive and pointless image makeover to do something about it.

    These "dumb" people will be the same cheap Republicans who are currently cheap monarchists... the kind to go out and wave their stupid little flags at the royal wedding... the kind who in years past would have gone to see a public execution or a bearded lady.
    Please tell me more about how you feel superior to all of us.

    I agree that you don't approve a system based on who's in office, which is exactly what you seem to be doing; judging all monarchy by your own, limited experience of one particularly good monarch.
    I'm a historian primarily. I've studied closely the practices of quite a few monarchs, including the last hundred years. They have a rather good track record of being constitutional monarchs and vibrant national symbols, and see no evidence that becoming a republic will improve upon that.

    It's quite funny how little you know how much even the aristocracy and royal flunkies despise Charles and don't think he'd be suited to be king. Maybe you just don't move in those circles.
    I guess I don't. I guess I'll have to live with that.

    Then again, my experience is that those most in favour of the monarchy are usually those who benefit least from it. Quite sad and a bit pathetic, really.

    By the way, what shall we do if Wills and Kates child is a retard?
    There's a Regency Act to handle occasions when the monarch is incapacitated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I'm sorry? I said you haven't cited anything to corroborate your claim that the Queen gets to offset her tax payments with the services the minor royals charge for
    Perhaps you might corroborate your claim that the Queen repays the Exchequer for parliamentary annuities in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I think you need to understand how the minor royals get public money. It's only when they are specifically carrying out a specific public duty requested by the Queen or by the Government. That's not a salary, it's a stipend to cover the costs of the function. The Queen then covers that cost with the money from the Civil List.
    There is no Civil List anymore. Please do your homework.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Perhaps you might corroborate your claim that the Queen repays the Exchequer for parliamentary annuities in the first place.
    From the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding:

    1.21 A number of members of the Royal Family support The Queen in Her duties as Monarch. Prior to 1 April 2012, they received Parliamentary Annuities to meet the costs that they incur in carrying out a wide range of official engagements in the United Kingdom and overseas. Since 6 April 1993, The Queen has reimbursed all of these amounts directly to The Exchequer, except for the annuity for The Duke of Edinburgh.

    1.22 Under the provisions of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, with the exception of the annuity for The Duke of Edinburgh, payment of the other Parliamentary Annuities has ceased. The Queen meets the costs of other members of the Royal Family who perform official duties on Her behalf.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    There is no Civil List anymore. Please do your homework.
    Up until last year there was. As that covers 99% of the history of royal finances, it remains a perfectly legitimate description.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I'm a historian primarily. I've studied closely the practices of quite a few monarchs, including the last hundred years. They have a rather good track record of being constitutional monarchs and vibrant national symbols, and see no evidence that becoming a republic will improve upon that.

    *and re regency*
    So what do you think of Edward VIII? A man who said of his own subjects, the Australian aborigines, "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys."

    Of course, you say that we can't judge the individual which puts them above criticism. Well I ask you, what kind of system brings to power an individual like that, with views that were extreme even in the first half of the 20th century?

    And regarding regency, that's an absurd proposition in the 21st century. How long will each regent last? Where's the "stability"? If these regents chosen by parliament are suitable to rule, why not anyone appointed by parliament?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    The monarchy is an outdated concept that needs abolished, it sends out a signal to the rest of the world that we are fine with un-elected people holding the highest positions of authority in our society. There also used as a way to make people feel guilt tripped into spending money on a party to celebrate the fact that some old ladies been in her job for such a long period of time as it would be unpatriotic and treasonous not do so.

    We need an elected head of state who is directly accountable to the people, rather than leaving the position to the woman who's ancestors were warmongering of doom across these islands. Keeping the Queen encourages the traditionalist thinking that will doom this country like the idea that their was once some glorious empire we should yearn after.

    At a time when people hate benefit scroungers, why do they fawn over the biggest one - Elizabeth Windsor and her extended brood of taxpayer funded kiddy winks. That's before we get onto how bad the royal nepotist culture is for society.
    Your living a pipe dream.

    America has an elected official accountable and you think that those presidents upheld the good of the people?

    How about Nixon and watergate? Or Bush and Iraq? If you think that an elected representive solves our problems then your post is as unintelligent as your insults to the Royal Family.

    The royal family are a safeguard, a 3rd party along side the house of lords and the commons (Though a house filled with mainly upper middle class individuals makes the term common laughable) which prevent either of the houses acting in their own interests unlike the American senate or house.

    Also they dont just rule the country, they also serve it. They bring trade into this country. They serve within our armed forces protecting us from harm. The queen herself is qualified as an engineer as she worked during the war effort. She didnt have to. She chose to just like many other of their family members.

    I wonder if your family has contributed anything to the good of this nation?

    I doubt it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So you concede that a minor royal is in receipt of a parliamentary annuity? Also, I'm glad that you want to debate based on civil list arrangements. Let's do that.

    A.7 In addition, income tax is paid on the income of the Privy Purse (which includes income received from the Duchy of Lancaster) to the extent that it is not used to defray expenditure in connection with the official duties of The Queen or members of the Royal Family who undertake
    official duties on behalf of The Queen. The amount of Privy Purse income to be taxed and the expenses taken into account are to be determined in the way set out in Appendix A.
    Do you see? These minor royals were already in receipt of a parliamentary annuity to defray the expenses of their official duties. Parliament pays these royal flunkies. The Queen pays the Exchequer to reimburse it with £s she would already have to have paid in tax. Hence, revenue neutral.

    And if you think the Duke of Edinburgh is worth £359,000 then you're criminally and I'd say dishonestly overvaluing his worth compared to, say, a university Vice-Chancellor
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    The royal family are a safeguard, a 3rd party along side the house of lords and the commons (Though a house filled with mainly upper middle class individuals makes the term common laughable) which prevent either of the houses acting in their own interests
    What planet do you live on? Prevent either house acting in their own interest? Even arch-monarchist gladders wouldn't claim that.

    In fact, we know that the monarchy would almost always decline to intervene even when highly undemocratic things occur, because they feel that to use their power is to lose it. It only exists when it's not used. And they don't feel they have the legitimacy to intervene in what parliament does.

    Iraq
    The Queen vetoed our involvement in the Iraq War? I'd totally forgotten about that. Really must pay attention.

    They bring trade into this country.
    Evidence please.

    They serve within our armed forces protecting us from harm.
    And this is dependent on that family having a monopoly on the executive power, how?

    The queen herself is qualified as an engineer as she worked during the war effort.
    She's nothing like a qualified engineer.

    She didnt have to. She chose to just like many other of their family members.
    And just like many ordinary people did. Or does the fact she was the princess lower the threshold for our judgement of decency?

    I wonder if your family has contributed anything to the good of this nation?

    I doubt it...
    You're rather typical of "cheap" monarchism. Very plebby, and utterly distasteful. And actually quite insulting to the monarchy as a system.

    Your rather limited conception of monarchy itself means you conflate the office with the person, and favouring the status quo you think therefore you must deify the individual. Hence you end up with people like you worshipping the very ordinary ground they walk on.

    and & gladders
    It's people like Macabre who will see this country become a republic Just watch as they desert monarchism when Charles doesn't live up to their expectations, and throw their toys out of the pram when their demands that William be King immediately aren't met.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    X
    If the hereditary system is so superior, why not have a hereditary Prime Minister?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    So what do you think of Edward VIII? A man who said of his own subjects, the Australian aborigines, "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys."

    Of course, you say that we can't judge the individual which puts them above criticism. Well I ask you, what kind of system brings to power an individual like that, with views that were extreme even in the first half of the 20th century?
    Are you denying that his views were commonplace in the early 20th Century? Why should we condemn him in particular for what were at the time perfectly ordinary views, if indeed reprehensible today?

    And regarding regency, that's an absurd proposition in the 21st century. How long will each regent last? Where's the "stability"? If these regents chosen by parliament are suitable to rule, why not anyone appointed by parliament?
    The Regent would by default be the next in line to the throne.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    So you concede that a minor royal is in receipt of a parliamentary annuity? Also, I'm glad that you want to debate based on civil list arrangements. Let's do that.

    Do you see? These minor royals were already in receipt of a parliamentary annuity to defray the expenses of their official duties. Parliament pays these royal flunkies. The Queen pays the Exchequer to reimburse it with £s she would already have to have paid in tax. Hence, revenue neutral.
    Uh, I never denied they get an annuity - I said those annuities were only ever paid when they specifically carried out a public function. They don't get it for doing nothing.

    The Privy Purse is revenue from the Queen's Duchy of Lancaster - it is not a source of taxpayers' money. I read your quote differently - it indicates to me that it actually says the Queen pays tax on the Privy Purse to the extent that it is not used to pay the costs of the official duties of minor royals.

    And if you think the Duke of Edinburgh is worth £359,000 then you're criminally and I'd say dishonestly overvaluing his worth compared to, say, a university Vice-Chancellor
    Personal value judgement there, I think. The First Lady of the United States also gets a large expenses account, as well as a salary.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    If the hereditary system is so superior, why not have a hereditary Prime Minister?
    If elections are so superior, why not elect judges, civil servants and army generals?

    Or rather, we should recognise that assuming one appointments system fits everything is bloody stupid.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    If elections are so superior, why not elect judges, civil servants and army generals?

    Or rather, we should recognise that assuming one appointments system fits everything is bloody stupid.
    The question remains valid-why is birth a superior method of electing a head of state than a vote?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The Queen vetoed our involvement in the Iraq War? I'd totally forgotten about that. Really must pay attention.[/QUOTE]

    Yes you must. Imagine she hadnt been there? God knows what Tony and his cronies would have done.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Evidence please.
    We have members of the royal family as trade envoys. The title is kind of self explanatory


    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    And this is dependent on that family having a monopoly on the executive power, how?.
    Actually you still have to pass the officer training establishments in order to serve as an officer, therefore there is no control, they either pass or fail, therefore theyve earned their rank, not monopolised it

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    She's nothing like a qualified engineer.
    She seved in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) though if you wanted to be pedantic you could say shes a mechanic

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    And just like many ordinary people did. Or does the fact she was the princess lower the threshold for our judgement of decency?
    You sound as if you need to be decent she should have automatically put herself in harms way. Considering you have 0 idea of what service in uniform means you should keep your overinflated sense of self worth to yourself.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    You're rather typical of "cheap" monarchism. Very plebby, and utterly distasteful. And actually quite insulting to the monarchy as a system.

    Your rather limited conception of monarchy itself means you conflate the office with the person, and favouring the status quo you think therefore you must deify the individual. Hence you end up with people like you worshipping the very ordinary ground they walk on.

    It's people like Macabre who will see this country become a republic Just watch as they desert monarchism when Charles doesn't live up to their expectations, and throw their toys out of the pram when their demands that William be King immediately aren't met.
    Your narrow minded blindness of the joys of total democracy demonstrated by our transatlantic cousins show how weak your argument is. The financial crash was caused by a democracy with an elected official. Hes presiding over the worse crisis to ever hit the earth and you think thats a model to aspire to?

    Pure democracies have always been filled with corruption, greed and a lust for power. Rome itself was one of the greatest democracies and yet it fell.

    Sweden itself still has a royal family and as far as im aware they are a perfectly well functioning nation.

    I think your an individual with an inferiority complex, who has problems with people who are wealthier, have a higher title or just plain above your station.

    This country only once in its entire history did not have a king/queen and i can tell you they were dark times. Unlike a president who sits at the top to accumulate wealth and power the queen is born into that position. She didnt choose it, it was her duty. She doesnt rule with an iron fist, she serves the nation and its interests. She doesnt see herslf as entitled but her title as duty that she must carry out in service of the nation.

    This country will never be a republic and the simple answer is because we wouldnt want the possibility of people like you telling folk what to do.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.