Royal family is the cause of "class divisions" Watch

Wardy23
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#21
Report 8 years ago
#21
(Original post by Tefhel)
At least they are paying it to people who do something - go out as ambassadors for the country, representing our nation.

It'd be far better to cut the spending that goes to fat lazy people on benefits who stay at home all day watching Trisha. Believe me they cost far more than £8 million a year.
8 million a year for an family of negligible importance who are quite capable of making their own way without the help of taxpayers? Sounds fair to me. The royal family ARE lazy people on benefits. They just get so much in benefits that they can live in a palace.
0
reply
Tefhel
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 8 years ago
#22
(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
oh come on, you know it's not as simple as that. don't discredit yourself.
I was just following your lead, since you reduced the role of the Royal Family into absurdly simple unrealistic terms.
0
reply
Tefhel
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 8 years ago
#23
(Original post by Wardy23)
8 million a year for an family of negligible importance who are quite capable of making their own way without the help of taxpayers? Sounds fair to me. The royal family ARE lazy people on benefits. They just get so much in benefits that they can live in a palace.
No. :no:
0
reply
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#24
Report 8 years ago
#24
(Original post by Tiberius)
Yeah, and it's not as simple as the Royal Family sitting on a gilded chair all day - presumably just staring into nothingness and sometimes shaking a 'dying African's hand', is it?

Pot, kettle, black much?
(Original post by Tefhel)
...
What is it then?
0
reply
Tiberius
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#25
Report 8 years ago
#25
(Original post by Wardy23)
8 million a year for an family of negligible importance who are quite capable of making their own way without the help of taxpayers? Sounds fair to me. The royal family ARE lazy people on benefits. They just get so much in benefits that they can live in a palace.
Your sheer ignorance is astounding, and frankly embarrassing.

Have you even heard of the Crown Estate?

Are you a member of the Royal Household, therefore have the ability to deem to Royal Family 'lazy' as you have shadowed them through their working day?
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 8 years ago
#26
(Original post by Tefhel)
I don't think £8 million a year will sort out the economy. Maybe we should stick huge taxes on football transfers - that'd easily raise far more.
£8 million a year would still be welcome. I agree with your second point though.

I might be a bit controversial and suggest that her £17bn worth of assets should be redistributed to public ownership.
0
reply
Chumbaniya
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report 8 years ago
#27
I think the OP's suggestion is entirely fanciful. I don't like the royal family and I'm firmly left wing but the suggestion that the royal family are at fault for all or most of the division between social classes in Britain really is absurd. They're figureheads who have virtually no effect on the lives that people lead, and furthermore they have absolutely no political power over the country. If you want to identify the causes of class division, look at the things which actually affect the lives people lead.

(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
oh come on, you know it's not as simple as that. don't discredit yourself.
Entirely true but I've long since abandoned the hope that the majority of TSR users are going to understand that being unemployed and being a lazy slob aren't the same thing. This place is full of morons who have no understanding of the lives people outside university really lead and who are going to struggle when they leave university and find themselves in a saturated graduate job market.
0
reply
concubine
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 8 years ago
#28
(Original post by L i b)

That's the reality of Britain today: class mobility is not about how hard you work, it's effectively a caste into which you are born. Dedicated social climbers often just end up looking like fools.

Sweeeet, so I'm stuck being in the upper end of middle class?

Suits me.
0
reply
Tefhel
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 8 years ago
#29
(Original post by yituool)
I might be a bit controversial and suggest that her £17bn worth of assets should be redistributed to public ownership.
It's held in trust for the nation. So she already doesn't really "own" it, and all profits from her £10bn estate go to the government already (making far more than the £8 million she is paid).

I don't see how it is fair to take someone's private property away anyway. That's a very communist idea. How about we take Lakshmi Mittal's property away, because he "has too much".
0
reply
Wardy23
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#30
Report 8 years ago
#30
(Original post by Tiberius)
Your sheer ignorance is astounding, and frankly embarrassing.

Have you even heard of the Crown Estate?

Are you a member of the Royal Household, therefore have the ability to deem to Royal Family 'lazy' as you have shadowed them through their working day?
Your ability to take statements literally astounds me. I realise they don't actually rent Buckingham palace and that they don't claim benefits. Sorry. I'm just one of those retarded hippies who thinks people should have to earn authority/immensely better quality of life.
0
reply
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#31
Report 8 years ago
#31
(Original post by Chumbaniya)
Entirely true but I've long since abandoned the hope that the majority of TSR users are going to understand that being unemployed and being a lazy slob aren't the same thing. This place is full of morons who have no understanding of the lives people outside university really lead and who are going to struggle when they leave university and find themselves in a saturated graduate job market.

Thank frick that
0
reply
Tiberius
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#32
Report 8 years ago
#32
(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
What is it then?
Investitures, diplomatic receptions, public visits (usually to shine a valuable light on charitable works) and other general ceremonies (including the State Opening of Parliament and so forth)

Additionally for the Queen: official papers and briefing notes, audiences with the Prime Minister, ministers or ambassadors. The Royal Assent, which is crucial for a bill to become an Act of Parliament.

What I have mentioned certainly isn't exhaustive.

Prince Andrew is Britain's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment and Prince Michael of Kent manages his own consultancy business. So they don't just do royal activities.

And not all members of the Royal Family receive public money, you know?

Would you infer that the President of Germany is lazy? His role is practically identical in terms of duties and his constitutional role to that of the Queen.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 8 years ago
#33
(Original post by Tefhel)
It's held in trust for the nation. So she already doesn't really "own" it, and all profits from her £10bn estate go to the government already (making far more than the £8 million she is paid).

I don't see how it is fair to take someone's private property away anyway. That's a very communist idea. How about we take Lakshmi Mittal's property away, because he "has too much".
The difference is, Mittal paid for his property, the Queen's estates were paid with the public's taxes over history (we are also paying around £15 million a year for her Kensington Palace). It may be a communist idea (although this is not necessarily a bad thing), but it's acting against a very undemocratic cause.

The Royal Family could at least pay inheritance tax on all of these assets.

Also, that £8million doesn't cover grants she receives from Parliament.
0
reply
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#34
Report 8 years ago
#34
(Original post by Tiberius)
Investitures, diplomatic receptions, public visits (usually to shine a valuable light on charitable works) and other general ceremonies (including the State Opening of Parliament and so forth)

Additionally for the Queen: official papers and briefing notes, audiences with the Prime Minister, ministers or ambassadors. The Royal Assent, which is crucial for a bill to become an Act of Parliament.

What I have mentioned certainly isn't exhaustive.

Prince Andrew is Britain's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment and Prince Michael of Kent manages his own consultancy business. So they don't just do royal activities.

And not all members of the Royal Family receive public money, you know?

Would you imply that the President of Germany is lazy? His role is practically identical in terms of duties and his constitutional role to that of the Queen.
And being born of "Royal Blood" means these people are the best possible people for the jobs they do? No.

The Queen's role is purely decorative. The reason her "role" in Parliament is so necessary is because the system is laid out in such a way that is has to involve her. There is a little thing called "reform" that could get rid of all that.

Your point about the President of Germany is exactly my point, he achieved his post through merit, not because he was born into it.
0
reply
greatmonte
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#35
Report 8 years ago
#35
I actualy see where your coming from.

The royal family is the top of the pecking order, and people still have to give them more respect just because they were born into that family
0
reply
Tiberius
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#36
Report 8 years ago
#36
(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
And being born of "Royal Blood" means these people are the best possible people for the jobs they do? No.

The Queen's role is purely decorative. The reason her "role" in Parliament is so necessary is because the system is laid out in such a way that is has to involve her. There is a little thing called "reform" that could get rid of all that.

Your point about the President of Germany is exactly my point, he achieved his post through merit, not because he was born into it.
So, you realise that your unfounded assumptions on the workload of the Royal Family were flawed, thus you descend into a babbling tirade about meritocracy.

You really need to be more consistent with what you're arguing.
0
reply
Vanny17
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#37
Report 8 years ago
#37
(Original post by feelingsupersonic)
Would you agree with this?

Just so you know where I stand, I firmly stand to the left perhaps even to far left. Coming from Scotland I haven't directly experienced much class divide but it exists although thankfully not as bad as I've heard in England. Anyway, everyone I've spoken to here agree the the Royal family promote class divisions as it clearly seperates people into having more importance than others it also shows everyone that class mobility is not easy since there will always be people "higher" than you no matter how hard you work.
The Royal Family isn't the cause of class divisions. One could acheive one's status through hardwork and determination although the Royal family have ''higher'' status based on their ascribed status. Equality is paramount in England and people of ''higher'' status don't underestimate people of lower status them.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 8 years ago
#38
(Original post by Tiberius)
Investitures, diplomatic receptions, public visits (usually to shine a valuable light on charitable works) and other general ceremonies (including the State Opening of Parliament and so forth)

Additionally for the Queen: official papers and briefing notes, audiences with the Prime Minister, ministers or ambassadors. The Royal Assent, which is crucial for a bill to become an Act of Parliament.

What I have mentioned certainly isn't exhaustive.

Prince Andrew is Britain's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment and Prince Michael of Kent manages his own consultancy business. So they don't just do royal activities.

And not all members of the Royal Family receive public money, you know?

Would you infer that the President of Germany is lazy? His role is practically identical in terms of duties and his constitutional role to that of the Queen.
The roles you have mentioned aren't essential. We should just reform Parliament so that the Queen is not needed, would be qute simple. We should also make the Prime Minister head of state, so there would be no reason for the Monarch's existence.
0
reply
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#39
Report 8 years ago
#39
(Original post by Tiberius)
So, you realise that your unfounded assumptions on the workload of the Royal Family were flawed, thus you descend into a babbling tirade about meritocracy.

You really need to be more consistent with what you're arguing.
No, not at all. We have plenty of ambassador types that could take on the foreign relations work the R.F does. Wouldn't need to pay them £8m a year either.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 8 years ago
#40
(Original post by Vanny17)
Equality is paramount in England and people of ''higher'' status don't underestimate people of lower status them.
I somehow find this hard to believe.
0
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

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (866)
80.11%
Leave (215)
19.89%

Watched Threads

View All