why don't you republicans go and move to america? Watch

Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by NGC773)
The Crown (aka the Queen) owns Buckingham palace and all of the royal estates in London and around the world.

If we ended it they arnt going to give those places up. They OWN them
Hmm, I wonder if there's anything we can do about that, since they gained most of their 'property' by slavery and theft.

(Original post by Democracy)
x
Hey, is there anything we can do about that?
0
reply
chrislpp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
Proud day....much more of this please!

0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
(Original post by NGC773)
Even if we stopped giving the monarchy money and ended their rule they would still own a huge amount of land, money and assets. Nothing will change. Atleast now we get 200+ million a year thats given from the crown to treasury and all the benefits of tourism. People come to the UK, see its castles and sites because they are all real. They arnt fake like American castles or those in obsolete in france
There is so much wrong with this, that I don't know where to begin :rolleyes:

1. Tourism - you mention people come to the UK and see castles etc b/c of the monarchy. Do you want to know how many of the Top 20 UK Tourist sites are from the monarchy? Only 1. Is this 1 within the Top 10 even? No, its number 17 (Windsor Castle).

So much for your theory on tourism.

2. Assets - I do believe that these assets belong to the State, but are taken care of by the Sovereign. Abolishing the monarchy does not mean we do not get further income revenue from these assets. See the paper written by Professor Phillip Hall for more details on this, as it goes into specifics.

3. Cost - Please provide me ONE single credible source (i.e. not some obscure unaccountable blog which everyone presents on this issue), which states that we get more money from having the monarchy, than we pay it. One can quite rightly and reasonably argue that it actually costs us having a monarchy.

I look forward to your retort to ALL of those points above, not simply ones you feel you have a leg to stand on and thus pick and choose.

OP: Moving to America - Why should I not move to the US? B/c this is a god-damn democratic and free country (royals aside of course), so I have every right to express my opinion as opposed to accepting the status quo.
2
reply
Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
(Original post by manchild007)
There is so much wrong with this, that I don't know where to begin :rolleyes:

1. Tourism - you mention people come and see castle etc b/c of the monarchy. Do you want to know how many of the Top 20 UK Tourist sites are related to the monarchy? Only 1. Is this 1 within the Top 10 even? No, its number 17 (Windsor Castle).

So much for your theory on tourism.

2. Assets - I do believe that these assets belong to the State, but are taken care of by the Sovereign. Abolishing the monarchy does not mean we do not get further income revenue from these assets.

3. Cost - Please provide me ONE single credible source (i.e. not some obscure unaccountable blog which everyone presents on this issue), which states that we get more money from having the monarchy, than we pay it. One can quite rightly and reasonably argue that it actually costs us having a monarchy.

4. Moving to America - Why should I not move to the US? B/c this is a god-damn democratic country (royals aside of course), so I have every right to express my opinion as opposed to accepting the status quo.
And then there's the point that eliminating elitism and furthering the cause of democracy is more important than a few tourists.
0
reply
Piprod01
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
It's not that too many people love or hate the monarchy, it's that there is a huge number of people who just don't give a crap. She doesn't have any real power, she pays back the money we give to her and attracts so many tourists.
0
reply
chrislpp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
''God save our gracious queen.....Long live our-''



pic related
0
reply
username547863
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by manchild007)
There is so much wrong with this, that I don't know where to begin :rolleyes:

1. Tourism - you mention people come and see castle etc b/c of the monarchy. Do you want to know how many of the Top 20 UK Tourist sites are related to the monarchy? Only 1. Is this 1 within the Top 10 even? No, its number 17 (Windsor Castle).

So much for your theory on tourism.

2. Assets - I do believe that these assets belong to the State, but are taken care of by the Sovereign. Abolishing the monarchy does not mean we do not get further income revenue from these assets.

3. Cost - Please provide me ONE single credible source (i.e. not some obscure unaccountable blog which everyone presents on this issue), which states that we get more money from having the monarchy, than we pay it. One can quite rightly and reasonably argue that it actually costs us having a monarchy.

4. Moving to America - Why should I not move to the US? B/c this is a god-damn democratic country (royals aside of course), so I have every right to express my opinion as opposed to accepting the status quo.
1) Are you telling me Buckingham palace isnt in the top 20 tourist sites? Really...

2) No the assets do not belong to the state. They belong to the Queen. She effectively rents them out to the state for the 20mill or whatever we as taxpayers give them every year. The state however gains any revenures that comes from the Crown estate which is around 200million+ a year. The Queen owns those estates she has a signed contract with the government to rent them out. When Charles becomes King he will have a choice whether to renew it or not. If he doesnt hell take back the 7bn worth of assets and any revenues it makes.

3) Google how much the Crown gives the treasury each year.

4) Ive never said anything about moving to the US. yes you have a right to free speech
0
reply
Josh_Dey
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
No, I don't want to
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Actually he has talked about seriously considering (basically said he is) running for presidency in 2012 on CNN..

Problem bro?
No he hasn't; he hasn't even formed an committee "bro", let alone then ACTUALLY winning the Republican nomination (with prominent Republicans like Rove and the GOP already against the idea).

Thus, get your facts right on this. First he needs to form a committee, then formally announce, then win the nomination and only then, can he then even think about running against Obama. Its a long way from the idiotic notion you put forward in your initial post.
0
reply
username547863
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHous...CivilList.aspx

Source on how much the treasury gets from the crown
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by manchild007)
No he hasn't; he hasn't even formed an committee "bro", let alone then ACTUALLY winning the Republican nomination (with prominent Republicans like Rove and the GOP already against the idea).

Thus, get your facts right on this. First he needs to form a committee, then formally announce, then win the nomination and only then, can he then even think about running against Obama. Its a long way from the idiotic notion you put forward in your initial post.
Well done for posting all that when i already know it and said nothing about it :rolleyes: . Bless.. you mad bro?

He has said he is seriously considering running for presidency, and in fact has said so in such ways to suggest he has decided on it. Problem with that? Problem with what i've said? Didn't think so
0
reply
Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by NGC773)
1) Are you telling me Buckingham palace isnt in the top 20 tourist sites? Really...

2) No the assets do not belong to the state. They belong to the Queen. She effectively rents them out to the state for the 20mill or whatever we as taxpayers give them every year. The state however gains any revenures that comes from the Crown estate which is around 200million+ a year. The Queen owns those estates she has a signed contract with the government to rent them out. When Charles becomes King he will have a choice whether to renew it or not. If he doesnt hell take back the 7bn worth of assets and any revenues it makes.

3) Google how much the Crown gives the treasury each year.

4) Ive never said anything about moving to the US. yes you have a right to free speech
And how much does the state lose from the ridiculous tax allowances the royals are allowed on their property? And how they're free to control the businesses on that property, which they've done so inflexibly that the state makes far less on those businesses than on other businesses not on Crown land? I'd suggest watching that video I posted in response to your previous post. It's quite interesting.
0
reply
PurpleMonkeyDishwasher
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
I was born and bred here and this land is as much mine as it is the royal family's.
1
reply
Aphotic Cosmos
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
Why would I move? I love Britain, I love many things about our heritage and our society today with the noted exception of the monarchy. I have no love of America, and although it is a place I would like to visit I would rather not live there, not least because they have the wrong type of president. I would rather a ceremonial president as in Germany, where the Chancellor holds all the power, than invest a lot of power in a single office as in France and the United States.
0
reply
humanrights
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#35
the monarchy are not mere tourist attractions. they are a integral part of the nation.


the queen as head of state is a defence against the encroaching EU despotism.
3
reply
username547863
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
(Original post by Jace Falco)
And how much does the state lose from the ridiculous tax allowances the royals are allowed on their property? And how they're free to control the businesses on that property, which they've done so inflexibly that the state makes far less on those businesses than on other businesses not on Crown land? I'd suggest watching that video I posted in response to your previous post. It's quite interesting.
If the state didnt have a say or cut in the crown then it would be far far worse off then they are currently. Also i would watch it but its a dead link:P
0
reply
Reminisce
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
(Original post by Theconomist)
Trump is a real character mate.

It would actually be fun to see him on the world stage.

I think it'd be interesting.He would probably cause world war 3(not even exaggerating here) but it'd still be fun from an observer's point of view.
Lol true. When Trump becomes president, humanity has four years left...
0
reply
Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
I was born and bred here and this land is as much mine as it is the royal family's.
Good point.
0
reply
humanrights
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#39
(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
Why would I move? I love Britain, I love many things about our heritage and our society today with the noted exception of the monarchy. I have no love of America, and although it is a place I would like to visit I would rather not live there, not least because they have the wrong type of president. I would rather a ceremonial president as in Germany, where the Chancellor holds all the power, than invest a lot of power in a single office as in France and the United States.


so, you want a corrupt system.

the brilliance of constituional monarchy is that in theory the monarch is the defender of the constitution. and as a monarch, she is untouched by the corrupting hand of politics which is by nature divisive and tainted by the influence of big money and business.
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by NGC773)
1) Are you telling me Buckingham palace isnt in the top 20 tourist sites? Really...

2) No the assets do not belong to the state. They belong to the Queen. She effectively rents them out to the state for the 20mill or whatever we as taxpayers give them every year. The state however gains any revenures that comes from the Crown estate which is around 200million+ a year. The Queen owns those estates she has a signed contract with the government to rent them out. When Charles becomes King he will have a choice whether to renew it or not. If he doesnt hell take back the 7bn worth of assets and any revenues it makes.

3) Google how much the Crown gives the treasury each year.

4) Ive never said anything about moving to the US. yes you have a right to free speech
1. Of course Buckingham Palace is on the list of Top 20 sites, but we're talking about residences open to the public, of which there is only one. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace was actually vacated by the Windsor family. Ergo, keeping the monarchy active b/c of tourism is a moot point frankly.

Source: BTA (British Tourism Association) Table.

2. No they don't.

Spoiler:
Show
It is claimed, by the Queen herself no less, (see the report), that the monarchy costs this country nothing because she gives the revenue from the Crown Estate to the nation, and therefore is subsidising the Royal Family and their position in our society.

Because it is described as the queen 'surrendering' the revenue from the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List allocation, it is mistakenly assumed that this 'surrendering' is a personal financial sacrifice on her part for the good of the nation. And this fantasy is enthusiastically perpetuated by monarchists. The truth is rather different.

The Crown Estate and its revenue have never been the private property of the queen, or any of her predecessors. The Crown Estate is officially described as "hereditary possessions of the Sovereign", not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

She cannot give us what she has never owned. Her role is simply one of an individual - Elizabeth Windsor - acting in her constitutional role - the Sovereign - performing her constitutional duty and overseeing the transfer to the government the income from a totally separate legal entity - the Crown. The queen incurs absolutely no financial loss in this transfer process.

The Crown's legal status is that of a corporation sole, an independent legal entity with the right to hold assets. To suggest that Elizabeth Windsor personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and revenues of this incorporated body is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Chairman of British Airways personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and tax revenues of the incorporated body he represents.

If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years - provide income for the administration of this country.

When Sir Michael Peat cheekily suggested that the Windsor's should receive the income from the Crown Estate rather than the Civil List, royal financial experts quickly pointed out the constitutional reality of the situation to him.

"The Crown Estate income has always been for paying the expenses of government. When the monarch was effectively the government that is the basis on which he or she received the income. It was never private income. Now that the government is the state, the state receives it."


Source: Originally Taken From Professor Phillip Hall

3. Please provide me with a source if you're so sure the monarchy brings in more money than we give it. I will then also provide you with an accountable source that says it doesn't.

4. Do you know what OP means? It means Original Poster, and hence this point was not directed at you.

I look forward to seeing your reply, with SOURCES PROVIDED for each point.
3
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! (82)
39.23%
No - but I will (9)
4.31%
No - I don't want to (13)
6.22%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (105)
50.24%

Watched Threads

View All