Royal family is the cause of "class divisions" Watch

34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 8 years ago
#41
The Queen may well get paid, but she also pays 70% tax on her whole estate - far higher than anyone else in the country. That's before you factor in that she brings a lot of money in from tourism. Lets also not forget that she is an amazing ambassador for this country - it doesn't matter who they are or where they are from, most people would be truely honoured to meet our Queen.
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 8 years ago
#42
(Original post by yituool)
£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.
She pays 70% tax on everything she makes, 30% higher than you will ever pay. Think of it as a rebate.
0
reply
Tiberius
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#43
Report 8 years ago
#43
(Original post by yituool)
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.
The Royal Assent, for example, is essential. Bills would not become law if that was not carried out. Everything the Queen does, constitutionally, is essential to the running of this country. Her other duties, specifically diplomatically are also arguably essential.

Pragmatically, the system works. There is no reason to remove the Queen other than for ivory tower idealism.

Merge the head of government and head of state into one role, if you wish. I personally would rather have a head of government focused on the running of the country, rather having the workload of a head of state on their shoulders as well.
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#44
Report 8 years ago
#44
The Monarch is still important in today’s society; it ensures a non-political head of state and provides the final layer on the checks on Parliament. And as Churchill said, "While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army." So far from being contrary to liberal-democracy (which is a sort of contradiction anyway) the Monarchy safeguards a liberal democracy as well as the country as a whole. In reality a Monarchy is irrelevant as to whether a nation is a liberal-democracy anyway, the Kingdom of Sweden is often sighted as some sort of liberal haven yet it is a Constitutional Monarchy.

I can think of three examples in recent times where a Constitutional Monarch (or royal representative) has averted disaster. First of all there is the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. On this occasion the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the government of Gough Whitlam when the Senate withheld Supply to the government which made political deadlock. There is the recent Belgian Constitutional crisis where it looked as if the country was going to split in two, but the King, risking his throne, has sorted the whole mess out appointing interim governments and heading negotiations between the parties. Then there was in 1921 when the King, who had made his unhappiness at the behaviour of the Black and Tans in Ireland well known to his government, was dissatisfied with the official speech prepared for him for the opening of the new Parliament of Northern Ireland. King George read out his own speech on reconciliation which is widely credited as the catalyst of goodwill which led to a truce, ending the Anglo-Irish War. The reason for these uses of royal power stems from the Liberal thinking that men will always seek there own self interest. A Monarch is unique in that there own self interest is wholly intertwined with his kingdom, therefore a Monarch is always looking out for the best interests of the state and its people and as such is both a protector of democracy and the man to step in when democracy has failed.

The Figurehead role of the Monarch is much higher than that of an elected head of state, who is only there for 4 years and wont have anywhere near the same amount of respect or support both at home and abroad. The perfect head of state transcends class, race and politics and a Monarchy is the best way to get this. The best example for this concept is the Kingdom of Spain, the Spaniards have recently reinstated there monarchy as a uniting force for the nation where the wounds and divides from General Franco’s regime are still fresh.

Now to counteract these arguments you may point to America where the state is protected by separation of powers and the constitution. Yet the USA is unique in that it is essentially 50 countries united into one covering a vast geographical area. In a much smaller country like Britain a Labour man from Glasgow is, more or less, going to believe in the same things as a Labour man from London. This unites the party in a such away American party leaders can only hope for and make a party for more powerful. Now if the Lords and Monarch were replaced with an electoral system it is quite possible both houses and head of state may be controlled by one party, in such a situation that party could get away with just about anything including the re-writing of said constitution to suit there own needs. A case in point would be the French Republic, now on its 5th incarnation, each republic was safeguarded by a constitution and yet four of them have failed. I would be wary of vesting power into what it simply a pieced of paper, look what happened to the Treaty of Versailles.

Republicans always harp on about the cost of the monarchy, but this argument is fundamentally flawed. Tax money goes to the Queen only for official duties, house up-keep etc. The rest of the Royal Family have there own private estates or get money from the Queens Private estate. Furthermore; in return for the civil list the Government gets the revenue from the Crown Estate which is £190 million per year, much more than the £11.2m which the Queen gets on the civil list or the rather dubious cost estimate of £150m from the Republic group. But in reality the financial argument against the institution is irrelevant because a Presidents office would still have to be funded and the palaces maintained. However no matter which side of the argument you are on you must agree Britain’s constitutional future should be determined by finance.

Also to say the family do nothing is absurd, it’s published every day in the Times (Court Circular) what public duties royals are carrying out. There all over the place and do not get any public money for it, far better value than a single president.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 8 years ago
#45
(Original post by Tiberius)
The Royal Assent, for example, is essential. Bills would not become law if that was not carried out. Everything the Queen does, constitutionally, is essential to the running of this country. Her other duties, specifically diplomatically are also arguably essential.

Pragmatically, the system works. There is no reason to remove the Queen other than for ivory tower idealism.

Merge the head of government and head of state into one role, if you wish. I personally would rather have a head of government focused on the running of the country, rather having the workload of a head of state on their shoulders as well.
As I said before, we could easily reform Parliament so the Queen isn't needed.

Fine, we could have a President who we don't need to pay millions a year instead. Although these diplomatic "duties" are normally nothing more than pointless exhibitions, which we don't really need to worry about too much.

And this "ivory tower idealism" may be considered the only reason for removal of the monarchy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't justify a removal on its own.
0
reply
JW92
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#46
Report 8 years ago
#46
(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
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.
The royal family is a good tool for diplomacy. When a member of the royal family tours a country, the press and the people of that country take notice. Would some faceless diplomat really have the same effect? And I'm saying this as someone who is fairly indifferent to the monarchy.
0
reply
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#47
Report 8 years ago
#47
(Original post by JW92)
The royal family are a good tool for diplomacy. When a member of the royal family tours a country, the press and the people of that country take notice. Would some faceless diplomat really have the same effect? And I'm saying this as someone who is fairly indifferent to the monarchy.
I see only marginal value in that. Certainly not enough value to justify the expenditure.
Like I said, only Japanese tourists and dying Africans are in awe of the R.F.
0
reply
nexttime
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#48
Report 8 years ago
#48
(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
The true notion of Torie thinking shines through. Facade of meritocracy when actually you value Boris and Little Lord Fauntelroy. You don't deserve democracy.
I don't think its tory to acknowledge lack of social mobility - in fact, tories tend to emphasize how true it is to justify ******** on the poor...
0
reply
Tiberius
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#49
Report 8 years ago
#49
(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
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.
Like who? You can't just pick your average minister or public servant to carry out duties in which foreign dignitaries expect to be carried out by the head of state.

And yes, you would need to fund their activities. The money spent on diplomacy isn't simply a wage for the Royal Family, it's to fund the very carrying out of such activities which cost money.

Oh, and nice one on selectively picking one function out of all the ones I listed.
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#50
Report 8 years ago
#50
(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
I see only marginal value in that. Certainly not enough value to justify the expenditure.
Like I said, only Japanese tourists and dying Africans are in awe of the R.F.
So the mass crowds that follow the Queen on royal tours or during the Jubilee celebrations are all Jap tourists or dying Africans... :rolleyes:
0
reply
JW92
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#51
Report 8 years ago
#51
(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
I see only marginal value in that. Certainly not enough value to justify the expenditure.
Like I said, only Japanese tourists and dying Africans are in awe of the R.F.
The American press had a field day when Charles and Camilla did their US tour a few years back.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 8 years ago
#52
(Original post by Renner)
The Monarch is still important in today’s society; it ensures a non-political head of state and provides the final layer on the checks on Parliament. And as Churchill said, "While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army." So far from being contrary to liberal-democracy (which is a sort of contradiction anyway) the Monarchy safeguards a liberal democracy as well as the country as a whole. In reality a Monarchy is irrelevant as to whether a nation is a liberal-democracy anyway, the Kingdom of Sweden is often sighted as some sort of liberal haven yet it is a Constitutional Monarchy.

I can think of three examples in recent times where a Constitutional Monarch (or royal representative) has averted disaster. First of all there is the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. On this occasion the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the government of Gough Whitlam when the Senate withheld Supply to the government which made political deadlock. There is the recent Belgian Constitutional crisis where it looked as if the country was going to split in two, but the King, risking his throne, has sorted the whole mess out appointing interim governments and heading negotiations between the parties. Then there was in 1921 when the King, who had made his unhappiness at the behaviour of the Black and Tans in Ireland well known to his government, was dissatisfied with the official speech prepared for him for the opening of the new Parliament of Northern Ireland. King George read out his own speech on reconciliation which is widely credited as the catalyst of goodwill which led to a truce, ending the Anglo-Irish War. The reason for these uses of royal power stems from the Liberal thinking that men will always seek there own self interest. A Monarch is unique in that there own self interest is wholly intertwined with his kingdom, therefore a Monarch is always looking out for the best interests of the state and its people and as such is both a protector of democracy and the man to step in when democracy has failed.

The Figurehead role of the Monarch is much higher than that of an elected head of state, who is only there for 4 years and wont have anywhere near the same amount of respect or support both at home and abroad. The perfect head of state transcends class, race and politics and a Monarchy is the best way to get this. The best example for this concept is the Kingdom of Spain, the Spaniards have recently reinstated there monarchy as a uniting force for the nation where the wounds and divides from General Franco’s regime are still fresh.

Now to counteract these arguments you may point to America where the state is protected by separation of powers and the constitution. Yet the USA is unique in that it is essentially 50 countries united into one covering a vast geographical area. In a much smaller country like Britain a Labour man from Glasgow is, more or less, going to believe in the same things as a Labour man from London. This unites the party in a such away American party leaders can only hope for and make a party for more powerful. Now if the Lords and Monarch were replaced with an electoral system it is quite possible both houses and head of state may be controlled by one party, in such a situation that party could get away with just about anything including the re-writing of said constitution to suit there own needs. A case in point would be the French Republic, now on its 5th incarnation, each republic was safeguarded by a constitution and yet four of them have failed. I would be wary of vesting power into what it simply a pieced of paper, look what happened to the Treaty of Versailles.

Republicans always harp on about the cost of the monarchy, but this argument is fundamentally flawed. Tax money goes to the Queen only for official duties, house up-keep etc. The rest of the Royal Family have there own private estates or get money from the Queens Private estate. Furthermore; in return for the civil list the Government gets the revenue from the Crown Estate which is £190 million per year, much more than the £11.2m which the Queen gets on the civil list or the rather dubious cost estimate of £150m from the Republic group. But in reality the financial argument against the institution is irrelevant because a Presidents office would still have to be funded and the palaces maintained. However no matter which side of the argument you are on you must agree Britain’s constitutional future should be determined by finance.

Also to say the family do nothing is absurd, it’s published every day in the Times (Court Circular) what public duties royals are carrying out. There all over the place and do not get any public money for it, far better value than a single president.
This still does not justify the amount of money wasted on the Royal Family. How is it that most democratic nations are surviving without a monarchy? Their head of states seem just as effective and more value for money.

The examples you used where the Monarchy 'saved the day' could also've been sorted out by a dictatorship. Are you saying that in some cases dictatorship is justified?

And to many, the Royal Family is just a symbol of undemocratic politics, and marks us out as a backwards nation.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 8 years ago
#53
(Original post by Elipsis)
She pays 70% tax on everything she makes, 30% higher than you will ever pay. Think of it as a rebate.
Still doesn't justify the subsidies she receives.
0
reply
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#54
Report 8 years ago
#54
(Original post by Tiberius)
Like who? You can't just pick your average minister or public servant to carry out duties in which foreign dignitaries expect to be carried out by the head of state.

And yes, you would need to fund their activities. The money spent on diplomacy isn't simply a wage for the Royal Family, it's to fund the very carrying out of such activities which cost money.

Oh, and nice one on selectively picking one function out of all the ones I listed.
Nobody cares for the R.F, they are hardly a deal breaker when it comes to foreign relations. Who does all the important stuff to do with our international position? Government - in the UN, EU ETCETCETC.

To the highlighted point:
Becuase if you got rid of the royal family through constitutional reform, those other things would be irrelevent.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 8 years ago
#55
(Original post by Tiberius)
Like who? You can't just pick your average minister or public servant to carry out duties in which foreign dignitaries expect to be carried out by the head of state.
Most other powerful nations are doing just great without a monarch as head of state. Perhaps we could follow their lead.

And, as I've said before, these "duties" are normally just ceremonious bullpoo which aren't very important.
0
reply
Vanny17
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 8 years ago
#56
(Original post by yituool)
I somehow find this hard to believe.
I think it is a no win situation, some people of higher class can look down on lower class people but you can't say that the royal family is the direct cause of ''class division'', there could be other factors like the higher class outlook on life, that is, they may be humble and treat everyone equality irrespective of their status
0
reply
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#57
Report 8 years ago
#57
(Original post by Renner)
So the mass crowds that follow the Queen on royal tours or during the Jubilee celebrations are all Jap tourists or dying Africans...
But what is the BENEFIT of this? It's simple, blind idolisation. Rational people with stuff to do with their lives don't care for "catching a glimpse" of some old bag wearing white gloves.
0
reply
Tiberius
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#58
Report 8 years ago
#58
(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
Nobody cares for the R.F, they are hardly a deal breaker when it comes to foreign relations. Who does most of our countries dealings? Government, UN, EU ETCETCETC
How do you know nobody cares for the Royal Family? You just keep spewing these unsubstantiated assumptions.

Like I mentioned, there are a variety of diplomatic functions that are expected to be carried out by the head of state. Currently, the head of state is the Queen.

To the highlighted point:
Becuase if you got rid of the royal family through constitutional reform, those other things would be irrelevent.
No, they wouldn't. They are all the functions of a head of state.

And, actually, I don't think spending all the money on up-heaving the constitution, elections and so forth would be worth it, for purely ideological grounds.
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 8 years ago
#59
(Original post by yituool)
Still doesn't justify the subsidies she receives.
Yes it does. She pays much much more in extra taxes, and needs that rebate to keep her buildings in good maintenance and travel abroad on our behalf. It would be purely petty to get rid of the royal family cus we'd lose the worlds best ambassador who pays us to work.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#60
Report 8 years ago
#60
I don't think class is that much of a big thing tbh
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 (529)
80.4%
Leave (129)
19.6%

Watched Threads

View All