Royal family is the cause of "class divisions" Watch

Tiberius
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#61
Report 8 years ago
#61
(Original post by yituool)
Most other powerful nations are doing just great without a monarch as head of state. Perhaps we could follow their lead.
And we are doing just fine, pragmatically, with a monarch as head of state. What's your point?

And, as I've said before, these "duties" are normally just ceremonious bullpoo which aren't very important.
And yet, they are carried out by almost every other elected head of state. So they are carrying out bullpoo as well?
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#62
Report 8 years ago
#62
(Original post by yituool)
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.
Aside from the blatant strawmen, everything you have pointed out was disproved in my post.

(Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
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.
Did you even bother reading my post, number 44 if you care. Its the last symbol of national unity when society seems to be fracturing apart for one, look at the link in my sig
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 8 years ago
#63
(Original post by Elipsis)
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.
She doesn't NEED to keep her buildings in good maintenance or travel abroad. Why not just keep most of the money we give her, instead of her only paying some of it back through taxes.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 8 years ago
#64
(Original post by Tiberius)
And we are doing just fine, pragmatically, with a monarch as head of state. What's your point?



And yet, they are carried out by almost every other elected head of state. So they are carrying out bullpoo as well?
We could be doing BETTER.

They may also be carrying out the same crap too, but at least they aren't spending as much as we are on it.
0
reply
JW92
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#65
Report 8 years ago
#65
(Original post by Renner)
Did you even bother reading my post, number 44 if you care. Its the last symbol of national unity when society seems to be fracturing apart for one, look at the link in my sig
You only need search TSR to see a good few heated arguments between monarchists and republicans. If the Queen is loved, hated and shrugged off, how can you claim she is a symbol of national unity?
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#66
Report 8 years ago
#66
(Original post by yituool)
She doesn't NEED to keep her buildings in good maintenance or travel abroad. Why not just keep most of the money we give her, instead of her only paying some of it back through taxes.
He is talking about the Queens private estate, not the public purse. The Royals only get £11.2 mill a year from the government which is to cover the staff costs which is dwarfed by the tax revenue they put back into the system from there own wealthy estates/business.

The buildings do need to be maintained (they still would be even if we didn’t have a Monarch) and the Queen does need to travel abroad as she is the bloody Head of State, just like any other Head of State
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 8 years ago
#67
(Original post by Renner)
Aside from the blatant strawmen, everything you have pointed out was disproved in my post.
I apologise for that strawman, but the point still stands, you are still sacrificing democracy. Whether it is justified or not is highly debatable.

And I felt you didn't disprove all of my claims. I am arguing that not as much should be spent on head of states. Can you honestly say every penny the monarchy receives is justified?

You also did not explain how the systems in regard to heads of state that are implemented in most of Europe are any less successful than our system.
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#68
Report 8 years ago
#68
(Original post by yituool)
She doesn't NEED to keep her buildings in good maintenance or travel abroad. Why not just keep most of the money we give her, instead of her only paying some of it back through taxes.
She does NEED to keep the buildings in good maintenence, if they belonged to us we would have to pay it. They are our heritage, and you are free to visit them whenever you like. When she travels abroad it is for us, not her. She acts as an ambassador, and talks on our behalf. She pays 70% tax on everything she earns - this equated to £190.8 million in 06/07. Now lets factor in tourism - tourism is currently worth about 1 billion to the uk economy. If the Queen brings in just 1% of those people, or they all spend 10% of their visit to London doing Royal family related activities, this equates to millions in itself. So the Queen is paying us about £200 million per year to go abroad and speak on our behalf. She holds a lot of respect.

This is before you also factor in the costs of disolving the Queen - Royal mail, and all stamps, would need to be changed. All our coinage would have to be changed. We'd have to have a referendum. We'd have to change our constitutional structure. We'd have to set up a president. We'd have to change our national anthem. The list is endless. You are talking about paying millions and millions, to lose the best ambassador in the world, without factoring in that she brings in about 1 billion every 5 years.
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#69
Report 8 years ago
#69
(Original post by JW92)
You only need search TSR to see a good few heated arguments between monarchists and republicans. If the Queen is loved, hated and shrugged off, how can you claim she is a symbol of national unity?
Thankfully TSR is not representative of the general population where polls give the Queen constantly high ratings; even our own polls favour the Monarchy.

I never claimed the system is perfect, but a benign non-political Head of State will always be more popular than a politician going for the job just due to the nature of politics. The role of the British head of State is not a decision making one so there is no need for democracy, the very divisive nature of democracy stands against the figure head role our Head of State plays.

But of course the Queen holds significant reserve power which is much better in the hands of someone which is has to be politically neutral than someone who does not.
0
reply
toofaforu
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#70
Report 8 years ago
#70
certain people are more important than others.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report 8 years ago
#71
(Original post by Renner)
He is talking about the Queens private estate, not the public purse. The Royals only get £11.2 mill a year from the government which is to cover the staff costs which is dwarfed by the tax revenue they put back into the system from there own wealthy estates/business.

The buildings do need to be maintained (they still would be even if we didn’t have a Monarch) and the Queen does need to travel abroad as she is the bloody Head of State, just like any other Head of State
These foreign head of states ceremonies are arguably not essential. Regardless, we don't need to be paying the Queen for them. As I've mentioned so many times before, there are cheaper alternatives.

And the Queen's private estates were originally funded by tax payers, so there is perhaps a line of thought that they should become public estates.

Would you and I receive subsidies in maintaining our estates? I doubt we would if we were as wealthy as the Royals.

The Royals could still operate their estates/businesses even if they are not monarchs couldn't they? And we'd still receive taxes from them. If not, perhaps they should be handed over to the public sector.
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#72
Report 8 years ago
#72
(Original post by yituool)
I apologise for that strawman, but the point still stands, you are still sacrificing democracy. Whether it is justified or not is highly debatable.

And I felt you didn't disprove all of my claims. I am arguing that not as much should be spent on head of states. Can you honestly say every penny the monarchy receives is justified?

You also did not explain how the systems in regard to heads of state that are implemented in most of Europe are any less successful than our system.
You keep banging on about the cost of the Royal Family when the money they get from the Govt. is very small and recouped via the Crown Estate, as proven, with figures, several times on this thread.

How do you decide what is success? A fair chunk of Europe is constitutional monarchy, most of the ones that aren’t ex-soviet block who had there monarchies removed in bloody revolutions which arguably ended in disaster for those nations.
0
reply
SephyStar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report 8 years ago
#73
I honestly think the royal family are more of a symptom than a major cause of the class divide, the fact that they exist at all reveals a lot about the overwhelming complacency of the majority of people in this country who would otherwise consider themselves in favour social mobility. What I can't accept is the specious attempts by people to justify them at all, they payer higher tax - on the money they haven't earned, they joined the armed forces - just like thousands of other servicemen and women do without expecting a few palaces. The idea that they are wonderful ambassadors for our country - do they truly represent the best our society has to offer the world, with all the amazing talent and diversity our country has to offer, why do we feel that we need one particular family to make us proud. If you could choose anyone to represent you would it honestly be Prince Harry? Yet we don't have that choice, its a simple matter of birth, which more than anything seems a fairly risky way to decide who our ambassador to the rest of the world should be.

Ok breathe...
0
reply
Genocidal
Badges: 16
#74
Report 8 years ago
#74
America do not have a royal family and they still have major class divisions.
reply
Roobagnall
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#75
Report 8 years ago
#75
No. Even if your bulldozed all the royal palaces with all the royal family in them then you'd still have snobs and an elitist class system.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#76
Report 8 years ago
#76
(Original post by Elipsis)
She does NEED to keep the buildings in good maintenence, if they belonged to us we would have to pay it. They are our heritage, and you are free to visit them whenever you like. When she travels abroad it is for us, not her. She acts as an ambassador, and talks on our behalf. She pays 70% tax on everything she earns - this equated to £190.8 million in 06/07. Now lets factor in tourism - tourism is currently worth about 1 billion to the uk economy. If the Queen brings in just 1% of those people, or they all spend 10% of their visit to London doing Royal family related activities, this equates to millions in itself. So the Queen is paying us about £200 million per year to go abroad and speak on our behalf. She holds a lot of respect.

This is before you also factor in the costs of disolving the Queen - Royal mail, and all stamps, would need to be changed. All our coinage would have to be changed. We'd have to have a referendum. We'd have to change our constitutional structure. We'd have to set up a president. We'd have to change our national anthem. The list is endless. You are talking about paying millions and millions, to lose the best ambassador in the world, without factoring in that she brings in about 1 billion every 5 years.
I doubt Royal tourism would suddenly die if we stopped paying the monarchy.

All of the earnings which she pays 70% tax on are made through estates or businesses that she has no right for. In my view, the Monarchy is a public asset, as it has been funded by the people over history, so therefore perhaps Royal estates and businesses should be made public assets, so we could receive more than 70% of the profits they make. The Queen is hardly paying us £200 million a year, more just returning £200 million a year out of the assets we have given her.

And I'm not bothered about changing the stamps and coins, you could keep them for old times sake.

And I'm sure the reforms won't equate to as much as £80 million a year until the end of time.
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#77
Report 8 years ago
#77
(Original post by yituool)
These foreign head of states ceremonies are arguably not essential. Regardless, we don't need to be paying the Queen for them. As I've mentioned so many times before, there are cheaper alternatives.

And the Queen's private estates were originally funded by tax payers, so there is perhaps a line of thought that they should become public estates.

Would you and I receive subsidies in maintaining our estates? I doubt we would if we were as wealthy as the Royals.

The Royals could still operate their estates/businesses even if they are not monarchs couldn't they? And we'd still receive taxes from them. If not, perhaps they should be handed over to the public sector.
For the last time, the money which goes to the Palace would still be going to the Palace if we had a presidential system. The money is the same money which is paid to any state official, for transport, staffing costs, security etc etc. The estates are not subsidised, the civil list (£11.2) came about under a direct agreement with George III for a swap for the revenues of the Crown Estate (£190 million) which has been honoured by each monarch since then. The private estate is the Duchy of Lancaster which has nothing to do with the government (like any private estate) and the Queen Pays (voluntarily) 70% income tax on the profits from that estate.
0
reply
User237126
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#78
Report 8 years ago
#78
Gotta say I agree with L i b. Class in Britain is like Nationality throughout the world. You're born into it, and you can change your appearance and passport (or in the class sense, living area or something), but there will always be those who distrust you because of it. And those who do move up a rung on the social scale (there being three rungs of lower, middle, and upper classes, for simplicity's sake) are usually ridiculed by their new class, and often by their old one too.

Therefore it seems pretty obvious that the royal family has pretty much jack all to do with this. If you got rid of it, class divides would still exist, because they're too ingrained IMO, and people are too unwilling to fully integrate.
0
reply
yituool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report 8 years ago
#79
(Original post by Renner)

How do you decide what is success? A fair chunk of Europe is constitutional monarchy, most of the ones that aren’t ex-soviet block who had there monarchies removed in bloody revolutions which arguably ended in disaster for those nations.
You can't blame the ex-Soviet Block's problems on a lack of monarchy.

What is wrong with the system implemented in Nations that are of similar strength to us, such as France, Germany and Italy?
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#80
Report 8 years ago
#80
(Original post by yituool)
I doubt Royal tourism would suddenly die if we stopped paying the monarchy.

All of the earnings which she pays 70% tax on are made through estates or businesses that she has no right for. In my view, the Monarchy is a public asset, as it has been funded by the people over history, so therefore perhaps Royal estates and businesses should be made public assets, so we could receive more than 70% of the profits they make. The Queen is hardly paying us £200 million a year, more just returning £200 million a year out of the assets we have given her.

And I'm not bothered about changing the stamps and coins, you could keep them for old times sake.

And I'm sure the reforms won't equate to as much as £80 million a year until the end of time.
I don't think we have a right to sieze her assets because a few hundred years ago they came from us. They belong to her as much as the estates of anyone who inherits belongs to them. The fact of the matter is that as things stand she is more than paying for herself. I used to think the same as you, but then I realised we are making a profit on her, and she does a damn good job to boot.
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 (695)
80.63%
Leave (167)
19.37%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed