What does good does the Monarchy really do ? Watch

Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 years ago
#61
(Original post by Midlander)
The monarch is able to obstruct legislation if it conflicts with their personal interests.


Posted from TSR Mobile
A right that has not been exercised for centuries

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 years ago
#62
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I don't like the idea of a politician becoming a president.

presidents tend to be retired politicians.
How can an active politician be a retired politician?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 years ago
#63
(Original post by Midlander)
I think you should look at how much the monarchy really costs, and how much tourism revenue it is really responsible for bringing in (directly or indirectly) before you go down the 'terrific value for money' line. People would be able to go inside Buckingham Palace for a start, and venture onto the grounds of Windsor Castle, which the humble Lizzie forbids her peasants the right to do so at present.


Posted from TSR Mobile
How much do they cost? -£80m, before considering any impact it may or may not have on tourism
If "humble Lizzie" won't allow people inside Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle now, why would she when she isn't queen, or are you suggesting that the government would strip the monarchy of all it's lands?
And by the same logic we should get rid of the positions of PM, Chancellor and chief government whip, or at the very least move their residences, so people can go have a look around Downing Street.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 years ago
#64
The tourism argument is nonsense because the buildings are still going to be here. Louvre and the Forbidden City are very well visited despite neither country having a monarch any more. People are not going to stop visiting any of the buildings because there is no longer a monarchy. I can't understand why anyone can possibly think this way when you can clearly see in other countries how not having a monarchy didn't hurt their palaces and castles. The only thing that might be hurt could be some of the merchandises but there are other merchs people buy, and you can then charge them for visiting the palaces and castles.

The true value of the monarchy is that it creates a moral stance. You have countries trying to install a president who gives out knighthood to make that happen, but they don't treat their president as seriously as the world treats The Queen. On both sides of the Atlantic, bankers are bailed out and there's little the governments could do to punish them - but in the UK, you get to take away their honours, and people actually care about the honours.

Having a figure as prominent as The Queen is also increased UK's relevance on the world stage. The world is fascinated by The Queen, and they actually admire her. People talk about the royals all the time which brings the UK more attention.

The main difference between the British monarch and other monarchs in the world is that people actually respect her. and she's not just the monarch of one country but many. Now, I don't think they should cost this much money, and I can't say for sure when she passes if the monarchy will still worth this much, but I do see a value at the moment.

Long live The Queen of Pop MADONNA, buy Rebel Heart ​on iTunes!
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#65
Report 4 years ago
#65
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
How much do they cost? -£80m, before considering any impact it may or may not have on tourism
If "humble Lizzie" won't allow people inside Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle now, why would she when she isn't queen, or are you suggesting that the government would strip the monarchy of all it's lands?
And by the same logic we should get rid of the positions of PM, Chancellor and chief government whip, or at the very least move their residences, so people can go have a look around Downing Street.
Where do you get your -£80m from? Republic published their own research into the cost of the monarchy and comes up with a figure around £300m, when you factor in things which are not included in the official cost reported in the media such as security and lost profit from the Crown Estate.

As for the Palace it is paid for by the taxpayer yet the taxpayer is not allowed in. In the event of the monarchy being abolished I see no reason for this to continue. And yes abolishing the post of someone with a proper job makes total sense. Cameron should host banquets instead and pass that off as work like HM.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 years ago
#66
(Original post by clh_hilary)
The tourism argument is nonsense because the buildings are still going to be here. Louvre and the Forbidden City are very well visited despite neither country having a monarch any more. People are not going to stop visiting any of the buildings because there is no longer a monarchy. I can't understand why anyone can possibly think this way when you can clearly see in other countries how not having a monarchy didn't hurt their palaces and castles. The only thing that might be hurt could be some of the merchandises but there are other merchs people buy, and you can then charge them for visiting the palaces and castles.

The true value of the monarchy is that it creates a moral stance. You have countries trying to install a president who gives out knighthood to make that happen, but they don't treat their president as seriously as the world treats The Queen. On both sides of the Atlantic, bankers are bailed out and there's little the governments could do to punish them - but in the UK, you get to take away their honours, and people actually care about the honours.

Having a figure as prominent as The Queen is also increased UK's relevance on the world stage. The world is fascinated by The Queen, and they actually admire her. People talk about the royals all the time which brings the UK more attention.

The main difference between the British monarch and other monarchs in the world is that people actually respect her. and she's not just the monarch of one country but many. Now, I don't think they should cost this much money, and I can't say for sure when she passes if the monarchy will still worth this much, but I do see a value at the moment.

Long live The Queen of Pop MADONNA, buy Rebel Heart ​on iTunes!
Yes a banker who has been paid millions for failing will be devastated at the loss of their meaningless titles. I would also like to see how you conclude that the Queen makes the UK more relevant when our country is disliked or even despised across the continents for our colonial exploits. How is HM boosting our reputation in Syria at the moment?

I do agree with you on tourism though. I went to Bavaria last summer and we visited Schloß Neuschwanstein, former residence of King Ludwig. The queues were enormous all day long and it has been open to the public for over a century. Imagine how much we could bring in by allowing people into the Palace.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 years ago
#67
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
A right that has not been exercised for centuries

Posted from TSR Mobile
So why has it not been revoked?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 years ago
#68
(Original post by Midlander)
Where do you get your -£80m from? Republic published their own research into the cost of the monarchy and comes up with a figure around £300m, when you factor in things which are not included in the official cost reported in the media such as security and lost profit from the Crown Estate.

As for the Palace it is paid for by the taxpayer yet the taxpayer is not allowed in. In the event of the monarchy being abolished I see no reason for this to continue. And yes abolishing the post of someone with a proper job makes total sense. Cameron should host banquets instead and pass that off as work like HM.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Lost profit from the Crown Estate? You mean that which is given to the state?
ALL revenues from the crown estate go directly to the government and in turn they receive 15% of this amount, the highest income tax rate is not 85%, under normal circumstances at least, or do you have no comprehension at all of the funding of the royal family?
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 years ago
#69
(Original post by Midlander)
So why has it not been revoked?


Posted from TSR Mobile
By the same logic, I have nobody in my (direct) family has invoked the right to do a great many things, does that mean that those rights should be revoked for my family? Not exercising a right is not justification for the removal of said right.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 years ago
#70
(Original post by gladders)
No she can't.



She is unable to compel her government to do anything it doesn't want to, and it also took our elected government 40 years to think of it themselves. Try again.



Yeah, because he's the only person in the world known to mouth off unwisely.



Yeah, because he's the only person in the world known to mouth of unwisely. Clearly, being impolitic is something that's peculiar to royals.



Nonsense. That's like saying a manager in an office can have absolutely nothing in common with warehouse staff.



How would having Parliament choose the president make them accountable? How would it stop their grandsons and spouses mouthing off? How would it make them more relatable to the public - bear in mind that presidents worldwide, and our own elected politicians, are more remote from the public and less respected than the monarchy is?
1. You said the monarchy is more selfless than elected commoners and it shows more sympathy than them as well. With that in mind I'd have thought that HM would chip in with taxes without being asked, when her people were going through the dire economic times of the 70s and 80s. Lead by example and all that.

2. I didn't realise being a bigot made you more sympathetic than elected politicians. The Duke once asked someone in a wheelchair 'do people fall over you?', highlighting his concern for the disabled, and 'are you all related?' to a group of black music artists to show his awareness of the cultural diversity in his land.

3. The office manager can still be sacked (poor David Brent) because he is accountable to his own managers above him. He also has his own bills to pay and has his own responsibilities. The Queen's job is not taxing in the slightest and the government will never deny her help.

4. The public would decide the President, not MPs. Since the position is an elected one then whoever is in it must perform competently to be re-elected and by virtue of being elected has a clear mandate from the people. I note that the British people have never been asked whether they want a monarchy and media coverage on it has always been an arm of Palace PR. An objective discussion of the monarchy with balanced media would send its support plummeting.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 years ago
#71
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Lost profit from the Crown Estate? You mean that which is given to the state?
ALL revenues from the crown estate go directly to the government and in turn they receive 15% of this amount, the highest income tax rate is not 85%, under normal circumstances at least, or do you have no comprehension at all of the funding of the royal family?
Does the state get all of it or 85%?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#72
Report 4 years ago
#72
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
By the same logic, I have nobody in my (direct) family has invoked the right to do a great many things, does that mean that those rights should be revoked for my family? Not exercising a right is not justification for the removal of said right.
The right shouldn't exist is more what I was getting at. Just as Charles shouldn't be Field Marshal because Mummy made him one.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 years ago
#73
(Original post by Midlander)
Yes a banker who has been paid millions for failing will be devastated at the loss of their meaningless titles. I would also like to see how you conclude that the Queen makes the UK more relevant when our country is disliked or even despised across the continents for our colonial exploits. How is HM boosting our reputation in Syria at the moment?
When the Chinese premier visited, he didn't want to meet the Prime Minister, but just to spend a few minutes with The Queen. Sending royals to other countries, from Charles and Diana during the Australian constitutional crisis, to today William visiting East Asia, have been on the one hand effective in strengthening relationships, and on the other, not actually as disruptive and risky as sending a PM there.

The UK is disliked for colonial exploits, but that has nothing to do with The Queen - colonial exploits still would not have been erased and people would still attack the UK for it. And people all over the world don't personally attribute that to The Queen. Are you from outside of the UK? The world outside adores The Queen.

I can't say for sure about individual bankers, neither can you. But it's a social collective disapproval to take away their titles. If Elton John, for example, got striped off his knighthood, I'm pretty sure he'd be devastated despite having sold 200 million records world-wide. Titles give you more credibility and self-importance, and believe it or not, most people care about it (same goes to other titles such as 'doctor' - why would anyone want to have a doctorate from London Met if not for that?).
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 4 years ago
#74
(Original post by Midlander)
Does the state get all of it or 85%?


Posted from TSR Mobile
They get all of it and then return 15%, so effectively 85% (which is, of course, near double what they would get if it were given directly to the RF)
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 years ago
#75
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
They get all of it and then return 15%, so effectively 85% (which is, of course, near double what they would get if it were given directly to the RF)
Yes so it is fair to say that we miss out on the extra 15%.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 years ago
#76
(Original post by Midlander)
Does the state get all of it or 85%?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Of course, what you also convieniently ignore is the cost of the replacements to the monarchy, and I would not be at all surprised if that were getting on for £30m (partly for the sake of argument) which would make it, in essence, 100%
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 4 years ago
#77
(Original post by Midlander)
Yes so it is fair to say that we miss out on the extra 15%.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Last I checked, income tax topped out at 45%, not 100%...
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#78
Report 4 years ago
#78
(Original post by clh_hilary)
When the Chinese premier visited, he didn't want to meet the Prime Minister, but just to spend a few minutes with The Queen. Sending royals to other countries, from Charles and Diana during the Australian constitutional crisis, to today William visiting East Asia, have been on the one hand effective in strengthening relationships, and on the other, not actually as disruptive and risky as sending a PM there.

The UK is disliked for colonial exploits, but that has nothing to do with The Queen - colonial exploits still would not have been erased and people would still attack the UK for it. And people all over the world don't personally attribute that to The Queen. Are you from outside of the UK? The world outside adores The Queen.

I can't say for sure about individual bankers, neither can you. But it's a social collective disapproval to take away their titles. If Elton John, for example, got striped off his knighthood, I'm pretty sure he'd be devastated despite having sold 200 million records world-wide. Titles give you more credibility and self-importance, and believe it or not, most people care about it (same goes to other titles such as 'doctor' - why would anyone want to have a doctorate from London Met if not for that?).
The devastation of losing pointless titles with archaic names is softened by having a huge pile of cash to fall back on. Doctorates are different-they are not arbitrarily awarded but done so after years of work and are a qualification in their own right.

I am a British citizen. The world outside is glad they aren't paying for it and I can tell you one thing and that is that there are very successful countries worldwide which elect their heads of state. They do not need elitism to keep people in check and their democracy is no weaker than ours. I am also certain that the previous British monarchs had no say over our colonial exploits all over the world. Empress Victoria anyone?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#79
Report 4 years ago
#79
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Last I checked, income tax topped out at 45%, not 100%...
Last time I checked the Crown Estate did not belong to the monarch.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 4 years ago
#80
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Of course, what you also convieniently ignore is the cost of the replacements to the monarchy, and I would not be at all surprised if that were getting on for £30m (partly for the sake of argument) which would make it, in essence, 100%
How do you arrive at this figure?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (139)
17.77%
It's just nice to be back! (211)
26.98%
Not great so far... (281)
35.93%
I want to drop out! (151)
19.31%

Watched Threads

View All