Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by feelingsupersonic)
    So you think it's fair that two babies could be born at the exact same time in the exact same hospital yet when they left the hospital with their families, one could have an easy path already laid out for them into university then onto a good job, the other would have a high percent chance of achieving little academically and in the end have a much shorter life expectancy?
    I don't think fairness comes into it, it's a social phenomenon not some sort of stated policy of anyone. If you're asking from my own perspective if I value the class system then yes, I do. I mix predominantly with people of my own social class, as I suspect we most do, for a good reason: because our similar backgrounds draw us together. If that's a divide, then so be it.

    (Original post by nempozpag)
    I agree with most of what you say, though the queen doesn't really serve a duty, unless by duty you are referring to her largely irrelevant and replaceable role within current politics.
    The Queen's role is not remotely irrelevant, and it will certainly be difficult to replace. Obvious, inevitably, she will be replaced eventually - most likely by her son, but she will also be very fondly remembered for her performance in the role.

    If you were part of the underclass would the last line you typed, which I don't agree with, change?
    Ultimately, the British underclass are just as class conscious and divisive, if not more so, than the middle or upper classes.

    (Original post by concubine)
    Sweeeet, so I'm stuck being in the upper end of middle class?

    Suits me.
    Well, a lot of upper middle class people are unhappy, so don't assume that's necessarily some sort of bonus in life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    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.
    Our head of state is paid £8 million a year (not including the grants she receives), whereas the US head of state is only paid $400,000, plus only an extra $50,000 on expenses. How can you argue that we are not paying our head of state too much?

    Also, the Queen receives £15 million a year for Kensington Palace.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    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.
    Wouldn't you agree that she should at least pay inheritance tax?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    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?
    France = There have been 5 republics since the abolition of the French monarchy, shrieks of stability doesn’t it. But the roles don’t really compare since Sarkosy plays an active part in politics

    Germany = It can be argued that if the Monarchy had been restored after WW1 there would have been some sense of stability in government, it was the German chancellor which granted Hitler his powers, something an apolitical head of state would not have been able to do. 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."

    Italy = Rocked by instability in parliament which Berlusconi is part of being the leader of one of the political parties
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by feelingsupersonic)
    So you think it's fair that two babies could be born at the exact same time in the exact same hospital yet when they left the hospital with their families, one could have an easy path already laid out for them into university then onto a good job, the other would have a high percent chance of achieving little academically and in the end have a much shorter life expectancy?
    First of all, and putting aside the fact that you appear to think that the wealthy or intelligent have easy lives, you can't stop that happening. Intelligence, along with many other attributes that affect what a person will achieve in life, has a strong genetic component.

    Secondly, class is more about attitude and motivation than it is about wealth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    Wouldn't you agree that she should at least pay inheritance tax?
    It's a bit difficult to inheritance tax her because the lands belong to the monarch, not her. The lands come with the job. If she left she wouldn't take them with her.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    Our head of state is paid £8 million a year (not including the grants she receives), whereas the US head of state is only paid $400,000, plus only an extra $50,000 on expenses. How can you argue that we are not paying our head of state too much?

    Also, the Queen receives £15 million a year for Kensington Palace.
    The Queen is not paid; she gets expenses. That figure for the president is his personal wage and his personal expenses, that figure going to the Queen is not a personal wage; it’s for the expenses that come with running the Head of States office. If you think the entire presidential office costs $450,000 a year you’re deluding your self, staffing costs alone will be more than that. You know Obama’s inauguration ceremony cost the tax payer $150 million, and presidents change over every 4 or 8 years….
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    Our head of state is paid £8 million a year (not including the grants she receives), whereas the US head of state is only paid $400,000, plus only an extra $50,000 on expenses. How can you argue that we are not paying our head of state too much?
    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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 love spending other peoples money.

    the left really has a lot in common with them. What's your problem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The Queen is not paid; she gets expenses. That figure for the president is his personal wage and his personal expenses, that figure going to the Queen is not a personal wage; it’s for the expenses that come with running the Head of States office. If you think the entire presidential office costs $450,000 a year you’re deluding your self, staffing costs alone will be more than that. You know Obama’s inauguration ceremony cost the tax payer $150 million, and presidents change over every 4 or 8 years….
    It costs a minimum of $240 million a year just to operate and maintain Air Force One lol. That means the president spends at least a billion dollars per term on air travel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    France = There have been 5 republics since the abolition of the French monarchy, shrieks of stability doesn’t it. But the roles don’t really compare since Sarkosy plays an active part in politics

    Germany = It can be argued that if the Monarchy had been restored after WW1 there would have been some sense of stability in government, it was the German chancellor which granted Hitler his powers, something an apolitical head of state would not have been able to do. 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."

    Italy = Rocked by instability in parliament which Berlusconi is part of being the leader of one of the political parties
    The points you made about France and Germany are historical examples which aren't relevant to the current climate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    The points you made about France and Germany are historical examples which aren't relevant to the current climate.
    In other words, you have nothing to say….

    The systems we have been talking about have evolved over centuries; you have to look back into history for specific examples but the principles remain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The Queen is not paid; she gets expenses. That figure for the president is his personal wage and his personal expenses, that figure going to the Queen is not a personal wage; it’s for the expenses that come with running the Head of States office. If you think the entire presidential office costs $450,000 a year you’re deluding your self, staffing costs alone will be more than that. You know Obama’s inauguration ceremony cost the tax payer $150 million, and presidents change over every 4 or 8 years….
    Well if we're counting the total costs for running the Head of States' office, the Queen cost us £35 million in 2000/1. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't cost that much just to run such a thing.

    Also, the extravagance of Obama's inaugaration ceremony were not necessary and could easily be avoided.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiberius)
    :facepalm2:
    Great argument there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How is having a royal family democratic? I thought the UK was meant to be a trendsetter in terms of democracy as the US and the UK go to war to overthrow dictatorships which apparently oppress the people and so these countries with dictatorships must be forced to go by Britains and the US's way of doing things. Or do they go to war when it only benefits them. That aside the Royal family do cause class divisions as it shows that no matter how much money you earn some people will still be above you in terms of status, even though they havent worked a day in their life and dont call touring the globe a job.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    .
    those who look the fool are those who believe that you can purchase class, class is much more than the sum in your bank account
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All Black Everything)
    How is having a royal family democratic? I thought the UK was meant to be a trendsetter in terms of democracy as the US and the UK go to war to overthrow dictatorships which apparently oppress the people and so these countries with dictatorships must be forced to go by Britains and the US's way of doing things. Or do they go to war when it only benefits them. That aside the Royal family do cause class divisions as it shows that no matter how much money you earn some people will still be above you in terms of status, even though they havent worked a day in their life and dont call touring the globe a job.
    It's called a constitutional monarchy.

    Would you care to indulge as to how the royal family promote class division? Would you care to tell us how the Monarchy in this country act as a dictatorship? Would you care to tell us how engaging in diplomatic functions is not a job?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QwentyJ)
    It's called a constitutional monarchy.

    Would you care to indulge as to how the royal family promote class division? Would you care to tell us how the Monarchy in this country act as a dictatorship? Would you care to tell us how engaging in diplomatic functions is not a job?
    Did i say they were like a dictatorship or did I say the UK and the US go and overthrow dictatorships in the name of democracy? I believe that it promotes class divisions as no matter what you do, how hard you work, or the amount of money you earn you will always be in terms of status below some people. In my eyes this results in resentment for not neccesarily the Queen herself but others in the Royal family and others like them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All Black Everything)
    How is having a royal family democratic? I thought the UK was meant to be a trendsetter in terms of democracy as the US and the UK go to war to overthrow dictatorships which apparently oppress the people and so these countries with dictatorships must be forced to go by Britains and the US's way of doing things. Or do they go to war when it only benefits them.
    It's not democratic, nobody said it was. Britain has, however, excellent democratic credentials. That doesn't mean we feel the need to ape foreign countries like the United States and elect the local Sheriff... or dogcatcher, for that matter.

    That aside the Royal family do cause class divisions as it shows that no matter how much money you earn some people will still be above you in terms of status, even though they havent worked a day in their life and dont call touring the globe a job.
    If you can't comprehend the level of work expected of a monarch, and the complete sacrifice of a life that her role involves, then frankly you're either exceptionally underinformed or a complete idiot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As long as we have a royal family, there will certainly be class divisions. All they had to do was be born to get where they are. Obviously things have changed over time, and you could argue that class would exist without it - but the royal family certainly plays a part and I think it could be central to the argument of class divides in Britain if argued correctly.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.