Turn on thread page Beta
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I think the precedent of nobody being prosecuted in modern times for advocating the end of the monarchy, and in fact the BBC allowing Republic's leader onto the Daily Politics today, would suggest that it is not considered high treason.
    People also generally aren't being prosecuted for theft, does that mean you're going to be fine with me coming and nicking all your stuff?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    People also generally aren't being prosecuted for theft, does that mean you're going to be fine with me coming and nicking all your stuff?
    If someone were to commit theft live on the BBC I would expect them to be prosecuted.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    That's quite a claim, considering that what the Queen does is equatable to the work of, for example, the President of Germany. At similar cost for the office, the German president is paid a salary of €191,000. The Queen has a salary of £0. Do you think the German president is 'ridiculously overpaid'?
    Yes, I do, in fact. Their respective duties involve so little effort that they should both be on £50k a year max I would say. Obviously office costs, a couple of trips abroad and some security would also need to be factored in, but if they lived in a normal house and all their official residences etc. were opened up to the public then perhaps that could be partially paid for by extra revenue from those.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Lefties in this thread are clearly just envious because they can't be mates with the Royals. :laugh: I'm not even going to bother with ‘debating’ this issue because it would be totally pointless, just like the last time…

    The amount of work she's done for the country is much more than you ever will with that attitude. She and many other members of the Royal Family have busy working schedules usually involving what is essentially diplomacy. Although they hold little executive power, they represent this country much better than the ‘democratically elected’ Commons. They attend formal occasions including sporting events or fundraisers that benefit other people, award and present honours, decorations and medals to people for their life-long service to the country (something you'll also never receive, by the way), and fulfil many other duties.

    I realise that to people like you who were unfortunately born and raised in ****ty conditions, this must seem like the greatest injustice ever but I must once more stress that people are certainly not born equal and the sooner you get it out of your disillusioned brains, the better. Some are born into rich families, others into poor ones, some are fast and strong, others crippled since birth, some are beautiful and charming, others are tumblr feminists with pink hair, some have brilliant minds, others are tumblr feminists with pink hair, … some are royals, others are plebs. Is this really the biggest issue of our society?

    I agree that with little power, they may seem a bit unnecessary and I also agree that it's an issue – the Monarchy should be much more powerful and hold executive powers over the Commons. I would gladly exchange my suffrage for the rule of Elizabeth II or the Prince of Wales.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    That's a few hundred years ago, not a few hundred centuries ago is I think the point being made.I can't help but find it weird that the right-wing seem to think it's envy - projecting just a tad? I'm certainly not envious, I'd hate to have all that attention on me, I just think the idea of superiority by blood is a completely stupid idea - because it is
    What an excellent argument… :rolleyes:

    What if the Monarchy was a private company? The House of Windsor obtained the throne from a lineage of noblemen who ruled and fought for the country in one form or another. Unfortunately, the times have changed and they've surrendered much of their power but I don't think there's any substantial difference to private ownership. Their ‘superiority’ is essentially the same as that of a rich kid – would you like to seize every death person's assets and redistribute the wealth among all commoners? Oh, I know you would…
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Yes, I do, in fact. Their respective duties involve so little effort that they should both be on £50k a year max I would say. Obviously office costs, a couple of trips abroad and some security would also need to be factored in, but if they lived in a normal house and all their official residences etc. were opened up to the public then perhaps that could be partially paid for by extra revenue from those.
    Unfortunately that's not possible. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that their residences are there purely for their personal enjoyment. Rather, they are part-office, part-hotel, part-conference hall, part residence, part-storage centre, and part-reception. Be thankful they are open for the periods they already are!

    And just as well the Queen does the job for free, then, no?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Lefties in this thread are clearly just envious because they can't be mates with the Royals. :laugh: I'm not even going to bother with ‘debating’ this issue because it would be totally pointless, just like the last time…

    The amount of work she's done for the country is much more than you ever will with that attitude. She and many other members of the Royal Family have busy working schedules usually involving what is essentially diplomacy. Although they hold little executive power, they represent this country much better than the ‘democratically elected’ Commons. They attend formal occasions including sporting events or fundraisers that benefit other people, award and present honours, decorations and medals to people for their life-long service to the country (something you'll also never receive, by the way), and fulfil many other duties.

    I realise that to people like you who were unfortunately born and raised in ****ty conditions, this must seem like the greatest injustice ever but I must once more stress that people are certainly not born equal and the sooner you get it out of your disillusioned brains, the better. Some are born into rich families, others into poor ones, some are fast and strong, others crippled since birth, some are beautiful and charming, others are tumblr feminists with pink hair, some have brilliant minds, others are tumblr feminists with pink hair, … some are royals, others are plebs. Is this really the biggest issue of our society?

    I agree that with little power, they may seem a bit unnecessary and I also agree that it's an issue – the Monarchy should be much more powerful and hold executive powers over the Commons. I would gladly exchange my suffrage for the rule of Elizabeth II or the Prince of Wales.



    What an excellent argument… :rolleyes:

    What if the Monarchy was a private company? The House of Windsor obtained the throne from a lineage of noblemen who ruled and fought for the country in one form or another. Unfortunately, the times have changed and they've surrendered much of their power but I don't think there's any substantial difference to private ownership. Their ‘superiority’ is essentially the same as that of a rich kid – would you like to seize every death person's assets and redistribute the wealth among all commoners? Oh, I know you would…
    PROSM
    Especially for the bold bit
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Remove the Queen from office and her income goes up almost 4 fold
    The Queen can't be removed from office by anyone other than herself under current constitutional arrangements.


    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And you said HRH doesn't have a job, in which case all the people with the same "not a job" as her also have no job and are scrounging, so now she does have a job?
    Anyone who has the same duties as her with remuneration associated with those duties rather than with their title has a job. The Queen's remuneration is not associated with her duties, it's associated with her title. She could lie on a sunlounger in the Bahamas 24/7 not doing anything whatsoever for the rest of her days and she would still get millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by gladders)
    Unfortunately that's not possible. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that their residences are there purely for their personal enjoyment. Rather, they are part-office, part-hotel, part-conference hall, part residence, part-storage centre, and part-reception. Be thankful they are open for the periods they already are!

    And just as well the Queen does the job for free, then, no?
    You mean just as well she pays to do the job
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Lefties in this thread are clearly just envious because they can't be mates with the Royals. :laugh: I'm not even going to bother with ‘debating’ this issue because it would be totally pointless, just like the last time…
    So all you're going to do is come on the thread call all republican lefties on the thread envious and then leave?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    The Queen can't be removed from office by anyone other than herself under current constitutional arrangements.
    Which can be changed, even if doing so is strictly illegal and so if the law were strictly upheld we would simply look at doing it like Cromwell or the French, although probably with much less blood since the Queen would probably stand down and allow the amendment to pass because, you know, she is a decent person that actually does care about doing her job properly, which includes looking out for the people.

    Anyone who has the same duties as her with remuneration associated with those duties rather than with their title has a job. The Queen's remuneration is not associated with her duties, it's associated with her title. She could lie on a sunlounger in the Bahamas 24/7 not doing anything whatsoever for the rest of her days and she would still get millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
    She would be getting millions of taxpayer's money? Not millions of her own, you know, from that roughly a quarter of a billion her estate makes each year?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Not big on the monarchy but the you cannot fault the queen and the role and service she has given her entire life

    My favourite Queen Lizzy moment.

    The scene is that Abdullah, then crown prince but in fact de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia with his brother the king having suffered a stroke, was visiting Balmoral for lunch in 1998:You are not supposed to repeat what the Queen says in private conversation. But the story she told me on that occasion was one that I was also to hear later from its subject - Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - and it is too funny not to repeat.

    Five years earlier, in September 1998, Abdullah had been invited up to Balmoral, for lunch with the Queen. Following his brother King Fahd's stroke in 1995, Abdullah was already the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. After lunch, the Queen had asked her royal guest whether he would like a tour of the estate. Prompted by his Foreign Minister, the urbane Prince Saud, an initially hesitant Abdullah agreed. The royal Land Rovers were drawn up in front of the castle. As instructed, the Crown Prince climbed into the front seat of the front Land Rover, with his interpreter in the seat behind. To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and drove off. Women are not - yet - allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen. His nervousness only increased as the Queen, an Army driver in wartime, accelerated the Land Rover along the narrow Scottish estate roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...ay--eJYX859rsl
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Lefties in this thread are clearly just envious because they can't be mates with the Royals. :laugh: I'm not even going to bother with ‘debating’ this issue because it would be totally pointless, just like the last time…

    The amount of work she's done for the country is much more than you ever will with that attitude. She and many other members of the Royal Family have busy working schedules usually involving what is essentially diplomacy. Although they hold little executive power, they represent this country much better than the ‘democratically elected’ Commons. They attend formal occasions including sporting events or fundraisers that benefit other people, award and present honours, decorations and medals to people for their life-long service to the country (something you'll also never receive, by the way), and fulfil many other duties.

    I realise that to people like you who were unfortunately born and raised in ****ty conditions, this must seem like the greatest injustice ever but I must once more stress that people are certainly not born equal and the sooner you get it out of your disillusioned brains, the better. Some are born into rich families, others into poor ones, some are fast and strong, others crippled since birth, some are beautiful and charming, others are tumblr feminists with pink hair, some have brilliant minds, others are tumblr feminists with pink hair, … some are royals, others are plebs. Is this really the biggest issue of our society?

    I agree that with little power, they may seem a bit unnecessary and I also agree that it's an issue – the Monarchy should be much more powerful and hold executive powers over the Commons. I would gladly exchange my suffrage for the rule of Elizabeth II or the Prince of Wales.



    What an excellent argument… :rolleyes:

    What if the Monarchy was a private company? The House of Windsor obtained the throne from a lineage of noblemen who ruled and fought for the country in one form or another. Unfortunately, the times have changed and they've surrendered much of their power but I don't think there's any substantial difference to private ownership. Their ‘superiority’ is essentially the same as that of a rich kid – would you like to seize every death person's assets and redistribute the wealth among all commoners? Oh, I know you would…
    Hear hear!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Unfortunately that's not possible. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that their residences are there purely for their personal enjoyment. Rather, they are part-office, part-hotel, part-conference hall, part residence, part-storage centre, and part-reception. Be thankful they are open for the periods they already are!
    No, I was not under that impression. The Queen can manage perfectly well with one large office in a building somewhere in London, and a private house, which she can well afford given the amount of money she has. I see no reason why if the royal residences were made into National Trust properties they could not continue to be used on occasion as the rest of the things in your list.

    (Original post by gladders)
    And just as well the Queen does the job for free, then, no?
    It would be if she didn't get millions of pounds in taxpayers' money already by virtue of having a fancy title.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Lefties in this thread are clearly just envious because they can't be mates with the Royals. :laugh:
    Righties in this thread are clearly incapable of grasping the notion that some people do actually oppose things based on principle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    To the best and longest serving leach there has ever been. :beer:

    Oh wait.
    What a bone-headed post. You cannot hold a young child responsible for doing what her parents tell her to, not to mention the fact that in the early 1930s there was very little for Britain to see wrong in the Nazis. You would have supported them then too, as most people did.

    Republicans who use this image for their own political expediency only make themselves look cheap and opportunistic. By all means voice your opposition to the monarchy, but do yourself a favour by doing so with a little integrity and class.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    No, I was not under that impression. The Queen can manage perfectly well with one large office in a building somewhere in London, and a private house, which she can well afford given the amount of money she has. I see no reason why if the royal residences were made into National Trust properties they could not continue to be used on occasion as the rest of the things in your list.
    You don't realise how regularly it's needed, then. Trust me, if it were so obvious, then plenty of countries would be doing that.

    As it stands, there are republics that do worse: there's a whole wing of Versailles that is permanently closed to the public for the rare occasions that the French Parliament gathers there purely to proclaim a new president.

    It would be if she didn't get millions of pounds in taxpayers' money already by virtue of having a fancy title.
    She doesn't. All that money goes directly into building maintenance, payment of staff salaries and benefits, and funding incoming state visits. The cost would remain under a republic.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Righties in this thread are clearly incapable of grasping the notion that some people do actually oppose things based on principle.
    We oppose many things on principle, such a socialism and republicanism.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnifico)
    What a bone-headed post. You cannot hold a young child responsible for doing what her parents tell her to, not to mention the fact that in the early 1930s there was very little for Britain to see wrong in the Nazis. You would have supported them then too, as most people did.

    Republicans who use this image for their own political expediency only make themselves look cheap and opportunistic. By all means voice your opposition to the monarchy, but do yourself a favour by doing so with a little integrity and class.
    I should point out that persecuting jews is not 'very little' wrong and I would not have supported them. Her parent, the King, yes the King told her to do that. The monarchy is more than little old Lizzie you know.

    I wasn't trying to argue my cause however, the thread asked us to pay tribute to the Queen, my post does that in a way.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    She doesn't. All that money goes directly into building maintenance, payment of staff salaries and benefits, and funding incoming state visits. The cost would remain under a republic.
    It's silly to claim she gets none of that however.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a republican, but a very idealistic one. For the most part I am indifferent to whether we have a monarchy or a republic. I would only support a republic if I was dictator of it. Otherwise the loony lefties would take over. I would have little problem crowning myself as a monarch though, as Napoleon did.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

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.