What does good does the Monarchy really do ? Watch

Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#141
Report 4 years ago
#141
(Original post by gladders)
They can be criticised if the monarch is advised by the Government to consent to such a debate, which a constitutional monarch is bound to agree to.

But really, while the Royal Family is barred from speaking out on their own, I think such debates are unecessary. Nothing stops the press from saying what they place though, and despite your insistence, we have a free press which does just that.
Yes that would be why the government fought tooth and nail to stop the Guardian printing Charles' letters and has closed the loophole that made it possible in the first place.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#142
Report 4 years ago
#142
(Original post by Midlander)
Germany's President Wulff?
Firstly, that's not the same as what I was describing: of a Head of State getting politically involved

Secondly, all you're demonstrating is that it's no harder to remove a monarch than a president. I contend it's even easier, in real terms, anyway, as there's considerbly greater restriction on what they can get away with.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#143
Report 4 years ago
#143
(Original post by chapmaed)
I know this has been covered, but we actually make a direct profit from the monarchy. King George iii exchanged all the profits from the land owned by monarchy for a fixed salary provided by the government. As of today all monarchs have agreed to this deal. The salary is roughly £40 million but the profits from the lands are roughly £200 million. But the monarchy technically still owns the land, therefore losing the monarchy cuts a £160 million loss per year. Secondly I can't bear the thought of having David Cameron as our head of state - he's so slimy.


Posted from TSR Mobile
The Crown Estate to which you refer is not the private property of the monarch but is run by 'the Crown', or the British state. I also suggest you revisit your estimate of the monarchy's cost considering it excludes the more substantial expenditures like security.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#144
Report 4 years ago
#144
(Original post by Midlander)
Yes that would be why the government fought tooth and nail to stop the Guardian printing Charles' letters and has closed the loophole that made it possible in the first place.
Because they have a right to? That they honestly believed there was a public interest in confidentiality?

Are you claiming that republicanism can only survive with those letters published?
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#145
Report 4 years ago
#145
(Original post by gladders)
Firstly, that's not the same as what I was describing: of a Head of State getting politically involved

Secondly, all you're demonstrating is that it's no harder to remove a monarch than a president. I contend it's even easier, in real terms, anyway, as there's considerbly greater restriction on what they can get away with.
Well, a HoS doing something naughty that would warrant their removal is what I was going for. But the Nixon example holds and the position would very quickly become untenable. We have already seen just recently the government fighting hard to protect senior royals butting their noses in, and that is a result of the deference some people show to royalty simply because of them being royalty.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#146
Report 4 years ago
#146
(Original post by Midlander)
The Crown Estate to which you refer is not the private property of the monarch but is run by 'the Crown', or the British state. I also suggest you revisit your estimate of the monarchy's cost considering it excludes the more substantial expenditures like security.
The Crown as a landowner is not discretely separate from the person of the monarch, nor is it entirely coterminous with the State as an entity. It's an unclarified position which would only ever be resolved if we made a definite move towards a republic.

I don't think it's as simple as being the Queen's entirely private property, but nor is it, as republicans tend to overstate, entirely that of the State's. I think in actuality some kind of compromise would be made with the outgoing monarchy if any fairness was observed.

And that's separate from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which are undeniably the property of the Queen and Prince of Wales respectively.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#147
Report 4 years ago
#147
(Original post by Midlander)
Well, a HoS doing something naughty that would warrant their removal is what I was going for. But the Nixon example holds and the position would very quickly become untenable. We have already seen just recently the government fighting hard to protect senior royals butting their noses in, and that is a result of the deference some people show to royalty simply because of them being royalty.
The monarch has the right to 'butt her nose in' as it conforms with the duties of the monarch as stated by Walter Bagehot is his famous book.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#148
Report 4 years ago
#148
(Original post by gladders)
Because they have a right to? That they honestly believed there was a public interest in confidentiality?

Are you claiming that republicanism can only survive with those letters published?
The government has a right to cover up a future monarch meddling when he isn't supposed to? Since the royals supposedly don't have any 'real' influence anyway I don't see what the problem is.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#149
Report 4 years ago
#149
(Original post by gladders)
The Crown as a landowner is not discretely separate from the person of the monarch, nor is it entirely coterminous with the State as an entity. It's an unclarified position which would only ever be resolved if we made a definite move towards a republic.

I don't think it's as simple as being the Queen's entirely private property, but nor is it, as republicans tend to overstate, entirely that of the State's. I think in actuality some kind of compromise would be made with the outgoing monarchy if any fairness was observed.

And that's separate from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which are undeniably the property of the Queen and Prince of Wales respectively.
There would probably be some sort of settlement reached but I would be very, very surprised if the Treasury lost all of the revenue it currently receives from the Estate, as the poster suggested. The Duchies are Royal property indeed, having proudly been acquired centuries ago by booting peasants off the land and preventing them from coming back without charging.

(Original post by gladders)
The monarch has the right to 'butt her nose in' as it conforms with the duties of the monarch as stated by Walter Bagehot is his famous book.
So you're now saying that the monarch does have a right to interfere? How does the accident of birth qualify them for this more than a commoner?
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#150
Report 4 years ago
#150
(Original post by Midlander)
The government has a right to cover up a future monarch meddling when he isn't supposed to? Since the royals supposedly don't have any 'real' influence anyway I don't see what the problem is.
As I just said, the monarch has the right to say what she likes in private as it is part of her duties, to be informed, to encourage and to warn. What she cannot do is insist, which would cause a constitutional crisis. She can only do this, however, in confidence. She would be unable to air her opinions in public, as it would end her impartiality.

This extends to the Prince of Wales too, in a limited extent, as the heir to the throne, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that new expectations are insisting on his interactions being more discreet.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#151
Report 4 years ago
#151
(Original post by Midlander)
There would probably be some sort of settlement reached but I would be very, very surprised if the Treasury lost all of the revenue it currently receives from the Estate, as the poster suggested. The Duchies are Royal property indeed, having proudly been acquired centuries ago by booting peasants off the land and preventing them from coming back without charging.
Just like anybody else who owns property then. You realise the wealth you enjoy as a Brit is thanks to centuries of Empire?

So you're now saying that the monarch does have a right to interfere? How does the accident of birth qualify them for this more than a commoner?
Because the Queen's been on the throne for sixty years and has plenty of experience that the Government can draw upon. She's considerably more suitable than a President who's been around for only a few years and has only won a popularity contest.
0
reply
joyce-diana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#152
Report 4 years ago
#152
They're celebrities and a tourist attraction.
In terms if power, they're pretty much useless, compared to olden days( Tudors for example) and are pretty much the government puppets.
Their job is to stand tall ,look pretty and be respected and almost worshipped.
If they were entirely uses less, then the country would be like the French Revolution.
1
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#153
Report 4 years ago
#153
(Original post by joyce-diana)
They're celebrities and a tourist attraction.
In terms if power, they're pretty much useless, compared to olden days( Tudors for example) and are pretty much the government puppets.
Their job is to stand tall ,look pretty and be respected and almost worshipped.
If they were entirely uses less, then the country would be like the French Revolution.
They should be respected for being born and not doing anything?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
joyce-diana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#154
Report 4 years ago
#154
(Original post by Midlander)
They should be respected for being born and not doing anything?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Unfortunately, yes. That's what the law tells us to do.
0
reply
miguapa
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#155
Report 4 years ago
#155
i don't give a **** about them either way. They don't have much power, and i'm not one for tradition but will make an exception. the monarchy has shaped us as a country, so why not keep them?
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#156
Report 4 years ago
#156
(Original post by Midlander)
They should be respected for being born and not doing anything?
Haha look, Midlander, buddy, at first I thought your claim of this sort was due to an innocent lack of knowledge on your part. But now I am beginning to suspect you're so wantonly convinced of your own point of view that you reject all facts that are inconvenient to it.

I repeat my earlier challenge to you: list what the President of Germany does that the Queen does not. Then we can guage just how the Queen 'does nothing'.

If you don't offer anything, there's only one thing we can conclude about you.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#157
Report 4 years ago
#157
(Original post by gladders)
Haha look, Midlander, buddy, at first I thought your claim of this sort was due to an innocent lack of knowledge on your part. But now I am beginning to suspect you're so wantonly convinced of your own point of view that you reject all facts that are inconvenient to it.

I repeat my earlier challenge to you: list what the President of Germany does that the Queen does not. Then we can guage just how the Queen 'does nothing'.

If you don't offer anything, there's only one thing we can conclude about you.
That was not your challenge. You asked me if I thought the German President's job was a doss and then you would talk about how easy/difficult the Queen's job. I did my end of the bargain ages ago!




Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Reue
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#158
Report 4 years ago
#158


Lets just be done with them.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#159
Report 4 years ago
#159
(Original post by Midlander)
That was not your challenge. You asked me if I thought the German President's job was a doss and then you would talk about how easy/difficult the Queen's job. I did my end of the bargain ages ago!
Actually, in a few posts back I made clear that you need to defend your claim first. You haven't.

You have to address a fundamental flaw in your blinkered view: if the Queen does 'nothing', as you put it, then the German President does 'nothing' as well. So you have to answer this: if the German President does 'nothing', why has Germany, and countless other republics, deliberately and knowingly created a ceremonial presidency?

Clearly it must be of value and use, otherwise nobody would have one - right?

Right?

I'm happy to elaborate on the functions of the monarchy, but you have to make some things clear about your assumptions, so I can understand precisely what kind of double-standards you'll be insisting upon.
0
reply
Zander01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#160
Report 4 years ago
#160
Didnt the royal wedding apparently cost the UK economy aboot 5 billion pounds?

yes. Totally worth it. :rolleyes:

And anyone who thinks having the royal family is still democratic then they are a delusional fool.

A poll before the scottish referendum showed that 63% of voters called for a ballot on scotlands next head of state.

Only 22% believe that the royals should have been retained without question.
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 (109)
17.99%
It's just nice to be back! (163)
26.9%
Not great so far... (217)
35.81%
I want to drop out! (117)
19.31%

Watched Threads

View All