Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I never thought I would set up such a heated debate. I felt that becoming the longest reigning monarch was something the House should note.

    I am one of the majority who thinks the monarchy is good for Britain, and appreciate the history and tradition. The idea of President Blair or someone such as George W. Bush as head of state is one that fills me with horror.

    I think that much of the reason for the support for the monarchy is for the Queen herself, and maybe it will be less once Charles is KIng.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    So all you're going to do is come on the thread call all republican lefties on the thread envious and then leave?
    Yeah, I just let off some steam and that's it. I admit it's not very polite but neither are them (or you, I'm not sure what you said on other pages).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnifico)
    You're twisting my words. What I said was that the British public had very little reason to think ill of the Nazis at this point. You reference the persecution of the Jews. What 'persecution' are you referring to at this point exactly? Crystal Night happened five years later, if you need some perspective. Additionally, the unpleasantness that was going on was made scarce to Britain by the phenomenal Nazi PR machine and the matter of natural distance and separation in a slower, more isolated, internetless world. Hitler was known for breathing new life into Germany at this point and for flattering Britain with endless sickly compliments. To say so confidently that you would have opposed them at this stage is at best ridiculously naive and at worst an active attempt to provide an unrealistic frame of reference to make the young Elizabeth and her family seem unusually pro-Nazi, in a crass, dishonest attempt to taint a political institution you dislike.
    Because there was no persecution before Kristalnacht :rolleyes: . I should point out it was well known that there was persecution against Jews many however most didn't care due to the fact anti-Semitism wasn't rife. I'm an internationalist liberal socialist much of what the Nazis said is fundamentally opposed to what I believe I can assure you that if I was the same person then I would of opposed the Nazis. It's no lie however to say some of the royal family are Nazis, one being King Edward.

    As above.

    Incidentally, it was not her parent or the King who influenced her here, it was her uncle, who was then still Prince Edward. You've very effectively demonstrated in just a few sentences just how little you know about this image, the monarchy or history in general.
    You're the one suggesting there was no persecution before Kristalnacht. Prince Edward formally king Edward was pretty much a Nazi anyhow.

    It was a transparent attempt to attack the monarchy by cynical and opportunistic means that belong in tabloid newspapers and not in any self-respecting forum of debate.
    It wasn't a debate though it was a tribute.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Yes, in the system on which we base our usage of the term 'republic'. Look up the etymology of the word.

    You can argue that a republic by something other than majority rule would be bad if you like, but arguing by google definition is stupid.
    I should point out I did find the almost identical definition on other websites.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    If it isn't possible to work out how big a function being held is, then perhaps the people responsible for holding the function should be replaced, and I can't imagine that an event taking up every single room in a gigantic building like Buckingham Palace for example is going to be held regularly enough to justify closing it permanently.
    Which is why it's open the rest of the time for tours! You seem to think you can have it open all year round and simultaneously fulfill all the needs of a Head of State.

    Besides, even if you were right, and we resolved to move the Queen into smaller quarters, we'd need to find a suitable alternative, move everything over, make good, and security harden it. The investment would be extremely large.

    And then these criticisms still won't end.

    What's more, Buckingham Palace is a pretty drab and dull place. Much of the interest is due to the presence of the Queen, not the architecture (which I have to say is pretty blah)

    Exactly, so is there a reason why it couldn't stay in storage if the National Trust took over the royal residences?
    The walls are already taken up with works of art, you want them to make more walls?

    You can't think of an intelligent response so you respond with a sneer. Good job.
    I apologise, but I think there's a point at which I have to ask why you think you're more informed than the plenty of experts that work in the Palace or, in the Treasury, are constantly seeking economies?

    Especially since the cost of the monarchy stayed static - reduce in real terms - over the period 1992 - 2012, while the cost of government in the same period has gone up and up. If you're looking for economies, the monarchy is not the place to look - it's one of the leanest and most efficient parts of the government there is.

    So, indirectly from ordinary people, ie taxpayers, then, through the companies that she has invested in.
    Not at all. The money comes from the Privy Purse - revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster, of which she is, essentially, landlord.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I should point out I did find the almost identical definition on other websites.
    Bit off topic now, but it's worth pointing out for future reference that these websites give out a quick summary of the most common usage(s) of a word. They're not meant to be exhaustive and shouldn't be taken as such.

    If you have maybe university access to the full OED it's always worth checking out the entry. It gives various different usages of words, tells you which is more common, gives you examples of the word's usage at various points in history, etc. (It allows for non-democractic republics, fwiw.)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    So, whatever your view on the monarchy, she can't help the bed she was born in.

    By way of positive she has been committed to the role, working well past normal retirement age. And although a financially privileged existence it also brings considerable restrictions.

    On the negative she does appear pretty dim and her public speaking hasn't developed much in 70 years. Xmas day as wooden as ever and she seems to need a script to say good morning when out and about. Not to mention the laughing stock her kids shenanigans got us in to.

    Personally I would prefer not to have this somewhat illogical undemocratic institution.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Bit off topic now, but it's worth pointing out for future reference that these websites give out a quick summary of the most common usage(s) of a word. They're not meant to be exhaustive and shouldn't be taken as such.

    If you have maybe university access to the full OED it's always worth checking out the entry. It gives various different usages of words, tells you which is more common, gives you examples of the word's usage at various points in history, etc. (It allows for non-democractic republics, fwiw.)
    You mean people don't have a personal copy? I know that 1974 is slightly out of date, but pretty sure the "republic" entry won't have changed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Which is why it's open the rest of the time for tours! You seem to think you can have it open all year round and simultaneously fulfill all the needs of a Head of State.

    Besides, even if you were right, and we resolved to move the Queen into smaller quarters, we'd need to find a suitable alternative, move everything over, make good, and security harden it. The investment would be extremely large.

    And then these criticisms still won't end.

    What's more, Buckingham Palace is a pretty drab and dull place. Much of the interest is due to the presence of the Queen, not the architecture (which I have to say is pretty blah)



    The walls are already taken up with works of art, you want them to make more walls?



    I apologise, but I think there's a point at which I have to ask why you think you're more informed than the plenty of experts that work in the Palace or, in the Treasury, are constantly seeking economies?

    Especially since the cost of the monarchy stayed static - reduce in real terms - over the period 1992 - 2012, while the cost of government in the same period has gone up and up. If you're looking for economies, the monarchy is not the place to look - it's one of the leanest and most efficient parts of the government there is.



    Not at all. The money comes from the Privy Purse - revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster, of which she is, essentially, landlord.
    You can have it open all year round and fulfil the needs of a head of state if the head of state moved out and her office moved into a nearby office block.

    Why would the security for a private house for the Queen need to be paid for by the taxpayer? She has enough money to be able to hire security for herself.

    International tourists are obsessed with our monarchy so would still visit because of the association(and because it's so famous as a building) and domestic visitors would visit it as a historic attraction, a bit like the Tower of London.

    No, I do not want the walls taken up with more art. The art can stay in storage, which presumably does not involve it being hung on a wall.

    I don't think I'm more informed than the plenty of experts that work in the Palace or the Treasury. Where did I say that? I am simply using logic and common sense combined with strong republicanism.

    And given the makeup of the Duchy of Lancaster, revenue generated by the Duchy of Lancaster ultimately comes from the pockets of ordinary people.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Today Her Majesty the Queen becomes the longest serving monarch of this country.

    I invite members of the House to pay tribute and reflect upon her reign of over 63 years.
    Long live Fuhrer Elizabeth, Nazi Sympathiser and descendent of Saxe-Coburg!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You mean people don't have a personal copy? I know that 1974 is slightly out of date, but pretty sure the "republic" entry won't have changed.
    Most people have a copy of the concise OED. The full version takes up several bookshelves.

    Edit: Maybe that's what you meant, in which case the answer is, no, I don't think they do. I don't.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Why would the security for a private house for the Queen need to be paid for by the taxpayer?
    Because she is our head of state. Who do you think pays for the PM's security?

    Besides, if we can't afford to keep the ceremonial guards marching around the palace we might as well just give up as a country tbqh.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Most people have a copy of the concise OED. The full version takes up several bookshelves.

    Edit: Maybe that's what you meant, in which case the answer is, no, I don't think they do. I don't.
    The compact complete copy doesn't take up too much space
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The compact complete copy doesn't take up too much space
    Oh that's true, I suppose. I'd rather look on the interwebs than through a magnifying glass though.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Because she is our head of state. Who do you think pays for the PM's security?
    Not the queen lol. She doesn't even pay her heating bill. Gets senior's allowance.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Docjones1)
    Not the queen lol. She doesn't even pay her heating bill. Gets senior's allowance.
    And if you want to spend your time getting mad about non-issues like that I guess you can go ahead.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I like the Queen especially her calmness towards everything
    she is much better then the other monarchs Britain has had
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We'd best keep the monarchy for now. The thought of a President Corbyn or Galloway frightens the living hell out of me. When we are more advanced (or when I am in a position to seize power) then we can do away with the monarchy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    You can have it open all year round and fulfil the needs of a head of state if the head of state moved out and her office moved into a nearby office block.
    Or we save money and time and effort by leaving her where she is.

    Why would the security for a private house for the Queen need to be paid for by the taxpayer? She has enough money to be able to hire security for herself.
    Schoolboy error: Buckingham Palace is not a private house. It's a public building, reserved for the use of the Head of State.

    She is the Head of State. To expect her to pay for her own security is nonsensical. By the same token, we pay for security for MPs and the Prime Minister.

    International tourists are obsessed with our monarchy so would still visit because of the association(and because it's so famous as a building) and domestic visitors would visit it as a historic attraction, a bit like the Tower of London.
    I don't want to get into the tourism issue as it's a weak one for either side, but in the specific case of Buckingham Palace I'd argue there is little to redeem the place beyond the royal presence, unlike the Tower.

    And I would fully expect the calls for that 'office block' to be opened up for tourism to be made within 5 minutes of the Queen moving in!

    No, I do not want the walls taken up with more art. The art can stay in storage, which presumably does not involve it being hung on a wall.
    So no added value from the present arrangements then.

    I don't think I'm more informed than the plenty of experts that work in the Palace or the Treasury. Where did I say that? I am simply using logic and common sense combined with strong republicanism.
    You contradict your first sentence with your second. 'I'm not more informed, but I'm using logic and common sense, inferring the experts don't have that. Also, I am dogmatic.'

    And given the makeup of the Duchy of Lancaster, revenue generated by the Duchy of Lancaster ultimately comes from the pockets of ordinary people.
    Well, yeah. She's a landlord. They're on her land. I pay rent to my landlord in the same vein. What's your problem with that?

    I suspect you don't have a problem with it, but you simply object to it being the Queen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Why does it have to be every 5 years if it's in perpetuity? Should we have an EU referendum every 5 years? Would you be happy if the majority of people, which seems to be the case as it stands, wanted her to stay Queen in perpetuity?



    Name me one PM who has a similar background to a single mother of three who lives in a council house with a degree from an ex-poly and with parents who were working-class labourers and tell me anyone can realistically become PM.
    Alan Johnson could have been Prime Minister three times over, he could be Labour Leader now or London Mayor in 2016. He's just not chosen to.


    Posted from the TSR app - no updates since 2013!
 
 
 
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.