Turn on thread page Beta

Should the Monarchy be abolished? (reprise) watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Since most people didn't get a chance to vote in the last poll, here's another chance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nope.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Although they have bowed to PC, they are British tradition.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    YES!

    They are expensive and the monarchy is INCREDIBLY undemocratic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see what wrong they do. They have no real authority over Britain, they are solely figureheads of state. Why should they abolished?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see what wrong they do. They have no real authority over Britain, they are solely figureheads of state. Why should they abolished?
    The Royal Perogative powers are used by the Prime Minister. He can go to war without the say so of parliament, he can appoint peers to the House of Lords (and has done more so than any other past PM) Our upper house isn't elected for gawds sake!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LC01)
    Although they have bowed to PC, they are British tradition.
    In what way? The 'Queen' hasn't been rebranded 'Homosexual'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    They are expensive
    I presume that you're not aware they bring in much more money in tourism than they have spent on themselves.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Our upper house isn't elected for gawds sake!
    Hence the bill that is currently in its second phase to create a senate and get rid of the Lords.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I presume that you're not aware they bring in much more money in tourism than they have spent on themselves.
    How do they bring money in from tourism? What percentage of tourists get to see the Royals??? And according to Johann Hari, the rents Charlie boy gets from the Duchy of Cornwall is enough to build 12 new hospitals and run them for 15 years.

    Hence the bill that is currently in its second phase to create a senate and get rid of the Lords.
    Link?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    The Royal Perogative powers are used by the Prime Minister. He can go to war without the say so of parliament, he can appoint peers to the House of Lords (and has done more so than any other past PM) Our upper house isn't elected for gawds sake!
    The perogative powers belong to the Queen, and she exercises them (or not) depending upon advice of her ministers. If you feel war should be decided by an Act of Parliament, rather than by the informed agreement between the PM and the Queen, that's an entirely different issue. Theoretically, the Queen and her PM could run amok while ignoring public opinion - but both of them could easily be removed from power. I can't think of any wars that we've gotten into that have had much of an large oposition.

    And according to Johann Hari, the rents Charlie boy gets from the Duchy of Cornwall is enough to build 12 new hospitals and run them for 15 years.
    He gets £9,943,000 a year, but voluntarily pays 50% tax. Even if the money to build them was coughed up elsewhere, each of those hospitals would be running on around £26,619 a year. I think they'd be pretty underfunded!

    Source: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/duc_index.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    oh man not this again
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The perogative powers belong to the Queen, and she exercises them (or not) depending upon advice of her ministers. If you feel war should be decided by an Act of Parliament, rather than by the informed agreement between the PM and the Queen, that's an entirely different issue. Theoretically, the Queen could run amok without doing what her ministers say, but she wouldn't sit on her throne very long. I can't think of any wars that we've gotten into that have had much of an large oposition.
    The PM can use these powers. As can ministers, such as the power to sign treaties. Whether she has to rubber stamp the decisions or not is irrelevant, since she doesn't control the politics that leads to these decisions being made.

    I can't think of any wars that we've gotten into that have had much of an large oposition
    I can think of one rather recent one

    He gets £9,943,000 a year, but voluntarily pays 50% tax. Even if the money to build them was coughed up elsewhere, each of those hospitals would be running on around £26,619 a year. I think they'd be pretty underfunded!
    I might write to Johann to ask for his source. And it says he reduced this 50% to 25% after his marriage.

    And that isn't a little money. When you add up palaces, upkeepb, hangers on etc. Hefty sum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    When you add up palaces, upkeepb, hangers on etc. Hefty sum.
    We would have the same expenses for a president, except the president would not contribute as the queen does, to some aspects of her upkeep.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Would the President get 7 million a year from the dutchy of cornwall? Would Princess Michael get any money? I don't think so. Why would we have to pay the President anymore than the PM? Why would the President have more expenses than the PM?

    Even if we said they had the same costs, it would be a hell of a lot more democratic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Would the President get 7 million a year from the dutchy of cornwall? Would Princess Michael get any money? I don't think so. Why would we have to pay the President anymore than the PM? Why would the President have more expenses than the PM?

    Even if we said they had the same costs, it would be a hell of a lot more democratic.
    The President would get an income from the state until the day he died. The duchy of cornwal is the duke's personal property I think. Do you know how much the PM costs? The president is a slightly senior position to PM, so he probably would be paid more, he would require security and the level of luxury that befits a head of state.Yes he would cost as much or more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im not going to get into the whole democracy thing again. Too much of a headache. But remember, an elected president doesn't have to listen you once he is in office. If giving your crony the job of PM without asking the public is democratic (as M. Chirac did), then so be it. The President of the US can use Executive Orders to bypass the normal democratic channels.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The President would get an income from the state until the day he died.
    Who says?

    so he probably would be paid more, he would require security and the level of luxury that befits a head of state.
    Again, who says?

    What are you basing this on?

    The House of Lords would be elected. That's our upper house. How can we call ourselves a democracy when our upper house is not elected!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    it says he reduced this 50% to 25% after his marriage.
    As a Crown body, the Duchy is tax-exempt, but since 1993 The Prince has voluntarily paid income tax - currently at 40 per cent - on his income from it. The Prince had always paid a voluntary contribution to the Treasury - of 50 per cent of his Duchy income from the time he became eligible for its full income at the age of 21 in 1969, and 25 per cent after his marriage in 1981
    So it's currently in between at 40%. That's still only £30,000 per hospital.

    And that isn't a little money. When you add up palaces, upkeepb, hangers on etc. Hefty sum.
    His total income is taxed, not what's left over after he's been spending.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes we should keep it. We've already gone through the arguments why and why not they should kept, and I can't be bothered to regurgitate them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    The perogative powers belong to the Queen, and she exercises them (or not) depending upon advice of her ministers. If you feel war should be decided by an Act of Parliament, rather than by the informed agreement between the PM and the Queen, that's an entirely different issue. Theoretically, the Queen and her PM could run amok while ignoring public opinion - but both of them could easily be removed from power. I can't think of any wars that we've gotten into that have had much of an large oposition.
    *cough*'war'iniraq*cough*

    How did that not get a big oppoisition. Sorry but where were you?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 25, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

1,521

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.