Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hanae)
    I personnaly think that the royal family is a gd thing, it's kinda an emblem for the british ppl..but they definitly should get a job..they have no right to live under the ppl's money, that's jst unfair..Plus they r jst there as an emblem; i mean the queen does not have any power in politics or whatever..so they should get there own money..they are overpayed for doing NOTHIN !! that sux when ya think of ppl dyin of starvation and so on..I deffo knw nothin is gonna change coz thats jst life but thats definitly not the gd way to behave, its jst gna make ppl think badly of royality coz they (seem) to have all the privileges..
    Have you read the rest of the thread? The Royal Family makes a profit, as the Crown Estates bring in a revenue of over £450 million per annum. The Queen surrenders this revenue to the Treasury and recieves the Civil List in return. So by all means let the Royal Family farm their estates and recieve the profits, but it will end in a net loss of revenue to the state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The point i have been trying to make exactly!
    Even if you dont believe in their overbearing reign - which isn't really that imposing in its modern form, they make us a lot of money!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    Have you read the rest of the thread? The Royal Family makes a profit, as the Crown Estates bring in a revenue of over £450 million per annum. The Queen surrenders this revenue to the Treasury and recieves the Civil List in return. So by all means let the Royal Family farm their estates and recieve the profits, but it will end in a net loss of revenue to the state.
    sorry i did not read the rest of the thread..ok..i just wanted to give my opnion abt sth i thought ws right but it ws wrong..ok nxt timùe i will read the whole thread before giving my opinon; and its even harder for to tlk by british royal family as i aint british !!

    thx for the informations
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    It was Charles I... although to be honest, the defeat of his grandson James VII was the more significant in terms of removing Royal power.
    For those who reside in England, James VII is James II for us.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Clifford)
    We cannot justify having a monarcy by calling £36m peanuts.
    The annual budget is £400bn so (36/(400*100))x100=0.09%.

    Wonder how much the Iraq War cost us as a percentage...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    The annual budget is £400bn so (36/(400*100))x100=0.09%.

    Wonder how much the Iraq War cost us as a percentage...
    Considering a cruise missile costs in the order of £0.5M...we used quite a lot of those didn't we!
    apparently the cost to the americans was around $90Bn...so the brit cost must have been atleast £10Bn (and thats just for the initial conflict...) - therefore we could pay for the royal family for 150 years on that kind of wonga, with a couple of hew hospitals thrown in for good measure.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Clifford)
    We cannot justify having a monarcy by calling £36m peanuts. I'm totally astonished the British people actually want a monarchy that does nothing apart from bring some tourism into the country.

    Plug all the funds and leave them to either sell teir assets or get a real job. Just because their part of the 'establishment,' it doesn't make them superhuman.
    (Original post by hanae)
    I personnaly think that the royal family is a gd thing, it's kinda an emblem for the british ppl..but they definitly should get a job..they have no right to live under the ppl's money, that's jst unfair..Plus they r jst there as an emblem; i mean the queen does not have any power in politics or whatever..so they should get there own money..they are overpayed for doing NOTHIN !! that sux when ya think of ppl dyin of starvation and so on..I deffo knw nothin is gonna change coz thats jst life but thats definitly not the gd way to behave, its jst gna make ppl think badly of royality coz they (seem) to have all the privileges..

    I'll take these two posts together since you both suffer from the same delusions and have both clearly not read the rest of the bloody thread. I'd let this parade of ignorance go if it wasn't obvious that half the people who'll read your post haven't read the thread properly either.

    (1) The Queen is not 'paid' - she gets expenses to the tune of £7 million a year which she has to ACCOUNT FOR. That is not getting paid - getting paid is being able to take your money out of a bank and go down to Ann Summers to buy a dildo. The Queen couldn't do that with her money.

    (2) The Royals do have non-state related jobs. They are, to my knowledge, the biggest landowners in the UK and earn millions of pounds a year from it.

    (3) 36 million is peanuts. The presidents of France, Germany and the US generate more expenses than that a year - and they get paid on top of it too (see point 1)

    (4) The Queen is head of state and has just as stressful a job, if not moreso, than Tony Blair. If you're working full time when you're in your 70s then perhaps you'll be in a better position to comment.

    (5) The Queen voluntarily contributes the Crown Estate's wealth to Parliament in exchange for the Civil List payments. The country makes about £400 million a year from the Queen PROFIT. They're not living under your money, you're living under theirs - and doing a great deal less for it. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

    (6) The Queen is head of state and thus has a huge political role. There are many fine books* on the subject - I advise you read one.



    *big leathery things stuffed with paper that have words printed in them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    For those who reside in England, James VII is James II for us.
    You know, if the Union was a bit earlier, he'd be James VII for you lot too. :cool:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The idea of the Queen going to Ann Summers for a dildo is a frightening and disturbing one.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by FarnhamBoy)
    The idea of the Queen going to Ann Summers for a dildo is a frightening and disturbing one.
    No worse than Charles' desire to be a tampax inside Camilla! :eek:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    You know, if the Union was a bit earlier, he'd be James VII for you lot too. :cool:
    Or you'd have Norman I on your coins.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    LibertineNorth - you are clearly a deluded fool who attempts to merely justify the monarchy by using one-sided and cliched arguments.

    You can't call being a landowner a proper job. Thats a disgusting priviledge that they've had handed down by the establishment.

    The queen has no political role whatsoever (thats the job of all the disgusting corporations, that i bet you're in favour of). These books of which you speak must have been written by stupid royalists who have nothing better to do with their time.

    Also just because £36m is a small proportion of government expenditure, you cannot justify having to pay the disgusting sums we do to fund an ageing, irrelevant institution of inbred thickies. Why not mrely put them on the street, then they can see what its really like to live in the real world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    I'll take these two posts together since you both suffer from the same delusions and have both clearly not read the rest of the bloody thread. I'd let this parade of ignorance go if it wasn't obvious that half the people who'll read your post haven't read the thread properly either.

    (1) The Queen is not 'paid' - she gets expenses to the tune of £7 million a year which she has to ACCOUNT FOR. That is not getting paid - getting paid is being able to take your money out of a bank and go down to Ann Summers to buy a dildo. The Queen couldn't do that with her money.

    (2) The Royals do have non-state related jobs. They are, to my knowledge, the biggest landowners in the UK and earn millions of pounds a year from it.

    (3) 36 million is peanuts. The presidents of France, Germany and the US generate more expenses than that a year - and they get paid on top of it too (see point 1)

    (4) The Queen is head of state and has just as stressful a job, if not moreso, than Tony Blair. If you're working full time when you're in your 70s then perhaps you'll be in a better position to comment.

    (5) The Queen voluntarily contributes the Crown Estate's wealth to Parliament in exchange for the Civil List payments. The country makes about £400 million a year from the Queen PROFIT. They're not living under your money, you're living under theirs - and doing a great deal less for it. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

    (6) The Queen is head of state and thus has a huge political role. There are many fine books* on the subject - I advise you read one.



    *big leathery things stuffed with paper that have words printed in them.
    A fresh view and a nice post.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    A fresh view and a nice post.
    Because it accords with your own personal view?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Because it accords with your own personal view?
    No, because I assume it opposes yours.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Clifford)
    LibertineNorth - you are clearly a deluded fool who attempts to merely justify the monarchy by using one-sided and cliched arguments.
    Ad hominem nonsense.

    You can't call being a landowner a proper job. Thats a disgusting priviledge that they've had handed down by the establishment.
    For a number of years, my parents were effectively self-employed landowners - they rented out a number of flats in the 70s. The Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security would take very different views on that not constituting a job.

    Oh and before you go off on one, the business was initially started with inherited money.

    The queen has no political role whatsoever (thats the job of all the disgusting corporations, that i bet you're in favour of). These books of which you speak must have been written by stupid royalists who have nothing better to do with their time.
    Ad hominem again. God, you really are one for the logical fallacies aren't you? Being a 'stupid royalist' does not make any points you make less valid. Since you haven't read any of the above texts with you are criticising, I shall have to lower my argument somewhat: how the hell do you think they managed to write multiple books about nothing?

    I don't quite get what 'disgusting corporations' you're referring to. And I don't think any of them have a political role. Oh, and incidently, I would only support a corporation if I was getting a proportion of the profits.

    Also just because £36m is a small proportion of government expenditure, you cannot justify having to pay the disgusting sums we do to fund an ageing, irrelevant institution of inbred thickies. Why not mrely put them on the street, then they can see what its really like to live in the real world.
    I have never used the argument that 36 million is a small amount. Again, actually read some of the posts in this thread. I resent paying taxes at all - I believe it's effectively theft - so I'm highly unlikely to be the sort of person who justifies wasting millions of pounds. As far as state expenditure goes, I think it's 36 million well spent.

    Ageing? Perhaps, not a bad thing though. Irrelevant? Personally I think the House of Commons is becoming far less relevant than the monarchy in today's society - it's also less popular as a whole - can we abolish that? 'inbred thickies'? Oh, do grow up.

    Perhaps you'd care to have your property confiscated and be put out on the street with no state funding? Hell, it happens in Zimbabwe - a delightful model of republicanism - so why not here?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    For the benefits of all those too ignorant to read a book, I have decided to give a brief account of HM the Queen's political role:

    Legislative: the Queen has the right to exercise the Royal Prerogative and must give Assent to Bills before they become law. While this is effectively a formality, the Queen does have the right to withold such consent. She also must keep an in-depth knowledge of what is being done in her name, so I'd imagine she goes through Hansard and the likes too. That is one long and boring task.

    Executive: All the executives in the Queen's realms are Her Majesty's Governments. The Queen is effectively the head of the executive and exercises the majority of executive authority on the advice of her ministers. She is exceptionally knowlegiable in the affairs of state and to quote Wikipedia:

    "British Prime Ministers take their weekly meetings with the Queen very seriously. One Prime Minister said he took them more seriously than Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons, because she would be better briefed and more constructive than anything he would face at the dispatch box. Elizabeth also has regular meetings with her individual British ministers, and occasional meetings with ministers from her other Realms. Even ministers known to have republican views speak highly of her and value these meetings.

    As with her British Prime Ministers, some Canadian Prime Ministers have commented on The Queen’s knowledge of Canadian and international affairs. Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stated: "I was always impressed not only by the grace she displayed in public at all times, but by the wisdom she showed in private conversation." (Memoirs, Pierre E. Trudeau)"

    "when she does express an opinion, however cautiously, her words are taken seriously. In her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher offered this description of her weekly meetings with Elizabeth:

    "Anyone who imagines that they are a mere formality or confined to social niceties is quite wrong; they are quietly businesslike and Her Majesty brings to bear a formidable grasp of current issues and breadth of experience."

    During a row within the Commonwealth over sanctions on South Africa, Elizabeth made a pointed reference to her role as Head of the Commonwealth which was interpreted at the time as a disagreement with Thatcher's policy of opposing sanctions."


    Apologies for quoting at such length, but I think all of it is valuable and insightful.

    Choosing the Prime Minister: This is one of the spheres of government in which the Queen has more direct power. Often she has had to rely solely on her own judgement to perform this task. She has at one point threatened to dissolve Parliament unless a Prime Minister continued in office, and if you read up on the Australian Constitutional Crisis you'll find that this power is not taken lightly by either her or her governors-general.

    Diplomatic: Aside from choosing Britain's ambassadors on the advice of the PM, the Queen also entertains many foreign representatives. She maintains longer standing friendships with foreign heads of state than most of her Prime Ministers do - this is invaluable when it comes to dealing with other countries in a cordial and co-operative way.

    ----

    Effectively the Queen has more of a political role than anyone else in government. She has to keep herself informed of all the actions of the governments of multiple countries. She has shown a greater knowledge and wisdom on these matters than most of the elected officials. She apparently spends at least three hours a day 'doing the boxes' - which are the papers from the government departments.

    OK, my attention span just ran out. I'm going to bed.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    For the benefits of all those too ignorant to read a book, I have decided to give a brief account of HM the Queen's political role:

    Legislative: the Queen has the right to exercise the Royal Prerogative and must give Assent to Bills before they become law. While this is effectively a formality, the Queen does have the right to withold such consent. She also must keep an in-depth knowledge of what is being done in her name, so I'd imagine she goes through Hansard and the likes too. That is one long and boring task.

    Executive: All the executives in the Queen's realms are Her Majesty's Governments. The Queen is effectively the head of the executive and exercises the majority of executive authority on the advice of her ministers. She is exceptionally knowlegiable in the affairs of state and to quote Wikipedia:

    "British Prime Ministers take their weekly meetings with the Queen very seriously. One Prime Minister said he took them more seriously than Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons, because she would be better briefed and more constructive than anything he would face at the dispatch box. Elizabeth also has regular meetings with her individual British ministers, and occasional meetings with ministers from her other Realms. Even ministers known to have republican views speak highly of her and value these meetings.

    As with her British Prime Ministers, some Canadian Prime Ministers have commented on The Queen’s knowledge of Canadian and international affairs. Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stated: "I was always impressed not only by the grace she displayed in public at all times, but by the wisdom she showed in private conversation." (Memoirs, Pierre E. Trudeau)"

    "when she does express an opinion, however cautiously, her words are taken seriously. In her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher offered this description of her weekly meetings with Elizabeth:

    "Anyone who imagines that they are a mere formality or confined to social niceties is quite wrong; they are quietly businesslike and Her Majesty brings to bear a formidable grasp of current issues and breadth of experience."

    During a row within the Commonwealth over sanctions on South Africa, Elizabeth made a pointed reference to her role as Head of the Commonwealth which was interpreted at the time as a disagreement with Thatcher's policy of opposing sanctions."


    Apologies for quoting at such length, but I think all of it is valuable and insightful.

    Choosing the Prime Minister: This is one of the spheres of government in which the Queen has more direct power. Often she has had to rely solely on her own judgement to perform this task. She has at one point threatened to dissolve Parliament unless a Prime Minister continued in office, and if you read up on the Australian Constitutional Crisis you'll find that this power is not taken lightly by either her or her governors-general.

    Diplomatic: Aside from choosing Britain's ambassadors on the advice of the PM, the Queen also entertains many foreign representatives. She maintains longer standing friendships with foreign heads of state than most of her Prime Ministers do - this is invaluable when it comes to dealing with other countries in a cordial and co-operative way.

    ----

    Effectively the Queen has more of a political role than anyone else in government. She has to keep herself informed of all the actions of the governments of multiple countries. She has shown a greater knowledge and wisdom on these matters than most of the elected officials. She apparently spends at least three hours a day 'doing the boxes' - which are the papers from the government departments.

    OK, my attention span just ran out. I'm going to bed.
    Regardless of all the above, the majority of people in this country don't want a monarchy - or so I've been told.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    No, because I assume it opposes yours.
    Vienna, you don't live in this country so I can't understand why you think your opinion has any validity.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Regardless of all the above, the majority of people in this country don't want a monarchy - or so I've been told.
    but a monarchy makes the UK cooler than the yankees! and anything that makes the UK cooler than teh USA has got to be a good thing:cool:

    pk
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,029

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.