Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Monarchism and the Royal Wedding Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chazzer66)
    The tourism argument is so flawed its ridiculous :K: Do you really think tourists get to see the queen!?!?! Do you really think if we got rid of the royals then Buckingham Palace and Parliament would disappear or cease to be internationally famous!?!?!!?? Every year we each give the monarchy a few quid and over a lifetime that's money that could've gone towards lower taxes or better hospitals etc etc.
    I do not rely on the tourism argument myself but I think it's a poor one to use for either side. Nonetheless a lot of people do visit the UK for the royal connotations of buildings such as the Tower and Buckingham Palace. Buck House is, after all, a pretty drab and unimpressive place.

    Most importantly, they are so inept!!! The queen seems to be a lone bastion of dignity and proper conduct, with Charles being a magnet to controversy and not being able to see a future king having a mistress as an issue. You might be ok with them owning property that in France or the US is public, and taking taxes off us like parasites, but Im not. :rolleyes:
    And politicians are clearly virtuous and competent right?

    The royals own property which is legally theirs, and which are not maintained from taxes but from the royals' own money. They do occupy some publically owned buildings, such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, and quite rightly these do get maintained by taxes. Much like places such as Downing Street do.

    To say they live of us like parasites is the same as saying the President of France or the UK's Prime Minister do.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chazzer66)
    The tourism argument is so flawed its ridiculous :K: Do you really think tourists get to see the queen!?!?! Do you really think if we got rid of the royals then Buckingham Palace and Parliament would disappear or cease to be internationally famous!?!?!!??
    Yes, on the palace front. If Buckingham Palace wasn't occupied by the monarch, I certainly think it would be of considerably less interest. Moreover, all the other Royal sites: be it Windsor or Royal Deeside, certainly depend on Royal links for tourism. The same is not true of former Royal residences: how many visiting Americans will have Hampton Court indelibly marked on their itineraries, despite it being infinitely more impressive than Buck House?

    Every year we each give the monarchy a few quid and over a lifetime that's money that could've gone towards lower taxes or better hospitals etc etc.
    I can live without that handful of change. Anyway, that argument is certainly nonsense: we'd have a head of state either way, and typically elected heads of state cost more to maintain.

    Most importantly, they are so inept!!! The queen seems to be a lone bastion of dignity and proper conduct, with Charles being a magnet to controversy and not being able to see a future king having a mistress as an issue. You might be ok with them owning property that in France or the US is public, and taking taxes off us like parasites, but Im not. :rolleyes:
    Prince Charles was strong-armed into a marriage with a woman he clearly had doubts about because she was suitable. Such is the lot of the Prince of Wales since time immemorial - it's hardly surprising he had a mistress, just as most Princes of Wales and Kings have done.

    Taking taxes off you like parasites? You ungrateful little ****. The Royal Household is funded to provide a service to the state. The Queen does not even take a salary.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Jeez, people need to lighten up, if you don't like the royals and have no interest in the wedding then don't watch it. Simple solution, I don't see the need for continuous threads complaining about it, no one is going to force you to sit down and watch the thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChipDeeks)
    I might also add that, even if they do bring in millions every year, if we sold their assets the country would gain about £6.6bn. That's a tasty profit.
    Okay, lets put it this way.

    The Queen gets £37m (or around that) a year from the government.

    Why, because the Queen agrees to give the profits of the Crown Estate to the government... which recently was £200m.

    A tasty profit of £163m in one year.

    Of course, we could go back to the old agreement, which was the Crown lives off its own work rather than taxes, which would actually do all of us out of pocket oddly enough. So it is impossible to claim that the monarchy costs us.



    In terms of politics.... seriously, do we really need a ceremonial president what use is it. And lets see, 70-80% of people support the monarchy at any one time... i'd like to see more than 50% truly support any one political candidate for President.

    A constitutional change would be pointless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Yes, on the palace front. If Buckingham Palace wasn't occupied by the monarch, I certainly think it would be of considerably less interest. Moreover, all the other Royal sites: be it Windsor or Royal Deeside, certainly depend on Royal links for tourism. The same is not true of former Royal residences: how many visiting Americans will have Hampton Court indelibly marked on their itineraries, despite it being infinitely more impressive than Buck House?



    I can live without that handful of change. Anyway, that argument is certainly nonsense: we'd have a head of state either way, and typically elected heads of state cost more to maintain.



    Prince Charles was strong-armed into a marriage with a woman he clearly had doubts about because she was suitable. Such is the lot of the Prince of Wales since time immemorial - it's hardly surprising he had a mistress, just as most Princes of Wales and Kings have done.

    Taking taxes off you like parasites? You ungrateful little ****. The Royal Household is funded to provide a service to the state. The Queen does not even take a salary.
    The money the Crown makes could be revenue the State could just as easily make.............. And as for being 'ungrateful', what has the queen ever done for me!?!?!? For a public servant her role seems to be expensive and decorative. The only time I'd ever meet a royal would be if I get my Gold Dofe done, and even then that would cost me and then all the time and effort.............
    Please, do elaborate as to the service that the queen provides me. She doesn't police the streets, certainly wont help me when sick and has never taught me anything. Ungrateful????? More like perceptive. Stay deluded :giggle:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chazzer66)
    The money the Crown makes could be revenue the State could just as easily make.............. And as for being 'ungrateful', what has the queen ever done for me!?!?!? For a public servant her role seems to be expensive and decorative. The only time I'd ever meet a royal would be if I get my Gold Dofe done, and even then that would cost me and then all the time and effort.............
    Please, do elaborate as to the service that the queen provides me. She doesn't police the streets, certainly wont help me when sick and has never taught me anything. Ungrateful????? More like perceptive. Stay deluded
    Don't you think there's something a tad flawed in your debating technique when you insult someone without basis, and then request free education from them? The constitutional role of the monarch is well known, and your ignorance of it does not make for a rational argument against the monarchy. If you'd bothered to read even the most basic introduction to the role of a constitutional monarch before cobbling together your aggressively held views then you wouldn't need to ask this question. But let's face it, you probably don't even care about the service the monarch has rendered.

    What has the Queen ever done for you? Devoted her life to the service of your country (notably at a huge cost to her family), performed exceptionally in providing advice and support to the government, been a focus for unity in hard times. Vague, yes, but the role of the Sovereign in British politics could certainly take up a very large book: something which I don't think you'd bother reading.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by ChipDeeks)
    Anyone with me?
    I can't stand it either, I prefer my president who should act like a king but doesn't... damn commoner

    But yeah I honestly don't see all the fuss over two people getting married, all it will do is make London a nightmare on the day :cry:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Don't you think there's something a tad flawed in your debating technique when you insult someone without basis, and then request free education from them? The constitutional role of the monarch is well known, and your ignorance of it does not make for a rational argument against the monarchy. If you'd bothered to read even the most basic introduction to the role of a constitutional monarch before cobbling together your aggressively held views then you wouldn't need to ask this question. But let's face it, you probably don't even care about the service the monarch has rendered.

    What has the Queen ever done for you? Devoted her life to the service of your country (notably at a huge cost to her family), performed exceptionally in providing advice and support to the government, been a focus for unity in hard times. Vague, yes, but the role of the Sovereign in British politics could certainly take up a very large book: something which I don't think you'd bother reading.
    My basis is that she costs money to upkeep, out of taxes. Any 'insults' to her were against the system, not her - I mentioned my respect for her dignity etc etc
    Did you not see that my point was that a constitutional monarchy is, itself, what I am against!?!?! I know she has no powers. That is my issue with her. Whay cant a prime minister or deputy be a head of state/president (at least they are democratically elected...)
    If my views are so aggressive, that immediately dismisses my case then, I presume. And to but choose one similar case would be in France when the downtrodden sans culottes (YES I can read, I am studying history with a view to Oxbridge so that is a small prerequisite, the personal attack on me being both unfounded and uncalled-for) killed all of the parasitic nobility who didnt pay taxes yet held the highest social status. I'd say the French revolutionaries were aggreesive, but justified given what the Ancien Regime itself did to dissenters.
    But of course monarchists such as yourself love inequality and birth lotteries: (1:42) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v54UuNBI9Kc
    No, I actually do not care about state ceremonies. I've never been fortunate to witness one.

    (Original post by L i b)
    What has the Queen ever done for you? Devoted her life to the service of your country (notably at a huge cost to her family), performed exceptionally in providing advice and support to the government, been a focus for unity in hard times. Vague, yes, but the role of the Sovereign in British politics could certainly take up a very large book: something which I don't think you'd bother reading.
    'huge cost' meaning what exactly..... life isnt fair mate. I'd rather be a royal than a commoner (we are subjects in Britain, not citizens - something people like to avoid mentioning). The whole 'Prince Andrew' fiasco showing that the only thing the royals should do, namely portray Britain in a positive light, is beyond many of them.
    I have read books before, how about you read this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Royals-Kitty.../dp/0446517127

    But of course the 'blind lead the blind', so perhaps if we're such a **** country as everyone says, such a flawed and soon-to-be hilarious system/family is pertinent :ahee:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    this is brilliant :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAlnM7RUDcAv

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chazzer66)
    My basis is that she costs money to upkeep, out of taxes. Any 'insults' to her were against the system, not her - I mentioned my respect for her dignity etc etc
    Did you not see that my point was that a constitutional monarchy is, itself, what I am against!?!?! I know she has no powers. That is my issue with her. Whay cant a prime minister or deputy be a head of state/president (at least they are democratically elected...)
    The plain and simple matter is it's a separation of powers issue. The Queen does have powers, and they are powers which can be misused in the wrong hands. In this case, the hands that they shouldn't be in are those of the Government or the Legislature, which will not permit such powers to be used against them.

    Putting powers such as dissolution of Parliament, Assent to laws, and appointment of the PM into the hands of someone outside of both these branches will serve to make more likely their use for mutual benefit.

    The simple reason why the powers at present are generally used on the PM's advice is because by and large the government knows when to use them responsibly, but there are clear examples of where their use would be unconstitutional and it would be the Queen's duty to say no - she hasn't had to do this because the government hasn't yet tried to push it.

    If my views are so aggressive, that immediately dismisses my case then, I presume. And to but choose one similar case would be in France when the downtrodden sans culottes (YES I can read, I am studying history with a view to Oxbridge so that is a small prerequisite, the personal attack on me being both unfounded and uncalled-for) killed all of the parasitic nobility who didnt pay taxes yet held the highest social status
    The french nobility was nothing like the British nobility. French nobility never paid taxes; British nobility were taxed like any other British subject from Anglo-Saxon times on. It's the reason why they regularly formed a united front with the Commons against the monarchy.

    I'd say the French revolutionaries were aggreesive, but justified given what the Ancien Regime itself did to dissenters.
    Please, please don't take the French monarchy as some kind of 'norm' for European monarchies. Many were strictly limited; the French and Russian monarchies were worst case scenarios and therefore, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, got what they deserved.

    That said, the Ancien Regime was oppressive, but its average death toll was miniscule compared to the French revolution.

    But of course monarchists such as yourself love inequality and birth lotteries: (1:42) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v54UuNBI9Kc
    No, I actually do not care about state ceremonies. I've never been fortunate to witness one.
    That's a gross misrepresentation. You know that many monarchists throughout the ages have been left-wing, right? Gladstone; Attlee; MacDonald; Wilson; George Orwell, to name a few. And there are republican right-wingers. I myself am quite left-wing and strongly support the welfare state. The countries with the greatest quality of life and economic equality tend to be monarchies, too.

    On your link: the reason that the monarchy in our opinion, does better, is that the questioner makes the false assumption that the hypothetical president would be one of those 60 million people. In fact, it would be another politician.

    As I said earlier, having another politician at the top, likely partisan, to control such crucial, if rarely-used powers, is not my cup of tea. It's considered safer to keep it in the hands of someone who would only be able to use them in clearly defined ways, not subject to their personal popularity.

    'huge cost' meaning what exactly..... life isnt fair mate. I'd rather be a royal than a commoner (we are subjects in Britain, not citizens - something people like to avoid mentioning).
    You're showing your ignorance - we are citizens, since the British Nationality Act 1981.

    The whole 'Prince Andrew' fiasco showing that the only thing the royals should do, namely portray Britain in a positive light, is beyond many of them.
    I have read books before, how about you read this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Royals-Kitty.../dp/0446517127
    And I would recommend this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monarchy-Con.../dp/0198293348

    But of course the 'blind lead the blind', so perhaps if we're such a **** country as everyone says, such a flawed and soon-to-be hilarious system/family is pertinent :ahee:
    If you say so. What countries do you like, then?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chazzer66)
    My basis is that she costs money to upkeep, out of taxes.
    The Queen's offices cost money to upkeep, as to other things like the Royal art collection. That cost is going to be there regardless of who the head of state is, and it's fairly safe to say an elected head of state would cost more.

    It's a pittance of course, but that doesn't seem to bother Republicans.

    Did you not see that my point was that a constitutional monarchy is, itself, what I am against!?!?! I know she has no powers. That is my issue with her. Whay cant a prime minister or deputy be a head of state/president (at least they are democratically elected...)
    You can't be head of state and a 'deputy' because it rather conflicts with the 'head' part. You can't be head of state and Prime Minister because, in a parliamentary system, the head of state appoints the Prime Minister.

    'huge cost' meaning what exactly..... life isnt fair mate.
    A father killed off young by his Royal duties, two grandsons without a mother, a family torn apart over a man wanting to marry a woman he loved... need I go on?

    I'd rather be a royal than a commoner (we are subjects in Britain, not citizens - something people like to avoid mentioning).
    They avoid mentioning it because it's untrue. I am a British citizen. It says so on my passport and indeed in the British Nationality Act. "British subjects" are a strange classification of people, mostly elderly old ex-colonials in far-flung Commonwealth countries who have never held UK citizenship. You can only be a British subject and a British citizen at the same time if you were born before 1949 in Ireland, never took citizenship of another country, registered as a British subject and then subsequently took up British citizenship. Naturally, these people are tiny in number.


    The whole 'Prince Andrew' fiasco showing that the only thing the royals should do, namely portray Britain in a positive light, is beyond many of them.
    Hardly a fiasco. Moreover, Andrew has a job representing the UK Government, it is not part of any Royal duties.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It's funny how Chazer66 says 'life isn't fair, mate' and yet is criticising the monarchy for being unfair.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Killjoys
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It's funny how Chazer66 says 'life isn't fair, mate' and yet is criticising the monarchy for being unfair.
    Its not that its unfair but unnecessary, expensive and outdated. And using the argument that the royals' lives have been 'ruined' by being so rich and famous is the stuff of crack-enduced fantasy to be frank. That's like saying 'OH POOR ROONEY, he has such a hard time' :rolleyes: The royals do not have an active function yet are 'public servants(??)'. They have status and wealth for being, meritocracy has never existed properly in this country and they serve to show why. I've had enough of this, its been fun though, even if it is like talking to a 12th century wall :zomg:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Its not that its unfair but unnecessary,
    I’ve already explained it is. The position of Head of State cannot be occupied by the Head of the Government in a parliamentary state, and keeping it non-political makes abuse of it less likely.

    expensive
    L I B has already explained it is not, and in fact would probably be pricier as a President.

    and outdated.
    By what benchmark?

    And using the argument that the royals' lives have been 'ruined' by being so rich and famous is the stuff of crack-enduced fantasy to be frank. That's like saying 'OH POOR ROONEY, he has such a hard time'
    Well, I didn’t use that argument, someone else did, so I’ll leave that to them.

    The royals do not have an active function yet are 'public servants(??)'.
    They are indeed public servants – they are a national symbol, for one thing. The Queen conducts diplomacy, provides impartial advice and authority to the government, has a responsibility to help resolve unforeseen constitutional questions.

    Basically, everything the German or Italian presidents do, the Queen does too. For free.

    They have status and wealth for being,
    And for doing, otherwise they would have gone by now.

    meritocracy has never existed properly in this country and they serve to show why.
    Meritocracy has nothing to do with elections, and has a lot to do with being qualified. The Queen certainly is qualified by virtue of her long-standing position on the Throne, and her successors will also be qualified by being her understudies.

    I've had enough of this, its been fun though, even if it is like talking to a 12th century wall
    I can assure you that my attitude to the monarchy is far from 12th Century and you’re once again showing your ignorance and fantastic arrogance by assuming so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Yes, on the palace front. If Buckingham Palace wasn't occupied by the monarch, I certainly think it would be of considerably less interest. Moreover, all the other Royal sites: be it Windsor or Royal Deeside, certainly depend on Royal links for tourism. The same is not true of former Royal residences: how many visiting Americans will have Hampton Court indelibly marked on their itineraries, despite it being infinitely more impressive than Buck House?
    Rubbish - Versailles is the most popular palace in the world.


    (Original post by L i b)
    Taking taxes off you like parasites? You ungrateful little ****. The Royal Household is funded to provide a service to the state. The Queen does not even take a salary.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,407144,00.html
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeLatics)
    Rubbish - Versailles is the most popular palace in the world.
    Let's compare, shall we?





    I think it's clear that Versailles is popular because it's enormous and pretty. Buckingham Palace is markedly inferior and rather unremarkable.

    The closest comparison would be the Elysees Palace, not Versailles.



    That article is atrocious in it innacuracy. It deliberately treats each cost as a separate item on top of the Civil List, when in fact most of it is included within it.

    Try this article for a more truthful account of the cost.

    Please, please don't post this garbage again.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)



    That article is atrocious in it innacuracy. It deliberately treats each cost as a separate item on top of the Civil List, when in fact most of it is included within it.

    Try this article for a more truthful account of the cost.
    No it doesn't. It tells you what's included in the Civil List...

    Not to mention that if tourism is the only argument you have, then that isn't saying very much in favour of the monarchy!

    Again, a palace allowing all access tours to every single room, seeing where monarchs of old once slept, ate, and ruled would get FAR more tourism than a snotty little tour of 2 rooms.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeLatics)
    No it doesn't. It tells you what's included in the Civil List...
    It's still a stupid article which completely misses the point of the Civil List. Those expenses are necessary, even the norm, for Heads of State worldwide. They would remain under a republic as a president would be doing the same things.

    Not to mention that if tourism is the only argument you have, then that isn't saying very much in favour of the monarchy!
    I never used the tourism argument, I was only elaborating a point. I have already given some of the arguments about why the monarchy works, which you have ignored.

    Meanwhile...

    Again, a palace allowing all access tours to every single room, seeing where monarchs of old once slept, ate, and ruled would get FAR more tourism than a snotty little tour of 2 rooms.
    ...your argument seems to be 'abolish the monarchy so we can wander around Buckingham Palace'

    Buckingham Palace would not be open for tours under a republic - it would be occupied by the President.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It's still a stupid article which completely misses the point of the Civil List. Those expenses are necessary, even the norm, for Heads of State worldwide. They would remain under a republic as a president would be doing the same things.
    I don't think a President would be employing people to squeeze toothpaste onto his toothbrush, but I take your point. This is why any argument with the word 'money' in it is absurd for either side to use.


    (Original post by gladders)
    I never used the tourism argument, I was only elaborating a point. I have already given some of the arguments about why the monarchy works, which you have ignored.
    Only saw your last point.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Meanwhile...

    ...your argument seems to be 'abolish the monarchy so we can wander around Buckingham Palace'

    Buckingham Palace would not be open for tours under a republic - it would be occupied by the President.
    Ooooooooor we could not put the President in there...
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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.

  • 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.