Turn on thread page Beta

I'll just leave this here...(Monarchy debate) watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:


    Let's be real.

    People who bash the monarchy just can't stand that there is an elite/authority/better off section of society.

    "There is no reason to have them" - There is no reason not to, except a keeping a ****load of cash.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe909)


    Let's be real.

    People who bash the monarchy just can't stand that there is an elite/authority/better off section of society.

    "There is no reason to have them" - There is no reason not to, except a keeping a ****load of cash.
    Is it not true that if we took all their land and assets and claimed it property of the state, then refused to fund them for anything we would have even more money?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    Is it not true that if we took all their land and assets and claimed it property of the state, then refused to fund them for anything we would have even more money?
    I imagine the government arbitrarily stealing the assets of the Crown Estate would probably be a tad illegal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    While I am a monarchist I don't believe the facts in this video to be necessarily true. The central argument is that the Crown owns the Crown Estate, which is correct, yet it gives the impression that the monarch could live of the proceeds of the Crown Estate rather than the annual grant from HM Treasury, which is a fallacy. While the Crown owns the Crown Estate, the monarch is not permitted to live off of the revenue of, or sell, the Estate due to the fact it is no longer the private property of the monarch and has not been for a long while.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    Is it not true that if we took all their land and assets and claimed it property of the state, then refused to fund them for anything we would have even more money?
    So we take land from the state and give it to the state to fund the state? Lolwut?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    Is it not true that if we took all their land and assets and claimed it property of the state, then refused to fund them for anything we would have even more money?
    AKA steal it all?

    I don't quite understand where this sense of "It's ours, they shouldn't have it" comes from.

    They purchased it in the past, therefore it is their's. Nothing has changed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe909)
    People who bash the monarchy just can't stand that there is an elite/authority/better off section of society.
    I have no problem with people being better off, but their wealth is UNEARNED, they're born into it. And authority? No thanks, I know what's best for me, not an unelected and unaccountable family.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe909)
    AKA steal it all?

    I don't quite understand where this sense of "It's ours, they shouldn't have it" comes from.

    They purchased it in the past, therefore it is their's. Nothing has changed.
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I imagine the government arbitrarily stealing the assets of the Crown Estate would probably be a tad illegal.
    Using blood money. Just like we took Gaddafi's assets and gave them to the Libyan people we must take their assets and give them to the British people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    I have no problem with people being better off, but their wealth is UNEARNED, they're born into it. And authority? No thanks, I know what's best for me, not an unelected and unaccountable family.
    The authority argument is ridiculous, when did the Queen last intervene in the democratic process?

    How is their wealth unearned? If you trace it far enough back I can gaurantee that it was "Earned", just not in the sense that you would like it to be.

    "They're born into it" - LOL. So Bill Gates' children should be punished for having their parents wealth? Do me a ****ing favour.

    Whether you like it or not,Æthelstan was deemed to be the King of the Saxons and brought a country under a united rule. Any King/Queen that has passed down before that is the rightful monarch of the United Kingdom, and any assets that were owned are rightfully theirs, as would any other citizens be.

    If you don't like this, be my guest to try and remove the monarchy. You won't get very far, as you will realise that this nations history is steeped and was created by Kings and Queens. Just because you sitting behind your computer in the present day feel they "Don't deserve it" doesn't mean **** all.

    "What's best for me" - This isn't about you. What you want is irrelevant past the government which runs the democratic nation you live in. The monarchy do not interfere with your life, they just have their own. Get over yourself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    Using blood money. Just like we took Gaddafi's assets and gave them to the Libyan people we must take their assets and give them to the British people.
    Gadaffi was ruling the country, had direct control over it's policies and directed that money to himself through the power he had.

    The Queen does not siphon off money for herself, money is given to her by the government voluntarily to maintain the significant INCOME she brings to the country.

    The fact that you drew comparison between the Queen and Gaddafi means I no longer need to have this discussion with you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe909)
    Gadaffi was ruling the country, had direct control over it's policies and directed that money to himself through the power he had.

    The Queen does not siphon off money for herself, money is given to her by the government voluntarily to maintain the significant INCOME she brings to the country.

    The fact that you drew comparison between the Queen and Gaddafi means I no longer need to have this discussion with you.
    What has power got to do with anything we are talking about assets here. Gaddafi got his assets by stealing them off the previous monarchy as did our monarchy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    What has power got to do with anything we are talking about assets here. Gaddafi got his assets by stealing them off the previous monarchy as did our monarchy.
    Our monarchy stole assets off the previous monarchy? Do you realise how stupid you sound right now?



    There is only one monarchy in the UK. A continuous line from first to last.

    No one has been stealing anything, Gaddafi is COMPLETELY different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe909)
    The authority argument is ridiculous, when did the Queen last intervene in the democratic process?
    David Cameron is accountable to her. She has to sign things into law. Which isn't that important (MPs have greater legislative powers), but it's symbolic of something I don't support - unelected and unaccountable.

    How is their wealth unearned? If you trace it far enough back I can gaurantee that it was "Earned", just not in the sense that you would like it to be.
    Not by the current family though. That's like blaming someone for something their ancestor did, which I hope you wouldn't support.

    "They're born into it" - LOL. So Bill Gates' children should be punished for having their parents wealth? Do me a ****ing favour.
    Did you miss the bit where I said if it's earned? Bill Gates worked hard and legitimately, I couldn't give a **** how much his children inherit if it's his wishes.

    Whether you like it or not,Æthelstan was deemed to be the King of the Saxons and brought a country under a united rule. Any King/Queen that has passed down before that is the rightful monarch of the United Kingdom, and any assets that were owned are rightfully theirs, as would any other citizens be.

    If you don't like this, be my guest to try and remove the monarchy. You won't get very far, as you will realise that this nations history is steeped and was created by Kings and Queens. Just because you sitting behind your computer in the present day feel they "Don't deserve it" doesn't mean **** all.

    "What's best for me" - This isn't about you. What you want is irrelevant past the government which runs the democratic nation you live in. The monarchy do not interfere with your life, they just have their own. Get over yourself.
    I would like to see the UK turn into a republic in my lifetime, but the phasing out of the monarchy would be difficult, let's just say I'm not going to live in this country forever. I don't see why I should be forced to accept something because it's part of the history, when I didn't contribute to it or choose to be born here.

    Actually, it's my life, so I don't want to have my actions or thoughts dictated to by the government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe909)
    Our monarchy stole assets off the previous monarchy? Do you realise how stupid you sound right now?



    There is only one monarchy in the UK. A continuous line from first to last.

    No one has been stealing anything, Gaddafi is COMPLETELY different.
    William the Conqueror stripped our country of its lands and kept them for himself and his allies in 1066. So no you are wrong.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    Using blood money..
    The blood in question was shed nearly a thousand years ago. If you can prove you're the legitimate heir of a Saxon noble who had his lands and money stolen by William the Conqueror then you're welcome to sue the Crown Estate to make it give it back. But otherwise I see no point in arguing about it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    William the Conqueror stripped our country of its lands and kept them for himself and his allies in 1066. So no you are wrong.
    So he should just give them back?

    He won them, he conquered them. For all I care, that means they are his. You're thinking in this day and age.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    David Cameron is accountable to her. She has to sign things into law. Which isn't that important (MPs have greater legislative powers), but it's symbolic of something I don't support - unelected and unaccountable.



    Not by the current family though. That's like blaming someone for something their ancestor did, which I hope you wouldn't support.



    Did you miss the bit where I said if it's earned? Bill Gates worked hard and legitimately, I couldn't give a **** how much his children inherit if it's his wishes.



    I would like to see the UK turn into a republic in my lifetime, but the phasing out of the monarchy would be difficult, let's just say I'm not going to live in this country forever. I don't see why I should be forced to accept something because it's part of the history, when I didn't contribute to it or choose to be born here.

    Actually, it's my life, so I don't want to have my actions or thoughts dictated to by the government.
    "Not by the current family" - Do you not understand the concept of inheritance?

    inheritance [ɪnˈhɛrɪtəns]
    n
    1. (Law) Law
    a. hereditary succession to an estate, title, etc.
    b. the right of an heir to succeed to property on the death of an ancestor
    c. something that may legally be transmitted to an heir

    They may not have earned it themselves, but they have inherited it.

    You had no problem with Bill Gates' children not having to earn the money, why does the monarchy bother you so much?

    Bill Gates is richer than the monarchy, his great great grandchildren will not have to work, but you said that doesn't bother you.

    You have strong double standards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe909)
    So he should just give them back?

    He won them, he conquered them. For all I care, that means they are his. You're thinking in this day and age.
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    The blood in question was shed nearly a thousand years ago. If you can prove you're the legitimate heir of a Saxon noble who had his lands and money stolen by William the Conqueror then you're welcome to sue the Crown Estate to make it give it back. But otherwise I see no point in arguing about it.
    People only support inheritance because they believe their children should be able to inherit their life's hard work. People don't support inheritance of titles or lands through brutal conquest therefore the monarchy is illegitimate.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe909)
    "Not by the current family" - Do you not understand the concept of inheritance?

    inheritance [ɪnˈhɛrɪtəns]
    n
    1. (Law) Law
    a. hereditary succession to an estate, title, etc.
    b. the right of an heir to succeed to property on the death of an ancestor
    c. something that may legally be transmitted to an heir

    They may not have earned it themselves, but they have inherited it.

    You had no problem with Bill Gates' children not having to earn the money, why does the monarchy bother you so much?

    Bill Gates is richer than the monarchy, his great great grandchildren will not have to work, but you said that doesn't bother you.

    You have strong double standards.
    Inheritance through hard work is fine. Inheriting through stealing is not. The Queen's ancestors have never worked a day in their life and they stole all of the assets or wealth to pay for them.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.