Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

The Queen should shut up on Christmas Day? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Who liked my post earlier in this threat?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AVGA17)
    Oh my god are you guys daft or something?

    You do realise that there is an agreement between the royal family and the government ever since George the III (I think it was him...)

    Every year since then, the government provides a fixed sum to the Royal Family to cover their living expenses which amounts to 40 million pounds.

    In exchange, the royal family hands over to the government all the revenues that they gather from renting out royal land.

    This revenue amounts to 200 million pounds. Two. Hundred. MILLION. POUNDS!

    ANNUALLY!!

    Subtract the living expenses stiped and you get 160 MILLION POUNDS of RAW PROFIT for the British public!

    All directly from the royal family!!

    And that's not even including all the income from the touristy crap and the yanks that pour in to stand and gawk in front of the Buckingham Palace.

    Yes this is actually a thing. Please google it before you decide to suspend the monarchy and have that 200m go into the pocket of the queen.
    That £200 million plus everything else is simply a bribe by Parliament so the Monarch doesn't use her power to limit their tyranny.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AVGA17)
    Oh my god are you guys daft or something?

    You do realise that there is an agreement between the royal family and the government ever since George the III (I think it was him...)

    Every year since then, the government provides a fixed sum to the Royal Family to cover their living expenses which amounts to 40 million pounds.

    In exchange, the royal family hands over to the government all the revenues that they gather from renting out royal land.

    This revenue amounts to 200 million pounds. Two. Hundred. MILLION. POUNDS!

    ANNUALLY!!

    Subtract the living expenses stiped and you get 160 MILLION POUNDS of RAW PROFIT for the British public!

    All directly from the royal family!!

    And that's not even including all the income from the touristy crap and the yanks that pour in to stand and gawk in front of the Buckingham Palace.

    Yes this is actually a thing. Please google it before you decide to suspend the monarchy and have that 200m go into the pocket of the queen.
    1) that land should be the government's anyway
    2) they don't pay income, property or inheritance taxes. think of the money wasted in *that* department
    3) think of the wealth that would be generated if we opened up the royal castles for revenue like france do with their old ex-monarch castles (the luvre and the castle of versaille)
    4) in general, the queen gets paid something like £40 million a year to...what? how is that money being efficiently calculated for her tasks? it's not - the government pisses away £40 for a person who should, based on their output, be paid a little over minimum wage, perhaps?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    She does only one thing, act as the sovereign head of state. She doesn't act as head of the army, defender of the Protestant faith or Fount of justice and law. She is bought off and useless. I can't wait until she dies and replaced by Charles the 3rd.
    Maybe she'll abdicate?
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    She does only one thing, act as the sovereign head of state. She doesn't act as head of the army, defender of the Protestant faith or Fount of justice and law. She is bought off and useless. I can't wait until she dies and replaced by Charles the 3rd.
    You've got some serious problems if you "can't wait" for her death.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EleanorFrost)
    Maybe she'll abdicate?
    The only Monarch to do that was a NAZI who cared more about himself than the nation. So I hope not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You've got some serious problems if you "can't wait" for your death.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Its more that I want Charles to be king, than I want her to die.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    The only Monarch to do that was a NAZI who cared more about himself than the nation. So I hope not.
    Well I'd rather wish that than wish death on another human being.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EleanorFrost)
    Well I'd rather wish that than wish death on another human being.
    Some things are far more important than death. The survival of the British nation state is one of them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Some things are far more important than death. The survival of the British nation state is one of them.
    I don't think the Queen living a few more years (and considering her age, it won't be that many) will bring the downfall of the British nation. What peril are we in because the Queen lives? And what makes you think Charles will be any different? Do we need a monarchy to survive anyway?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like something, therefore it should be banned.

    Strong logic there OP.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EleanorFrost)
    I don't think the Queen living a few more years (and considering her age, it won't be that many) will bring the downfall of the British nation. What peril are we in because the Queen lives? And what makes you think Charles will be any different? Do we need a monarchy to survive anyway?
    She has ruined the British governmental system with her unwillingness to act against Parliament within the law and indeed protect other parts of the governmental system from the power of the House of Commons and the government. Charles wouldn't have allowed that to happen, not because he cares about the British governmental system, but because I wants power and doesn't like being told what to do. If you want a civil war, then sure you can get rid of monarchy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    She has ruined the British governmental system with her unwillingness to act against Parliament within the law and indeed protect other parts of the governmental system from the power of the House of Commons and the government. Charles wouldn't have allowed that to happen, not because he cares about the British governmental system, but because I wants power and doesn't like being told what to do. If you want a civil war, then sure you can get rid of monarchy.
    So you want a monarch who is greedy for power and wants to overule the government? Still, I'm not an expert on our governmental system and I won't pretend I am. You have a good point and I respect your views, but no, I still don't want the Queen to die and I still don't want a monarchy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EleanorFrost)
    So you want a monarch who is greedy for power and wants to overule the government? Still, I'm not an expert on our governmental system and I won't pretend I am. You have a good point and I respect your views, but no, I still don't want the Queen to die and I still don't want a monarchy.
    Yes, so then you create a power balance between the Monarchy and House of Commons. Thus constraining both of them and making it hard for one to gain overall power within the nation leading to tyranny.

    Have you read the English Bill of Rights or about the High Tories?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Yes, so then you create a power balance between the Monarchy and House of Commons. Thus constraining both of them and making it hard for one to gain overall power within the nation leading to tyranny.

    Have you read the English Bill of Rights or about the High Tories?
    Okay, when you phrase it like that, your point does speak to me! On that note, has Elizabeth always been the kind of monarch to let the House take control? Or is it a more recent thing?

    No I haven't, but I'll go and Google them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    She has ruined the British governmental system with her unwillingness to act against Parliament within the law and indeed protect other parts of the governmental system from the power of the House of Commons and the government. Charles wouldn't have allowed that to happen, not because he cares about the British governmental system, but because I wants power and doesn't like being told what to do. If you want a civil war, then sure you can get rid of monarchy.
    oops thumbed up the wrong person, agree with you
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by interact)
    oops thumbed up the wrong person, agree with you
    I know why people like my posts. It just like to know who. On another political forum with a much better layout and interaction with the user the name of the user who likes my post comes up, so I know who it is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EleanorFrost)
    Okay, when you phrase it like that, your point does speak to me! On that note, has Elizabeth always been the kind of monarch to let the House take control? Or is it a more recent thing?

    No I haven't, but I'll go and Google them.
    Yes when people understand that the Monarchy isn't just about one person or one family, but is an institution within a governmental system they sometimes change their minds on the Monarchy.

    When she came to power it was the trend that the government would have increasing power over the army and law. She could in my view do very little to reverse that without a political party in the Commons to support her and support of the Judges in the House of Lords. However she has been a-political and just not got involved in politics or the governmental system at all. This has been her way from the start, for it she has got a massive increase in her families wealth and income, so she has a better life style than any British Monarch before her. Also the media has changed, so now she is more a celebrity than a Monarch, this accentuates her role as Head of State because it is really just about being around and looking the part than doing anything useful.

    Good.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Yes when people understand that the Monarchy isn't just about one person or one family, but is an institution within a governmental system they sometimes change their minds on the Monarchy.

    When she came to power it was the trend that the government would have increasing power over the army and law. She could in my view do very little to reverse that without a political party in the Commons to support her and support of the Judges in the House of Lords. However she has been a-political and just not got involved in politics or the governmental system at all. This has been her way from the start, for it she has got a massive increase in her families wealth and income, so she has a better life style than any British Monarch before her. Also the media has changed, so now she is more a celebrity than a Monarch, this accentuates her role as Head of State because it is really just about being around and looking the part than doing anything useful.

    Good.
    Okay, that makes sense. It will certainly be interesting to see how Charles rules, when that times comes, and the impact he has. And clearly, the Queen's conduct is what people judge the entire monarchy on - I'm sure it's influenced my opinion on the entire thing. Perhaps if she had been more proactive, I'd feel differently.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Its tradition, I have no objection. Plus the more she does stuff the more we shut up those dammed Republicans who seem to be mostly commies and hippies.

    I'm not actually a massive monarchist, I just feel that the monarchy is far better than a presidential system and they are profitable.
 
 
 
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.