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

Should the Monarchy end with the Queen? Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    This would be a devastating argument...if it were in any way true. The Queen receives none of that money for Her personal enjoyment; it is designated purely for funding the activities of the monarchy on a professional basis. It's ridiculous to expect the Queen to fund that herself as a) it's a service to the State and to the people, and b) doing so would bankrupt anyone who occupied the role.

    It's akin to demanding NHS doctors to pay for their own medical equipment.
    Prove it. I've read the papers and seen unemployed members of the royal family on holiday. They should be in council flats like the rest of those benefit scroungers they've got enough children.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    This would be a devastating argument...if it were in any way true. The Queen receives none of that money for Her personal enjoyment; it is designated purely for funding the activities of the monarchy on a professional basis. It's ridiculous to expect the Queen to fund that herself as a) it's a service to the State and to the people, and b) doing so would bankrupt anyone who occupied the role.

    It's akin to demanding NHS doctors to pay for their own medical equipment.
    Why should the queen get her house, her holidays, her parties and everything else funded by the tax payer? When apparently there isn't enough money so other elderly people can be looked after.

    By all means have a queen, but it most certainly should not be funded by the tax payer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    This would be a devastating argument...if it were in any way true. The Queen receives none of that money for Her personal enjoyment; it is designated purely for funding the activities of the monarchy on a professional basis. It's ridiculous to expect the Queen to fund that herself as a) it's a service to the State and to the people, and b) doing so would bankrupt anyone who occupied the role.

    It's akin to demanding NHS doctors to pay for their own medical equipment.
    Then maybe we need to reassess exactly what's viewed as work.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomb)
    Prove it. I've read the papers and seen unemployed members of the royal family on holiday. They should be in council flats like the rest of those benefit scroungers they've got enough children.
    The Treasury accounts are there to see, which demonstrate that royals only receive public funds when - and only when - they perform a public function at the request of the Government. This stipend then is reimbursed by the Queen to the Treasury.

    If the Queen is a benefit scrounger by that reckoning, then so is the President of Germany.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    The Treasury accounts are there to see, which demonstrate that royals only receive public funds when - and only when - they perform a public function at the request of the Government. This stipend then is reimbursed by the Queen to the Treasury.

    If the Queen is a benefit scrounger by that reckoning, then so is the President of Germany.
    I'm winding you up. Off with his head!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Why should the queen get her house,
    Like Downing Street is a free gift for the PM?

    her holidays,
    She gets free holidays? From my understanding, the Queen doesn't really go on holiday, and is always on call. Nevertheless, 'holidays' are paid for by the monarchy's personal financial sources, which receive no public money.

    her parties
    What parties? If you mean all those state dinners, they are a public service to butter up ambassadors and foreign visitors, and to help people from throughout the country to meet and bond. It's a common function for all Heads of State to practice.

    and everything else funded by the tax payer? When apparently there isn't enough money so other elderly people can be looked after.

    By all means have a queen, but it most certainly should not be funded by the tax payer.
    Because that's a fallacious argument. For one, we'd be spending the same money if we were a republic, but for a president. Second, the monarchy is actually extremely lean as a public body, having spent less and less in real terms since 1992 (compared to every government body which has grown in size).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not only communists and foreigners want the monarchy gone!!!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    Absolutely not only communists and foreigners want the monarchy gone!!!!
    but I'm a right wing national and I want the monarchy gone
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    but I'm a right wing national and I want the monarchy gone
    How come?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    Absolutely not only communists and foreigners want the monarchy gone!!!!
    Go over to america and say that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    How come?
    it's an illegitimate institution with no measurable economic benefits - I care more about political legitimacy than tradition
    plus, I *really* don't like prince charles. or even his sons. they're an extremely awkward and unlikeable bunch of snobbish goons
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No. I would give the monarchy significantly more power, and I look forward to the reign of Charles.
    Offline

    21
    Without the monarchy, what will become of the English and British anthem? God Save Dave doesnt sound quite as patriotic somehow.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    To me the monarchy is a symbol of (a) imperialism, and (b) the aristocratic nature of our country which I seek an end to. Similar to the House of Lords in that sense, in that it hasn't exactly done much wrong in recent times, but it is a symbolic of a social hierarchy and class system that I reject on principle.

    That said, I get that a majority of people seem to love the Queen for reasons I can not comprehend, so waiting until she meets her eventual end seems like a fair compromise to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laomedeia)
    Without the monarchy, what will become of the English and British anthem? God Save Dave doesnt sound quite as patriotic somehow.
    I vow to thee, my country :' a much better anthem that the people of this country can actually relate to.

    I also enjoy Land of Hope and Glory but it does a imperialistic undertone to it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah no modern society should have a monarchy of any kind, it'd be better to wait for her to die then simply not have a successor.

    I ****in hate the entire concept of a royal family tbh
 
 
 
  • 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?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.