Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john williams)
    Yeh it might cost each person just a small amount, but added up its alot, which can as a whole be put to better use in anything such as schools, NHS, poverty, world development etc etc etc...that £10 million plus, can potentially benefit alot more people then just a handful.
    Please someone read my post. It doesn't cost the taxpayer a thing!
    It seems either you have to refute that or argue on another point surely!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I wonder the same for various previous governments regarding the national interest excuse to withhold various expenditures. The cost of the royal family is said to cost only 60p per person each year. Why do people fuss over that when they waste more than that themselves direcetly I don't know.
    Not sure I would agree with the 60p per person each year. The sum per person include every single person in UK from new born babes, through school children, adolescents, non-working persons, infirm, disabled, pensioners to death-bed octegenarians! It is not confined to wage earning, tax paying subjects.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    It is not confined to wage earning, tax paying people.
    I never disputed this.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I never disputed this.
    I have just checked out this sum of 60p per year per person. It relates only to the cost of keeping the queen! Imagine what it is if you figure in the total costs of palaces, royal residences for all of them, costs of keeping their kids, grandchildren, cousins, aunts, uncles etc. plus all the additional costs of transport, security, staffing, pensions - ad infinitum.

    Wow - I reckon it could easily amount to 'billions'. :eek:

    just diverting a little from the current theme of thread.
    why do we need a head of state??? its total crap that we should be a 'subject' of the crown.
    its time we abolished all this title stuff, someone having to be called your majesty or some such rubbish. everybody is born equal thats why i think the royals and peers (hereditary and 'peoples') should be consigned to the dustbin of history in favour of no head of state and a fully elected second chamber.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by socialist)
    its time we abolished all this title s##t
    Is not just consigned to the royal family. Politicians themselves, my Rt. Hon friend.

    (Original post by socialist)
    in favour of no head of state
    Only a head of government?

    (Original post by socialist)
    and a fully elected second chamber.
    With perhaps a better electoral system than the pansy one at Westminster.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    It's called heritage. It's as big a part of the constitutional makeup of our nation as the Whitehouse and the President is of yours; only very much more ancient.
    i didn't say that it was unfounded, just that, to me, it seems a bit backward to be expected to pay great respect to these people who have never done anything to warrant that respect besides being born with the right last name.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Whyt does it creep you out? Plenty of European countries do it.
    It creeps me out in those instances, as well. I can't specify why it leaves me with that feeling very articulately. It just seems very archaic. I think the need to pay respect to the royal family is what bothers me the most. It's probably from me coming from a meritocracy, but I just don't like the idea that people are expected to courtesy/bow to royalty. It doesn't seem like equality, to me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Has everyone got me blocked or do you all know something I don't?

    EDIT:
    (Original post by http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page433.asp)
    Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In the financial year to 31 March 2004 the revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury amounted to £176.9 million.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    Has everyone got me blocked or do you all know something I don't?

    EDIT:
    If we abolished the monarchy the corwn estate wouldn't go!

    The Crown Estate would go to the state and the Royal Family would have to pay full taxes so in realisty they earn less money for the country than no monarchy would.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LH)
    If we abolished the monarchy the corwn estate wouldn't go!

    The Crown Estate would go to the state and the Royal Family would have to pay full taxes so in realisty they earn less money for the country than no monarchy would.
    But people talk as though they are costing each person 60p, when they are not. They are contributing to the economy directly as well as be generating tourism.
    It seems to me that given this you cannot talk about the monarchy costing people money - it's their establishment that produces the Crown Estate profits.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    But people talk as though they are costing each person 60p, when they are not. They are contributing to the economy directly as well as be generating tourism.
    It seems to me that given this you cannot talk about the monarchy costing people money - it's their establishment that produces the Crown Estate profits.
    But the Crown Estate does not actually belong to the monarch, it belongs to the Crown which is part of the state. The monarch simply enjoys rights over the Crown Estate; many of the palaces she resides in, for instance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LH)
    But the Crown Estate does not actually belong to the monarch, it belongs to the Crown which is part of the state. The monarch simply enjoys rights over the Crown Estate; many of the palaces she resides in, for instance.
    It does belong to the Crown, but what does that mean if the monarchy is abolished? Would it become a business run by the government? The
    To me the point is having the monarchy, with the Crown, does not cost the taxpayer money, as in they are not directly funding it. So it does not seem to me to be fair to be justifying abolishing the monarchy on these grounds.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I agree. I think the "tourist argument" for the monarchy is the biggest load of *******s I've ever heard.
    I agree. I prefer the 'Tin of Beans' argument myself (for keeping them). Far more convincing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather have the Queen as head of state than Mr Blair.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure if there's any truth in this but I heard the Queen is supposed to lead the country by example in terms of moral and ethical values whilst the Government deals with the more practical aspects of life, like getting taxed lots. Unfortunately the idiot tabloids have to make a big deal out of every tiny thing concerning the royal family, e.g. Prince William getting a girlfriend (oh my god!!! it's unbelievable!!!!) and Prince Harry trying pot (so by ****ging him off you're also saying the teens who've tried it are wrong?) therefore painting them in a bad light when they have tried their best to remain the metaphorical "beacon of light" for us all. With events like the Queen Mother's death and Diana's untimely demise of course the Royals became unstable, but they still project a far more coherent, clearer image of what the country stands for than Blair and his saliva-dribbling pack of hounds could ever do.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I'd rather have the Queen as head of state than Mr Blair.
    Does your preference extend to any other politician or just Mr. Blair?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Does your preference extend to any other politician or just Mr. Blair?
    Quite a few. I'd rather have Paddy Ashdown or Kenneth Clarke in some 'high' position but I would not rid of the monarchy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Not sure I would agree with the 60p per person each year. The sum per person include every single person in UK from new born babes, through school children, adolescents, non-working persons, infirm, disabled, pensioners to death-bed octegenarians! It is not confined to wage earning, tax paying subjects.
    Wow, that means that a family of four with only one wage earner would have to stump up a whopping $2.40 EACH year. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    It creeps me out in those instances, as well. I can't specify why it leaves me with that feeling very articulately. It just seems very archaic. I think the need to pay respect to the royal family is what bothers me the most. It's probably from me coming from a meritocracy, but I just don't like the idea that people are expected to courtesy/bow to royalty. It doesn't seem like equality, to me.
    It is a bit archaic, and almost Lilliputian in some ways. But, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Even your "meritocracy" isn't that meritocratic. America has it's blue blood families that generation after generation produce senators, generals, presidents etc.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.