Options

The Queen

24567

Comments

  • Options
    woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    oh so I may be politician bashing, but you feel the need for a safety net...like your style.

    Every country should have a constitution. To suggest otherwise is plain madness, unless you advocate a dictatorship?
  • Options
    Glyn WGlyn W Posts: 5,819
    Forum Member
    Why would Crown Estate/Property go to the State?

    Because that's what happens if you do away with the Crown as a concept.
    Anyway knowing the State they would sell it to chums of whichever party was in power at below market prices.

    Like all the other privatisations, you mean? We were told they were good for the country when they happened...
  • Options
    Glyn WGlyn W Posts: 5,819
    Forum Member
    James1953 wrote: »
    If we didn't have the Queen , we may get President Blair

    Enough to make me want to keep her

    Why? There is no need for a president whatsoever.
  • Options
    woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    James1953 wrote: »
    If we didn't have the Queen , we may get President Blair

    Enough to make me want to keep her

    Round one of the cliche bingo. Move on, the new threat is President Cameron - you're behind the times.

    Aside from the fact that a President Blair in a parliamentary democracy would have less power than MP Blair did, why do you think people would vote for him if he's such a loathesome figure? Surely we could vote him out - which is more than I can say for King Charles and Queen Camilla, which isn't an idle 'what if'.
  • Options
    LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    woot_whoo wrote: »
    Every country should have a constitution. To suggest otherwise is plain madness, unless you advocate a dictatorship?

    I agree. The British Constitution is a fine thing. Just because it isn't written down in a single document doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
  • Options
    Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James1953 wrote: »
    If we didn't have the Queen , we may get President Blair

    Enough to make me want to keep her

    Yes, 'may', depending on what the people want.

    We're getting Prince Charles whether you like it or not.
  • Options
    A4papertoosmallA4papertoosmall Posts: 500
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    what the heck is the EU got to do with it?

    Anyone ever heard of Regent Street in London? Guess who owns the building all those shops are in?
    http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/urban/regent-street/

    So if you anti royals want to hit her hard don't shop along Regent Street!


    Tens of Thousands of people work on land owned by Crown Estates. So again want to hurt the Queen avoid all those businesses maybe?

    "What the heck has the EU got to do with it?" The answer to this question lies within the post.
  • Options
    woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    Yes, 'may', depending on what the people want.

    We're getting Prince Charles whether you like it or not.

    I don't know why people hate the idea of democracy so much that they feel the need to threaten President Bogeyman in order to show how amazing the Windsors are in comparison to anyone the thick public would choose.
  • Options
    Glyn WGlyn W Posts: 5,819
    Forum Member
    LostFool wrote: »
    It depends on what you propose replacing the monarchy with and whether it would be any cheaper.

    It doesn't need replacing with anything, it's completely superfluous.
  • Options
    A4papertoosmallA4papertoosmall Posts: 500
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Glyn W wrote: »
    Plus, just because we wouldn't have a monarch it doesn't mean we'd have to have a President. We don't, we don't need one at all. So the argument is false logic.

    Quite I was just pointing out the differences for those who believe a president is necessary if we didn't have the ma'am.
  • Options
    trunkstertrunkster Posts: 14,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What does sho do to earn the money from the Crown Estates? She and her family are just leeches on society (apart from a couple of them in the army, but they seem to have a lot more holidays than anyone else in the army I've heard about)

    What does she do? A lot more than you I'd hazard a guess.
  • Options
    bluesdiamondbluesdiamond Posts: 11,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    "What the heck has the EU got to do with it?" The answer to this question lies within the post.

    \Not really, you seemed to suggest that the Crown Estate was funded by the EU?
  • Options
    Glyn WGlyn W Posts: 5,819
    Forum Member
    \Not really, you seemed to suggest that the Crown Estate was funded by the EU?

    No they didn't, I understood exactly what they were saying.
  • Options
    A4papertoosmallA4papertoosmall Posts: 500
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    trunkster wrote: »
    What does she do? A lot more than you I'd hazard a guess.

    She get's wheeled out from time to time.
    A mannequin could probably do the job just as well for most

    She speaks from time to time, but it is carefully rehearsed and always scripted. Anything she says is always wonderful, because she is never challenged, that would not be the done thing.

    Nice to see her look so very happy the other day though, granted, when her horse romped home!

    Otherwise to fill her life she has private dinners with all the aristos and members of the elite in society, for them to entertain her as they bow and scrape.

    Including elected heads of state who have to answer to her once a week knowing there are always special arrangements for her to avoid the laws her paw mark requires.
  • Options
    woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    She get's wheeled out from time to time.
    A mannequin could probably do the job just as well for most

    She speaks from time to time, but it is carefully rehearsed and always scripted. Anything she says is always wonderful, because she is never challenged, that would not be the done thing.

    Nice to see her look so very happy the other day though, granted, when her horse romped home!

    Otherwise to fill her life she has private dinners with all the aristos and members of the elite in society, for them to entertain her as they bow and scrape.

    It's amusing to see the same posters who rail against the government defend the governmental figurehead (who cannot and would not lift a finger to stop the government from doing the things they hate, nor say anything publicly that wasn't approved by the government of the day) to the hilt.
  • Options
    A4papertoosmallA4papertoosmall Posts: 500
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    woot_whoo wrote: »
    It's amusing to see the same posters who rail against the government defend the governmental figurehead (who cannot and would not lift a finger to stop the government from doing the things they hate, nor say anything publicly that wasn't approved by the government of the day) to the hilt.

    I think you are mistaken.
  • Options
    Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    woot_whoo wrote: »
    I don't know why people hate the idea of democracy so much that they feel the need to threaten President Bogeyman in order to show how amazing the Windsors are in comparison to anyone the thick public would choose.

    Shocking isn't it.

    'Oh no, democracy, let's have someone we have no say in instead'.:confused:

    The brainwashing that has gone on over the years defies belief. It makes no sense. What the hell have they done to these people.:(
  • Options
    woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think you are mistaken.

    In what way? I wasn't referring to you, by the way - not at all - sorry if my quoting your post made it look that way. I was merely trying to add to your post.
  • Options
    Glyn WGlyn W Posts: 5,819
    Forum Member
    Jol44 wrote: »
    Shocking isn't it.

    'Oh no, democracy, let's have someone we have no say in instead'.:confused:

    The brainwashing that has gone on over the years defies belief. It makes no sense. What the hell have they done to these people.:(

    Don't you mean:

    'Oh no, democracy, let's have someone we have no say in instead do an unnecessary non-job and throw lots of money at them for doing it'? ;)
  • Options
    woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    On the news tonight:

    William and Kate's new home renovations to cost the taxpayer £1 million.

    Now let's just imagine that the PM wanted to do up Downing Street or Chequers to the tune of a million pounds of taxpayer money in a time of austerity. I doubt there would be many defenders. The Duke and Duchess are as yet not on the Civil List, nor do they hold a political position. William's family, however, own a vast personal fortune, and could well afford to either have Kensington renovated by themselves, or live elsewhere, surely.

    Makes one wonder how the royals in other European countries manage to survive on far, far less from their taxpayers.
  • Options
    BroadwoodBroadwood Posts: 110
    Forum Member
    Jol44 wrote: »
    Biggest thieving scroungers out there.

    History shows that.

    We need to have a referendum to decide how and when we end our outdated feudal system. It's 2013 now not 1066.

    Until we vote for change some will always be more equal than others....:mad:
  • Options
    DiscombobulateDiscombobulate Posts: 4,242
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just done a quick calulation and it looks like the office of the Presidency costs US citizens £2.97. The British Monarch costs £2.93

    I would buy a new calculator your maths is out by a factor of 20 ...........................
  • Options
    bluesdiamondbluesdiamond Posts: 11,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    woot_whoo wrote: »
    It's amusing to see the same posters who rail against the government defend the governmental figurehead (who cannot and would not lift a finger to stop the government from doing the things they hate, nor say anything publicly that wasn't approved by the government of the day) to the hilt.

    Working in the warehouse of a major retailer we often wonder what many workers who sit on their bums do all day.

    Seems among her daily tasks are lots of reading.
    Letters from the public, and she will try to ensure read or not, everyone gets a reply. This takes about an hour of her day.
    Then she is briefed and reads what is happening not just in Britain but across the realms. so she knows what is going on in Canada, Australia etc.
    A normal day she may meet Ambassodors to the Court of St James. It also seems if you do well in the civil service and become am Ambassador she will see you and send you on your way.
    Or representatives of HM Forces.

    Then she will have lunch...


    Sounds like most CEO's pf major businesses...in a glorified way.
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    stairway wrote: »
    I see the Queen is getting a 5% rise in pay... So much for "We're all in this together "

    She is not getting a 'pay rise' her income comes from the Crown Estates which are now making a higher profit - so her 'income' increases.

    Further like many of us - since the credit crunch her income has actually gone down.
  • Options
    Glyn WGlyn W Posts: 5,819
    Forum Member
    Working in the warehouse of a major retailer we often wonder what many workers who sit on their bums do all day.

    Seems among her daily tasks are lots of reading.
    Letters from the public, and she will try to ensure read or not, everyone gets a reply. This takes about an hour of her day.
    Then she is briefed and reads what is happening not just in Britain but across the realms. so she knows what is going on in Canada, Australia etc.
    A normal day she may meet Ambassodors to the Court of St James. It also seems if you do well in the civil service and become am Ambassador she will see you and send you on your way.
    Or representatives of HM Forces.

    Then she will have lunch...


    Sounds like most CEO's pf major businesses...in a glorified way.

    So what? None of that is important or necessary or couldn't be done by an existing official or elected person so it's completely and gloriously irrelevant.
Sign In or Register to comment.