|
||||||||
Queen Unwell |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#651 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
|
Quote:
I think there would be a massive majority in favour of keeping the totals as however much the antis would like to convince otherwise.
Quote:
The British royal family is a large part of what makes Britain what it is and gives it it's standing in the world.
That's more true of the past than the present. And after the Queen's passing it will probably be even less true.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#652 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,002
|
Quote:
"totals"? Presumably you meant "royals"!
That's more true of the past than the present. And after the Queen's passing it will probably be even less true. |
|
|
|
|
|
#653 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
That's more true of the past than the present. And after the Queen's passing it will probably be even less true. After WW1, there were concerns about the future of the British monarchy, in light of the events of WW1 and the fact that many European monarchs were deposed. There was a very real fear of revolution spreading from elsewhere in Europe. King Edward VII had been a very popular monarch despite his reputation for womanising and free spending. After his death in 1910, his son George V was not so well-liked, albeit that he was a conscientious and far more frugal sort of King than his father had been. After WW1, he had to take steps to modernise and re-establish the monarchy's relationship with the British people and secure it for the future. He did this with quite a lot of success and ended up becoming a well-regarded King after all. His own successor Edward VIII messed things up spectacularly, with his numerous affairs with married women and then made his decision to abdicate and it fell to his brother to deal with the crisis this created. George VI was another safe pair of hands, despite not originally destined to be King and and the present Queen has followed her own father's example in carrying out her duties conscientiously. None of them have been perfect and there have been things they could each have done better but nor have any of them been tyrants - or profligate, without giving something in return. I am not particularly a monarchist but I can see how a well-respected head of state can transcend politics and serve as a stable figurehead in times of national or international crisis. It remains to be seen what sort of King Charles will be. I don't expect him to be King for a very long reign but that is likely to be due to his age, rather than because the monarchy will be abolished. I think William looks to have the potential to be a very different and very modern monarch. Apparently it costs the British taxpayer the princely sum of around 56p per head per annum to fund the monarchy. It's really not that much per head of population and there is ample evidence to show that the Royal Family does stimulate tourism, which generates a great deal of revenue for the country. As has been intimated already by others, it is worth reading about the revenue generated from the Crown Estates and paid by the Queen and what is paid as the Sovereign Grant to her. |
|
|
|
|
|
#654 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
,,, As has been intimated already by others, it is worth reading about the revenue generated from the Crown Estates and paid by the Queen and what is paid as the Sovereign Grant to her.
In 1760 the responsibility for paying for government (including supporting the Monarchy) was finally totally transferred to Parliament and the income from the Crown Estates logically went with that responsibility. I quote from the Crown Estates own website; Who owns The Crown Estate? The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch. The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances. Hence income from the Crown Estates is not 'paid by the Queen' it is not her personal property to pay anything from. |
|
|
|
|
|
#655 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
|
Quote:
Apparently it costs the British taxpayer the princely sum of around 56p per head per annum to fund the monarchy. It's really not that much per head of population and there is ample evidence to show that the Royal Family does stimulate tourism, which generates a great deal of revenue for the country. As has been intimated already by others, it is worth reading about the revenue generated from the Crown Estates and paid by the Queen and what is paid as the Sovereign Grant to her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#656 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
It certainly is it would help explain that the Crown Estates are not the personal property of the Queen. The historic Crown Lands (from which the Crown Estates originate) where always used primarily to pay for governing the country; armies etc. They also supported the Monarch of course.
In 1760 the responsibility for paying for government (including supporting the Monarchy) was finally totally transferred to Parliament and the income from the Crown Estates logically went with that responsibility. I quote from the Crown Estates own website; Who owns The Crown Estate? The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch. The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances. Hence income from the Crown Estates is not 'paid by the Queen' it is not her personal property to pay anything from. |
|
|
|
|
|
#657 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
|
Quote:
Arguing that there is no need for a democratic choice because the result is predictable is a very weak and indeed dangerous position to hold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#658 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
I'm not sure about the "ample evidence" about tourism, but in any case the financial aspect doesn't concern me in the least. I simply feel that the idea of a hereditary head of state is outdated and indefensible.
I'm not particularly troubled by a hereditary head of state in a constitutional monarchy. As I said, she transcends politics but does not wield personal power as such, which is actually a good thing. I see the monarch as essentially a figurehead and as I said in my earlier post, there is evidence from recent history which showed that the monarchy is seen as a focus of stability in times of crisis. I'm not sure exactly why that is in the modern era in which we live but I think there is something in it. I do accept that this may diminish somewhat in generations to come... but I have a feeling it isn't imminent. |
|
|
|
|
|
#659 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
|
Quote:
I think there would be a massive majority in favour of keeping the totals as however much the antis would like to convince otherwise. The British royal family is a large part of what makes Britain what it is and gives it it's standing in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#660 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
That's not what I said though is it mate, so don't twist my words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#661 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
|
Quote:
I did not say it was.
![]() It did come hard on the heels of what I'd said. |
|
|
|
|
|
#662 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
I did not mean to infer that it was her personal property and therefore hers to spend. It is paid by her to the Treasury by virtue of the fact that she IS the reigning monarch.
*Note that the Estates are held 'in right of The Crown', The Crown is the state in all its aspects within the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth realms and their sub-divisions (such as Crown dependencies, provinces or states), although the term is not only a metonym for the State.[1] The Crown is a corporation sole that represents the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance. It developed first in the Kingdom of England as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown This income is not dependent on us having a Monarch. |
|
|
|
|
|
#663 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
Well you didn't quote me or anybody else, but you seem to be taking something out of context, otherwise why come out with a random statement like that?
It did come hard on the heels of what I'd said. Any way I think it is a reasonable comment most people would agree with. |
|
|
|
|
|
#664 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
Well not quite but for arguments sake lets go with that. If; as you say; she pays these monies because she is the reigning monarch then if she (or no one else was the Monarch) then the income would as State property* simply be paid by the Crown Estates Board to the treasury. (Unless you are suggesting some other scenario?).
*Note that the Estates are held 'in right of The Crown', The Crown is the state in all its aspects within the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth realms and their sub-divisions (such as Crown dependencies, provinces or states), although the term is not only a metonym for the State.[1] The Crown is a corporation sole that represents the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance. It developed first in the Kingdom of England as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown This income is not dependent on us having a Monarch. - I merely added my own endorsement to that of the person who suggested that if anyone was interested in the topic, they should read up on the Crown Estates and the Sovereign Grant, which helps to explain where the money comes from and where it goes to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#665 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,174
|
Quote:
But then the Prime Minister would effectively become the head of state, and only those voters who are also members of the governing political party would get to choose who it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#666 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
|
Quote:
But would you agree that we had a referendum before we considered getting rid of them?
Quote:
You should not make that kind of commitment, remember who is next in the queue after all:
HM "Tha tha tha tha" Charles III. Quote:
There shouldn't be any need for it anyway, but I would lay heavy money that if there were a referendum, there would be a substantial majority in favour of retaining the monarchy, which might, hopefully, shut the anti royals up for good.
That's why those who keep saying they should be abolished, might first want to consider what the rest of the population think. But they never do. What are you babbling about? We know who the next in line is. What's the problem?Quote:
Arguing that there is no need for a democratic choice because the result is predictable is a very weak and indeed dangerous position to hold.
Quote:
Sorry if you took it personally; your post just set off the chain of thought; I did not quote you because as you say my post did not entirely reflect what you said.
Any way I think it is a reasonable comment most people would agree with. Whilst I agree with the principle of your statement, I don't think anybody was actually arguing that there was no need for a democratic choice. So I'm not entirely sure where you inferred that from, unless it was just a purely random point. If you did infer such an argument from someone's post, please feel free to elaborate if you wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
#667 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
But then the Prime Minister would effectively become the head of state, and only those voters who are also members of the governing political party would get to choose who it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#668 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
Windsor Castle is open all year round.
Buckingham Palace is open for two months in the summer. Not sure that would be any different in a republic. The myopic mentality of British royal supporters is astonishing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#669 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
|
Blueblade, you just posted nobody was saying there was no need for a democratic choice.
Yet you seem to be defending the status quo of the next three heads of state after Elizabeth II, already being chosen by hereditary succession ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#670 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9,454
|
Quote:
Never been to France then ? Versailles, Louvre, Tuileries, Fontainebleau all national museums and galleries open year round.
And the same applies to, say, the White House. Even republics need grand buildings for state business without gawping visitors cluttering up the place. |
|
|
|
|
|
#671 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
|
Not really, as I am sure you know, the Elysee is official home of the French President and he is the political leader as well as head of state. It is more like Number 10. Downing street.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#672 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,002
|
Quote:
Blueblade, you just posted nobody was saying there was no need for a democratic choice.
Yet you seem to be defending the status quo of the next three heads of state after Elizabeth II, already being chosen by hereditary succession ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#673 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
If it carries on unless George passes it Charlotte or something else happens there won't be another Queen as Head Of State for over 100 Years and if George first kid is male over 150 years at least
|
|
|
|
|
|
#674 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,002
|
Quote:
That is another strong argument against monarchy surely ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#675 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9,454
|
Quote:
Not really, as I am sure you know, the Elysee is official home of the French President and he is the political leader as well as head of state. It is more like Number 10. Downing street.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41.




- I merely added my own endorsement to that of the person who suggested that if anyone was interested in the topic, they should read up on the Crown Estates and the Sovereign Grant, which helps to explain where the money comes from and where it goes to.
We know who the next in line is. What's the problem?