DS Forums

 
 

Queen Unwell


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 12:06
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
I think there would be a massive majority in favour of keeping the totals as however much the antis would like to convince otherwise.
"totals"? Presumably you meant "royals"!

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.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 12:08
James Frederick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,002
"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.
Also give it a few more years with the older generation dying off and even more will be in favour of abolishing.
James Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:18
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749



That's more true of the past than the present. And after the Queen's passing it will probably be even less true.
Not necessarily. These things are very often cyclical, depending upon who is on the throne and what is going on elsewhere.

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.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:01
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
,,, 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.
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.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:09
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
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.
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.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:10
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
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.
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.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:13
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
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.
That's not what I said though is it mate, so don't twist my words.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:35
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
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.
It maybe doesn't concern you or me - but it clearly bothers others.

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.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:01
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
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.
I think the last opinion poll suggested 2:1 in favour of retention.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:09
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
That's not what I said though is it mate, so don't twist my words.
I did not say it was.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:14
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
I did not say it was.
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.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:31
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
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.
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 not 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.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:36
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
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.
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.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:37
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
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 wasn't proposing to dissect the matter in microscopic detail - and nor am I trying to score points - 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.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:44
Pollyusa
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,174
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.
Be careful how you go here. I speak from America, the land where an small obscure group of electors have elected Trump even though 3 million more Americans voted for Clinton. So we now have a head of state that the majority of Americans didn't vote for.
Pollyusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:53
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
But would you agree that we had a referendum before we considered getting rid of them?
You should not make that kind of commitment, remember who is next in the queue after all:

HM "Tha tha tha tha" Charles III.
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?
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.
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.
Right, well just to put the record straight, the entire sequence of posts you refer to - and I've avoided jjwales's post as I don't think it was relevant to what you said - is shown above.

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.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:00
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
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.
Actually one of the most serious objections to the Monarchy is that we already have a politically powerless Head of State. This leaves us with the situation where real power is concentrated in the hands of the head of the Executive i.e. The PM.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 23:49
WhoAteMeDinner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
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.
Never been to France then ? Versailles, Louvre, Tuileries, Fontainebleau all national museums and galleries open year round.

The myopic mentality of British royal supporters is astonishing.
WhoAteMeDinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 23:56
WhoAteMeDinner
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 ?
WhoAteMeDinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 23:56
davidmcn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9,454
Never been to France then ? Versailles, Louvre, Tuileries, Fontainebleau all national museums and galleries open year round.
Yes, been to those. But wouldn't the Elysee Palace be the equivalent? You can't get into that as a tourist.

And the same applies to, say, the White House. Even republics need grand buildings for state business without gawping visitors cluttering up the place.
davidmcn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 23:59
WhoAteMeDinner
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.
WhoAteMeDinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 00:01
James Frederick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,002
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 ?
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
James Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 00:09
WhoAteMeDinner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
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
That is another strong argument against monarchy surely ?
WhoAteMeDinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 00:11
James Frederick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,002
That is another strong argument against monarchy surely ?
I agree sooner they are gone the better IMO
James Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 00:27
davidmcn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9,454
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.
You couldn't really fit a state banquet into Downing Street.
davidmcn is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41.