Blondie 1,392 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 I hate top put the dampers on things, but I do think having a Royal family is good for our Country's heritage........After all not many Country's have a Royal Family anymore...............Not happy about all the hangers on though, the lesser Royals should be supporting themselves as there is too many of them now exhausting the Privy Purse................... 3 Link to post Share on other sites
hippo girl 1,995 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 I think this has been discussed before and although no one has fallen out over it, we all know the royalists from the realists !!!!! 2 Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 We sure do. .... God save our gracious queen !!!!!! 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Blondie 1,392 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Anyone after William and Harry with the exception of George and the expected new arrival should be supporting themselves...........After all it's the queen and Charlies successors that are the direct line and count the most at the moment............When Harry gets married and has a family, which he eventually will, he should then be taken off the Royal Payroll as well, along with all the Aunt's, uncle's, cousins etc.................enough is enough.......... Link to post Share on other sites
TBI 2,351 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Whilst the monarchy may seem an anachronism to many, there is no doubt that even more see it for what it is, a truly British institution admired across the globe. The cost of the monarchy is minimal to the tax-payer these days, they have no official powers, there seems little downside. The Queen clearly works her socks off, no retirement for her. Yes, the extended family we can do without. I can understand those who resent the idea of others being born to privilege with silver spoons in their mouths, but a royal baby has as much control over it's arrival in the world as one born in poverty. Moreover, who would amongst us, would readily choose to live our lives in such a gold-fish bowl? It's inevitable the institution will diminish over the next couple of generations and we'll see a modern and very steamlined Royal Family, similar to some other European countries. Until that happens, best of luck to the new baby, it'll need it! 6 Link to post Share on other sites
Blondie 1,392 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Who would we replace them with ?................. Link to post Share on other sites
Coffers77 34 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 #105 TBI I don't resent privilege for what it gives others (your silver spoon comment) but yes I do believe that constitutionally selecting a head of state from a single blood line is an anachronism in the 21st century. The UK monarchy is an expensive drain on the taxpayer. The Queen and her family cost over 100 times more than the costs of the Irish president. Also the Palace does not fall in with other public institutions in setting and working to a budget and operates to different rules to everyone else when it comes to tax obligations.The monarchy enjoys power privileges over the legislature for instance the princes consent (or royal veto) gives the Queen and the Prince of Wales an opportunity to influence the shape and content of a bill before it reaches Parliament. That is aside from Charles' regular attempts to directly influence the policy of Government Departments.I agree that if there was a referendum tomorrow the monarchy would likely be retained but we have never had a proper national debate with all the issues & arguments aired, when I believe support would shift markedly towards support for a democratic alternative. I believe the climate is already changing especially amongst the young and I foresee this momentum increasing when the present queen passes. On Kate and William's new baby needing luck once born could any statement be more ridiculous. Compared to the life chances of the other 2,199 babies expected to be born that day in the UK I think that the royal baby will prosper just fine. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Booth 7,364 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 (#106), Tony Blair. Link to post Share on other sites
poohbear 1,360 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 . Moreover, who would amongst us, would readily choose to live our lives in such a gold-fish bowl? When did you last see Princess Anne swimming round the bowl? They have vast estates and wealthy friends abroad with islands where they can avoid the press and public for months on end if they want. Di stated in THAT interview that she wanted to melt into the background and just be a Mum...if she had done and not been galavanting about the worlds high profile nightspots with a playboy she'd be alive today. Admittedly the paparatzi are a bane on their lives but no more than they are for Brad Pitt and hundreds of other 'celebs' Link to post Share on other sites
BilboroughShirley 1,120 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 # 108 Would Nicola Sturgeon apply for the job?! Helen Mirren would be better! Link to post Share on other sites
TBI 2,351 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 #107 How can you seriously make a comparison between the circumstances of the Irish President and the Queen. That's like comparing chalk to cheese. Why not make a comparison with Obama or Merkel. Are you seriously suggesting the Queen influences government policy or that Charles' dabbling matters a jot? It seems we do agree on the obvious popularity of the Monarchy. #109 I don't give much thought about Princess Anne, I regard her as the extended family too, although don't forget the charitable and ceremonial work these other Royals are involved with. Ask any paparazzi who is most globally newsworthy, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their children...... or Brad Pitt? Seriously? 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Robbie 39 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 TBI.....At least YOU know what you are talking about! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NewBasfordlad 3,599 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 #111 Totally agree. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
hippo girl 1,995 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 They are c..p the whole lot of them,.......they dont care a monkies about you and I , so why give them the time of day, our hard earned money and any status in a world of poverty, unrest and Ill health ....... 2 Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 They are no more of a drain on the country than the feral yobs that hang about smoking roll ups, drinking energy concoctions and playing scratch cards. I know which I'd rather subsidise !!!!! 5 Link to post Share on other sites
tomlinson 879 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 My missus says, and I agree with her, hurry up with the royal baby and get the politicians off the T.V. screen. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
TBI 2,351 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 I see in the new Sunday Times Rich List, the Queen is placed with £330 million, an awful lot of money. But compare that to Simon Cowell at £300 million, Jamie Oliver at £240 million and the Beckhams at £210 million. What have they done for their country? 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Robbie 39 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 Don't forget Take That......who still haven't paid back the £20m they owe the tax man. Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 Three of us went for a long weekend to London for the Jubilee celebrations the other year. As well as seeing the flotilla along the river, we managed to pull in Canary Wharf, The Tower, Houses of Parliament, Covemt Garden, The concert on The Mall, and so much more. It was wonderful. Sod the cost. It was heartening seeing thousands enjoying themselves. The money generated by foreign tourism that week must have been phenomenal. Roll on the next do. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
mercurydancer 1,104 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 I am a committed Royalist. HM must be worth more than £330 million. The crown jewels must be close to that alone. However, HM does contribute considerably the UK in income generation. Its £37 to go round Buck House and there were thousands going round. Thats a small example, but the Crown estates make huge amounts of money and charge relatively reasonable rates for rent. Technically the Queen can dissolve parliament and let the military take over parliament. With the forthcoming general election, where almost no one is worth a vote, I wish she would. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TBI 2,351 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 The Queen doesn't own the Crown Jewels though, much of her ' assets ' are not actually hers to dispose of. The Crown Estate Commisioners are responsible for managing all royal property and the net annual profits go to the Treasury. As you may imagine, this amount is substantial. The Queen does receive a percentage, currently 15% of the net profits, to compensate for the recent removal of the Civil List. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
hippo girl 1,995 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 Long reign the Beckhams , Jamie Oliver, et al....at least they worked hard for their money , even if you are not a fan...... Link to post Share on other sites
TBI 2,351 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 Long reign the Beckhams , Jamie Oliver, et al....at least they worked hard for their money.. Ho ho, that's a good 'un! 4 Link to post Share on other sites
Coffers77 34 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 #111 TBI It is not a chalk and cheese comparison. It is normal across Government and in research to examine a near neighbour as a comparator on similar concerns e.g. the costs of running the office of the Head of State, but the Ireland example was just a quick illustration. If you want to look at only monarchies then data shows that the UK Royal Family is by far the most expensive in Europe. It is a matter of public record that the Queen and Prince Charles have used the powers of consent to veto bills. Charles is next in line to the throne so any attempt to influence Government policy is a concern. The Supreme Court has ordered that Charles' "Black Spider" memos be made public but the Government have yet to declare how this will be undertaken. There is a fear that certain passages will be redacted - e.g. those that will cause the greatest embarrassment to the prince. Let's wait and see shall we. Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted April 27, 2015 Report Share Posted April 27, 2015 The Beckhams and Jamie Oliver. What a bunch of herberts ! None can speak proper English and the total sum of their IQ's barely reaches double figures. Worked hard for their money.... What a load of eyewash. It's people who have set up their own companies and worked endlessly to be successful and employed many people over the years in industry, and getting this once great country back on its feet that deserve the credit. When this argument arises, I always tend to think that there is an element of jealousy. One person has got more money than somebody else. So what !!!!!!! Does it really matter. Being happy and enjoying a good life is what matters surely !!! 4 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts