For queen and country?

[Thunder Bolt]

No, you don't say that word for word. But whenever you are backed into a corner over royalty, you trott out the line "there's always someone better off than you", as if that makes their absurd level of privilege and law flouting entirely acceptable. Which is just the same thing, to all intents and purposes.

I haven't said that either.

 

[Simster]

I haven't said that either.

Yes you have. You absolutely DEFINITELY have.

 

[The Spanish]

You seem to have no problem with people born into privelege having vetoes on national law-making, who get to be exempt from laws that nevertheless affect the rest of us, whose tax is a matter of person choice unlike everyone else, and whose accounts are shrouded in secrecy, yet will whine like a bitch at the selfishness of it all when it comes to things like the laws on immigration and their effects. So for example, you'll join in on a discussion about immigration and the squeeze it has on council housing, but look the other way when billionaire Prince William and his wife have their 107 roomed apartment re-decorated at a cost of £100m to the tax payer.
.

whining like a bitch is a bit strong. this is a debate. we have not discussed the extent of the civil list, the burden of the royal family on the taxpayers , just their constitutional parameters and the institution itself. nowhere have i mentioned they should live an unrestricted life of luxury at our expense.

my views on immigration costs and burdens, are based on the fact that so many divs on here think its great and champion it when they dont live with it or the impact. again an example of abuse of privilege, and lack of any concern for less well off members of our society. you dont need a gold coach to be privileged.

 

[Doc Lynam]

And a Sussex MP gets in on the act. Tory minister for East Worthing and Shoreham Tim Loughton defends Charles right for secret meeting to shape our laws by offering "practical help."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/13/prince-charles-secret-meetings-defended

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The British tax payer contributes towards the civil list which is only paid to the Queen & Duke of Edinburgh. This is in lieu of money from the Crown lands which is given to the government. The tax payer would be worse off if the arrangement ceased.

She isn't just Queen of the UK but of 16 countries, and heads up the Commonwealth which is made up of 43 countries.

She has recently put the government in their place. Crown civil servants have a day privilege leave for her birthday and a half day for Maundy Thursday. The government tried to do away with it, thus reducing leave entitlement, but the Queen had granted these on her coronation so it wasn't the government's place to dispose of them.

Yes, it is, especially when this government doesn't know what it is doing.

Excellent. I haven't been called a lick spittle for a long time. You know when you are ahead in a debate when the other side start using terms like that.

The Civil List Act 1837 was an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom, signed into law on 23 December 1837.
It reiterated the principles of the civil list system, stating that the newly-accessioned Queen Victoria undertook to transfer all hereditary revenues of the Crown to the Treasury.

I'll name another living one as Prince Philip who served in WWII.

Someone hasn't read the other posts in this thread. The Crown Estates give more money to the Treasury than the Civil List paid out.

Please supply the dates that they accrued Cornwall, Lancaster and Sandringham?
Every family has dodgy marriages, my own family has skeletons in the cupboard. If you have an elected President, you'll find a dodgy family history.

If there was a democratic open vote whether to retain the monarchy or do away with it, don't forget there are 16 countries involved not just the UK.
The Queen is also the head of the Commonwealth so that brings 42 countries into it. Every one of those 42 countries are volunteer members of a great union with great respect for each other.

Put your claws away Simster. Re-read the thread, and tell me where I have accused anyone of being bitter or jealous of wealth?

Yes you have. You absolutely DEFINITELY have.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

** slamdunk **

 

[Simster]

** slamdunk **

Erm:

Yes brilliant. What about your previous NINE years on here (including your time as "Yorkie")? Do you want me to just ignore everything you've ever said in defence of the Royal family?

Where have *I* suggested I was only talking about this thread?

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

I am massively anti royals. I just dislike them and a lot of their morals/actions

HOWEVER as long as the amount brought into the economy through tourism exceeds the figure given to them by the tax payer then I have no issue witht hem staying. When this balance tips the other way, I would say it is time to get rid.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What about your previous NINE years on here (including your time as "Yorkie")?

Where have *I* suggested I was only talking about this thread?

Only nine years? Your memory is slipping badly. Do an advanced search on bitter or jealousy and see if you can find a quote with either username.

 

[BBassic]

They bring in tourists (and their money) and I quite like having a monarch, no matter how antiquated the idea may be. It's a thumbs up from me.

 

[Simster]

whining like a bitch is a bit strong. this is a debate. we have not discussed the extent of the civil list, the burden of the royal family on the taxpayers , just their constitutional parameters and the institution itself. nowhere have i mentioned they should live an unrestricted life of luxury at our expense.

my views on immigration costs and burdens, are based on the fact that so many divs on here think its great and champion it when they dont live with it or the impact. again an example of abuse of privilege, and lack of any concern for less well off members of our society. you dont need a gold coach to be privileged.

You make some good points there.

The reasoning in your second paragraph is actually an area in which over time you and your allies caused me to re-think my position. Which is why I find your pro-royalty stance so baffling.

 

[Simster]

Only nine years? Your memory is slipping badly. Do an advanced search on bitter or jealousy and see if you can find a quote with either username.

As well as at no point explicitly restricting your quotes to this thread, I've also already corrected myself and admitted I'm not going to find those words in your past:

No, you don't say that word for word. But whenever you are backed into a corner over royalty, you trott out the line "there's always someone better off than you", as if that makes their absurd level of privilege and law flouting entirely acceptable. Which is just the same thing, to all intents and purposes.

I'm fairly sure that I could easily find one or two royal discussions where it has ended up with you losing and you've ended up playing the lame old "there is always someone better off than you" card.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As well as at no point explicitly restricting your quotes to this thread, I've also already corrected myself and admitted I'm not going to find those words in your past:



I'm fairly sure that I could easily find one or two royal discussions where it has ended up with you losing and you've ended up playing the lame old "there is always someone better off than you" card.

I'm fairly sure that you can't. I always use the civil list versus the crown estate revenues in debates like this. I usually bring the Commonwealth into it as well.
There are no winners or losers in a debate like this. Everyone has their own opinion, very few change their mind.

 

[The Spanish]

You make some good points there.

The reasoning in your second paragraph is actually an area in which over time you and your allies caused me to re-think my position. Which is why I find your pro-royalty stance so baffling.

i dont see why my pro royalty stance should be contradictory with my views on the social responsibility owed towards the less well off, from the middle classes.

i have tried to spell out to doc lynam etc that the royals are not an exclusive club, and inherited privilege runs deep in our society. they are just at the apex. all this pointing at them going 'get rid get rid' is to fundamentally misunderstand what our society is built on, in terms of who has advantages. no one replied to my points regarding the other northern european monarchies. yet more parochialism.

i feel that i have a much better chance getting people to understand that we perhaps are more duty bound to the worse off members of our existing society, before we start importing poverty, through the mutually supportive yet supposedly opposing schools of corporate opportunism and idealism.

moaning about a kensington palace refit saying it could house 100 families is dave spart logic. i am not saying its particularly pleasant to have this degree of social imbalance and ostentation, especially at public expense, but through right to buy, lack of investment and in some cases now newcomers comandeering of control of housing, we have a problem that i can perhaps more easily influence people on.

the monarchys not going anywhere and its dissolution will make not a blind bit of difference to ordinary people in this country. its effect would be negative. its an interesting yet pointless debate. debating our social responsibility to our own people is not really linked to our constitutional set up, in my eyes.

 

[Doc Lynam]

i dont see why my pro royalty stance should be contradictory with my views on the social responsibility owed towards the less well off, from the middle classes.

i have tried to spell out to doc lynam etc that the royals are not an exclusive club, and inherited privilege runs deep in our society. they are just at the apex. all this pointing at them going 'get rid get rid' is to fundamentally misunderstand what our society is built on, in terms of who has advantages. no one replied to my points regarding the other northern european monarchies. yet more parochialism.

i feel that i have a much better chance getting people to understand that we perhaps are more duty bound to the worse off members of our existing society, before we start importing poverty, through the mutually supportive yet supposedly opposing schools of corporate opportunism and idealism.

You are quite right they are at the apex of a tradition of privilege and advantage be it education, money, or just plain opportunity! But the difference is they take our tax money in which I have no say! And they get involved in law making from an unelected position, if our democracy is to improve this must change. As for the other countries no doubt there are people within them who feel just the same as us republicans.

 

[The Spanish]

I'm fairly sure that you can't. I always use the civil list versus the crown estate revenues in debates like this. I usually bring the Commonwealth into it as well.
There are no winners or losers in a debate like this. Everyone has their own opinion, very few change their mind.

i have after LLFs post, I want to vote live on ITV for Steven Hawkings.

 

[brightn'ove]

Brb getting some more popcorn!

 

[Simster]

I'm fairly sure that you can't. I always use the civil list versus the crown estate revenues in debates like this. I usually bring the Commonwealth into it as well.
There are no winners or losers in a debate like this. Everyone has their own opinion, very few change their mind.

I've already been on here longer than I planned. As I said to someone earlier, it is a total waste of time.

 

[The Spanish]

You are quite right they are at the apex of a tradition of privilege and advantage be it education, money, or just plain opportunity! But the difference is they take our tax money in which I have no say! And they get involved in law making from an unelected position, if our democracy is to improve this must change. As for the other countries no doubt there are people within them who feel just the same as us republicans.

thats tax for you though doc you buy into the system you cant pick and choose where it goes except when you vote for your team at the ballot box. plenty of people i dont want getting my tax money but democratically, seeing as thats the word of the day, is the only way i can change it. but i wont ever be able to get all the tax expenditure allocated perfectly where i want. and some of that will be far more costly than the Firm. dont think of it going to individuals, rather an institution that whatever you think of it is working for UK PLC.

 

[The Spanish]

Brb getting some more popcorn!

its swan sandwiches with this one mate