For queen and country?

[lawros left foot]

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.

But who gave them the crown estates? Their ancestors accrued these over the years, by robbery,killing of the original owners, gifts from sycophants, and from dodgy marriages made entirely for gain. Hardly great role models, whatever th Daily Mail might think.

 

[Mammoth]

They should go. Ideally without a lengthy suspension first.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But who gave them the crown estates? Their ancestors accrued these over the years, by robbery,killing of the original owners, gifts from sycophants, and from dodgy marriages made entirely for gain. Hardly great role models, whatever th Daily Mail might think.

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.

 

[lawros left foot]

If you have a President, you can vote them out after their term of office, with our present system we are stuck with whoever was made the ruler of our country, completely by accident of birth, no matter how unsuited for the role, until they die. And then their eldest offspring, again, no matter, how unsuited, is installed until they die,and so it goes on, ad nauseam, supported by a sycophant media, vested interests in the Government, and a population that is fed a diet of royalist propaganda.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Not a great fan to be honest.

Don't think we should get rid of them as they bring in money but at the same time, they really shouldn't be treated as such a big deal by the media, getting born is an achievement we all share yet they seem to get all the plaudits.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Last time we had a European election the country overwhelmingly returned Eurosceptic parties........so the will of the electorate in that regard is clear. It is so clear that it is the very reason we have not had a referendum on our relationship with the EU despite it changing year on year into the nightmare it is today for all citizens of the EU.

For years our politicians told us, the EU will not be a United States of Europe our membership is only a mechanism to access the single market.

Yet, in Manuel Barroso's own words this year................

“Let’s not be afraid of the words: we will need to move towards a federation of nation states. This is what we need. This is our political horizon,”

http://www.euractiv.com/priorities/barroso-seeks-public-space-launc-news-514761

You are worried about the democratic mandate of the UK's powerless head of state, care to remind me.................who elected this megalomaniac c**t?

This all the way and lets not forget that Ted Heath has admitted since he left power that the plan was ALWAYS a full political and fiscal union but it wasn't told to the public because they knew nobody would vote for it !

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Plus we don't subsidise Rolls Royce,

Really ? Are you sure about that statement ?

 

[drew]

Do you know why Prince Charles is called the Prince of Wales?

Is it because none of the locals are up to the task?

Let's face it,the crown estates are only parcels of land that they nicked a few centuries ago anyway !

So is every bit of land in the country!

Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 10 tourist attractions in the UK not one royal residence makes it! Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Flamingo land and theme park, in at number 5). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. The success of the Tower of London (number 1 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were left by the Windsor family.
The British tourist industry is already healthy castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy. Other attractions, such as the London Eye, the west end, Brighton, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside etc, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even created stats on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. Keep the people quiet and the privileged few secure.

Those figures relate to visitors. When talking with reference to the tourism the royals bring in you refer to visitors to this country. Most people spending money to visit this country don't do so to go to Flamingo Land!

With regard to the OP, I would not want to see the end of the Royals. They set us apart from many other countries and are integral to the history of our country. Without Kings and Queens, many of the castles, particularly the Tower of London, wouldn't be anywhere as near as interesting as they are.

 

[BuddyBoy]

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.

I read your posts about the estates, ta very much. But to be pro-monarchy is to support a monarchy owning vast atretched of land, as opposed to either private or public (state). Those against the monarchy are against these estates belonging to a crown in the first place. The tax arrangement to you speak of is neither cheap or democratic.

 

[cunning fergus]

But who gave them the crown estates? Their ancestors accrued these over the years, by robbery,killing of the original owners, gifts from sycophants, and from dodgy marriages made entirely for gain. Hardly great role models, whatever th Daily Mail might think.

Jeez, your river runs deep.............with your acute sense of justice i am assuming you don't have any Japanese or German consumables.

 

[beorhthelm]

I read your posts about the estates, ta very much. But to be pro-monarchy is to support a monarchy owning vast atretched of land, as opposed to either private or public (state).

you missed the point then, the Crown Estates are de facto part of the state. to be against the crown/monarch owning estates is to be against all ownership. the civil list is analogous to the cost of running any other head of state.

 

[Doc Lynam]

This is one reason why this unelected family is undemocratic.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/12/prince-charles-scrutiny-mps-lobbying

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-string-politicians-Buckingham-Palace.html

 

[The Spanish]

If you have a President, you can vote them out after their term of office, with our present system we are stuck with whoever was made the ruler of our country, completely by accident of birth, no matter how unsuited for the role, until they die. And then their eldest offspring, again, no matter, how unsuited, is installed until they die,and so it goes on, ad nauseam, supported by a sycophant media, vested interests in the Government, and a population that is fed a diet of royalist propaganda.

yeah and its GREAT. distancing head of state from politics is a great idea and what makes Britain a better place to live. if you are jealous or bitter because they are rich then just say so. chances are an elected president will come from a privileged background also. you will just end up disliking them too but getting none of the benefits a royal family brings.

 

[The Spanish]

This is one reason why this unelected family is undemocratic.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/12/prince-charles-scrutiny-mps-lobbying

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-string-politicians-Buckingham-Palace.html

lots more unsavoury people than charlie lobby, and successfully. it shouldnt be a surprise that a member of the ruling dynasty has some influence. they dont live in a royal bubble, access to government and influence runs deep into their strata and below. its not just the royal family/everyone else, its far more linear than that. i dont see the problem. power and influence runs far deeper than Brenda and the gang, at least they put something back.

 

[Brovion]

I don't really care either way. My beef is that 'God Save the Queen' is the worst, dullest national anthem in the world. The tune is bad enough, but the words are embarrassing, especially when sung by some opera singer before Wembley games.
...

An old thread I know but one of the GREAT things about England v Scotland on Wednesday will be the Scottish fans giving GSTQ the respect it deserves.

 

[Doc Lynam]

lots more unsavoury people than charlie lobby, and successfully. it shouldnt be a surprise that a member of the ruling dynasty has some influence. they dont live in a royal bubble, access to government and influence runs deep into their strata and below. its not just the royal family/everyone else, its far more linear than that. i dont see the problem. power and influence runs far deeper than Brenda and the gang, at least they put something back.

So your happy that our elected minister have to consent the Queen and Charles because of a little-known royal veto over any new laws that affect their private interests?

So in effect they are about the law because they can state whether its being introduced or not!

 

[The Spanish]

So your happy that our elected minister have to consent the Queen and Charles because of a little-known royal veto over any new laws that affect their private interests?

So in effect they are about the law because they can state whether its being introduced or not!

yep doesnt bother me. seriously. our problem is in the commons and daft political appointments to the lords, not what our ruling family do - they are to a certain extent above the law and how they use that privilege is far more benign than some in the aforementioned institutions, democratically elected.

 

[lawros left foot]

If I was jealous of everyone richer than me, I would like hardly anybody. My point is that I believe in democracy, and therefore I believe that we, as a grown up country in the 21st century should be able to vote for the leader of the country, and if we , as voters do get it wrong, then after an agreed term we could vote them out. I personally think that we have been extremely lucky with the Queen, who has been a brilliant figurehead for the country,. And under a democratic system, would probally have voted for her. It is the system that is wrong, not the personalities.

 

[daveinprague]

In this day and age, I really dont see the point of them. Tourism? The buildings will still be there, most tourists dont see any of the royal family, just where they live.

 

[The Spanish]

If I was jealous of everyone richer than me, I would like hardly anybody. My point is that I believe in democracy, and therefore I believe that we, as a grown up country in the 21st century should be able to vote for the leader of the country, and if we , as voters do get it wrong, then after an agreed term we could vote them out. I personally think that we have been extremely lucky with the Queen, who has been a brilliant figurehead for the country,. And under a democratic system, would probally have voted for her. It is the system that is wrong, not the personalities.

the system is wrong because we have this knockabout red v blue system that a significant proportion of the electorate support like football teams and has been further corrupted by the emphasis on presentation over conviction.

to moan that the systems wrong because we have a wealthy head of state and her family represent us in public, who are not 'democratically' elected, is not only barking up the wrong tree, you are in the wrong blooming forest in the first place.