How is the Royal family financially or constitutionally bad for Britain?

[Westdene Seagull]

If the Royalty was to go so would are Military effectively as we know it. The Military is there to protect the Country and the Queens People.... hence the saying "FOR QUEEN/KING AND COUNTRY". If the Goverment had control of the Military and the Police then you would almost have no protection for the countries people. Take the recent riots in London, there was a reason the Military were not used, because turning the military against its own people would be catastrophic, who would be there to protect the people of the UK IF the Police stepped out of line. Hence why for the time being it is still controlled by the Queen. This leads nicely onto my next point

Good grief - I'm a Royalist, always have been BUT I don't buy this strange argument at all. Are you seriously suggesting that the only thing that prevents the military being deployed to our streets in a riot situation is the Queen You don't see the military deployed for riots in the US or France !

 

[glasfryn]

any property they own is "ours" give them bikes and sell that land or build cheap housing on it solves a lot of problems and putting money into other countries is building for later trade although I would question some of the countries they have given money to

 

[Dandyman]

To 'Disband' the Royal Family would cost millions more than keeping it. There is a far bigger picture beyond the couple of million they make from some tourists stood outside the gates of Buckingham Palace and taking pictures

1- The Commonwealth, NOT all but most actually enjoy having the queen as a figure head. The Queen is not just a political figure head but also a religious figure head. We spent hundreds of years going around the world telling everyone how great our country was and our way of life was that people saw us as a shinning light that they follow them religiously aswell. Places like Fiji, Ghana and Jamaica.

2- HM Armed Forces. The Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and 90% of the Army have Royal in there Regiment names. Meaning exactly that, they belong to the Queen. Despite popular belief the Military is the Queens NOT the Governments, and the Government seeks the Queens approval to send the Military anywhere, just because she does not sit in Parliament arguing with the rest of the time wasters it doesn't mean she is not asked.

Also from point 1 there is a several hundred if not thousand Commonwealth Soldiers serving in the British Military.

If the Royalty was to go so would are Military effectively as we know it. The Military is there to protect the Country and the Queens People.... hence the saying "FOR QUEEN/KING AND COUNTRY". If the Goverment had control of the Military and the Police then you would almost have no protection for the countries people. Take the recent riots in London, there was a reason the Military were not used, because turning the military against its own people would be catastrophic, who would be there to protect the people of the UK IF the Police stepped out of line. Hence why for the time being it is still controlled by the Queen. This leads nicely onto my next point

3- Toursim. I know people don't 'buy it', however like it or not if you took away the Royal Family you would simply cripple London and alot of peoples lives. Business, restaurants and shops all rely on the pull of the Royal tourist attractions to make the money. Get rid of the up keep of the Royal Family and you would see Buckingham Palace, Tower Of London, Horse Guards, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, Edinburgh Castle all go into a state of disrepair, not to mention all the Parks around London which are 'ROYAL' parks now open to the Public. What do you think the local outcry would be if the bulldozers moved into the Royal Pavilion and knocked that down The Military which as I previously said about is also a massive tourist pull, Edinburgh Tattoo, Changing of the Guard, Trooping the Colour, believe or not but Remembrance Day. Its nothing without Royalty.

4- Royal 'Endorsements' & Charities. There are literally 100's of Charities not just in the UK but abroad in which the Royal family endorse and help to keep, and without they would not exist. Battle of Britain Memorial flight, Royal British Legion, St Dunstans Hospital all receive "Royal Donations'.

5- Royal Engagements. Yes there expensive but when they do go places it gives hope to millions. When the Queen or Prince (s) are present it is bigger than a rockstar turning up. Look at 2012 what a year, what a year to be proud to be British.

6- Imagine the country which is so proud of its history, its Military, the things we take for granted. I can assure you getting rid of Royalty would change this country for the worse.

If you really want to look at public money spent and wasted ...... how about the 72 million the Government just GAVE to Syria considering we now dont recognise the current Syrian Government and voted against military action, who got the money?? The rebels I take it?? So we a publicly funding Terrorism!! who sanctioned that without even voting on that.
The millions we are putting into Libya which I believe to currently stand at over 100 million. The money we have spent funding other countries to bail them out of financial problems!
How much did the local change in speed limits around Brighton just cost?? 150'000 I heard, who wasted our local money??

I would think that if you are questioning our Royalty and money spent on them, then I would hope you question the public money spent on foreign countries first!

I also do make any apology for any spelling mistake or punctuation errors, just so people don't waste their time telling me that!

Point 2 is one of the best arguments for a republic that I can think of. The others are simply assertions or nonsense. Germany and France are both republics and it's hard to see anything that makes them constitutionally worse off than the UK.

 

[MICK PATCHAM]

er, why don't you kick off and tell us what a benefit the royal family is?

I've yet to to meet a royal forelock tugger who offers anything beyond 'the tourism' line (which I don't buy)

W.C by name ............toilet by nature

 

[Flex Your Head]

You really are a MONG at times.

Only 'at times'?

 

[BrightonPara]

Good grief - I'm a Royalist, always have been BUT I don't buy this strange argument at all. Are you seriously suggesting that the only thing that prevents the military being deployed to our streets in a riot situation is the Queen You don't see the military deployed for riots in the US or France !

Wrong ... in terms of Military, the US will deploy the National Guard at times of state emergencies. The British Government did class the riots in August 2011 as an Emergency, but didn't even mobilise the TA. Nothing to do with the Queen really! that was the Governments choice. Im sure tho the Queen was asked about Iraq, Afghan, Syria as well as other deployments that UK Forces have been involved in.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Wrong ... in terms of Military, the US will deploy the National Guard at times of state emergencies. The British Government did class the riots in August 2011 as an Emergency, but didn't even mobilise the TA. Nothing to do with the Queen really! that was the Governments choice. Im sure tho the Queen was asked about Iraq, Afghan, Syria as well as other deployments that UK Forces have been involved in.

I think you're confusing deployment of troops and aggressive actions with a declaration of war. Agreed only the Queen / King can declare war - I'm pretty sure the government could have gone ahead with Iraq and co without formal permission from the Queen.

 

[W.C.]

No...if you want to contribute, answer the question, else go away and start a thread of your own.

.....and of course you don't buy the tourism line, it doesn't fit your clichéd archaic anti establishment agenda does it?......thinking it doesn't make it right matey.

erm, my post was really in response to the cliched pro-establishment agenda of the original post. If the OP had wanted to ask a reasonable question it really isn't that hard. It wasn't a question as such though was it? Just a chance to blow his royalist trumpet and take a snide dig at 'Royal Haters'. He really should up his game and come up with something like the 'Royal Hating Brigade'.

Thunder Bolt did on the other hand post sensibly without resorting to the usual bum crap and it was genuinely interesting.

 

[brakespear]

Not a financial thing for me, more that I'm not inclined to believe that any one person, due to who their parents are, is of any more significant value to the country than anyone else and they are the ultimate extension of that.

 

[seagull_in_malaysia]

Was about to post this. Explains it all very well.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm pretty sure the government could have gone ahead with Iraq and co without formal permission from the Queen.

yep. PM can use royal prerogative to deploy forces, hence the question from Miliband immediatly after the Syria vote and Cameron saying he'd follow the will of the house.

 

[cunning fergus]

er, why don't you kick off and tell us what a benefit the royal family is?

I've yet to to meet a royal forelock tugger who offers anything beyond 'the tourism' line (which I don't buy)

I've yet to meet a Republican who can provide a compelling explanation on what form of "institution" will replace the current Monarchy?

Will we have the executive President via the US/French model or merely a head of state like the Irish model?

If you could sell your vision on purely the financial and constitutional benefits without offering anything beyond "off with their heads class bigotry" maybe some anti-Republicans will be prepared to buy it?

 

[W.C.]

I've yet to meet a Republican who can provide a compelling explanation on what form of "institution" will replace the current Monarchy?

Will we have the executive President via the US/French model or merely a head of state like the Irish model?

If you could sell your vision on purely the financial and constitutional benefits without offering anything beyond "off with their heads class bigotry" maybe some anti-Republicans will be prepared to buy it?

Class Bigotry?
Sorry if thinking that doing away with an archaic hereditary system of privilege makes me a bigot then sign me up for the BNP.

I haven't put forward anything to support my views on this thread yet. I was only responding the the OP and his ROYAL LOVING (I can do it too) rhetoric.

I'll read posts like the one by Thunder Bolt.

The rest of you : carry on

 

[pastafarian]

erm, my post was really in response to the cliched pro-establishment agenda of the original post. If the OP had wanted to ask a reasonable question it really isn't that hard. It wasn't a question as such though was it? Just a chance to blow his royalist trumpet and take a snide dig at 'Royal Haters'. He really should up his game and come up with something like the 'Royal Hating Brigade'.

Thunder Bolt did on the other hand post sensibly without resorting to the usual bum crap and it was genuinely interesting.

I think the original question is reasonable enough,plenty of times i have heard and read through the media people claiming the Royals cost far too much money etc etc,so i think it is fairly reasonable to ask how much is it they exactly cost us.
You are correct Thunderbolt answered very well and sensibly and it seems the Royals manage to make a few quid.I added constitutionally into the mix as beyond financial and constitutional concerns surrounding the Royals i cant see any other reasons why it would seem necessary and a benefit to the country to kick them into touch.

 

[W.C.]

I think the original question is reasonable enough,plenty of times i have heard and read through the media people claiming the Royals cost far too much money etc etc,so i think it is fairly reasonable to ask how much is it they exactly cost us.
You are correct Thunderbolt answered very well and sensibly and it seems the Royals manage to make a few quid.I added constitutionally into the mix as beyond financial and constitutional concerns surrounding the Royals i cant see any other reasons why it would seem necessary and a benefit to the country to kick them into touch.

I didn't think you worded your original post well myself. It came across as a dig, not a question. Hence my response.

There are plenty of reasons to be for or against the royals. Be they financial, constitutional, moral or whatever else. I can't be bothered to engage in a discussion if from the off you feel your position is being patronised.

 

[jgmcdee]

Sorry if thinking that doing away with an archaic hereditary system of privilege makes me a bigot then sign me up for the BNP.

Just curious, but what particular privilege are you thinking of here that the royals have but other equally-rich people do not have?

(And if you're thinking about police protection and the like then that's separate and down to their duties of state).

 

[pastafarian]

I didn't think you worded your original post well myself. It came across as a dig, not a question. Hence my response.

There are plenty of reasons to be for or against the royals. Be they financial, constitutional, moral or whatever else. I can't be bothered to engage in a discussion if from the off you feel your position is being patronised.

but this is what i asked!!! It seems you have financial and constitutional reasons for hating the monarchy after all..........fancy sharing?

i think you are confusing patronising with befuddled

Would you feel better if i blew you a kiss?

 

[W.C.]

Just curious, but what particular privilege are you thinking of here that the royals have but other equally-rich people do not have?

(And if you're thinking about police protection and the like then that's separate and down to their duties of state).

you really are splitting hairs here aren't you? Yes, children of fantastically rich people are 'privileged' too. Personally I would be happy NOT to have that 'privilege'. But the Royal family aren't exactly like us are they?

I have no beef with the individuals involved really. But I would be happier living in a society that didn't elevate some people in such an unnatural, archaic way.

Much in the same way I wish things like HEAT magazine and reality TV would disappear.

 

[W.C.]

but this is what i asked!!! It seems you have financial and constitutional reasons for hating the monarchy after all..........fancy sharing?

i think you are confusing patronising with befuddled

Would you feel better if i blew you a kiss?

wow, if your OP was only a little patronising...

Look if you want to ask a question, why not just ask it? Without the name calling. Try it next time.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

wow, if your OP was only a little patronising...

Look if you want to ask a question, why not just ask it? Without the name calling. Try it next time.

How have you managed two years on here being so precious ?