Monarchy or Republic?

[looney]

Oh and FatTadger, you only think you have a backbone because you deepthroated a three foot dildo with a smiley face drawn onto the end with a felt tip pen, and ever since, your posture has straightened out like an evolutionary diagram of a red arsed baboon on all fours eventually becoming a man.

 

[looney]

I've dealt with him before. He's a cock.

OK, Ive no problem with that. Does he post at Hobnobs?

 

[Brovion]

Oh and FatTadger, you only think you have a backbone because you deepthroated a three foot dildo with a smiley face drawn onto the end with a felt tip pen, and ever since, your posture has straightened out like an evolutionary diagram of a red arsed baboon on all fours eventually becoming a man.

Oh looney looney looney! Why do you have to resort to this? It's not even funny. Oh of course, you've lost an argument again.

 

[Cian]

Republic, its my favorite New Order album

 

[jonogulls]

The British monarchy is an outdated constitution that is only kept because of the ridiculous arguments we have heard on this thread. Are you really trying to say we (the taxpayer) don't contribute to the Queen's lifestyle, in which she does nothing and is given a lot?

In years to come people will look back at the Royal Family and ask why they were allowed to stay around for so long, because there is no evidence that they contribute to the tourism industry in any way. They are, and always will be, simply a financial burden on the state.

PS To say that the government wouldn't be able to gain the money that is rightfully ours is ludicrous. With the Labour government keen to impoe 50% inheritence tax it wouldn't be long before we got a lot of their wealth (they are currently excluded from this tax - OK a lot of their wealth is in property, paintings etc). Buckingham Palace and the Queen's possessions are not privately owned by the Windsors as suggested here earlier. They are owned by the country, by the people who the monarchy are supposed to serve.

PSS Never try to be like America. As well as being big headed, arrogant, stupid, no brained twats their political system is crap. Where else in the world can you get into power by getting less votes than your opponent (OK it could happen in Britain, but it won't)? The US is led by the ideas of the President of the time rather than the party (Democrat or Republic) as a whole. Because of the US constitution I feel the President has far too much power. Presidents / world leaders should need the total support of their own party / parliamentary majority before they can introduce policies.

Why else did Blair gain the total support of the Labour Party for the war in Iraq, foundation hospitals, a Tory based 2 tier education system etc? Why does Blair feel he can act as a President? Because he's a cock? And that is written by a staunch left winger. Only Gordan Brown / Ken Livingstone / George Galloway could ever take the Labour Party back to its true roots.

 

[Yorkie]

jonogulls I never said at any time that Buckingham Palace was privately owned.

Sandringham is the Queens private property.

Incidentally the Queen Mother gave her castle to the people on her death. I think that more than makes up for inheritance tax.

Someone else wrote that the QM owned loads of tax.. wrong the dead person doesn't owe anything, it is the heirs that pay.

The Royal Family are not a financial burden to the State.

You say the Queen does nothing? Have you checked her diary? It is printed everyday in the Times.
Most people here will retire at 65. The Queen doesn't have that luxury.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Where else in the world can you get into power by getting less votes than your opponent (OK it could happen in Britain, but it won't)?

Err ... it has and it will continue to happen here. If you add up all the votes for all the parties at most elections it is often the case that the party with the most overall votes doesn't actually win. A side effect of the 'First past the Post' system.

 

[jonogulls]

Name one election in the UK in which one party got less votes than another but still managed to get into power. It could happen in theory because of the 'First past the post' but it hasn't happened, as far as I know.

 

[Mick Beard BHA]

Most people here will retire at 65. The Queen doesn't have that luxury.

Yorkie, i find this sentence incredible. Who would the Queen be to complain about lack of luxuries?

I'd bet many of us here on NSC would not swap our lives for the Queens- we wouldnt want the intrusion, the lack (paradoxically, considering she is the Monarch) of being able to make your own decisions, being soo divorced from everyday life and, perhaps, reality?

But i aint gonna feel sorry for her; first and foremost she knows no different anyway. Thats the only life she's ever known, and it involves huge beautiful houses and palaces, expensive food and drink, any clothes or, feck it, posessions she could ever want.

Meanwhile we retire after 40-50 years of back breaking labour. Yeah, what a luxury

 

[looney]

Oh looney looney looney! Why do you have to resort to this? It's not even funny. Oh of course, you've lost an argument again.

How can I lose an arguement I haven't had?

I just made some snide points, I dont give a shit about the f***ing monarchy. They dont bother me so I dont bother them. They are f***ing irrelevant to me and millions of others, ditto the Diana cult.

They are only of intrest to idol worshippers , state worshipers, inbred aristocrats, buck teethed horsy types, scruffy smelly trotskiest types and people with to much time on their hands.

God save the Queen?
Shouldn't that be the other way around in this Quasi-atheist country? So we pay a few shekels to keep her and her retarded ofspring fed. At least she doesn't go around throwing her weight around like a President would. I

 

[London Calling]

The fact is that the Quen etc pay no taxes.

The state gives more money to the mOnarchy than it receives back.

The state actually owns Buckingham Palace and a few other Royal Residences and therefore pays for the upkeep.

All of the Royal monies has been generated from the people of Britain, even the shares etc is money derived from taxing the subjects or property stolen etc.

The wealth of our Royals is derived from stolen land or buildings from past times. It can quite easily be taken back and given to the people.

No tourist really comes over to see the Queen etc. They come here for our history. Our Royal Palaces are no better than worst than many others around the world but the English language does help attract the Yanks.

The Government should introduce a tourist tax it works well across the world in many forms.

The Royals are a anomaly in the 21st Century, what are they actually for. When it comes to Constitutional issues the Monarchist play down their (Royal) influence because they realise its anti-democratic.

So why do we need them!

Of course there are some ******* as Presidents but their are some great Presidents around the world. But whether they are ******* ar just ok or excellent. They have been voted for!

They are a democratic deficit, sponging off the state.

The Queen lives within the Wealthiest part of Europe (in GDP terms). Within 3 miles of her home is the most deprived part of the UK, where unemployment is still above 40%.

Me thinks a bit of wealth distribution and abolition the monarch is essential.

For me the issue is, whether it should be bloodless or not.

LC

 

[looney]

Want a couple more facts?

Immigrants from the Carribbian and their children here tend to be staunchly Pro monarchy, thats how they were raised.

Immigrants from Ireland and their children here tend to be staunchly Anti monarchy, thats how they were raised.


Everyone else(Barring political animals) just goes with the flow.

I cant see ANY political or Economic benefits from keeping or scrapping the Monarchy.

Its purely an aesthetic arguement where people hide their prejudices or upbrinnng in so called "Noble sentiments".

 

[London Calling]

Want a couple more facts?

Immigrants from the Carribbian and their children here tend to be staunchly Pro monarchy, thats how they were raised.

Immigrants from Ireland and their children here tend to be staunchly Anti monarchy, thats how they were raised.


Everyone else(Barring political animals) just goes with the flow.

I cant see ANY political or Economic benefits from keeping or scrapping the Monarchy.

Its purely an aesthetic arguement where people hide their prejudices or upbrinnng in so called "Noble sentiments".

Following on from this, me and Ms LC were in Grand Caymen a couple of years ago. THey were so pro-Monarchy, loved the Queen, couldn't understand why she wasn't loved in the UK.

Our feelings were that they needed the Queen to stop the overwhelming Americanisation of their Island. But nevertheless young or old they loved her.

Well I don't.

LC

 

[somerset]

The fact is that the Quen etc pay no taxes.

Oops..... and he fell at the first hurdle..................... yes she does.

 

[looney]

Following on from this, me and Ms LC were in Grand Caymen a couple of years ago. THey were so pro-Monarchy, loved the Queen, couldn't understand why she wasn't loved in the UK.

Our feelings were that they needed the Queen to stop the overwhelming Americanisation of their Island. But nevertheless young or old they loved her.

Well I don't.

LC

Are you of Irish Desent?

 

[London Calling]

Oops..... and he fell at the first hurdle..................... yes she does.

OK what is her Income Tax bill considering she is our richest woman.

LC

 

[London Calling]

Are you of Irish Desent?

No.

Anglo-saxon. My surname derives from the Franks, which probably means my ancestors came over with the Normans.

There is a lot of "Frankish" names around Sussex.

My parents are staunch Monarchist?

LC

 

[London Calling]

I HAV'ENT READ THIS YET BUT IT SEEMS TO PROVIDE A GOOD SYNOPSIS OF THE QUEEN TAXES.

lc

Queen Elizabeth II
The secrets of the Queen's finances are published
The Queen saved £20 million on inheritance tax after the death of the Queen Mother due to a secret deal with the British Treasury (finance ministry). In 2002 it was revealed that there are other secret deals between Queen Elizabeth and the Treasury.

The civil list (government payments to Buckingham Palace and the royal family) now costs the British taxpayer about £8.1 million each year. Total published payments to the head of state are about £35 million. This figure includes payments for items such as property maintenance and travel.

The civil list is now only paid to two individual members of the royal family, the Queen and Prince Philip - although see below. The £643,000 annual allowance to the Queen Mother ceased on her death in March 2002. Prince Philip receives about £359,000.

In 1993 it was announced that only the Queen, Prince Philip and the Queen Mother would receive civil list payments in the future. At the same time it was also announced then that other members of the royal family stopped benefiting from the civil list. The Queen also agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1993.

However, rather than abolishing the civil list payments to the other royals, taxpayer handouts to them continued and the Queen curiously paid an equivalent sum back to the Treasury.

This was said at the time to be a technical arrangement to cover administrative and legal difficulties of stopping the payments. But the Queen, it has now become clear, can set off the money she pays back to the Treasury against her own tax bill. In this way, the Queen saves income tax at the rate of 40% on payments of £249,000 to Prince Andrew; £141,000 to Prince Edward; £228,000 to Princess Anne; and £636,000 in total to the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. Another £87,000 is paid by the taxpayer to Princess Alice, now over 100 years old and sister-in-law of the Queen Mother. It is then reimbursed to the Treasury by the Queen. The Queen is therefore likely to be saving £536,000 a year in income tax.

The savings may go up if, as seems likely, payments to the Prince Edward rise in the future to compensate Edward and his wife Sophie for abandoning their careers.

The total civil list payment in 2002 was £7.9 million. This is to cover other expenses of Buckingham Palace and the royal family. Internal Treasury files, released to the public record office in 2002 also disclosed details of a deal that ensured that MPs are not allowed to reduce the civil list - despite the fact that £35 million had not been spent.

According to the files, this agreement was specifically introduced to avoid "unduly exposing individual members of the royal family to too much embarrassment".

The papers also reveal that the government once upset the Queen by secretly vetoing a 100% "pay increase" for the Queen Mother. Edward Heath's cabinet in 1971 rejected a proposal from the palace for a pay rise for the Queen Mother that would have doubled her civil list payment from £70,000 to £140,000, saying it "might well lead to embarrassing criticism of the royal family".

Senior ministers said the amount had to be kept under the £100,000 figure and suggested £90,000 instead.

The papers record that when the Queen was told, "she reluctantly accepted the proposal but had pressed strongly for £95,000 instead of £90,000 on the grounds that it was important to maintain a substantial differential between the Queen Mother and the other royals.


Prince William
The British royal family
The Internet Forum

 

[Highfields Seagull]

Name one election in the UK in which one party got less votes than another but still managed to get into power. It could happen in theory because of the 'First past the post' but it hasn't happened, as far as I know.

1951 - the Labour party polled more votes than the Conservatives. However, the Conservatives won more seats and formed the government.

 

[somerset]

OK what is her Income Tax bill considering she is our richest woman.

LC

Errrrr.... not being a member of HM Treasury, I don't knwo,... but I am sure you could find out somewhere, if you can be arsed.