Sorry Republicans.

[colinz]

That pretty much sum it up for me.

Do we really want the face of our nation to be some slimy politition (thatcher,major,blair,brown,cameron - take your pick) who is power hungry and desperate to be there or would we rather someone who was born into and trained most of their life to do it.

It's the 2nd one every time

That's quite an interesting point. Had Charles been running things this past decade as Head of State, Britain probably wouldn't be embroiled into the mess that the Middle East is now in. Especially given his affinity with things Arabic.

 

[beorhthelm]

i disagree with the idea that these estates would become the presidents estates. To incorporate the role of head of state into the Prime Minister role (call it a president if you like) would mean that they stay in number 10. Then make sure the queen is looked after (some sort of glass cage in the buckingham palace museum do people could gawp to their hearts desire.) The use the rest of the cash, houses, cars for some democratically decided cause.

To My mind we are using 17 billion dollars of wealth on a position which is not really necessary and one decided by accident of birth. even if the old dear was limited to two massive estates, one private and one state owned. That would sit much better with me.

you really arent getting the point. the Crown Estate is part of the state and is used for democratic, or rather commercial purposes. it is housing, argicultrual land and forestry, rented out like any other landowner does. all the revenue from this goes to the treasury. a new republican head of state would still have the use of those palaces, maybe sell a few off a few with procedes to the treasury (though remember the uproar last time government tried to sell off state land). what the queen owns privately is her business (unless you want to impose similar restrictions on all people?), what the monarch owns officially is something the state (and to a large extent therefore the incumbant parliament) decide is suitable or necessary. sell off a few palaces for all i care, i'm not sure who to though. maybe Mittal, Abramovich or a Saudi prince fancies Kensington Palace. maybe they could sell regent street off to developers, who can pull the lot down?

in fact im not particularly bothered for monarchy, i just dont see a decent alternative being proposed. the default answer, a directly elected president has shown to be rather flawed too. it isn't broke, don't fix it. however republicans seem to be against the monarch but dont even understand very well what they are actually against, what the position of the monarch is, holding lots of very outdated and incorrect ideas.

 

[BadFish]

Do you live in a cave or something ? I wonder if you have ever been abroad in your life ? Frankly you're just not worth arguing with, you replies to other posts indicate that you're not the sharpest tool in the box.

If you don't like answering direct questions, fair enough don't answer them. I was just trying to fully understand your point and make sure you had one.

As for the rest of that post you seem pretty set in your assumptions about me, so I'll let you carry on with them.

Didn't mean to upset you, just joining in the discussion.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

People love a wedding. Especially one with an expensive dress and David Beckham in the crowd.

Does not mean people love the idea of a constitutional monarchy.

 

[drew]

There is a fair amount in our history for which we should be ashamed, just like there is much about which we should be proud.

Every country has history they are not proud of.

In the real world the daughter of millionaires wouldnt be considered "common".

This is why it's a complete charade.

The laws that prevent a Royal from marrying a Catholic aren't laws the CoE could do anything about if the Governments decided to change them.

The Act of Settlement 1701 is being looked at and has been proposed previously as something that need to be rectified so that anyone can be elligible to be an English royal and that the sexist clause that favours males is also removed.

The Monarchy isnt owned by the CoE. Many a Monarch of England wasn't an Anglican.

So in the current climate, the rules of ascension are being looked at and will probably change. In terms of Kate Middleton, she is only classified as a commoner because she hadn't at the time had a title bestowed on her. As for suggesting the royal family should interfer in politics then that would break a long tradition and set a dangerous precedent for other issues.

She also forced her son into marrying someone he didn't love instead of someone he did, that didn't work out too well for her did it.

Only because he was too indecisive about Camilla in the first place and she got bored and when off and married Bowles. If the Queen and Phillip hadn't put pressure on him he still would not be married, there would be no William and Harry and Prince Andrew would be next in line to the throne after Chas followed by Beatrice!!!!

For all its faults its probably the most multicultural gathering of people under one banner.

Certainly not an exclusive closed shop like the Monarchy.

The catholic heirarchy is extremely bigoted and a very closed shop. The recent scandals over the last few years should prove that they are more interested in protecting their power than the spiritual well being of their followers.

For what it is worth, I prefer to have a herediatry head of state rather than an elected one who is in the pocket of whomever provided their election funds. The royal family is not perfect but I prefer that to the risk of someone like Berlusconi or some of the dubious French heads of state. As

 

[BadFish]

you really arent getting the point. the Crown Estate is part of the state and is used for democratic, or rather commercial purposes. it is housing, argicultrual land and forestry, rented out like any other landowner does. all the revenue from this goes to the treasury. a new republican head of state would still have the use of those palaces, maybe sell a few off a few with procedes to the treasury (though remember the uproar last time government tried to sell off state land). what the queen owns privately is her business (unless you want to impose similar restrictions on all people?), what the monarch owns officially is something the state (and to a large extent therefore the incumbant parliament) decide is suitable or necessary. sell off a few palaces for all i care, i'm not sure who to though. maybe Mittal, Abramovich or a Saudi prince fancies Kensington Palace. maybe they could sell regent street off to developers, who can pull the lot down?

in fact im not particularly bothered for monarchy, i just dont see a decent alternative being proposed. the default answer, a directly elected president has shown to be rather flawed too. it isn't broke, don't fix it. however republicans seem to be against the monarch but dont even understand very well what they are actually against, what the position of the monarch is, holding lots of very outdated and incorrect ideas.

I get your point, I just disagree. The figures of ownership are murky at best as that article pointed out. But the principle stands that she (or any other heads of state) do not need such a huge body of wealth to do their job. Turn them into museums so the tourists can enjoy them, I don't know i haven't thought that deeply.

 

[garethlewes]

Britain’s Royal Wedding: A Big Day For The Global Oligarchy
Bear in mind that London’s royal pageant is being imposed, without any public question, at an estimated cost of some $70 million, most of that for state security against any sign of popular protest. When the wider cost to the economy of the British government’s declared “public holiday” is factored in, the total cost may be $10 billion – this as the British exchequer is embarking on implementing austerity budget cuts of $130 billion. The bill for the royal wedding will be footed by the British public through future deeper cuts in jobs, education and health services, and social welfare programmes. This as the British government unilaterally adds to the public debt the cost of RAF bombing sorties in Libya, estimated at over $1 billion a month, and its other even more costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just about re-affirms any points made about spending/costing too much money. Greedy buggers.

 

[1959]

That pretty much sum it up for me.

Do we really want the face of our nation to be some slimy politition (thatcher,major,blair,brown,cameron - take your pick) who is power hungry and desperate to be there or would we rather someone who was born into and trained most of their life to do it.

It's the 2nd one every time

Without wishing to stir up trouble, or take sides, can I just point out that a "slimy politician" could be an expression used to define someone who leaves his party to join another and then goes back again in order to stay in power. Someone like Winston Churchill for example, who left the Conservatives to join the Liberals and then went back again in order to stay in power.

On the other hand, someone "born into it and trained most of their life" could be someone like King Edward VIII who actually had discussions with Adolf Hitler about runnning the United Kingdom as a colony of the German Empire.

I'm glad that on that particular occasion we stuck with the slimy politician and told the royal one to get stuffed.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

The same slimy politicians you can use democracy to get rid of after four years?

 

[bhaexpress]

If you don't like answering direct questions, fair enough don't answer them. I was just trying to fully understand your point and make sure you had one.

As for the rest of that post you seem pretty set in your assumptions about me, so I'll let you carry on with them.

Didn't mean to upset you, just joining in the discussion.

The fact that you have asked a number of pointless questions make further debate with you pointless but you can now consider yourself answered. You don't upset me it's just disappointing that you knowledge of the World is so limited. (I suggest you start by Googling 'Pledge of Allegiance').

 

[bhaexpress]

People love a wedding. Especially one with an expensive dress and David Beckham in the crowd.

Does not mean people love the idea of a constitutional monarchy.

True enough but most people do see that there's a positive side to a monarchy. Stand outside the gates of Buckingham Palace and count the tourists. Granted there's a lot more to the Royal Family than tourism, they are also ambassadors for this country across the World, a fact that despite other countries have their own monarchies ours is the only one that most people think of when the word 'Royal' is mentioned.

 

[bhaexpress]

The same slimy politicians you can use democracy to get rid of after four years?

Talking about what the Royal Family cost is interesting when you consider how much the Americans will spend on electing a president a mandatory every four years. Think you will find that the Royals are quite cheap really.

 

[colinz]

Without wishing to stir up trouble, or take sides, can I just point out that a "slimy politician" could be an expression used to define someone who leaves his party to join another and then goes back again in order to stay in power. Someone like Winston Churchill for example, who left the Conservatives to join the Liberals and then went back again in order to stay in power.

On the other hand, someone "born into it and trained most of their life" could be someone like King Edward VIII who actually had discussions with Adolf Hitler about runnning the United Kingdom as a colony of the German Empire.

I'm glad that on that particular occasion we stuck with the slimy politician and told the royal one to get stuffed.

Were those discussions with Hitler before or after he abdicated, or during his short stint as King.

 

[Mammoth]

If the royals are so secure, why have the police arrerested freedom of speech campaigners?

What is it about one man and a megaphone that scares the establishment so much?

 

[Brighton Breezy]

True enough but most people do see that there's a positive side to a monarchy. Stand outside the gates of Buckingham Palace and count the tourists. Granted there's a lot more to the Royal Family than tourism, they are also ambassadors for this country across the World, a fact that despite other countries have their own monarchies ours is the only one that most people think of when the word 'Royal' is mentioned.

Yes we have a load of tourists. But they would not suddenly dry up if we got rid. If anything more would come as they could look round all of Buckingham Palace...

Also, as far as representatives abroad go, they are not always GREAT at that...

 

[garethlewes]

Talking about what the Royal Family cost is interesting when you consider how much the Americans will spend on electing a president a mandatory every four years. Think you will find that the Royals are quite cheap really.

Not really, the presidentially electorate in the USA get sponsored by big business who can afford a few million to get their man intoo office, where as we are a county that cant really afford another day off when we are trying to make cuts, hmm a few million for an election campaign or as seen earlier $17bn to a country needing to cut. A country where some people are loosing their job and others scrimping every last penny to feed themselves on crappy iceland food whilst the royals have about 30 different conpees to munch on.

 

[beorhthelm]

Turn them into museums so the tourists can enjoy them

they are! not sure about Buckingham palace and Windsor, but pretty much all the royal residences are open for tourists at some point through the year. no the head of state doesnt "need" the wealth of this estate to perform their role, but the point (which you dont seem to be getting) is they do not use that wealth. it goes with the job, just like the PM has 10 Downing St, Chequers, car and driver.

 

[bhaexpress]

Not really, the presidentially electorate in the USA get sponsored by big business who can afford a few million to get their man intoo office, where as we are a county that cant really afford another day off when we are trying to make cuts, hmm a few million for an election campaign or as seen earlier $17bn to a country needing to cut. A country where some people are loosing their job and others scrimping every last penny to feed themselves on crappy iceland food whilst the royals have about 30 different conpees to munch on.

Actually it's very much to the point, the millions they spend on electing just a party representative let alone what they spend on creating the President could be far better spent, irrespective of the source of funding. As far as the Royals go (and I am not a great fan of the monarchy) they would lack a certain amount of majesty if they lived in a council house wouldn't they ? There are far more extravagant individuals such as a lot of Premiership footballers. I wonder if a member of the Royal Family got caught with their pants down if they could get away with a gagging order ? Being a member of the Royal Family does have certain factors that make it not all good, security and the risk of assassination is just one.

 

[bhaexpress]

Yes we have a load of tourists. But they would not suddenly dry up if we got rid. If anything more would come as they could look round all of Buckingham Palace...

Also, as far as representatives abroad go, they are not always GREAT at that...

I think you rather underestimate the impression the fact we have a Royal Family has on other countries, I have done a fair bit of travelling and rarely does it not get mentioned. I would hazard a guess that they bring in a lot more cash than they cost. I did for a while work for 'Visit Britain' (used to be the British Tourist Board) and this was very much their way of thinking, based no doubt on some factual evidence (unlike a lot of journalism).

 

[Stoo82]

Are people really so opressed? Will you feel freeer when a bussiness/trade union puts in there boy?

Really?

No. For me, I dont care they have all this money. As long as they are completly a-political.