The Queen vs The Republic

[Lower West Stander]

I agree the Queen does a good job for the country and is a great Head of State.

It'll be interesting to see the country's reaction to the monarch changes when Charles takes over - cos I think he's a complete twonk.

And William is already drawing criticism for being lazy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And William is already drawing criticism for being lazy

How can a royal be lazy? What are they being lazy from?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

How can a royal be lazy? What are they being lazy from?

Murdoch's press media. It's well known that he's a republican.

William works 20 hours a week with the air ambulance, with his wages going to charity. He undertakes royal duties when asked.
The Queen took over the throne when she was only 26, so spent a long time away from her children touring the Commonwealth, and performing royal duties, so she wants William to enjoy family time whilst his children are small. When she dies, he will become Prince of Wales and will have a lot more to do.

 

[Maldini]

...unlike our political friends, who, of course, are oozing personality and charisma. Are honest and have our best interest at heart.

The're a bunch of wasters too.

 

[Maldini]

The Queen is incredibly bland and stand offish.She never says anything of any interest. She is not a warm and open person.She is cold and very aloof.
Just because you are a Queen it doesn't mean you have to be like that. She does not mix well with people and keeps herself to herself.

I did not like Princess Di but she did mix with people and tried to connect with them.She would meet with them and hold their hands even if
only to get her pic in the paper.

 

[Doc Lynam]

It would be nice if the BBC was a bit more balanced in its coverage of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha's. Far from everyone is a fan of who they are and what they represent.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Point of order! Most people didn't vote for Blair (as PM, that is). Same as Thatcher was a minority vote (37% at her most successful election I think?) - and President Thatcher would have been a recipe for civil disorder too. What we've got now is what we've got - be careful what you wish for!

Agreed. The vast majority of people didn't vote for Cameron either.

I recognise the problem of being a republican and disapproving of the concept of a monarchy, and deciding what to replace it with.

When I was at school, during our latin lessons at A-Level (Worthing high School circa 1970 with Mr Mohile), he oould often come in and talk about something completely different for a whole lesson. One of them was about systems of government. We came to the conclusion that the best form of government could well be a benevolent dictatorship, but that there could probably be no such thing, because dictators aren't benevolent.

Let's face it, Barack Obama, who is seen as some sort of superhero by many if not most people in this country is vilified by vast numbers of people in his own country.

 

[Simster]

It would be nice if the BBC was a bit more balanced in its coverage of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha's. Far from everyone is a fan of who they are and what they represent.

Correct. The last royal wedding was case in point, where they utterly belittled the significant rump of republican protesters. That coverage, coupled with their initial feeble attempts to paper over Jimmy Savile's attrocities whilst he was in their employment have changed my view of the BBC forever.

 

[jakarta]

The last royal wedding was case in point, where they utterly belittled the significant rump of republican protesters.

There were PROTESTERS at a Wedding? How pathetic is that?

 

[Simster]

There were PROTESTERS at a Wedding? How pathetic is that?

You serve to highlight the point that you didn't know there was even a protest going on against the enormous bill the tax payer was made to foot for this event.

But if you find it pathetic you always continue to fawn, bow and scrape to your betters if you like. No one is stopping you.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

So King Charles, no problem or ...?
(Although I heard he might be a George VII to keep the Jacobites quiet)

Actually rather like P/C along with the P/A it,s Airmiles Andy and Co i find little time for.

 

[pb21]

Meh, I'm sure they're all lovely people but I don't see why I, as a hard working tax payer, should subsidise their lifestyle and properties.

Would be an advocate for a republic but I wouldn't go as far to chop off queenies head.

 

[Wellesley]

How can a royal be lazy? What are they being lazy from?

Raising an army and invading France.

 

[beorhthelm]

Meh, I'm sure they're all lovely people but I don't see why I, as a hard working tax payer, should subsidise their lifestyle and properties.

you'd be ok as a tax payer subsidising the lifestyle and properties of a President? the costs of a head of state don't disappear when you change the method of appointment.

 

[Buzzer]

You serve to highlight the point that you didn't know there was even a protest going on against the enormous bill the tax payer was made to foot for this event.

But if you find it pathetic you always continue to fawn, bow and scrape to your betters if you like. No one is stopping you.

And this is the beauty of us having a Monarchy. Cost-wise it's it's not all that much in the grand scheme of things and if you add in the tangible and intangible benefits it's probably round about cost neutral. And one thing the excesses of Tony Blair's government showed us it's that if we did get a President then the costs of maintaining that would spiral and almost certainly be more than the current lot.

Constitutionally, the Queen doesn't affect legislation one iota so doesn't have any meaningful bearing on our lives politically and so that leaves us Monarchist lickspittles able to fawn over her and her family and all the Republicans can fill themselves with righteous indignation, they can virtue-signal, they can spend hours telling us how little they care and it even gives one or two the chance to indulge in a bit of sly racism by reminding us that the Queen's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was German!

Trebles all round and no surrender!

 

[ManOfSussex]

 

[halbpro]

On the cost of the Royal Family, my understanding was that we pay their expenses and they hand us the profits from the Crown Estates. The government says the royals were granted £42.8m for 2016-17, while the latest figures I can find for the Crown Estates is for 2014-15, which gave £285.1m to the Treasury, a figure that was up 6.7%. So that leaves a net gain to the Treasury of £242.3m, which surely means they are in fact supporting the Taxpayer?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Despite it's antiquated nature, I think the Brits have it about right. The head of state should be as apolitical as possible, a figurehead, a national treasure as it were. I think old Queenie has done a grand job. It ain't broken, so don't try to fix it.

 

[BeHereNow]

I think it's great that we have a queen who's been on the throne for most of her life. Much better than having a President who's just there for career purposes.

 

[FatSuperman]

Halbpro. Indeed, it only takes a few moments to look into the Crown Estates and realise that the Monarchy are VERY good value for money, despite what myself or other individuals may think about them. The tourist draw alone is significant.

Of course, whether they should legally own the Crown Estates anyway is another matter.

I for one think the Monarchy are fantastic for this country and cost absolutely nothing compared to all the other myriad things going wrong in this country. Jesus how much tax did we lose out on when HRMC 'did a deal' with Starbucks for some derisory amount. NOTHING in the public sector is particularly good value for money!