Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
It's all about fairness isn't it? Why should they live in central London when many Stankhovite families can't?
I always feel that the civil list is a small price to pay to avoid Tony Blair/Thatcher/Golden Brown being our head of state.
How does one remove Mrs Windsor from office if one thinks she has given the royal assent to many a law that should never have been enacted?
Giving our tax revenues to support the richest family in the country instead of the poorest. Is that fair?
[ducks]
[i]How does one remove Mrs Windsor from office[/i]
wait a few years. she's getting on a bit.
My view is that the fewer politicians we have involved in running things the better.
How does one remove Mrs Windsor from office if one thinks she has given the royal assent to many a law that should never have been enacted?
So you're not a fan of democracy?
I always feel that the civil list is a small price to pay to avoid Tony Blair/Thatcher/Golden Brown being our head of state.
There's an intermediate solution, surely. Vote me in as Head of State and I won't get in the way, but I won't be entirely useless (toss it off skiing etc) either.
I reckon I could do the job for 80,000k pa and I'd only need one castle.
Something to think about.
Has anyone ever done a cost benefit analysis on the Royals? I'd be interested and it would shut a few people up. Or not.
I'm in favour of an elected presidency with the last ditch power not to automatically sign any bill place before them into law if they have reasonable doubts about it's constitutionality or effect on the nation.
I'm in favour of an elected presidency with the last ditch power not to automatically sign any bill place before them into law if they have reasonable doubts about it's constitutionality or effect on the nation.
What you're in favour of is irrelevant - what do you think Liz should have done given the constitution we do have?
Okay, 65k pa and shared use of Buck House.
Used the royal perogative to create a constitutional conference to write a UK constittion, then abdicate.
Used the royal perogative to create a constitutional conference to write a UK constittion, then abdicate.
You really don't believe in democracy then?
It's a question of profiles.
Several people have told me that - side-on - my face would look pretty sweet on a stamp or a twenty pence piece.
But how would look as a statue? Would you want pigeons crapping on your likeness?
Has anyone ever done a cost benefit analysis on [s]the Royals[/s] city investment bankers? I'd be interested and it would shut a few people up. Or not.
[ducks again]
But how would look as a statue? Would you want pigeons crapping on your likeness?
I'd take one for the nation on that one. It's a sacrifice I'm prepared to take for good old Blighty. 😉
50k pa and an office in Westminster with a drop-down bed.
Royal family may not work but they do make money for the country
Estimated 107 Milllion from the wedding week alone, And when I went to america in the summer there were countless speacial edition magazines on it. which will increase tourism to the UK.
you have to look at the big picture
We used to make things. Now the best we can do is a bloody royal pageant...
Has anyone ever done a cost benefit analysis on the Royals?
I've read various things that claim the Royal's generate wealth for the UK. Tourism is the obvious thing. There's probably other factors.
it would shut a few people up.
Excellent optimism. Seriously misplaced though. 😀
you have to look at the big picture
Can't we just continue doing what makes Britain great, and not look beyond the end of our own noses?
It's just that if we start appreciating there's a bigger picture, and that we're part of a wider world, we'd have a lot less to moan and complain about.
I've read various things that claim the Royal's generate wealth for the UK. Tourism is the obvious thing. There's probably other factors.
The French killed all of theirs off, but still get plenty of visitors to Versailles.
Do we actually need the Saxe-Coburg Gothas around to be able to profit from their legacy?
I've read various things that claim the Royal's generate wealth for the UK. Tourism is the obvious thing.
Absolutely true. No-one ever goes to France, Germany, Russia, Italy, China, the Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Egypt or Turkey on holiday because they disposed of their royals.
>Estimated 107 Milllion from the wedding week alone<
Which pales into insignificance when you factor in the lost productivity due to the holiday.
Mind you we do or did have Andy jetting about the globe helping prop up our arms industry - there's another thing we Brits can be soo proud of. And Chuck always has a good word to say about contemporary architecture.
The French killed all of theirs off, but still get plenty of visitors to Versailles.
Absolutely true. No-one ever goes to France, Germany, Russia, Italy, China, the Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Egypt or Turkey on holiday because they disposed of their royals.
Precisely. Just think how many more visitors they'd all be getting if they still had some Royals/Monarchy... very short-sighted decision, killing them all off ...
If you factor in revenues from the Crown Estate - in name at least the monarch's property portfolio - which are handed over to the Treasury (c 183m PA, although probably a bit less at the moment), then it's clearly not all one way traffic.
Crown Estate includes physical property - quite a bit of the West End, and stuff like foreshore rights along the coast.
You could argue that these are not actually owned by the Queen, but effectively by the state, and that she would not have the legal right to take these revenues back at present. However, it's not hard to see a historical situation where a more thorough separation of royal family and state would have left those assets, or most of them, in the royal family's hands.
It's certainly worth bearing in mind when looking at the full equation.
Liz and her clan as ordinary citizens would not perform civic duties - my understanding is that a fair sum of the civil list is spent on staff organising those functions, rather than paying for Bentleys.
it's not hard to see a historical situation where a more thorough separation of royal family and state would have left those assets, or most of them, in the royal family's hands.
My patchy understanding of European history is that situations in which a thorough separation of monarchy and state takes place are often accompanied by situations in which there is a thorough separation of monarch and head.
Outdated, obsolete, embarrassment.
I didn't think my post was that bad. 😥
Awwwwww. Wanna hug?
Anyone?
🙁
Outdated, obsolete, embarrassment.
Hmmm, well there's quite a history associated with them but not sure that really means they're outdated. Embarrassing? I can't see that. I was pretty ambivalent about them really but seeing how much happiness they bring to so many people, such as at the recent wedding, I think they're well worth the money.
I've read various things that claim the Royal's generate wealth for the UK. Tourism is the obvious thing.
this always makes me laugh/other.
i'm sure that tourists who visit [s]the uk[/s] london do so because they think they might meet the royal family.
Outdated, obsolete, embarrassment.
You may well have a point, but this isn't the thread about 29'ers 😆
i'm sure that tourists who visit the uk london do so because they think they might meet the royal family.
Well if it's not because of the Royal Family I don't know so many people bother going to look at Buckingham Palace as it isn't particuarly attractive.
I was pretty ambivalent about them really but seeing how much happiness they bring to so many people, such as at the recent wedding, I think they're well worth the money.
That's an argument for putting Posh and Becks on the Civil List.
Didn't the Queen, at over 80, attend something over 380+ events last year - that sounds like work to me.
That's an argument for putting Posh and Becks on the Civil List.
No it isn't.
if the Queen was doing her job properly, she would be chopping the heads off of all you anti-royalists and using the meat to feed to the poor in Africa, thereby eradicating world poverty and solving the benefit/ pensions crisises.
Useless.
No it isn't.
Yes, it is. If entertainment value is the metric for measuring effectiveness of Civil List recipients, there are far better performers than the Royal Family.
TurnerGuy - Member
Didn't the Queen, at over 80, attend something over 380+ events last year
You tell me.
Yes, it is. If entertainment value is the metric for measuring effectiveness of Civil List recipients, there are far better performers than the Royal Family
No it isn't....
How many people would line the streets for Posh's marriage? Or death? People across all areas of life care about them to an incredible degree. I find it crazy but am happy for them.
[img] http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJX3IOcNyPrBqpTaXmoCzmktCfV-cvwOMW95u4VuJY9Am6uQ4KVg [/img]
Of course, Jade wasn't in showbiz for as long as the Royals have been.
Is it the role of the state to provide light entertainment for its citizens?
Now your just being silly. I don't know much about her though she died from cancer so is that why her death was so popular? We don't need to pay celebs directly which is kind of the point. Having a Royal Family means certain things including paying them for their efforts. I daresay they'd be happy to disappear from public life and enjoy their wealth privately but they understand the role they play and see their obligations. Not entirely sure about some of the minor ones but still.
How many people would line the streets for Posh's marriage? Or death?
I'd get out my dancing shoes - oh hang on, that's a different thread isn't it?
We don't need to pay celebs directly which is kind of the point.
Oh, well in that case, that's great news. If celeb entertainment is free and Royal entertainment is costly, and if entertainment value is the best argument, then we can just abolish the hereditary monarchy and appoint celebs as monarchs as required.
Too bad we didn't think of this twenty years ago - we could have had the Two Ronnies as joint monarch and they were practically on the Civil List during their Beeb years - after all, it was obvious
how much happiness they brought to so many people
There's definately a case to be made for keeping a core of royals and royal activity (whether it makes financial sense or not I don't know, but it seems reasonable that it might)
But to be frank, the cost of the royal family to us as taxpayers is surprisingly small, stopping that funding wouldn't make any significant difference to public finances. For that you'd need a land grab and asset strip and that's not an easy sell.
and enjoy their wealth privately
How exactly have they made their wealth?
IIRC only a couple of generations ago the royal family were skint - exemptions from tax allowed them to amass a fortune.
Most of what is sometimes consider their wealth they cannot actually sell or realise tho
the cost of the royal family to us as taxpayers is surprisingly small, stopping that funding wouldn't make any significant difference to public finances
In that case, we can have Posh & Becks on the Civil List [i]as well[/i]. It's no significant difference, after all. 😉