Forum menu
the Royal Family benefit not only our country but others with their charitable work.
So did Jimmy Saville.
So did Jimmy Saville.
I'll leave this one to JHJ...
I’ll leave this one to JHJ…
You mean BMS?
<blockquoteIf I was a millionaire with several properties I would be doing a dam sight more for the effort.
Just like Tim Martin, Richard Branson, Phillip Green, Mike Ashley, and all those Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers are doing.
You mean BMS?
Call me Tom if you prefer, despite my ranting on here, I'm mostly pretty affable in the real world.
Call me Tom if you prefer,
So are JHJ or not? Makes you think.
Give Betty a brake she is putting in a double shift this year with Christmas and April tv appearances.
She lives in harness and she’ll die in harness – I wouldn’t choose it.
She's actually being controlled by the corgis.
I don't particularly care for the royals, but it's beyond me why anyone would question their role or relevance at a time like we are in right now . Who cares about their relevance to an individual that doesn't like them when their words mean so much to those that do.
Get a grip and get on with dealing your own lives and stop hating on others.
Get a grip and get on with dealing your own lives and stop hating on others.
I dont hate the queen or charlie or any of the others but I do hate the concept of royalty, if you dont think having a conversation about it is appropriate maybe dont get involved and ""stop hating" on those who are capable of having a conversation.
it’s beyond me why anyone would question their role or relevance at a time like we are in right now
Because she just poked her head out of the palace to tell us what to do.
If I got the royal gig, I certainly wouldn't say no!
Imagine never going on Ryanair or into a McDonalds again
I don’t particularly care for the royals, but it’s beyond me why anyone would question their role or relevance at a time like we are in right now . Who cares about their relevance to an individual that doesn’t like them when their words mean so much to those that do.
That's a pretty good point. Yesterday's pep talk was the most visibly useful thing she's done in years (AFAIC).
Anyone really desperate for Boris to take over the job is picking a pretty weird time to bring it up.
Because she just poked her head out of the palace to tell us what to do.
Well no, she poked her head out to speak to the people that wanted to listen to her and might just heed her words.
Why do we need one? The Queen does **** all anyway
If I got the royal gig, I certainly wouldn’t say no!
Imagine never going on Ryanair or into a McDonalds again
I think this perfectly encapsulates why the current system works.
As Douglas Addams put it:
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
The whole British constitution (do we have one yet or not?) is based on someone sitting in Buckingham Palace with almost dictatorial levels of power, but doing nothing with it.
I'm not a fan of royalty and hereditary privilege. I'd set inheritance tax at 100%, but as a system of government it's a work of genius.
Because she just poked her head out of the palace to tell us what to do.
She told those that wanted to listen. Listening to royals is not compulsory (anymore)
Listening to royals is not compulsory (anymore)
Not so, the wife made me watch it.
...glad I did, it had the desired effect and pepped me up a fair bit.
as a system of government it’s a work of genius.
She quite literally does nothing if she ever did we'd have a full blown constitutional crisis.
Listening to royals is not compulsory (anymore)
But being subjugated and giving her our money is though.
Except not all oldies have financially secure pensions, remember in the winter some have to choose to heat their homes or eat
My point was that whilst there are oldies with a range of personal wealth this whole mess is not having a huge financial impact on them. Their state pension remains triple locked and whilst a retail index linked final salary pension is a distant dream for much of the current workforce it is the deal many of them retired on. The nation is locked to our homes this Monday which is not a huge difference for much of 70+ brigade but is to the average person of working age who probably didn’t want to go to work but had to for boring income purposes.
The boomers might be frightened right now but they are going to owe the millennials one if we all get through this (I am neither a boomer or a millennial). And the world’s most famous oldie probably should use her stage to make that point.
The whole British constitution is based on someone sitting in Buckingham Palace with almost dictatorial levels of power, but doing nothing with it.
This
I know we've had the longevity of someone being there for 70 years, staying out of politics, and it may all change when the next generation take over. But at the moment, it works. Jeez, if you look at the way American works where people spend billions to get a job that pays $400k a year.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not doing badly in my eyes. And I do personally think there are more important things to worry about at the moment
I know we’ve had the longevity of someone being there for 70 years, staying out of politics, and it may all change when the next generation take over. But at the moment, it works.
At the moment it works, but what happens when one of the half-witted inbred descendants takes power and starts using it in a less benign way? The only reason that people like the RF these days is that they don’t do anything. Even Victoria had people trying to assassinate her.
But at the moment, it works
By her doing nothing at all so why do we need royalty and all it stands for?
But at the moment, it works
By her doing nothing at all so why do we need royalty and all it stands for?
By ‘it works’ I mean ‘that’s why people love ‘em’. I’m very much not a royalist, but the fact that they don’t do anything controversial - like leading invasions of third world countries, or chopping people’s heads off - means that a lot of people love ‘em. Who doesn’t love an occasion? And what about another royal baby to love? Can’t stand it all, myself.
but the fact that they don’t do anything controversial
Like being accused of being peados, whilst being good friends with convicted peados?
Fair point, a_a, but you’re just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Paedo btw.
The thing is A-A, as I said, I don't have much time for them on the whole and on another day, in another life I would agree with you wholeheartedly about the Royals' place in modern UK. But right now I think they have a place and will (hopefully) have reached a few people with that speech last night.
I'd happily buy her a pint after all this is over. Good on you ma'am.
In today’s celebrity culture how would we choose one?
TV show presented by Ant & Dec where desperate members of the public have to perform royal duties and get yelled at by Allan Sugar or Gordon Ramsey. Winner gets to be monarch for a year and then fade in to obscurity or get a job on QVC.
If I got the royal gig, I certainly wouldn’t say no!
Imagine never going on Ryanair or into a McDonalds again
Pretend visits to Pizza Express in Woking are mandatory though
Paedo btw.
Indeed
I'm not being argumentative for the sake of iy, I genuinely dont get why people think having a head of state who does nothing in this role is needed. Someone always trots out yeah but the yanks have trump like thats an argument, yes trump is a much bigger asshat but if we were a republic why would we need to replace royalty?
She quite literally does nothing if she ever did we’d have a full blown constitutional crisis.
By her doing nothing at all so why do we need royalty and all it stands for?
Which is exactly my point.
Even in a democracy you need some nominal person to call elections and officiate them, otherwise you just end up with whoever's in power proclaiming "I fancy another 5 years". E.g. Russia, or Zimbabwe where the incumbent just re-writes the constitution whenever they need to.
Whereas we've settled on a system where someone with absolute power over the democratic part, choses not to use it by convention.
You could invest all that power in Black Rod or someone, but I'd argue that's riskier than hereditary monarchy. Or you could create a president, but then you've just created another part of government with the same powers as the monarchy, when the house of Commons / Cabinet / Prime Minister generally does a reasonable job of it currently.
At the moment it works, but what happens when one of the half-witted inbred descendants takes power and starts using it in a less benign way? The only reason that people like the RF these days is that they don’t do anything. Even Victoria had people trying to assassinate her.
I think the precedent is that we chop off their head.
Even in a democracy you need some nominal person to call elections and officiate them
Why? Does the queen officiate our elections, we have one when the government and or parliament want one Queen just says OK, so I'll ask again, why do we need that?
Even in a democracy you need some nominal person to call elections and officiate them
What happens in France? Or the US? Or Ireland? Or Italy? Or Spain? Or Turkey? Do they summon up a monarch to do that job?
What happens in France? Or the US? Or Ireland? Or Italy? Or Spain? Or Turkey? Do they summon up a monarch to do that job?
Well they have a president, most presidents and prime ministers but yankland only has one dont they?
why dont we privatise the royals?
If she really cared for her people she would disband the monarchy and all it’s money and assets be sold and made to benefit the under privileged.
And if you think that would happen, then you’re really deluded! What would actually happen is that all those assets, which are actually owned by the British public, and are held in trust by HM, would be bought up by the global billionaire kleptocracy, from Russia and China, and the properties would become empty, deteriorating ghosts sitting abandoned, like many are already around London, and those working on them, maintaining them, working on the farms, etc, would be kicked off and forced to find work and accommodations elsewhere.
The Civil List was changed a few years back, it was the case, and had been since the time of Charles II IIRC, that all the income from the Royal Holdings was paid to the Treasury, and a smaller sum given back to HM as the Civil List, the difference being in the Oder of some millions of pounds. Certainly the Treasury got a very good deal out of it. I can’t remember the exact figures, but I’m pretty sure anyone could easily do the research via Google if they could be bothered, instead of ranting about it.
Certainly, if you were to look at the cost of electing and maintaining a Presidency it would be a lot higher than our Monarchy costs - HM is quite extraordinarily frugal when it comes to running the various households, my mum used to work with a woman who got the job as head housekeeper at Windsor Castle, and was shown round by her, getting to see parts of a Royal Household that most people never get to see, and the lengths that HM goes to to save money.
if you were to look at the cost of electing and maintaining a Presidency
Why bother with democracy at all. Just let the Great and Good sort it out on our behalf.
Why bother with democracy at all. Just let the Great and Good sort it out on our behalf.
You’ve been reading the Conservative manifesto again? 😁
HM is quite extraordinarily frugal when it comes to running the various households
Yep extraordinarily frugal!
According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year.
And a presidency would obviously cost more
Costs associated with the running of the Office of the President have started to significantly rise in recent years, with the seven-year Presidency of Michael D Higgins now looking set to be at least €30m, the Sunday Independent can reveal.
A head of state is required. Do you really want Boris as our head of state? We could have a ceremonial president, but they'd still need a grand place to entertain people in. Yes the monarchy is a bizarre institution, but electing a head of state would come with its own price, both financial and the risk that some total pillock who happens to be popular at the time would win, and it would almost inevitably become politicized. President Farrage anyone! I used to be fiercely anti-monarchist and am not a big fan of the current crop, but a slimmed down royal family would at least be more likely to remain apolitical.
A head of state is required. Do you really want Boris as our head of state?
But if the queen simply rubber stamps everything and says yes why do we need that? People just keep repeating that its because we do but I dont see why. The fact that in the last 70 years constitutionally shes done nothing says it all, why do we need royals or a president. The government is in charge and the royals are nothing but a side show.
President Farrage - unlikely.
President Attenborough - shoe in.
why dont we privatise the royals?
They’d start turning up late for events or not turn up at all and somehow still charge more each year. Clothing and bling jewellery would fall in to disrepair and not be replaced.
why dont we privatise the royals?
It already is.
The Civil List was changed a few years back, it was the case, and had been since the time of Charles II IIRC, that all the income from the Royal Holdings was paid to the Treasury, and a smaller sum given back to HM as the Civil List, the difference being in the Oder of some millions of pounds. Certainly the Treasury got a very good deal out of i
Incorrect. The civil list first got created for George III. Up until that point he was responsible for the financial costs of running the country. The civil list handed over the revenue in return for not having that responsibility. Rather obviously this was not a good deal for everyone else in the country. Since even then it didnt come close.
The latest change was by Osborne who decided to hand over even more money. needless to say still not a good deal for the taxpayer.
Incidentally one of the most amusing things about Harry and Megan is after years and years of security costs being excluded from the bill the taxpayer gets with the daily hate skipping over it with comments about cant say because it would compromise security we are suddenly getting pages and pages of outrage about how high the bill is for those two.
I would agree she is rather frugal especially when paying staff.
As for this stuff about "Johnson being head of state". For all intents and purposes he is. He is the one who attends all the important meetings not the queen.
Perhaps with an elected head of state we would solve all the messy questions around being PM as well and how much power sits in that office with no firm definition of how it is applied thanks to the royal prerogative.
Yep extraordinarily frugal!
According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year.
Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year....
Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year….
A worker in a free market and competing in a pure meritocracy.
Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year…
What’s that got to do with anything other than football?