I've just seen on the BBC News that the Royal Family costs every taxpayer 62p per year, which I consider to be a bit of a bargain.
I've not really got a lot of time for them and there is, of course, the argument that they are all a load of privileged scroungers who only enjoy their good fortune by chance, but looking at it from a purely commercial point of view they do bring in a heck of a lot of money into the tourist industry and I do think that, should the monarchy ever be abolished, it would be a terrible shame and would cost a good many jobs.
|
|
Agreed, but I am a staunch republican, I think the Canadians have the right approach. Maybe the Americans as well.
|
Ceremonial heads of state have to cut a grand figure, or the country looks cheap. That's all right if it is of course, but we wouldn't like it if ours did, not with all the taxes, direct and indirect, that we pay.
The Grauniad's Polly Toynbee isn't really the sort of person you can take against as a rule, heart in the right place usually if a bit annoying. But she really got up my nose once by observing smugly, on Question Time or something of the sort, that of course she was a republican.
Someone whose works I have translated, an adventurous French intellectual and historian who at one time was an armed revolutionary working for the Cuban government, and whose leftist reputation still survives in the memory of those who haven't read his recent stuff, was praising the British once, and I demurred modestly, as one does, saying something like 'We're far from perfect really...'
He answered: 'C'est une grande nation: democratique et monarchiste.' He's not a man whose opinions should be taken lightly, although of course no one is perfect.
I did some work for the Labour MP Willie Hamilton many years ago, research for his book on the monarchy. In those days I was myself a fairly rabid leftie, but Hamilton hated the quotes on the monarchy and British upper classes by Marx, Engels and others that I came up with. As his book showed when it came out, he wasn't really a republican at all, he just liked being cheeky about the Queen.
What I always wonder, rather tiredly, when apparently sane Britons say they are republicans, is how they imagine the transition to an egalitarian paradise is to be engineered in detail. If they really examined the possibilities many would conclude, as I did some time back, that it's better to live with the devil you know.
|
|
Maybe so. Long family history of resistance to conformity. You're probably right - but apart from tourism etc etc....who are they ? who do they think they are ? and what are they for ? and since they stopped attending battles personally, who really needs them ?
Last edited by: Pugugly on Mon 5 Jul 10 at 14:02
|
I wasn't really getting at you PU, or only a bit. But I have listened to a great deal of rabid, but very often essentially frivolous, republicanism over the years from friends, family and comrades.
My French friend really made me think. The zigzags in his own political history are easily understood. Personally I don't see what's wrong with altering one's views in the light of reflection and experience. It could be said that unless you do alter them then you haven't learnt a thing. I just couldn't sympathise with the donkey Scargill however distasteful I found aspects of Mrs Thatcher's government. I was just too old and grownup.
None of that is an argument against republicanism though!
|
The Queen has barely put a foot wrong in more than 50 years - a remarkable achievement in any job.
Prince Charles is well meaning, but just cannot be taken seriously.
Princess Anne has got something about her, but it's fairly swiftly downhill after that.
Quite a few of the hangers-on were taken off the Civil List some years ago, and I think we now get good value for our money.
It's only hearsay, but many people from overseas are said to hold our monarchy in high regard and wish they had something similar.
|
|
Yeah, well, the devil you know...
|
|
Not a particular fan of the royals, but I think they are worth 62p of my money. I dare say a fair bit more goes to support those on benefits who really dont need to be, and in reflection I think the royal family add more to the country than some others who are funded by the tax payer.
|
>> I've just seen on the BBC News that the Royal Family costs every taxpayer 62p
>> per year, which I consider to be a bit of a bargain.
Correct. The institution is hugely undervalued. To bring down the discussion to "Coronation Street" levels, i.e. "I don't like 'the Royals'" is to wholly miss the point.
|
|
FT is right to underline the role of the institution and bypass the inevitably ill-informed and vulgar speculation about the personalities. If you take something like a monarchy personally you are missing the point really, and there was a time when you would also have been asking for trouble.
|
|
I follow Her Majesty on Twitter. Search for (and there's no easy way to put this without offending those with delicate sensibilities) "ThePinkFluffyDiceQueen". Hilarious.
|
|
I'm fairly indifferent to them but I was disappointed by the decision not to renew the Royal Yacht. I am a huge ship enthusiast and any reason to build a boat for me is a good one. What was it? £30 million or something? A drop in the ocean so to speak.
|
|
"Trains and boats and planes.." I agree, penny-pinching to save money whilst ignoring huge waste in other areas is stupid.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Mon 5 Jul 10 at 21:25
|
As I understand it, the Civil List is a fixed amount that the state pays the Royals in exchange for the revenues from the Crown Estate( in very basic terms ), which apparently generates several hundred million a year and given that they dont cost anywhere near that, id say bargin.
I quite like the old dear and Phillip, well, he makes the bad jokes so nobody else has to. Prob some of the hardest working pensioners around though - who at nearly 90 would still be doing what he does.
|
Good work from the spin doctors at the Palace.
Call it 37.4 million and it sounds like an obscene amount of money, call it 62p each and it sounds not worth bothering about.
Are the police protecting an ex-prime minister running up bills of 250K? Well, just divide it by 60 million and your problem goes away, because then it is 0.4p each, who can possibly miss that to uphold democracy.
Are the public getting annoyed that Jonathan Ross earns 6 million a year - just tell them that it is 10p each, and then ask them how bothered they can be to get irate about it.
Whether they're missing the point or not, a lot of people consider it wrong for a bunch of people to be funded by the taxpayer (regardless of how much it is when you divide it by 60 million), just because of an accident of birth.
|
>> a lot of people consider it wrong for a bunch of people to be funded by the taxpayer
So what if it's wrong? Would it be the only thing wrong with that bullying monstrosity the State, or the only immoral expedient engineered and tolerated as routine by our chattering, baboon-like, idiotic species?
It simply doesn't matter that it's 'wrong' in the eyes of a few or many simpletons. Consider rather what it's for, how it works, that sort of thing.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 5 Jul 10 at 22:40
|
As I AM a UK tax payer, I wish to have a refund of my 62p.
Where may I apply, please?
Seriously, a hereditary head of state in the 21st. Century is just too ridiculous to be true
All these "titled" people gained their titles by being bigger robbing bar-stewards than their contemporaries.
I am not ANYBODY'S subject.
Last edited by: landsker on Mon 5 Jul 10 at 22:44
|
...I am not ANYBODY'S subject...
landsker,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not looking to return to the UK, having found, like so many, that the greener grass abroad fades the older you get?
Back to good old blighty when the going gets a bit tough.
You should be grateful that you are a subject of Her Majesty, otherwise you might have to stop where you are.
|
>> I am not ANYBODY'S subject.
And how exactly would your (or my) life change if we were citizens instead?
|
>> So what if it's wrong? Would it be the only thing wrong with that bullying
>> monstrosity the State, or the only immoral expedient engineered and tolerated as routine by our
>> chattering, baboon-like, idiotic species?
>>
>> It simply doesn't matter that it's 'wrong' in the eyes of a few or many
>> simpletons. Consider rather what it's for, how it works, that sort of thing.
It isn't for anything AC, if they disappeared tomorrow nothing would change. If you think it would, you will have to be appended to the list of simpletons. The dewy-eyed breed of simpletons who were raised on this nonsense, and aren't able to see it for what it is.
Of course it is wrong, and of course it matter that it is wrong, not enough to lose sleep over mind, but if we give up our principles we might as well all become part of the dewy eyed herd.
|
The 'Constitutional Monarchy' is a historical accident but it works. We could try to devise a republican deal but would President Blair/Thatcher or whatever offer a step change to our governance?
I very much doubt it.
|
>> It isn't for anything AC, if they disappeared tomorrow nothing would change.
Oh dear. Are we anarchists then SS? Or do we imagine fundamental constitutional change to be a straightforward matter, easily decreed by a few sensible chaps who know something wrong when they see it, easily achieved in such a way that nothing would change?
Despite the quite difficult tussles that go on between politicians and officers of the state, sometimes before our eyes, to manage the complex, gnarled monstrosity of the State as we know it, the State we are stuck with, without precipitating the disaster that always threatens, we often think we could do better. Perhaps we are right, but we often sound a bit pathetic to me.
|
|
if only Guido and friends weren`t thwarted!!
|
>> Guido and friends weren`t thwarted!!
Ah, Philip of Spain, heh heh...
Of course we did top a monarch and toy with a sort of republic. But not for long.
People think they long for transparency and simplicity, but those are the last things they want really. Actions of the state are often ugly and harsh. They may have to be laundered and softened for public consumption.
Unlike the written US constitution which appears on the face of it to be a well-balanced working compromise with visible checks and balances, the unwritten British one is more like an untended thicket with lots of hidden rabbit holes.
Both anyway are the products of history which can't be undone or reversed but can only continue. And both in practice are really quite startlingly roundabout, inefficient and perverse. Hard to choose anything but the devil one knows, seems to me.
|
|
No - they are here:- www.order-order.com
|
>> Oh dear. Are we anarchists then SS?
No.
>> Or do we imagine fundamental constitutional change to
>> be a straightforward matter, easily decreed by a few sensible chaps who know something wrong
>> when they see it, easily achieved in such a way that nothing would change?
Yes. I understand that things have been done a certain way for a long period of time but, seriously, there is nothing of any real substance there.
But, let's say that it can't all be unraveled, let's say that we do need somebody defined as a Queen to fill in the procedural holes.
Does that mean that her and her extended family need to live in nice big comfy palaces, flown across the world to "work" by being fawned upon by those who know no better?
Stick her in a flat in Brixton (which is very up and coming by all accounts) and pay her by the hour when you need her to ask somebody to form a government and the like.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 6 Jul 10 at 10:05
|
>>
Stick her in a flat in Brixton (which is very up and coming by all accounts) and pay her by the hour when you need her to ask somebody to form a government and the like. <<
That statement just about weighs you up, comrade,
if I were Lud I wouldn't bother replying to such idiotic claptrap. :)
|
>> That statement just about weighs you up, comrade,
>> if I were Lud I wouldn't bother replying to such idiotic claptrap. :)
So, now I am a communist :)
Is it not possible to raise the fact that we do not need to spend 37.4 million quid to fund a bunch of people to lead an extravagant lifestyle, primarily for ceremonial purposes along with some procedural hangovers that could easily be cleared up, without being accused of being an anarchist and and communist?!
The flat in Brixton was perhaps flippant, but there is a fundamental truth there, if we have procedural holes that need to be filled by someone, that person can still be treated like anybody else.
If your logic is so flawed that you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead, eh?
tinyurl.com/6xykl
|
>> If your logic is so flawed that you can't attack the argument, attack the person
>> instead, eh?
No, there's no need to in this instance.
|
>> >> If your logic is so flawed that you can't attack the argument, attack the
>> person
>> >> instead, eh?
>>
>> No, there's no need to in this instance.
Well there seems to be, because nobody has actually attacked my argument. Why doesn't somebody perhaps give an example of something important that couldn't be done, if the Royal Family was gotten rid of. Rather than vaguely saying that they are needed, and dismissing all who disagree as communists/anarchists etc
|
>> If your logic is so flawed that you can't attack the argument,
No one's attacking you SS. You do seem to be some sort of anarchist idealist though. But communist? Tee hee...
You look at the media and they depict a large, loose group of people in caricature style. You don't think you would like them yourself and anyway you don't see what they are for.
So naturally you think it's unfair and can't see why they can't just be paid the minimum hourly wage for getting the bus in from Hackney, trooping the colour and taking the bus home again.
I think you are quite right. In fact it's amazing none of this has ever occurred to anyone else. Eureka!
:o}
|
>> No one's attacking you SS.
Of course, and I don't take any of this as personal attacks, of course.
The only thing that I can't bear is people getting away with winning arguments with logical fallacies (not accusing you of that) - that peeve is reallty the basis of all arguments (ahem...debates) that I get into, regardless of whether I give two hoots about the matter under discussion.
I am on a one person crusade to enforce logical reasoning, if you like... :)
|
Right SS, logical reasoning then on this one!
Royalty are a part of Britains heritage and we should protect our roots.
I think the complaint is really that they cost so much to keep and what we see as living within our budget, is seen by royalty as protecting their personal wealth.
Debate away:)
Pat
|
The United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world with a GDP of c$2 trillion.
£37m for the *immediate* Royal Family pales into insignificance compared to the £billions thrown down the khazi on BP and the the BushBlair wars.
I am of the belief that The Queen and her Mother beforehand, give sterling service to The UK and The Commonwealth.
62p per year = money well spent.
God save The Queen :).
|
At the end of the day, the Queen could give up the civil list, take back her revenues from the Crown Estates and this country then has a net loss of 120 million. What a smart idea.
Atleast she goes to work, more than alot in this country ever will.
|
Why does any country need a "head of state"?
It seems that unless the "chief person" of a country has actual executive political power, their sole function is to glad-hand other powerless "chief persons" of other countries.
Why?
|
>> Why does any country need a "head of state"?
Because it's a proper grown-up country that has complex formal relations with hundreds of other countries and offshore powers landsker, a real place with a history that hasn't, alhamdulillah! recently been taken over by some bunch of rationalising twerps, believers in modernism, speed and a swift punch up the hooter for anyone who doesn't agree, who think you can tidy a 100-acre formal garden with a goddamn electric toothbrush, goodness you guys make me laugh...
|
Must be so tempting sometimes to do a reverse Churchill salute, or simply display a kid-gloved middle finger.
The lady's restraint is simply awesome.
|
|
Just watching some army guys getting their well deserved gongs from from the German/Greek Prince - Just a question to the Royal watchers, where does Charlie get all those medal ribbons from, not as if he's done anything more dangerous is it ?
|
Coming from an educated man, PU, that question deserves the description 'faux naif'.
Even when monarchs were warlords, wearing gold-inlaid armour with giant codpieces must have made them stand out a bit on the battlefield, and it isn't realistic to suppose that they weren't well-defended by organised groups of warriors whose officers later got rewarded with titles and estates.
The last genuine heavyweight monarch I can think of who really did start as a warlord - or rather an artillery officer - was Napoleon. Of course he was also a republican at first. Emperor Bokassa of Centrafrique wasn't really in the same class from the military point of view.
One wonders whether most of the brave squaddies decorated by the Prince of Wales would have enjoyed the ceremony as much if it was performed by a grey-faced bureaucrat in a lounge suit. Perhaps one or two would, but I think military men like a bit of flimflam and barbaric splendour on parade occasions. And so do most other people, including you I bet.
|
Coming from a family with a bit of a Military history - I have to agree with you on the last paragraph ! That is one area where a Republic falls down really, the pomp and ceremony of royal/military occasions do not leave me cold, maybe they do have a role after all. You're right. At least the Royal expert on planning matters only has a minuscule number of medal ribbons as compared to the average American General....!
I've been to one dangerous place in my life and I did not deserve a medal for it !
You're right AC my question was disingenuous and I should leave him alone.....
|
62p a year? Bargain! - R.P.
