[Politics] Royal Family: In or Out?

[Bulldog]

I'm surprised the vote is so close to 50/50 on here. I'm fairly pro-Royal for the simple reason that if you work your nuts off for good causes and you get an MBE or OBE or Knighthood, would you really want some Etonian ex MP or some nameless apparatchik pinning it on your lapel or some one like Chuck, Will or Harry ?

No I wouldn't. But I wouldn't want a royal either. The recipient should get to choose from a list of people, including the royals, sports stars, educators, politicians etc. They may not even want a ceremony and just want the gong and certificate posted to them.

It should be their choice not, bend your knee to a royal or go without.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Unless Charles decides to abdicate after a period of being King - which I'm sure he will.

Only 4 monarchs in 700 years have abdicated, and 3 of them were forced with no real alternative. What makes you think Charles will?

 

[nicko31]

This is another doozy.

[tweet]1215582933009956864[/tweet]

And this week from the same journo that gave us the light hearted avocado tale. May as well post it twice just incase anyone missed it

 

[Megazone]

Does the Royals remind anyone of the popular gang at school?

Time we grew up together

 

[Giraffe]

A straight split down the middle, 98 each. Shall we say first to 100 wins?

 

[pastafarian]

All I will say is that I have never understood the argument that 'they attract tourists'. I really don't get this - no tourist actually meets the Queen or has cucumber sandwiches and a cup of Earl Grey tea in bone china with her. So how exactly are the Royals a tourist attraction ?

It's actually rather insulting to this country, I think; it implies that we don't have lots of attractions and historic sites that tourists will want to visit anyway - that without a Monarch, no-one will visit Britain anymore.

I don't recall, when I've visited Paris, Prague, New York and Istanbul, thinking "Beautiful cities and architecture, but rather ruined by the absence of a Monarch."

This is rather a simplistic argument that the royals do not attract tourists because no one ever gets to meet the queen and sit down for a cup of tea with her.
Having an active monarchy does indeed attract tourism, you have to look at it in the wider concept of Heritage tourism and tradition image.
I think you would have had to be blind never to have seen a tourist interviewed on TV at one of the flagship events such as a wedding, a mall gathering, trooping of the colour, changing the guard etc who has timed their holiday to coincide with an event or even visited the country because of an event.
When you evaluate what attracts tourists to visiting Britain you evaluate the associations tourists have with nation, the Queen, the Royal family, the younger royals and the monarchy in general are positive associations tourists have with Britain, an active monarchy that tourists can perceive to be alive and visible remains significant in popular culture and these are all driving factors in the overall package for tourism.

 

[Notters]

Good old NSC!



It's a Cheerio from me.

 

[Bold Seagull]

This is rather a simplistic argument that the royals do not attract tourists because no one ever gets to meet the queen and sit down for a cup of tea with her.
Having an active monarchy does indeed attract tourism, you have to look at it in the wider concept of Heritage tourism and tradition image.
I think you would have had to be blind never to have seen a tourist interviewed on TV at one of the flagship events such as a wedding, a mall gathering, trooping of the colour, changing the guard etc who has timed their holiday to coincide with an event or even visited the country because of an event.
When you evaluate what attracts tourists to visiting Britain you evaluate the associations tourists have with nation, the Queen, the Royal family, the younger royals and the monarchy in general are positive associations tourists have with Britain, an active monarchy that tourists can perceive to be alive and visible remains significant in popular culture and these are all driving factors in the overall package for tourism.

It's not like we'd keep something just because it was good for the economy though, or something that wasn't democratic and accountable.

 

[Bulldog]

are we talking the same royals that publish expenses and pay income taxes not required by law? its not a very good stick to beat them with, especially given the practices followed by our politicians.

You partly make my point. Why are income taxes not required by law. Why are they treated differently?

As TB stated earlier, no one even knows what belongs to who, Royal estates, Crown estates, private Windsor family assets etc etc. You or I would never be allowed to conduct our tax affairs in such a way. How do we know if they pay the correct taxes if we dont know what they own?

I have read that the Duchy is the only business in the country that doesn't have to pay corporation tax or business rates, why?

Where ever you find a dark corner, you will find corruption, particularly when the corner can be further shrouded in royal secrecy and confusion The sycophants in the royals employ and in the government hoping for a retirement gong, stay silent.

And their ability to spend on the old expense account also goes generally unnoticed, private jets when far cheaper commercial flights are available for example, even when the flight is to go on holiday and should be taxed as personal spending but I bet it isn't.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Only 4 monarchs in 700 years have abdicated, and 3 of them were forced with no real alternative. What makes you think Charles will?

He's in his 70s already - if he wants the Monarchy to succeed he knows he has to keep it relevant.A monarch in their 40s will be more relevant than one in their 80s.

I also believe that despite his public persona, he's a reasonable guy, and he won't want his son hanging around like he's had to do for his whole life.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Remain = Get Rid

Brexit = Keep

Or is that too simplistic?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

But I will never be able to agree with inherited power and the whole quagmire of dodgy royal finances. let alone the Andrew scandal, Charlie cheating on his wife on their wedding night etc etc, to me, says we would be better off without them.

Don't elected people also do those things.

 

[Bulldog]

Don't elected people also do those things.

Of course, but they can be removed at the next election, even thrown out mid term, royals can't. A self perpetuating unelected elite that can never be removed from office no matter what they do or how crap they do it.

 

[Bold Seagull]

He's in his 70s already - if he wants the Monarchy to succeed he knows he has to keep it relevant.A monarch in their 40s will be more relevant than one in their 80s.

I also believe that despite his public persona, he's a reasonable guy, and he won't want his son hanging around like he's had to do for his whole life.

Don't get me wrong, as their Royal subjects it is impeccable logic. I don't know if they'll see it that way though. It's about duty. Their duty to honour the succession that is established through years of tradition. No British monarch has ever abdicated through their perception of what the public might want.

Abdication would require legislation as the succession is Common Law, as happened with the Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. The line of succession is regulated by Parliament (as in the Act of Succession 1700, and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013); it can be changed only by Parliament and cannot be unilaterally altered by the monarch.

One thing we do know is that Elizabeth said she would serve until her death. She could go on a fair while yet.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Remain = Get Rid

Brexit = Keep

Or is that too simplistic?

Yes. The European Royal families are related.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

The Queen,Kate and Wills even Charles YES.keep,but get Arry and Megs out and stripped of the Sussex title.

 

[beorhthelm]

You partly make my point. Why are income taxes not required by law. Why are they treated differently?
...
I have read that the Duchy is the only business in the country that doesn't have to pay corporation tax or business rates, why?

because history, which Charles saw fit to correct. the Duchy is state owned, goes with the job not a personal property, so tax would be a bit odd (though yes we do this elsewhere and shouldnt).

Of course, but they can be removed at the next election, even thrown out mid term, royals can't. A self perpetuating unelected elite that can never be removed from office no matter what they do or how crap they do it.

the monarch is there by act of Parliament. start a party, or gather enough support in existing one, with a policy to remove them and they are gone.

 

[jackanada]

Never understood all the royal toadying that goes on.
If someone killed your great grandad, raped your granny and kept the rest of the family in grinding poverty you wouldn't have a tea party to celebrate what a fantastic bloke their grandson was.

 

[Bulldog]

because history, which Charles saw fit to correct. the Duchy is state owned, goes with the job not a personal property, so tax would be a bit odd (though yes we do this elsewhere and shouldnt).


the monarch is there by act of Parliament. start a party, or gather enough support in existing one, with a policy to remove them and they are gone.

It will only be corrected when Charles is subject to compulsory taxation, including proper investigations, as the rest of us are. I have long believed that the voluntary taxes he so kindly pays, is simply a way of avoiding investigations into just how much he should be paying.

The Duchy, I don't get your point. Are you saying that people that get an income from state owned entities, should pay no tax? All the people that work for the Duchy, the armed forces, council workers?

I don't think most people want to completely abolish them, but just want a fair deal.
They are not gods and should be treated no worse or better than the rest of us. Many have been calling for taxpayers to fund the head of state alone, for years, but royal lovers seem to want anyone and everyone remotely related, to live a pampered life while the rest of us struggle,
.

It is an absolute disgrace that we don't know who owns what, we should know and it's royal obfuscation, throwing sand in our collective eyes, so we can't see what this dodgy bunch of crooks should be paying, indeed, what they should be earning and doing for this part time job.

 

[Icy Gull]

I have no strong feelings on this, except that if Harry and Meghan want out they should relinquish all Royal benefits, this one foot in and one foot out doesn’t sit well with me. Although I’m pretty certain that the solution will be exactly this.