How is the Royal family financially or constitutionally bad for Britain?

[W.C.]

How have you managed two years on here being so precious ?

managed 12 thanks. Bore off.

 

[catfish]

Forget all the arguments for and against the financial advantages/disadvantages. It's just the sheer piriciple of the matter. Nobody should be able to live that sort of life at the expense of others
just because of accident of birth.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

Monty Python just about got it right - on the constitutional side, at least. Not bothered about the financial side. It is just wrong for people to come in to positions of power, however limited they might be, purely because of an accident of birth.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Churchill said the British have the worst system of Government in the world.

Apart from all the others.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

managed 12 thanks. Bore off.

Ouch

I'm not the one arguing the toss about how a valid question was phrased ! If you didn't like the question why post ?

 

[drew]

Wrong ... in terms of Military, the US will deploy the National Guard at times of state emergencies. The British Government did class the riots in August 2011 as an Emergency, but didn't even mobilise the TA. Nothing to do with the Queen really! that was the Governments choice. Im sure tho the Queen was asked about Iraq, Afghan, Syria as well as other deployments that UK Forces have been involved in.

If the Government of the day chose to go to war, the Queen couldn't stop them.

Not a financial thing for me, more that I'm not inclined to believe that any one person, due to who their parents are, is of any more significant value to the country than anyone else and they are the ultimate extension of that.

So I take it you are against any inherited wealth including, for arguments sake, your own children inheriting anything from you.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Quote Originally Posted by brakespear View Post

Not a financial thing for me, more that I'm not inclined to believe that any one person, due to who their parents are, is of any more significant value to the country than anyone else and they are the ultimate extension of that.

So I take it you are against any inherited wealth including, for arguments sake, your own children inheriting anything from you.

Don't know if the formatting will come out right, but that is not what he said and is not a logical conclusion to draw.

 

[drew]

Quote Originally Posted by brakespear View Post

Not a financial thing for me, more that I'm not inclined to believe that any one person, due to who their parents are, is of any more significant value to the country than anyone else and they are the ultimate extension of that.

So I take it you are against any inherited wealth including, for arguments sake, your own children inheriting anything from you.

Don't know if the formatting will come out right, but that is not what he said and is not a logical conclusion to draw.

You're right, I commented on the wrong quote! I meant the one below. Wealth creates power so if people inherit wealth that gives them a head start over others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

Monty Python just about got it right - on the constitutional side, at least. Not bothered about the financial side. It is just wrong for people to come in to positions of power, however limited they might be, purely because of an accident of birth.

 

[public school boy]

Ask the millions who attended, celebrated or took part in the jubilee celebrations from this country and from overseas. How many of those anti royalists gave up their bank holiday to go to work? A question to those non Christians living in the UK, would you give up your day off on Christmas day and go to work?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

any property they own is "ours" give them bikes and sell that land or build cheap housing on it solves a lot of problems and putting money into other countries is building for later trade although I would question some of the countries they have given money to

Buckingham Palace and Clarence House do belong to us, but Sandringham and Windsor Castle belong to the Queen as does Balmoral. I'm not sure about Glamis castle as I think the Queen Mum may have left it to the Scots in her will.

 

[Dandyman]

Ask the millions who attended, celebrated or took part in the jubilee celebrations from this country and from overseas. How many of those anti royalists gave up their bank holiday to go to work? A question to those non Christians living in the UK, would you give up your day off on Christmas day and go to work?

No, I would not give up my Xmas public holiday or any others. I would on the other hand gladly see the CoE disestablished, the Bishops thrown out of any Upper Chamber, an end to my taxes paying for religious propaganda, a secular education system and Christians being educated on where most of "their" festivals actually originate.

 

[Dandyman]

Buckingham Palace and Clarence House do belong to us, but Sandringham and Windsor Castle belong to the Queen as does Balmoral. I'm not sure about Glamis castle as I think the Queen Mum may have left it to the Scots in her will.

So what sort of Mortgage did Liz get for that property portfolio ?

 

[Goat lung]

To 'Disband' the Royal Family would cost millions more than keeping it. There is a far bigger picture beyond the couple of million they make from some tourists stood outside the gates of Buckingham Palace and taking pictures

1- The Commonwealth, NOT all but most actually enjoy having the queen as a figure head. The Queen is not just a political figure head but also a religious figure head. We spent hundreds of years going around the world telling everyone how great our country was and our way of life was that people saw us as a shinning light that they follow them religiously aswell. Places like Fiji, Ghana and Jamaica.

2- HM Armed Forces. The Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and 90% of the Army have Royal in there Regiment names. Meaning exactly that, they belong to the Queen. Despite popular belief the Military is the Queens NOT the Governments, and the Government seeks the Queens approval to send the Military anywhere, just because she does not sit in Parliament arguing with the rest of the time wasters it doesn't mean she is not asked.

Also from point 1 there is a several hundred if not thousand Commonwealth Soldiers serving in the British Military.

If the Royalty was to go so would are Military effectively as we know it. The Military is there to protect the Country and the Queens People.... hence the saying "FOR QUEEN/KING AND COUNTRY". If the Goverment had control of the Military and the Police then you would almost have no protection for the countries people. Take the recent riots in London, there was a reason the Military were not used, because turning the military against its own people would be catastrophic, who would be there to protect the people of the UK IF the Police stepped out of line. Hence why for the time being it is still controlled by the Queen. This leads nicely onto my next point

3- Toursim. I know people don't 'buy it', however like it or not if you took away the Royal Family you would simply cripple London and alot of peoples lives. Business, restaurants and shops all rely on the pull of the Royal tourist attractions to make the money. Get rid of the up keep of the Royal Family and you would see Buckingham Palace, Tower Of London, Horse Guards, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, Edinburgh Castle all go into a state of disrepair, not to mention all the Parks around London which are 'ROYAL' parks now open to the Public. What do you think the local outcry would be if the bulldozers moved into the Royal Pavilion and knocked that down The Military which as I previously said about is also a massive tourist pull, Edinburgh Tattoo, Changing of the Guard, Trooping the Colour, believe or not but Remembrance Day. Its nothing without Royalty.

4- Royal 'Endorsements' & Charities. There are literally 100's of Charities not just in the UK but abroad in which the Royal family endorse and help to keep, and without they would not exist. Battle of Britain Memorial flight, Royal British Legion, St Dunstans Hospital all receive "Royal Donations'.

5- Royal Engagements. Yes there expensive but when they do go places it gives hope to millions. When the Queen or Prince (s) are present it is bigger than a rockstar turning up. Look at 2012 what a year, what a year to be proud to be British.

6- Imagine the country which is so proud of its history, its Military, the things we take for granted. I can assure you getting rid of Royalty would change this country for the worse.

If you really want to look at public money spent and wasted ...... how about the 72 million the Government just GAVE to Syria considering we now dont recognise the current Syrian Government and voted against military action, who got the money?? The rebels I take it?? So we a publicly funding Terrorism!! who sanctioned that without even voting on that.
The millions we are putting into Libya which I believe to currently stand at over 100 million. The money we have spent funding other countries to bail them out of financial problems!
How much did the local change in speed limits around Brighton just cost?? 150'000 I heard, who wasted our local money??

I would think that if you are questioning our Royalty and money spent on them, then I would hope you question the public money spent on foreign countries first!

I also do make any apology for any spelling mistake or punctuation errors, just so people don't waste their time telling me that!

At last some sense , I just cannot understand the royal haters, thanks para!

 

[pastafarian]

I just cannot understand the royal haters

It usually boils down to one of five things,sometimes all five

lack of knowledge
an inability to comprehend when being misinformed
hatred of anything considered "establishment"
hatred because"that is how i was brought up"
monster chip on shoulder

i think that is sufficiently patronising of me.

i might hate the monarchy too if they were a financial basket case and a constitutional nightmare.......but guess what?

 

[cunning fergus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

Monty Python just about got it right - on the constitutional side, at least. Not bothered about the financial side. It is just wrong for people to come in to positions of power, however limited they might be, purely because of an accident of birth.

Presumably then you would feel the same way about politicians benefitting from their parents influence and wealth, such as the Miliband brothers, Chukka Umna, Hilary Benn, Harriet Harman, fatty Soames, John Gummers kid and not to mention the new generation of the children of Blair, Dromney, Benn (again) Gould.

Frankly this trend is far more worrying.............

 

[cunning fergus]

No, I would not give up my Xmas public holiday or any others. I would on the other hand gladly see the CoE disestablished, the Bishops thrown out of any Upper Chamber, an end to my taxes paying for religious propaganda, a secular education system and Christians being educated on where most of "their" festivals actually originate.

I trust you would apply equality in your Religious re-education programme and include the Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists et al too?

Good luck with that by the way.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

At last some sense , I just cannot understand the royal haters, thanks para!

I would count myself as a republican. That does not mean I am a royal hater. It is a matter of principle that I don't think unelected people should be involved in government - whether it be the Monarch or the House of Lords. I am not going to import the guillotine over it!

 

[cunning fergus]

Forget all the arguments for and against the financial advantages/disadvantages. It's just the sheer piriciple of the matter. Nobody should be able to live that sort of life at the expense of others
just because of accident of birth.

Out of interest when you say "that sort of life" what is it you envisage?

Pick one Royal........

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

No, I would not give up my Xmas public holiday or any others. I would on the other hand gladly see the CoE disestablished, the Bishops thrown out of any Upper Chamber, an end to my taxes paying for religious propaganda, a secular education system and Christians being educated on where most of "their" festivals actually originate.

As a Christian, and not an Anglican:
1. I would gladly see the Church of England disestablished, as would many Anglicans.
2. I would abolish the unelected Upper Chamber anyway
3. In what way do your taxes pay for religious propaganda
4. I think you will find that it is taught that most Christian festivals are based on pagan festivals etc etc.Most Christians are aware of it, and what is wrong with that anyway?

Church haters might be as bad and as intolerant as Royal haters

 

[public school boy]

So, why would you not be willing to give up your Christmas public holiday? In non christian countries 25th Dec is a normal working day. If your place of work closes on christmas day, you could sweep the streets or go litter picking in the countryside.