The Queen

[Diego Napier]

Possibly, I remember that she used to stand near us (heavily disguised) on the South West terrace at the Goldstone. Some of the language she used would have made a docker blush. Assume she has a box at the Amex.

Really NP, it does you a disservice to refer to Edna and box in the same sentence...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

63 years

I thought Cameron was trying to get those who are long term shivers dependent on tax payer's money back into work? Another broken promise.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

May her majesty's world forever smell of new paint

 

[Questions]

I think I am a Royalist

Shes just a descendent of a powerful Mafia like family I suppose.

k.

i knew it..... She did have Diana whacked then.

 

[dangull]

I think it is an outdated institution, but the queen has done a good job in her reign. Its a pity the previous record holder was head of the largest empire and most powerful country in the world compared to todays royal family. In the future, someone from the ethnic minorities may become king/queen if it continues long enough.

 

[The_Viper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

For the haters

 

[Soulman]

Speaking as a total lefty: imagine doing whatever job you do - and hers is obviously one that she never actually chose - in public, and then never messing up, not once in 63+ years. She's never said something she shouldn't have, never even worn a duff outfit, certainly never made a fool of herself, despite basically being stared at for a living. Quite a feat.

Yes it is. Respect.

 

[banjo]

Respect for working on your Birthday.

 

[OGH's Libido]

For those who question the role of the monarchy, and her achievement, let's play a game:

Objective: Use just two words you associate most with American heads of state from the last 100 years for the great and good of NSC to name

I'll go first, and will be a bit greedy and start off with 3:

1. Blow job
2. Vietnam escalation
3. Abu Ghraib


Over to you NSC!

Oh, if we get that far, this game is INCREDIBLE with Italian heads of state

 

[dangull]

1.American help in saving Great Britain in 2 world wars
2. The marshal plan to give aid to Europe after WW2 including GB
3.Setting up NATO so all members will be protected by the USA and all other members if they became under attack by example the USSR.

 

[Doc Lynam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

For the haters

Royal finances

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £334m, around eight times the official figure published by the royal household

The monarchy is expensive, very expensive. Of course it wouldn't matter if it were free - the cost to our democracy would still be too high - but when the palace tells you it's "value-for-money", don't believe them. We could get much better for far less.

The huge waste and extravagance of the monarchy is a symptom of the main problem: the palace is totally unaccountable and is able to operate with a far greater degree of secrecy than any other part of the state. It also clearly has considerably lobbying clout within government, which explains why the government hasn't cracked down on royal spending.

How is the monarchy funded?

The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend.

Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses.

All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 15% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £36.1m for 2013/2014, rising 29% to £40m this year.

However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year.

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £334m annually.

Republic.org.uk

For the realists

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0_3ecNEcWs

 

[edna krabappel]

Nicely put, Nibble.

Despite being an unelected head of state (something I fundamentally disagree with), she has conducted herself appropriately. I particularly applaud the fact that she hasn't used her position of enormous power to influence.

This is in stark contrast to her dreadful eldest son, who sticks his oar into all manner of things he is unqualified to speak about. I firmly believe that if he ever becomes a monarch, we might see republicanism become an influential movement. No chance of that whilst Liz is in the chair though, which is to her credit.

Curiously enough, I have a bigger issue with the Duke of York than with the Prince of Wales. By various accounts, Andrew is (a) a complete arse; and (b) lives a lifestyle of essentially taking the piss, swanning around in his helicopter to play golf whilst claiming to be some sort of "trade ambassador" (playing golf in the Middle East).

 

[alfredmizen]

1.American help in saving Great Britain in 2 world wars
2. The marshal plan to give aid to Europe after WW2 including GB
3.Setting up NATO so all members will be protected by the USA and all other members if they became under attack by example the USSR.

Quite how this is relevant to the head of state debate i dont know, however

1.) The Germans declared war on the Americans in WW2 , their plan was to concentrate on the Japanese and wage war in the Pacific , leaving us to deal with the Germans.
2.) I'm not sure we benefited from the marshall plan at all , I do know that lend lease crippled us financially as a nation after the war and we were still paying it until the 80's .
3.) NATO and the Warsaw Pact were set up as buffers between The USA and USSR, i wouldnt ever count on the Americans as defenders of the free world, they are defenders of themselves first and foremost.

 

[alfredmizen]

Curiously enough, I have a bigger issue with the Duke of York than with the Prince of Wales. By various accounts, Andrew is (a) a complete arse; and (b) lives a lifestyle of essentially taking the piss, swanning around in his helicopter to play golf whilst claiming to be some sort of "trade ambassador" (playing golf in the Middle East).

This.

 

[Questions]

For those who question the role of the monarchy, and her achievement, let's play a game:

Objective: Use just two words you associate most with American heads of state from the last 100 years for the great and good of NSC to name

I'll go first, and will be a bit greedy and start off with 3:

1. Blow job
2. Vietnam escalation
3. Abu Ghraib


Over to you NSC!

Oh, if we get that far, this game is INCREDIBLE with Italian heads of state

Does she make any political decisions then ? I wonder if the Chilcott report will implicate her in the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Simster]

Curiously enough, I have a bigger issue with the Duke of York than with the Prince of Wales. By various accounts, Andrew is (a) a complete arse; and (b) lives a lifestyle of essentially taking the piss, swanning around in his helicopter to play golf whilst claiming to be some sort of "trade ambassador" (playing golf in the Middle East).

This.

Oh I agree, and there's nothing curious about this point of view at all. Andrew has spent his life being obnoxious and bending or breaking the rules for his own personal gain. Using the RAF as his personal taxi service has always been the tip of the iceberg, he's also pocketed the proceeds of property he has sold that wasn't his to sell - the sort of thing that would get anybody else a prison sentence. He's a revolting man.

But crucially, he's not next in line to the throne. So I've focused on Charles, a man who puts pressure on Arabs not to build certain buildings in London because he doesn't like them - never mind that British jobs depend on such construction. He also abuses his position in business - he doesn't pay tax if he doesn't want to, enabling him to undercut everybody else that doesn't get that choice.

Minor issues such at his public sneering at Nicholas Witchell, a man guilty of nothing more than doing his job as chief BBC royal lickspittle, and the way he treated his wife also wind me up.

This is the man who is going to take over the Queen's job as head of state, and [MENTION=3969]Billy the Fish[/MENTION] has the cheek to criticise an elected alternative!

 

[Pavilionaire]

Royal finances

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £334m, around eight times the official figure published by the royal household

The monarchy is expensive, very expensive. Of course it wouldn't matter if it were free - the cost to our democracy would still be too high - but when the palace tells you it's "value-for-money", don't believe them. We could get much better for far less.

The huge waste and extravagance of the monarchy is a symptom of the main problem: the palace is totally unaccountable and is able to operate with a far greater degree of secrecy than any other part of the state. It also clearly has considerably lobbying clout within government, which explains why the government hasn't cracked down on royal spending.

How is the monarchy funded?

The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend.

Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses.

All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 15% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £36.1m for 2013/2014, rising 29% to £40m this year.

However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year.

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £334m annually.

Republic.org.uk

For the realists

I am always suspicious when only one side of the argument is presented. There can be no doubt that the Royal Family are the most famous royal family in the world and as such have influence and cache that, in turn, translates into money coming into the country, be it via tourism, networking, diplomacy, commonwealth.

I'd expect that if ever a full cost benefit analysis were undertaken they'd be net contributors to the UK economy.

Leaving aside the financial side, her devotion to the role is quite remarkable and, as has been pointed out, her mistakes have been few and far between.

 

[edna krabappel]

Oh I agree, and there's nothing curious about this point of view at all. Andrew has spent his life being obnoxious and bending or breaking the rules for his own personal gain. Using the RAF as his personal taxi service has always been the tip of the iceberg, he's also pocketed the proceeds of property he has sold that wasn't his to sell - the sort of thing that would get anybody else a prison sentence. He's a revolting man.

But crucially, he's not next in line to the throne. So I've focused on Charles, a man who puts pressure on Arabs not to build certain buildings in London because he doesn't like them - never mind that British jobs depend on such construction. He also abuses his position in business - he doesn't pay tax if he doesn't want to, enabling him to undercut everybody else that doesn't get that choice.

Minor issues such at his public sneering at Nicholas Witchell, a man guilty of nothing more than doing his job as chief BBC royal lickspittle, and the way he treated his wife also wind me up.

This is the man who is going to take over the Queen's job as head of state, and [MENTION=3969]Billy the Fish[/MENTION] has the cheek to criticise an elected alternative!

Well just to add to the Prince Andrew theme, I have two friends who have worked for him at different times, and neither has a good word to say about him. Both have suggested he exploits and abuses his privilege to a great degree, and also that he's entirely obnoxious to mere mortals, including many of his own staff.

Charles: I'm fairly meh about. Not remotely fussed about the whole Diana business, as I was never keen on her in the first place and she certainly made the most of her position and public profile up until her unfortunate demise. Yeah, he makes the occasional proclamation on subjects which really are none of his business, but to be honest, nobody takes them seriously anyway as it's not as though he actually has any power or genuine influence. I just find him amusing more than anything else.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I wonder what tin of baked beans she prefers