Royal Family

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You are so wrong. A political president as per the US system brings the divisions you now see there.

As to Brexit, you can’t resist bringing it in. Everyone in the EU countries is currently poorer and it’s not due to Brexit. People were happy too vote for Brexit because of sovereignty and not being governed by Brussels. That you are content to be governed by Brussels destroys your credibility on the matter.

The Commons Library (from 7 days ago) says differently.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The Commons Library (from 7 days ago) says differently.

Obviously his use of "Everyone" is inaccurate, but it would be interesting to see the breakdown of the Eurozone, as that must be an average of all EU Countries, so no doubt there will be several (like Germany) that won't be doing as well.

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are being very silly. Going back to a time, nearly 400 years ago, when we still burnt witches at the stake for a comparison?

What you are not addressing is the moral failure of endorsing a monarchy. The wish to place an entitled, ultra wealthy, selected by birth, individual in a position where you are required/encouraged to literally be subservient to them, bowing in their presence. This is a point of principle: one man/woman is more equal than any other. The Americans got the right idea.

It really is a point of principle, not money and not imperial nostalgia. Some people voted for Brexit on principle, knowing that they, and the country, would be poorer but still were happy to do so. The whole thing, in the 21st century is an historical anachronism.

Well I know I am. . It was the protectorate was problematic rather than the concept of republic. Even in 17th century England there was a deep understanding of how the relationship between a monarch and parliament should work, grounded in history and tradition. No such understanding existed with the protectorate and Parliament at one stage offered Cromwell the crown, probably because it saw the looming risk of continental style absolutism and thought a constitutional monarchy was safer all round. As it happened, Oliver died and his son Richard inherited the protectorate much as a monarch would, but was then so useless the restoration soon followed.

I don’t accept that selection by birth is a moral failure. It may or may not be a constitutional failure; it may or may not be regarded an anachronism or a failure of democracy, but ‘moral failure’ is a very strong charge and I don’t think it sticks in a society where preference for one’s own family is part of the fabric of life. We do it all the time so if it’s flawed as a fundamental principle our whole society is on thin ice.

It is vastly unlikely that if we were setting up a new British state today that we would appoint a family to provide our heads of state. But to make that argument is to ignore the context in which we live. We are not setting up a new state. We inhabit what is arguably the world’s first modern nation state, governed by a democracy that has been continually developing and extending over that period and has had universal adult suffrage for a century. All of that, plus the inherited position of head of state which is its keystone, rests on a millennium of tradition, convention and precedent. One of the reasons we haven’t seriously discussed changing that is that unpicking it would be a fraught process whose outcome would be unclear and benefits questionable. You have asserted a moral argument but I don’t think you’ve actually demonstrated it. That leaves us with practical questions. Would it be better than what we have in any practical way? A political head of state is a divisive figure by definition. It can (and does) go wrong.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

So maybe we just accept that as we already have a head of state with no real executive power (like Ireland or Germany).

They're a lot cheaper and less recognisable than our own, The Dutch brand even cycle about the place unrecognised and unmolested, if we hadn't basically abandoned the Commonwealth in favour of the EU there might be an argument for keeping them in their current guise but we didn't so we shouldn't imo, this old school class system needs pulling down

Originally Posted by Chris

A political head of state is a divisive figure by definition. It can (and does) go wrong.

Generally it doesn't unless it's someone with an extreme ideology like donny or lettuce, most of the time with someone normal(ish) in charge it chugs along quite happily with only the odd murmurs of dissent

---------- Post added at 15:07 ---------- Previous post was at 15:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

The Commons Library (from 7 days ago) says differently.

Not everyone then...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They're a lot cheaper and less recognisable than our own, The Dutch brand even cycle about the place unrecognised and unmolested

Well that's sort of the point, when you say "The Royal Family" to anyone on the world and they will instinctively think you're talking about our Royal family.

They cost £1.29 per person. I think we can certainly trim them, but I would happily pay £5 a year to subsidise The Royal Family.

Generally it doesn't unless it's someone with an extreme ideology like donny or lettuce, most of the time with someone normal(ish) in charge it chugs along quite happily with only the odd murmurs of dissent

Not sure that's entirely accurate. Plenty Presidents past and present that are both Political leader and head of state, that are off their rockers.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They're a lot cheaper and less recognisable than our own, The Dutch brand even cycle about the place unrecognised and unmolested, if we hadn't basically abandoned the Commonwealth in favour of the EU there might be an argument for keeping them in their current guise but we didn't so we shouldn't imo, this old school class system needs pulling down

Charlie Farley is generating a ton of coverage in the Greek press today just for wearing the Greek tie shown earlier in this thread. He’s generating a ton of coverage in South Korea for giving out honours to a K-Pop group while our politicians and civil servants are trying to thrash out a trade deal in Seoul.

Being recognised and causing a stir overseas is a great deal of the point of having them.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

They cost £1.29 per person. I think we can certainly trim them, but I would happily pay £5 a year to subsidise The Royal Family.

That's not what they cost and if you think it is can I interest you in these magic beans

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

That's not what they cost and if you think it is can I interest you in these magic beans

Well….it is.

But you’re welcome to post evidence to the contrary. If you’re so certain, shouldn’t be a problem for you.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well….it is.

But you’re welcome to post evidence to the contrary. If you’re so certain, shouldn’t be a problem for you.

The crown estate passed from the Queen to Charles without the requirement to pay inheritance tax,

British wills are normally required by law to be published, but the sealing of the royal wills has prevented the public from seeing what kind of assets – such as property, jewellery and cash – have been passed on down the generations.

The Queen was not considered liable for tax on the sovereign grant,

The details of many assets passed from one generation of the royal family to another on their death have been concealed

£1.29 per person lol

Anyone can cook the books

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

The crown estate passed from the Queen to Charles without the requirement to pay inheritance tax,

British wills are normally required by law to be published, but the sealing of the royal wills has prevented the public from seeing what kind of assets – such as property, jewellery and cash – have been passed on down the generations.

The Queen was not considered liable for tax on the sovereign grant,

The details of many assets passed from one generation of the royal family to another on their death have been concealed

£1.29 per person lol

Anyone can cook the books

Very nice, please use a different colour.

But you still have not given me a figure?

Surely, it must be dead easy to give me a figure?

I’m actually going to revise mine down to 77p per person.

https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/fina...0in%20the%20UK.


I look forward to hearing from you.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Very nice, please use a different colour.

But you still have not given me a figure?

Surely, it must be dead easy to give me a figure?

I’m actually going to revise mine down to 77p per person.

https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/fina...0in%20the%20UK.


I look forward to hearing from you.

I did indeed read that. You are correct. The cooked books say that.

Do you dispute what I am saying? Then do the proper maths mate.

Very sorry for the colour choice.

---------- Post added at 00:12 ---------- Previous post was at 00:06 ----------



You can by the new Uk flag cravat here. Biden got one too.

https://www.instagram.com/pagonimaison/

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

I did indeed read that. You are correct. The cooked books say that.

Do you dispute what I am saying? Then do the proper maths mate.

Very sorry for the colour choice.

---------- Post added at 00:12 ---------- Previous post was at 00:06 ----------



You can by the new Uk flag cravat here. Biden got one too.

https://www.instagram.com/pagonimaison/

What’s the number?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well….it is.

But you’re welcome to post evidence to the contrary. If you’re so certain, shouldn’t be a problem for you.

It wasn't a problem, you were right

The campaign group Republic, which promotes republicanism in the United Kingdom, claims that the full annual cost of the British monarchy is at least £345,000,000 a year, when including lost revenue from the two duchies, security, costs met by local councils and police forces, and lost tax revenue.

At least four times the cost they'd have us believe

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Pierre

What’s the number?

The details of many assets passed from one generation of the royal family to another on their death have been concealed


Tell me the details and I will oblige to do the calculations.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The campaign group Republic, which promotes republicanism in the United Kingdom, claims that the full annual cost of the British monarchy is at least £345,000,000 a year, when including lost revenue from the two duchies, security, costs met by local councils and police forces, and lost tax revenue.

Yes, they sound like a trustworthy independant source.

Meanwhile, this from last year ;
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/fea...ing-to-the-uk/

According to Brand Finance, the UK monarchy’s capital value as a business sits at £67.5bn, while its annual contribution to the UK economy was £1.76bn in 2017 alone. Meanwhile, for the taxpayer, the annual cost per head is roughly 1p a day.

More recent figures for the contribution to the UK economy rise as high as £2.5bn per year, either way, the country makes quite a profit out of them overall.

As to 1p per day, well thats £3.65 per year, a little higher than 77p or £1.29, but still pretty insignificant, it wouldnt even get you a pint of beer these days.