Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I feel that we should fight them on the beaches, and in the streets.
It was 1982.
@terry wrote:
I only need a few more posts to get my post count up to 500 – something I want to do before Simplysu does.
Yes, another totally pointless and useless thread. I think I fit in well.
I think you have failed, old bean.
Happy Birthday! Chuck us a slice of cake, plz. :D
@anc wrote:
Just for the sheer hell of it……………………. :lol:
Beware the thread police will be after you for that. :P
@jen_jen wrote:
Actually the cost of the Royal Family has dropped to 51p a year…hmmmmmm, let me think, what would I do with that 51p if they didn’t have it?
Why should they have what you have earned?
@jen_jen wrote:
Of course, we could just stop paying for the Royals and let them keep the income from their land…around £235m of income that currently goes to the Treasury. In return they may also choose not to fulfil any of the Royal duties currently undertaken that bring money into the country in terms of tourist revenue and trade.
Sorry? Income from “their land?” And what land is that may I ask? Did they buy it with their hard earned money? The history of the Crown Estates is due to conquest and acquisition of land.
Today, the Crown Estates:
“Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally (as each monarch, upon accession, surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List). It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report.[1]” Wiki
So we will lose no revenue from the Crown Estate if the Monarchy was abolished. In fact we would be better off as we wouldn’t have to give them money in the Civil List.
The Monarch costs us £204 m per year, 112 times more expensive than the Presidency of the Republic of Ireland.
Refusing to fulfil their Royal duties? Excellent! No more spending out on their security then!
As for revenue from tourism, the tourists do not visit the Queen and her family personally, they come to see the sights of London and experience the culture and that may, rather than exclusively, include a trip to a Royal household. More revenue would be generated by opening all these households up to tourists all year round.
@jen_jen wrote:
I assume that all the anti-royals will be working on the Jubilee day, and expect to be paid extra or have time off in lieu…I also assume that they will stick to their moral stance by refusing to work for any company whose trade has benefited from the Royals and also refuse to buy anything or have any dealings with any company that has benefitted in any way from the Royals.
No I won’t be working, my employer is shut. And please list which companies / shops etc benefit from the Royal Family so I can avoid them.
And it’s not a moral stance, it’s a political stance.
Bamboo
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@(f)politics? wrote:
The Monarchy far from costing us brings in alot of revenue to the country and personally i think its a good thing, long live the queen :D
I’m not convinced about this revenue business.
People come to see the palaces and ceremonies, a proportionately insignificant number of tourists actually see a member of the Royal Family. We’d have a head of state anyway, so there would be ceremonies and the palaces would be maintained as they are – museums and relics, republics do it all over the world.
A recent report from The English Tourist Board (I think) said that when there are major events – Royal Weddings, Olympic Games etc, – total tourism actually goes down that year because of a reduction before and after the event, the effect on other tourist attractions and the assumptions that transport and accommodation will be overloaded and more expensive.
The trade the Royals encourage by fostering international relations? Again the other leading global trading countries are republics and they seem to manage to sell stuff. Including the big ticket stuff like arms and construction that the royals promote.
Maybe a country that is willing to seriously debate alternatives, is actually stronger and more confident than a country that wants to stay in its comfort zone.
You don’t have to be a Royalist to be loyal to your country. Being a Monarchist doesn’t necessarily make you loyal to King/Queen or country (e.g. the Establishment figures who plotted to replace the Queen with Prince Philip, William and Mary being invited over in preference to the natural heir).
If we had an alternative system for head of state, the constitutional safeguards would still be in place to restrict the abuse of power. Would we end up with a Blair or Cameron? I doubt it, it’s as different a job as Prime Minister is from city Mayor – prime minister Boris Johnson anyone? (shudders).
Would we get a President Berlusconi? No. How do I know? Because Italy didn’t, their president is Giorgio Napolitano. In any case, enough of our potential and no doubt actual heads of state behave scandalously (and that’s just the stuff we know about) So we can hold our head high in a world of Prime Minister Berlusconis and President Clintons. Toss another Swan on the Barbie!!
P.S. If Sinn Fein, founded 1905, are dinosaurs, what does that make the heirs to William of Normandy, established 1066?
An absolutely first class post, Words!
*applauds loudly
:D
Republic
