If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Where was my arrogance in showing contempt for socialist views?
Why should they have that right what have they done to deserve it, to have that privilege and why should i respect them?
What right does Richard Branson's children have to that kind of financial privilege. What right does anybody have to inheritance? If you want to apply that rule then you better start applying it to everybody else aswell.
I know it didn't. :rolleyes:
You're really quite insane aren't you?
The problem I have with the Royals is what they represent.
The concept that if we got rid of the royals tourism would be decimated is completely unfounded and a little bit silly.
Frankly I don't care if the royals bring a net profit to the country or not (I don't believe so but anyway...). Even if the country were to lose a few million a year if they got rid of them, it's a small price to pay to finally remove a relic of past times that has no real place in a modern democratic nation. That I believe of all monarchies, not just the British.
A few million? Try £135million. You can choose to believe it or not but you'd only be disregarding the facts. Do you actually have an argument for abolishing the monarchy - "they don't belong in a modern democracy" is possibly the weakest argument I've ever heard. Why don't they belong in a modern democracy?
This £135m would be a one-off payment right? Considering we're happy to blow a billion on the Dome and many more billions on pointless wars even £135m comes off as a bargain.
No. It's around £135million every year. Getting steadily higher aswell as the royal expenses are cut.
Why is it necessary to have an elected head of state anyway? It's not like the monrachy has any real ruling power anymore? So why replace it with a politician? It's elections for elections sake.
But 135 million is nothing compared to the budget expenditure of the UK
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Economy
You will see that the budget of the UK is 540 billion dollars (sorry the site i got this from uses dollars)
So you arguement that the Royal family makes money is pretty pants
As that 135 million could be collected in other ways. For example say they are 60,094,648 (July 2003 est.) in the uk and that half dont want the royal family then these people could give 5 pounds each and that would equal the amount the monarch makes!
As for why is it necessary to have an elected head of state, it's because of the same reasons why it is necessary to have an elected Prime Minister. Accountability and the option to kick them out if we don't approve of them.
I've done it already but ok. The royal family, in exchange for having their official expenses paid for by the taxpayer (thats state visits and other official duties) surrender the entire revenue of the crown estate. The former figure numbers £35million, the latter firgure numbers around £170million - thats £135million profit.
The Queen also pays VAT, council tax, income tax and capital gains tax. The Prince of Wales does not recieve any money from the state. while parliamentary allowances to other royals are repaid in full every year by the queen.
Yes I know. But it might be a start.
'does who are best suited for power dont want it and those who arent want it'
i believe in democracy but i dont see how changing out head of state to a president will have any real effects.....
and our queen is not allowed to even makepolitical statements so other than in a electoral stalemate she has no real power
i say get rid of the minor royals though or a least remove their titles
keep queen/king and their immediate relatives
you KNOW for a fact we'd regulary vote in completely imcompetant head of state whilst one from birth understands their duty, and ones that dont cough cough queens hubby you cvan just blamehim, not us for voting him in
What annoys me is the money wasted on them. If what UpsetChap says is true though. That countries gain, rather than lose, then let them stay.
at least democracy gives you a chance of a fair bet on the idiot thats in charge.
Very Libertarian, that point of view, eh?
Why?
«I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
--Henry David Thoreau,
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"»
Monarchy governs less than democracy so it’s better. Because election is a way to choose the worst. Anyone who chooses political career must have one excellent quality- the lust for power. This automatically cuts off noble people who disgust to rule others, so the best part of the population doesn’t take part in the game from the step one.
But this is not all. To make a successful career a politician have to lie, to betray his friends, to compromise with enemies, to sell his principles, to give false promises, to bribe voters, to take bribes from special interests, to be a good ’team player’ that in politics means to put a group’s interests higher than his own ideals.
Everybody who is not helplessly naïve knows this is true. But alas not everybody makes the logical conclusion: democracy stands the worst on the top.
In monarchy when a ruler gets his throne accidentally we have a good chance he will be at least not worse than an average citizen. In democracy we don’t have this chance. A king may be a nice guy but in dirty waters of public politics barracudas only survive.
And in a more lucky case- a king may be absolutely irrelevant to politics, to spend his time on holidays, balls, barbecues, yachts, limousines, gambling, mistresses, polo so on. To be as to say a ‘sleeping monarch’. But ‘sleeping democracy’ is impossible in definition.
I totally agree.
1. Monarchs are trained from birth for the job they will one day have to do.
2. They are above party politics, so can be a figurehead to everyone, not just those that voted for them. Thats why MPs, soldiers etc swear an oath of alligience to the Queen and not to the government of the day.
3. The money argument is bunk. Even if we did have an elected president, we would still have to pay the same expenses to send them on visits and things.