On 8 Apr 2013 at 2:28am Expat Two wrote:
JRSussex ‚?? You have pointed out the civil list, which has gone up 6 million, includes for the entire upkeep of the Royal Family, it‚??s not simply the Queen‚??s pay alone.
How does that differ from the common understanding of ‚??pay‚??? Does n‚??t ‚??pay‚?? include expenses for up-keeping a family and home? For supporting all dependents? If we had a civil list for welfare claimants, as well as personal allowance, would you want to use that as a measure of income?
As for an alternative, I twice said what the alternative is ‚?? not having a monarchy. Why do we need an un-elected state head to ratify Acts without any power of veto? ‚?? if you really insist on having an alternative, my mum could do it. Pretty much every country in the western world has a two house system, UK has 2 houses and an entirely superfluous signatory that costs 36m a year. That‚??s 1,125 police salaries. Or the same teachers. Or 1,385 nurses.
On the subject of un-answered questions, I and others have asked before and not had an answer ‚?? If they‚??re so good for the economy, why don‚??t all countries have an over-paid monarchy? And if she's so important to democracy, which Acts has she ever vetoed?
She has no constitutional value, and little if any economic value, certainly nothing anybody, yourself included, can quantify.
On 8 Apr 2013 at 7:22am Pope wrote:
For Christs sake get over it or emigrate. Whinge Whinge Whinge.
On 8 Apr 2013 at 7:54am Cliffe Hanger wrote:
I think he already has Pope, though still within the realm of Her Majesty.
On 8 Apr 2013 at 8:03am shopkeeper wrote:
Jealous , me thinks !
On 8 Apr 2013 at 8:09am Pope wrote:
Off with his head. Ha Ha.
On 8 Apr 2013 at 9:34am jrsussex wrote:
I am a royalist, a matter of fact. However I am open minded on how the monarchy can be improved, and indeed has been over the years. For example they now pay income tax on their earnings as we all do, and quite rightly so, but the fact remains that they bring in more money to the Treasury than it costs the UK to support them. They bring untold prestige to our country from almost all countries throughout the world. Individual members of the monarchy constantly travel the world to encourage exports, all of which maintains and creates employment within the UK.
The difference between royalists and the anti-royalists/republicans among us is that they never give any credit whatsoever for the positive points of the monarchy but only ever attack them, mainly on points that are inaccurate, which simply suits their purpose.
Expat Two - I don't know your mum, and I am sure she is a fine lady, but you don't seriously think that she or anybody like her could really create the ambassador role of the monarchy, do you? Most of our top politicians couldn't achieve that:-)
On 8 Apr 2013 at 1:01pm GhostBike wrote:
Lewes was a roundhead/parliamentary stronghold during the civil war (in contrast to much of the rest of Sussex). It's good to see so many republicans on this forum - a return to the town's traditional roots.
JR, I think Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a wonderful woman who has fulfilled her duties with a great deal of grace, modesty and hard work. My respect for her doesn't mean I think the institution of the monarchy is a good thing, though. What would be your thoughts on the pros and cons of a King Charles?
"They bring untold prestige to our country from almost all countries throughout the world" - in my experience travelling the globe there are many people for whom you could replace the word 'prestige' with 'ridicule'.
Incidentally the balance sheet for the monarchy includes the incomes from the vast landholdings of the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwall (etc etc) which are treated as belonging to the royal family individually, and therefore the rents from them are treated as personal income. Do you think that's right - because I think they should be seen as belonging to you and me and the rest of the commoners and put on the other side of the balance sheet.
On 8 Apr 2013 at 8:44pm expat two wrote:
Look, if she brings money into the treasury, all well and good, but that's a big if. You'd think someone would be monitoring it and be able to present figures, but no - lets not ask those questions. She doesn't bring the tourists in either, or if she does she can't manage it as well as the French (a republic) do. The economy is still failing, by any KPIs she's not doing a grand job - and yet still gets a 6m payrise. This is the reality of Champagne socialism, obscene state handouts for the rich for doing less and less.
And, I'll ask a 3rd time, why doesn't every country have an hereditary state head. Is it only UK, Singapore and North Korea that have locked on to this fail-safe income generator? You see - the whole idea's seen as a total joke. You think the world views it as prestigious, the truth is they think its quaintly old fashioned.
Whatever she does, please stop calling it hard work, that's just insulting to anybody who has to do a real job for 1/1300th of her salary.
On 9 Apr 2013 at 2:58pm Rupert Bear wrote:
Yes, let's all repeat the same points over and over again in the hope that we'll eventually have the last word. That way we can tell all our friends down the pub how successful a debater we are when in truth everyone else just got bored of listening to you.
On 9 Apr 2013 at 9:59pm Expat Two wrote:
Or alternatively, we can carry on ignoring the facts regardless of how many times they have to be pointed out. And when we have no alternative but to address those facts we can say we're bored and so we're not going to discuss it any further. Then we can go down the pub and tell everybody how we got the last word in and therefore must be the world's best debater despite not actually being able to contribute anything to the debate.
BTW, my wife tells me off for saying 'bored of'. I'm not saying you shouldn't, after all I do it myself - but then I don't strive to think and act in the same way everybody else is told to.