What to do with the Monarchy?

by GG Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

Clue is in the title really.....

Over to you

by Josiah Maiestas Sat 23 Jun 2012, 11:58 am

Give them a 9 to 5

or

Put them in Big Brother

by Jennifer1984 Fri 29 Jun 2012, 7:34 am

liverbnz wrote:
Show me proof that the increased tourism has anything to do with the Royals? Tell you what, save your energy, because there is none. It's all hearsay, vagueness and beating around the bush when it comes to the Windsors.

"Of course, the Olympic Games are a factor in this year's figures, but I think that is an additional, rather than an alternative reason." Well that settles it then, if you think it then you must be right. Lets ignore all the actual facts there are out there if you care to delve a little deeper. Lets ignore the costs to local economies due to lost business from tourism due to the jubilee. Lets also ignore the cost to the economy of taking an extra day off to watch Lizzys miserable gub getting soaked on a barge. Lets ignore the cost to business of a days lost revenue yet still having to pay their staff - businesses who are struggling already whilst we subsidise this family.

That's wonderful news that 'estimates' have shown the economy had been boosted by 1.5bn. (An impact assessment calculated break-even but sure we'll go with the estimates that have no reference to how they came about). Only another 3.5bn to go to cover the costs of that other extra day off we had last year because of the fraudsters. And that's not including the hidden costs I've mentioned above.

Oh, I am so sorry that I didn't realise I was posting on a topic that I clearly know nothing about and am not entitled to have an opinion on. After all, I was only born and raised in Greenwich, the most tourist-visited borough of London outside of the centre and City. I've never met a visitor to London in my life, have I..? What would I know about London and it's visitors..? My sister works in tourism in the City and talks to visitors. A LOT. What would she know..? Obviously she and I should bow to somebody who comes from a completely different island but who clearly knows it all.

No doubt, the poll at the top of the page, showing around 2 - 1 support for the monarchy isn't a matter of public approval, it's all royal arse licking and a multinational corporation, that has absolutely no vested interest in the monarchy, except in how exploiting Royal popularity could make them a profit, and was conducted by a highly qualified and respected analyst is easily dismissed on the "Putting My Fingers In My Ears And Going La-La-La" principle.

So that's that, then.

I suppose you will completely dismiss anything like this, which gives statistics for 2010 (the year before the period covered by the Mastercard report): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/tourism/8587231/UK-Tourism-facts-and-figures.html

Snippet from link:
The Royal family generate close to £500 million every year for British tourism with The Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace the most popular Royal destinations. And that was in a year when there was NO Royal wedding or Jubilee.

I'm sure you will consider that as being not admissible as evidence because it doesn't agree with you, but I've put it there, just the same.

There have been many, many visitor polls to London conducted over a long period of time and the one thing that they have been completely consistent about is that they all put royal occasions and sightseeing of royal sites as a major attraction. It would be a waste of time me taking that further though, as reading all you have written so far suggests to me that you would simply dismiss them out of hand.

Of course it's difficult to conclusively prove the actual amount that Britain benefits from Royal tourism because we don't ask people to fill in a form every time they spend their money. But ask any native Londoner who makes a living out of tourism. Ask them if they would want to see the monarchy abolished.

The Mastercard report I linked to drew a clear connection to the Royal Wedding and Jubilee for London's success in the last two years. Why would they do that..? They are a business who are making an analysis, the purpose of which is planning their future sales and marketing strategies. There would be no business advantage to be had from "Royal Toadying". Businesses are in business to make money. And that is the bottom line. If they draw a link between royal celebrations and increased tourism it's not unreasonable to conclude that they do so because the former is advantageous to the latter.

When the Mastercard report talks about London, it is talking about that city... not Britain... not England.... London. London has been the world's most popular city to visit for the last two years during which time, there has been the Royal Wedding of Prince William and the Royal Jubilee.

But of course, that's just a coincidence, isn't it..? Nobody came here to see those events, did they..? Perhaps (to parody an old Monty Python skit), those people came here to marvel at the wonderful telephone system or see the majestik Moose. That must be it then. Of course, why didn't I think of that before..!!

Pish and pah..!! Of course the tourist numbers were swelled by the Royal celebrations. To suggest otherwise is simply sticking your head in the sand.

.

by GG Sat 30 Jun 2012, 12:59 pm

The Royal family generate close to £500 million every year for British tourism with The Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace the most popular Royal destinations.

But the royal sites would still exist if we got rid of the royals.

by The Galveston Giant Sat 30 Jun 2012, 1:11 pm

This is true, you don't exactly get to meet them when you visit.

by Jennifer1984 Sat 30 Jun 2012, 2:37 pm

The Galveston Giant wrote:This is true, you don't exactly get to meet them when you visit.

Of course not. The Royals are not a tourist attraction in themselves. That is not their primary role, it is a consequence of having them, as they are, that attracts visitors. Without them, the buildings would have no meaning, they would be anachronisms.

A large part of the attraction for visitors is the fact that what they are seeing is living history.

If the monarchy were abolished, what reason would there be to keep the crown jewels in the Tower of London..? Luddite Republicans would want them sold to raise their cash value and whilst they would raise a large sum of money, what then of British history, culture and tradition once that money was spent..?

.http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-us-dollar-value-of-the-crown-jewels-of-england

The cash value of the Crown Jewels is around £20 million pounds. What will that buy these days..? It would fund a moderate sized hospital for about six months. A worthy expenditure, but when the money is gone, what then..? What would we have left to sell..?

The anti-monarchists recurring theme is money.... specifically, how much it costs to maintain the Royal Family. It is true that the Civil List is raised from public taxes, but this is a miniscule amount in the wider disbursement of public funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list

Snippet:
Only the Queen officially receives direct funding from the Civil List. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year. The Queen, as head of state, receives £7,900,000 from the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.

compare this to the budget for the overseas aid:

http://www.channel4.com/news/britains-foreign-aid-budget-money-well-spent

Snippet
The government ringfenced and raised DFID's budget by 34.2 per cent, to £11.5bn over the next four years. That outruns Britain's current record spend of 0.56 per cent GDP on overseas aid and will see it rise to 0.7 per cent of GDP in 2013.

How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan..?

.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046334/Afghanistan-war-10th-anniversary-invasion-half-way-there.html

The headline figure in the article says £258 BILLION but the charts in the article put the US expenditure at US$ 4 TRILLION. These unpopular wars have come at a time when Britain is in recession, and yet we never hear anything from the Republicans about the cost of those. Some estimates said that at their peak, the wars were costing Britain £400 million a week. At that rate, the sale of the Crown Jewels would have funded the war for about 8 hours or so. Puts it into perspective, doesn't it..?

By such comparisons it is easy to see that the Civil List is but a miniscule amount of GDP, and yet it is the only thing that Republicans keep returning to. By their argument, this country would ditch more than a thousand years of history, culture and tradition and do away with the one thing that the rest of the world has any sort of admiration for in this country in return for an amount of money that is quite paltry in the bigger scheme of things.

The Queen is also the glue that holds the Commonwealth together. Without the monarchy, it is probable that the Commonwealth would crumble in a very short period of time, losing Britain valuable friendships all over the world, not to mention breaking the ties between us and those countries that are so beneficial in trade and business.

When abolitionists look at the Monarchy, they see only cost and privilege. They are not imaginative enough to look further and realise the history and traditions of this country. They have no idea of how the Crown is symbolic of so many of our national institutions. They don't propose what they would put in it's place. They simply say: "Elected Official". Well, what sort of elected official..? A President..? And what if, once elected, he decided not to leave office but instead, did what Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe and decides to stay, using the police and armed forces to oppress the people...? We start with a President and end up with a Generalissimo.

Without the monarch, the Army would no longer be under the nominal command of the crown... it would be under the command of the "elected official"... That official would be the Commander in Chief. As things stand, our armed forces are absolutely loyal to the crown. No politician could use them to oppress the people. But what happens when the crown is not there, and the army are loyal to a political master..? Just think on the political stability of Britain, and how it could be compromised by destroying its head.

The Monarchy was abolished in Britain by Oliver Cromwell, after the English Civil War and the execution of Charles I in 1649. The folly of that was soon realised and the crown was restored in 1660 after Cromwell's death. The English Republic (or Cromwellian Commonwealth) lasted a mere 11 years. 11 years of mismanagement, civil disorder and puritanical oppression by rulers who, drunk with power, behaved excessively.

The abolitionist view is narrow and blinkered, and gives no consideration to anything other than behaving like Luddites, smashing that which they despise and giving no consideration or thought to what it is they really destroy, or what they would replace it with.

.

by GSC Sat 30 Jun 2012, 3:15 pm

I'm not sure getting rid of the queen turns us into Zimbabwe

by Jennifer1984 Sun 01 Jul 2012, 7:28 am

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:I'm not sure getting rid of the queen turns us into Zimbabwe

It doesn't.

The point I'm making (and which I suspect you realise full well) is that the country could be destabilised, and a power vacuum created into which any kind of ill disposed individual could find himself gaining power that he is unwilling to give up.

Can't happen here..? Why not..? It can happen anywhere that power is given to an individual who decides to abandon the democratic principles under which he was elected, and uses the military for his own ends. I'm not going to take this argument further down the road as I feel I've explained the outline scenario well enough for your own imagination to do the rest.

Could it happen here..? You betcha.

.

by GSC Sun 01 Jul 2012, 11:09 am

Will it ever happen.

No.

There are numerous countries that seem to be doing alright without a monarchy. And to suggest that a women who holds no influence over what the army does anyway in real life, is the difference between current Britain, and David Cameron being PM for the next 60 years is laughable.

by Jennifer1984 Sun 01 Jul 2012, 4:01 pm

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Will it ever happen.

No.

There are numerous countries that seem to be doing alright without a monarchy. And to suggest that a women who holds no influence over what the army does anyway in real life, is the difference between current Britain, and David Cameron being PM for the next 60 years is laughable.

Your opinion is your opinion, and as a, no doubt, ardent abolitionist, you're bound to say that.

As for your assertion that countries who do away with monarchies do just fine, I'd remind you of what happened when Germany deposed Kaiser Wilhelm.... It allowed a nasty little Bohemian Corporal to rise to power. His name..? Adolph Hitler. Q.E.D.

Of course, any speculation on what could happen in the future is entirely that.... speculation, but to say it could not possibly happen is burying your head in the sand simply because you lack the imagination to think beyond your own petty prejudice.

I suggest it is possible that a corrupt politician could come to power and with absolute authority in his control, and with the right promises made to the right generals, a military backed coup d'etat could be possible.

As things stand, Britain has one of the most stable democracies in the world and although the Queen herself has no political power, the Crown (I won't spell out the difference between "The body politic and the body corporal" as once detailed by Elizabeth I. Look it up for yourself and learn something) is the head of all the major state institutions. To abolish them would cause a massive upheaval and it would take many years to re-organise all these things along republican lines.... time in which politicians would consider they had a completely free hand to do pretty much as they pleased.

If you have that much trust in politicians, that's fine for you, but I think the currrent political structures, with their various democratic balances, checks and controls, work pretty darned well all things considered.

You'd destabilise the entire country just because you don't like an insignificantly small amount of public money being spent on the very institution that ensures the stability we enjoy and sometimes take for granted.

Sheesh. You'd do a better job of destroying the country than Al Qaeda could ever dream of.

.

by GSC Sun 01 Jul 2012, 5:41 pm

Well actually I never voted against abolitioning them as long as they bring in more money than they take, so try not to label.

I'm actually arguing because your point that power that the Queen could not actually use anyway, is all that stops us becoming the latest dictatorship is frankly laughable.

by GG Sun 01 Jul 2012, 6:20 pm

Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't mean there'd be no head of state though does it? There could still be an apolitical head of state that's elected.

by drsambo1928 Sun 01 Jul 2012, 11:49 pm

Jennifer1984 wrote:
Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:I'm not sure getting rid of the queen turns us into Zimbabwe

It doesn't.

The point I'm making (and which I suspect you realise full well) is that the country could be destabilised, and a power vacuum created into which any kind of ill disposed individual could find himself gaining power that he is unwilling to give up.

Can't happen here..? Why not..? It can happen anywhere that power is given to an individual who decides to abandon the democratic principles under which he was elected, and uses the military for his own ends. I'm not going to take this argument further down the road as I feel I've explained the outline scenario well enough for your own imagination to do the rest.

Prince William. Future totalitarian dictator
Could it happen here..? You betcha.

.

by Jennifer1984 Sun 22 Jul 2012, 6:51 pm

drsambo1928 wrote:
Jennifer1984 wrote:
Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:I'm not sure getting rid of the queen turns us into Zimbabwe

It doesn't.

The point I'm making (and which I suspect you realise full well) is that the country could be destabilised, and a power vacuum created into which any kind of ill disposed individual could find himself gaining power that he is unwilling to give up.

Can't happen here..? Why not..? It can happen anywhere that power is given to an individual who decides to abandon the democratic principles under which he was elected, and uses the military for his own ends. I'm not going to take this argument further down the road as I feel I've explained the outline scenario well enough for your own imagination to do the rest.

Could it happen here..? You betcha.

.

Prince William. Future totalitarian dictator

It's not clever to alter another poster's message for your own ends, drsambo.

Please make your own points outside of the quotation and don't manipulate my words to make it look as if I said something that I didn't.

.

by Jennifer1984 Sun 22 Jul 2012, 7:01 pm

GG wrote:Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't mean there'd be no head of state though does it? There could still be an apolitical head of state that's elected.

Apolitical..? And who might that be..?

British politics operates on a party system. How could a President who came from the Conservative or New Labour (or any other) party be apolitical..?

It is possible that a private individual could seek election but what ticket would he campaign on..? What manifesto would he put to the public to convince them to vote for him..? If he told us he would be apolitical and actually got elected (which is extremely unlikely, but I'll run with it), then all that would have been achieved from abolishing the monarchy would be to replace an apolitical monarch for an apolitical commoner. Abolition would have changed nothing at all.

Having a President means electing a party political figure, possibly one with the authority to overrule Parliament which could put us at the whim of a dictator.

Some people blithely say it couldn't possibly happen, but as I pointed out, it does and it has in other countries. With our democracy destabilised the likelihood of this happening is greatly increased.

.

by Doon the Water Mon 23 Jul 2012, 7:29 pm

I think The Duke of Rothesay would make a very good President.

by Corporalhumblebucket Mon 23 Jul 2012, 9:37 pm

My suggestion for President would be Vic Marks, who is suitably whimsical.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 24 Jul 2012, 10:50 am

Monarchy is one of the best things about this country. Pomp and ceremony is the only thing (apart from cycling now) that we're any good at.

They make millions upon millions as well as paying tax on all their earnings and are our greatest and hardest working embassadors.

And from 2013 they'll no longer be tax-payer funded so all you grumpy bitter Republicans can shove that in your pipes and smoke it.

by WhiteCamry Tue 24 Jul 2012, 12:57 pm

Jennifer1984 wrote:
GG wrote:Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't mean there'd be no head of state though does it? There could still be an apolitical head of state that's elected.

Apolitical..? And who might that be..?

British politics operates on a party system. How could a President who came from the Conservative or New Labour (or any other) party be apolitical..?

It is possible that a private individual could seek election but what ticket would he campaign on..? What manifesto would he put to the public to convince them to vote for him..? If he told us he would be apolitical and actually got elected (which is extremely unlikely, but I'll run with it), then all that would have been achieved from abolishing the monarchy would be to replace an apolitical monarch for an apolitical commoner. Abolition would have changed nothing at all.

Having a President means electing a party political figure, possibly one with the authority to overrule Parliament which could put us at the whim of a dictator.

Some people blithely say it couldn't possibly happen, but as I pointed out, it does and it has in other countries. With our democracy destabilised the likelihood of this happening is greatly increased.

.

You mean like in Ireland? Germany? Israel? Italy? Poland? Switzerland? Portugal? The Czech Republic? Greece? Austria? Slovakia? Slovenia? Croatia? Iceland?

by Jennifer1984 Wed 25 Jul 2012, 12:46 pm

WhiteCamry wrote:
Jennifer1984 wrote:
GG wrote:Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't mean there'd be no head of state though does it? There could still be an apolitical head of state that's elected.

Apolitical..? And who might that be..?

British politics operates on a party system. How could a President who came from the Conservative or New Labour (or any other) party be apolitical..?

It is possible that a private individual could seek election but what ticket would he campaign on..? What manifesto would he put to the public to convince them to vote for him..? If he told us he would be apolitical and actually got elected (which is extremely unlikely, but I'll run with it), then all that would have been achieved from abolishing the monarchy would be to replace an apolitical monarch for an apolitical commoner. Abolition would have changed nothing at all.

Having a President means electing a party political figure, possibly one with the authority to overrule Parliament which could put us at the whim of a dictator.

Some people blithely say it couldn't possibly happen, but as I pointed out, it does and it has in other countries. With our democracy destabilised the likelihood of this happening is greatly increased.

You mean like in Ireland? Germany? Israel? Italy? Poland? Switzerland? Portugal? The Czech Republic? Greece? Austria? Slovakia? Slovenia? Croatia? Iceland?

Erm..... Yes. When Kaiser Wilhelm was deposed in Germany, it allowed Hitler to rise to power. Austria was an ally of Germany and was effectively suborned. 800'000 Austrians served in the Wermacht and 150'000 served in the Waffen SS.

Israel as a State has militarily occupied the territories of West Bank, Sinai, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, behaving quite despotically towards the native Palestinians. You may have noticed this if you read the news. On the face of it, they are a democratic state, but tell that to a Palestinian.

Poland ceased to be a kingdom in 1795 when it was split up in a process of territorial seizures and partitioned between Prussia, Austria and Russia. Later it was subjected to Nazi rule and then after that, overrun by the Red Army in World War II and cemented into the Soviet bloc until 1989. Similar events took place in Czechoslovakia and the areas now known as Slovakia, Slovenia and Croatia were once a part of either the Soviet Empire or the Yugoslavian State, run by Tito, a military dictator.

In Greece, in May 1973, a planned coup by the Hellenic Navy was narrowly suppressed, but led to the mutiny of the HNS Velos, whose officers sought political asylum in Italy. In response, military junta leader Papadopoulos abolished the monarchy and declared himself the unelected President of the Republic. Republican Greece was effectively founded by a military coup d'etat.

Italy was governed by Victor Emmanuel III but it was his ineffectiveness as King that allowed Benito Mussolini to rise to power as a fascist dictator. Although he handed the crown onto his son, Umberto II, it was the fact that he had been unable to stop Mussolini that caused him to lose the 1946 referendum in Italy that led to the abolition of the crown. His was not so much a case of political instability following abolition, rather, during it. An ineffective monarchy is as bad as no monarchy at all.

Shall I go on...?

I notice in your message you conveniently neglected to mention Spain, and Russia where stable monarchies were overthrown by civil war and revolution which resulted in the deaths of many millions of people.

What you did in your message was to simply throw names of countries into the air without giving any thought of what you were actually saying. You're going to have to do much better than that.

.

by WhiteCamry Wed 25 Jul 2012, 5:30 pm

Jennifer1984 wrote:
WhiteCamry wrote:
Jennifer1984 wrote:
GG wrote:Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't mean there'd be no head of state though does it? There could still be an apolitical head of state that's elected.

Apolitical..? And who might that be..?

British politics operates on a party system. How could a President who came from the Conservative or New Labour (or any other) party be apolitical..?

It is possible that a private individual could seek election but what ticket would he campaign on..? What manifesto would he put to the public to convince them to vote for him..? If he told us he would be apolitical and actually got elected (which is extremely unlikely, but I'll run with it), then all that would have been achieved from abolishing the monarchy would be to replace an apolitical monarch for an apolitical commoner. Abolition would have changed nothing at all.

Having a President means electing a party political figure, possibly one with the authority to overrule Parliament which could put us at the whim of a dictator.

Some people blithely say it couldn't possibly happen, but as I pointed out, it does and it has in other countries. With our democracy destabilised the likelihood of this happening is greatly increased.

You mean like in Ireland? Germany? Israel? Italy? Poland? Switzerland? Portugal? The Czech Republic? Greece? Austria? Slovakia? Slovenia? Croatia? Iceland?

Erm..... Yes. When Kaiser Wilhelm was deposed in Germany, it allowed Hitler to rise to power. Austria was an ally of Germany and was effectively suborned. 800'000 Austrians served in the Wermacht and 150'000 served in the Waffen SS.

Israel as a State has militarily occupied the territories of West Bank, Sinai, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, behaving quite despotically towards the native Palestinians. You may have noticed this if you read the news. On the face of it, they are a democratic state, but tell that to a Palestinian.

Poland ceased to be a kingdom in 1795 when it was split up in a process of territorial seizures and partitioned between Prussia, Austria and Russia. Later it was subjected to Nazi rule and then after that, overrun by the Red Army in World War II and cemented into the Soviet bloc until 1989. Similar events took place in Czechoslovakia and the areas now known as Slovakia, Slovenia and Croatia were once a part of either the Soviet Empire or the Yugoslavian State, run by Tito, a military dictator.

In Greece, in May 1973, a planned coup by the Hellenic Navy was narrowly suppressed, but led to the mutiny of the HNS Velos, whose officers sought political asylum in Italy. In response, military junta leader Papadopoulos abolished the monarchy and declared himself the unelected President of the Republic. Republican Greece was effectively founded by a military coup d'etat.

Italy was governed by Victor Emmanuel III but it was his ineffectiveness as King that allowed Benito Mussolini to rise to power as a fascist dictator. Although he handed the crown onto his son, Umberto II, it was the fact that he had been unable to stop Mussolini that caused him to lose the 1946 referendum in Italy that led to the abolition of the crown. His was not so much a case of political instability following abolition, rather, during it. An ineffective monarchy is as bad as no monarchy at all.

Shall I go on...?

I notice in your message you conveniently neglected to mention Spain, and Russia where stable monarchies were overthrown by civil war and revolution which resulted in the deaths of many millions of people.

What you did in your message was to simply throw names of countries into the air without giving any thought of what you were actually saying. You're going to have to do much better than that.

.

Sorry, Jenny, but you'll have to do much, much better than citing poorly-interpreted historical factoids. Each republic which I mentioned is today and will for the foreseeable future be a stable, multi-party democracy.

by Sponsored content

What to do with the Monarchy?

Should we keep the monarchy?

What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?

Re: What to do with the Monarchy?