Political Crossfire Forums

[The Redcoat]

We all have different opinions about the monarchy, and the stereotypical supporter of the monarchy is a middle-class snob and stereotypical opposition is the grimey working classes.

People say we don't need a monarch, but remember the monarch is also the head of state of many other nations across the globe. If there was no monarch, what would replace the role of head of state in those countries. Also, under Commonwealth rules as soon as a country declares itself a republic it is expelled from the Commonwealth realm, which means that the British Commonwealth would become non-exsistant. The armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch, if there wasn't a monarch what would they swear allegiance to, the president? Tourists make money, but does this money help us or what? And would the tourists still make the trip to see Buckingham Palace with no monarch residing there?

And what would the name of the country be? The Former United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Republic of United Great British Home Nations? Or what??

What about all the relationships with other nations, laws, politics etc. that is embedded in the monarchy?

Would we be better off in any way?

[Lord Hargreaves]

I simply can't see what we're meant to gain from getting rid of the monarchy. In terms of the vote, I like our national anthem and the national motto, i don't see why we should be asked to pick :wink:

[maxtsu]

The Redcoat wrote: ...Also, under Commonwealth rules as soon as a country declares itself a republic it is expelled from the Commonwealth realm, which means that the British Commonwealth would become non-exsistant...
Are you sure that is correct?
Reason I question, Australia has already had republic vote (vote to stay the same).
And it looks like they are sizing up for another republican vote again.
In Australia the discussion is about who/what will replace head of state. But I have not heard them talk about leaving the Commonwealth.

[JDnCoke]

Keep the main Royal Family and chop the minor aristocrats, they can keep their titles for tradition. All palaces except Buckingham Palace should be open (in part or all) to the public to pay for maintenance costs.

[Jajo]

The Redcoat wrote: Also, under Commonwealth rules as soon as a country declares itself a republic it is expelled from the Commonwealth realm, which means that the British Commonwealth would become non-exsistant.

I think you are wrong on that bit India is a republic and still a member last time i checked.

Yep just found it on wikipedia:

'The issue of republican status within the Commonwealth was resolved in April 1949 at a Commonwealth prime ministers' meeting in London. India agreed that when it became a republic in January 1950 it would accept the King as ‘symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such Head of the Commonwealth’. The other Commonwealth countries in turn recognised India's continuing membership of the association. (At Pakistan’s insistence, India was not regarded as an exceptional case and it was assumed that other states would be accorded the same treatment as India.) The London Declaration is often seen as marking the beginning of the modern Commonwealth.'

as for the Royal family i have yet to see a reason to change them that convinces me.

[thundertaker]

JDnCoke wrote: Keep the main Royal Family and chop the minor aristocrats, they can keep their titles for tradition. All palaces except Buckingham Palace should be open (in part or all) to the public to pay for maintenance costs.

The Royal Family don't need to be maintained. Just return the Crown Estates to their rightful owners, the Queen and the Royal Family and abolish the civil list. That way, the monarchy can maintain itself without taxpayer's money. Then there will be no reason for republicans to moan about the 'cost' of monarchy. Of course, the government won't do this, because they make far too much money from the surplus of the Crown Estate revenues......

[The Redcoat]

I guess I was wrong about republics being banned from the Commonwealth, I thought that was why Ireland were kicked out. Oh well nevermind that.

thundertaker wrote: JDnCoke wrote: Keep the main Royal Family and chop the minor aristocrats, they can keep their titles for tradition. All palaces except Buckingham Palace should be open (in part or all) to the public to pay for maintenance costs.

The Royal Family don't need to be maintained. Just return the Crown Estates to their rightful owners, the Queen and the Royal Family and abolish the civil list. That way, the monarchy can maintain itself without taxpayer's money. Then there will be no reason for republicans to moan about the 'cost' of monarchy. Of course, the government won't do this, because they make far too much money from the surplus of the Crown Estate revenues......

The Queen can take any land she wants in the country, that shouldn't be. What is so special about the royal family anyway? Do we really want a royal family, or are we keeping them just to preserve history?

[antonio62]

There is no real reason for having them but no real reason for getting rid of them.

[The_Right_Honourable]

I cant really vote. I geuss im be for God save the Queen. BUT by Queen i mean the embodiment of our nations history, values, beliefs etc not the Queen as a person.

I am middle class but growing up i was pretty much a communist and despised capitalism. Having become more pragmatic over the years i still think of my self as a socialist. But not a republican. I do not want a President of Britain. Just look at Bush and you can understand why. The President represents the nation. And if you get an idiot then that damages the whole nation for a long time. The Queen sheilds us from this and for that we should be grateful.

I do wish they werent a bunch of twats though...

[thundertaker]

The Redcoat wrote: I guess I was wrong about republics being banned from the Commonwealth, I thought that was why Ireland were kicked out. Oh well nevermind that.

thundertaker wrote: JDnCoke wrote: Keep the main Royal Family and chop the minor aristocrats, they can keep their titles for tradition. All palaces except Buckingham Palace should be open (in part or all) to the public to pay for maintenance costs.

The Royal Family don't need to be maintained. Just return the Crown Estates to their rightful owners, the Queen and the Royal Family and abolish the civil list. That way, the monarchy can maintain itself without taxpayer's money. Then there will be no reason for republicans to moan about the 'cost' of monarchy. Of course, the government won't do this, because they make far too much money from the surplus of the Crown Estate revenues......

The Queen can take any land she wants in the country, that shouldn't be.

EH?

[JDnCoke]

thundertaker wrote: EH?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about some redundent law that is largely ceremonial, I mean you can kill a welshmen with a longbow after midnight in Chester! :lol:

[The Redcoat]

JDnCoke wrote: thundertaker wrote: EH?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about some redundent law that is largely ceremonial, I mean you can kill a welshmen with a longbow after midnight in Chester! :lol:

Can you really do that? Wow, if your Welsh and you piss someone off don't accept their invitation for a night on the tiles in Chester.

The Queen has loads of powers she doesn't use, but she could if she wanted to, it's all legally binding. I think she still uses the land confiscating law sometimes.

I don't know what the ceremonial purpose is though with laws.

[thundertaker]

The Redcoat wrote: JDnCoke wrote: thundertaker wrote: EH?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about some redundent law that is largely ceremonial, I mean you can kill a welshmen with a longbow after midnight in Chester! :lol:

Can you really do that? Wow, if your Welsh and you piss someone off don't accept their invitation for a night on the tiles in Chester.

The Queen has loads of powers she doesn't use, but she could if she wanted to, it's all legally binding. I think she still uses the land confiscating law sometimes.

I don't know what the ceremonial purpose is though with laws.

The Queen is a constitutional monarch who has sworn a coronation oath to maintain our freedoms and liberties and to obey the law. If she was to violate this (which she won't) we would be released of our loyalty to her and she would be removed. She will not do it because it is impractical. She cannot govern without parliament and parliament would never let her rule the kingdom like some Russian Tsar, don't be absurd. :roll:

Anyway, as I was saying, the Crown Estates were the lands owned by the monarch until 1760, when George III gave them up to parliament in return for a fixed annual payment (the 'Civil List') thus making him dependent on the British taxpayer. The government makes a profit from the crown estate, but techincally, it belongs to the Queen. If the government was to cancel the agreement and return the Crown Estates to the Royal Family, they would not need to rely on the British taxpayer, which would shut up republican whiners who like to b**** and moan about how 'expensive' the monarchy and how they 'leech' of poor working-class socialist heroes like themselves, or whatever drivel it is they like to spew out about matters that they know nothing of.......

[maxtsu]

The Redcoat wrote: I guess I was wrong about republics being banned from the Commonwealth, I thought that was why Ireland were kicked out. Oh well nevermind that.
Ohhhhh...you are so wrong.

Ireland was not kicked out.
Ireland left by it's own accord because the Irish people did not want the English monarchy to be their head of State.
Simple really.

[thundertaker]

maxtsu wrote: The Redcoat wrote: I guess I was wrong about republics being banned from the Commonwealth, I thought that was why Ireland were kicked out. Oh well nevermind that.
Ohhhhh...you are so wrong.

Ireland was not kicked out.
Ireland left by it's own accord because the Irish people did not want the English monarchy to be their head of State.
Simple really.

They were kicked out of the commonwealth because at the time they left in 1948, being part of the commonwealth meant having the King as head of state. They changed this rule to accomadate India becoming a republic back in 1950. If you become a republic, you have to re-apply for membership of the commonwealth. Ireland has never re-applied.....

[Jajo]

thundertaker wrote: JDnCoke wrote: Keep the main Royal Family and chop the minor aristocrats, they can keep their titles for tradition. All palaces except Buckingham Palace should be open (in part or all) to the public to pay for maintenance costs.

The Royal Family don't need to be maintained. Just return the Crown Estates to their rightful owners, the Queen and the Royal Family and abolish the civil list. That way, the monarchy can maintain itself without taxpayer's money. Then there will be no reason for republicans to moan about the 'cost' of monarchy. Of course, the government won't do this, because they make far too much money from the surplus of the Crown Estate revenues......

The royal family costs around 37 million of tax payers money a year according to the BBC but this shows that they don't truly understand how the Royals money works.

All the money from the civil list funds the Royals with the execption of the Queen and her eldest son the. Every year the income from the crown lands is handed over to parlimet an agreement made during during George III reign. The annual income of the crown lands comes to around £170 million which is given to HM treasury in return for £8 million so we the tax payer get 162 million from these lands so handing back the crown lands as thundertaker said would not realy be a popular idea.

The Queen as i said does not get any money from the civil list nor does the Prince of Wales who’s incomes are from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively. The most recent payment to the Queen or Privy Purse from Lancaster was 8.3 million, which would have otherwise went to the Treasury and the queen now pays tax so in fact some of that income goes to the Treasury. As i am not going to look up the accounts of Cornwall lets assume it is also around 8 million (but it is most likely less considering how Cornwall is a poor area) so adding this together makes 24 and I am assuming the other part of the 37 is policing costs and other things that cost the tax payer indirectly. So over all the royal family gives us 133 million a year and that is not including the money from Tourists.

So all in all Long Live the Queen!

[thefranzkafkafront]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: I simply can't see what we're meant to gain from getting rid of the monarchy. In terms of the vote, I like our national anthem and the national motto, i don't see why we should be asked to pick :wink:

A more accountable goverment and legislatory system prehaps?

[thundertaker]

Quote: All the money from the civil list funds the Royals with the execption of the Queen and her eldest son the. Every year the income from the crown lands is handed over to parlimet an agreement made during during George III reign. The annual income of the crown lands comes to around £170 million which is given to HM treasury in return for £8 million so we the tax payer get 162 million from these lands so handing back the crown lands as thundertaker said would not realy be a popular idea.

You're right, as it stands at the moment, the Royal Family actually turns over a profit for the people of Britain. How many countries can boast that their head of state does the same? So let's here no more whinging from anyone else about how much the Royal Family costs us.
Striclty speaking, if we ever were to become a republic, the contract between the sovereign and parliament concerning the crown lands would be broken, and parliament would have to return control of the Mrs Windsor's private property to her, losing all that lovely revenue, on top of which, we'd have to pay to maintain some scum-sucking polly and their family, plus all their predecessors. In fact, they would be the only winners in such a scenario, so what is the point?

[thundertaker]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: I simply can't see what we're meant to gain from getting rid of the monarchy. In terms of the vote, I like our national anthem and the national motto, i don't see why we should be asked to pick :wink:

A more accountable goverment and legislatory system prehaps?

The democratically elected House of Commons initiates and produces all legislation (well, so does the EU, but I'll ignore that for now). And the Queen is just a figurehead. She will not go against the will of her fully democratically accountable government......

[maxtsu]

thundertaker wrote: maxtsu wrote: The Redcoat wrote: I guess I was wrong about republics being banned from the Commonwealth, I thought that was why Ireland were kicked out. Oh well nevermind that.
Ohhhhh...you are so wrong.

Ireland was not kicked out.
Ireland left by it's own accord because the Irish people did not want the English monarchy to be their head of State.
Simple really.

They were kicked out of the commonwealth because at the time they left in 1948, being part of the commonwealth meant having the King as head of state. They changed this rule to accomadate India becoming a republic back in 1950. If you become a republic, you have to re-apply for membership of the commonwealth. Ireland has never re-applied.....
Your still incorroct. But, then again this is symantics.

Because the Irish people did not want the English King as head of State.
They left the commonwealth.
Re-application, or not, has nothing to do with. But as we know never happened.

Now...how do you 'kick out' someone who has already left?
A bit like you leaving the nightclub, and the bouncer running outside to 'kick you out'.
But this doesn't make any sense because you have already left.

I think this is Catch 22 :think: