Monarchy in the UK

Abernathy · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:10 pm

bluebellnutter wrote:

Then lets hold a referendum on it. Even "Republic" only claim 25% support, and as I mentioned earlier I very much suspect this figure in itself is inflated. The best way to gauge public opinion is to ask them straight up. Most Republicans tend to shy away at this point knowing they'd lose, though.

Not at all. On the contrary, most republicans would jump at the chance - I certainly would. I think that people would genuinely welcome a debate about how we determine our head of state.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:21 pm

Abernathy wrote:

I think that people would genuinely welcome a debate about how we determine our head of state.

Would they? Would it really be a debate, though? Because those that support a constitutional monarchy are so inferior to republicans and are incapable of debating, according to some.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:22 pm

spoonman wrote:

IMO Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese did their jobs as president very well, and the current president, Michael D.Higgins looks like he'll carry on in the same vein.

Just a sec while I Google those names.

Abernathy · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:25 pm

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Abernathy wrote:

I think that people would genuinely welcome a debate about how we determine our head of state.

Would they? Would it really be a debate, though? Because those that support a constitutional monarchy are so inferior to republicans and are incapable of debating, according to some.

Carlos, could you please pull that quivering lower lip of yours in?

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:32 pm

I will if you tell me why you think the concept of a President Thatcher/Blair/Cameron is so improbable?

Let's remind ourselves that the Great British voting public (albeit on a smaller scale) have returned a criminally incompetent buffoon as London mayor on two occasions.

new puritan · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:41 pm

Carlos The Badger wrote:

spoonman wrote:

IMO Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese did their jobs as president very well, and the current president, Michael D.Higgins looks like he'll carry on in the same vein.

Just a sec while I Google those names.

Higgins is a pretty top bloke to be fair. Hard to argue against his credentials as a statesman.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 59783.html

As a republican myself, the Irish model strikes me as an attractive one and is probably the one I'd lean towards if we were to ever move towards an elected head of state in this country. But I just can't see it happening in my lifetime, which is why I think the left is better off concentrating on fighting battles we stand a more realistic chance of winning. Although Charles III is bound to be lots of fun if he ever gets a crack at Brenda's job.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:52 pm

new puritan wrote:

But I just can't see it happening in my lifetime, which is why I think the left is better off concentrating on fighting battles we stand a more realistic chance of winning.

Precisely. There are more important things to worry about. A head of state is going to cost money no matter what. So whether it's someone who's in that position due to events in history or a slime-ball cock-smoker of a politico is rather irrelevant in your daily life. In my experience it's only rabid republicans and dewey-eyed, sentimental royal watchers that are at all bothered about it.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:01 pm

Sadly, I think you are right. We're stuck with them.

Abernathy · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:02 pm

Just for the avoidance of doubt, can I say for the 19th time that I actually agree that it's not the most important issue of our times. But that doesn't mean that I think that all debate or discussion about the issue should therefore be shut down.

Now, can we agree that we don't have to wave that particular red herring around any more?

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:12 pm

Or the assorted red herrings about President Blair?
Or the royals being good for tourism...

lord_kobel · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:44 pm

bluebellnutter wrote:

Because no-one can argue against the figures posted earlier that revenue is bought into the country as a result of having them.

Which figures were they that showed how much money is made solely from the monachy, rather than from the fancy buildings?

lord_kobel · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:50 pm

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Abernathy wrote:

I think that people would genuinely welcome a debate about how we determine our head of state.

Would they? Would it really be a debate, though? Because those that support a constitutional monarchy are so inferior to republicans and are incapable of debating, according to some.

Carlos, you were asked to provide the details of costs that you claimed to have. You instead got arsey. Also, by claiming that all politicians are always corrupt, you make yourself sound like a redneck in the hole he dug for him and his guns...

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:22 pm

Bollocks. It was after I said I'd post some figures on here today because I was on the iPod Touch last night that I was accused of being unable to debate and was somehow inferior because I support one system over an another.

Perhaps my feathers wouldn't have been so ruffled if someone hadn't have answered the post that started all this with "What the fuck are you talking about?".

As for the some figures:

Profit from the Crown Estates 2010-2011 = £230.9 million. All which goes into the public purse.

Civil List 2010-2011 = £7.9 million.

As it's been said, tourism and the like should be left out of the equation.

Bit of a no brainer from where I'm sat.

You could of course reclaim those lands in the name of the people come the revolution, but you might be stepping on tricky legal ground there. Unless you change the law and/or put them all to death.

yumicho · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:44 pm

Eliminating the monarchy would have absolutely no effect on the revenue from crown estates. It isn't private property, but owned by the crown. Who owns the crown? The nation. It wouldn't revert to the Windsor family.

That it is personally owned by the royals is a myth supported by the coronation ceremony and the media. These lands are from a time when the sovereign had more financial responsibility for running the country.

Quote:

Who owns The Crown Estate?
show/hide
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about-us/faqs/

lord_kobel · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:48 pm

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Perhaps my feathers wouldn't have been so ruffled if someone hadn't have answered the post that started all this with "What the fuck are you talking about?".

Because you started out with your crazy talk about everyone being corrupt, which made no sense in relation to what you had linked to.

Monarchy in the UK

Who is online