Poll: The Monarchy

[tanman]

I've no read other peoples thoughts but I feel the sh*** they go thru and the money they get from us tax payers is a fair return in what they do for the UK.

Tan

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by tanman
I've no read other peoples thoughts but I feel the sh*** they go thru and the money they get from us tax payers is a fair return in what they do for the UK.

That is a fair point. Look, everyone (or nearly everyone) can choose what kind of a job they do for a living, the Royal Family can't. Unless they marry into it, they're born to serve. How about that as a career choice - you don't have one!! And for what? A country full of ungrateful s.o.b.'s!

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by daverobev
Taken from some reply on yahoo groups (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uk-royalty/message/5086)

I'd like to see the evidence for this figure. It seems VERY small IMHO.

[DaBeeeenster]

Hmm. Just found this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...985861,00.html

However, I thought the security aspect would be a large component of this, and the article states:

The cost of security and policing is not published.

So it's a useless figure IMHO. It's not giving the true cost.

[Agent]

Of course its not published, its going to be the biggest out of all of them.

[daverobev]

I must say, I don't quite get how people get so angry over this...although, of course, people getting angry only makes me angry.

1. True or false? From a PURELY ECONOMICAL point of view, the Royal Family put more IN to our economy than they take OUT.

2. True or false? The Royal Family as a whole work hard, basically as figureheads, fundraisers.

3. True or false? There are MUCH bigger things to be worrying about than the (and please take this on a national scale) piddly amount the Monarchy costs us per year.

4. True or false? If we diverted funds from our arms program to our NHS, we (the country, or rather its citizens) would be in a much better way. MUCH better. Whereas if we diverted it from the Monarchy, it would make negligible difference.

More of these rather uninspired questions if I think of them.

[gilgamesj]

keep em there for tourism, just get em out of the publics face.
they're like a filmstar who's been around too long, just go do what you do, but without the constant furor that envelopes them.

As for the charity thing, if i got paid to sit on my arse and occasionally go out to a do.... id help out charity a little..

[daverobev]

get them out of the public's faces? you think the ROYALS control the MEDIA????

Er....do I have to say anything to that??


Still, I guess I'm losing this particular argument....OTOH, people would probably vote to bring back the death penalty....

*edit* umm get paid to sit on your arse? First the royals work long, hard days....and second, what do you do? Personally I'm lucky in that I get to do wandering about work (ie, wandering about, fixing computers, printers, etc), but most people are in tertiary industries...and in fact 1 in 20 works in a callcentre. Are you saying that the Royals do more arse-sitting-upon than your average call centre?

Heh, now, a poll to abolish call centres, that I WOULD vote yes for.

In fact...the anti call centre party. Lets actually start doing things with our lives, instead of just...er....typing about them?

[petrefax]

Originally posted by daverobev
Heh, now, a poll to abolish call centres, that I WOULD vote yes for.

now THIS i definitely agree with mate, call centres are satans own work....although this is a whole new thread of its own i think

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by daverobev
I must say, I don't quite get how people get so angry over this...although, of course, people getting angry only makes me angry.

1. True or false? From a PURELY ECONOMICAL point of view, the Royal Family put more IN to our economy than they take OUT.

2. True or false? The Royal Family as a whole work hard, basically as figureheads, fundraisers.

3. True or false? There are MUCH bigger things to be worrying about than the (and please take this on a national scale) piddly amount the Monarchy costs us per year.

4. True or false? If we diverted funds from our arms program to our NHS, we (the country, or rather its citizens) would be in a much better way. MUCH better. Whereas if we diverted it from the Monarchy, it would make negligible difference.

More of these rather uninspired questions if I think of them.

I have a problem with the royal family on a moral basis, not an economic one. All your points are economic.

If the royal family were kept (for the tourism) but stripped of all their "powers", had all their money taken away from them and were paid a normal wage then I might not have a problem with it.

As it stands, I have a fundamental problem with having ANYTHING as a birth right. I think it's wrong; you should work for what you get in this world.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
If the royal family were kept (for the tourism) but stripped of all their "powers", had all their money taken away from them and were paid a normal wage then I might not have a problem with it.

As it stands, I have a fundamental problem with having ANYTHING as a birth right. I think it's wrong; you should work for what you get in this world.

You think being in the world media spotlight everyday of your entire miserable life is going to be easy? What special powers do the Royal Family have? I'm sufficiently curious that I think I want some examples from you... I don't think many people think the Monachy is perfect and it isn't. However, they are improving things on a number of areas. The Prince of Wales, of example, doesn't even get funds from the Civil List and he pay taxes on his earnings. So, in effect, he's paying to his Royal Family job!

BTW, he doesn't even get to choose what to do - he was born into this position!! He's being denied of one of the most basic human rights - to choose a job!! And for what? I hope it is certainly not to provide you with a target of hate.

[DaBeeeenster]

Look, I'm not telling him what he has to do with his life. It's the royalists that are making him do that. I'd be more than happy for him to turn round and say "**** this for a game of soldiers, I'm off". I'd love it if he did that! I wonder what all the Daily Mail readers would say tho! There'd be an outrage! Admittedly they would have to fit the story in beside the asylum seeker that eats babies for breakfast, but I'm sure they would find room.

What special powers do the Royal Family have? Are you serious? Er, they have an army, and air force, a navy, a government and some annoying little corgi dogs. What more do you need?!?!?!

[daverobev]

DaBeeeenster....the Monarchy has no power. They are figureheads only. Can't tell the government what to do. Can't invade anywhere. They are figureheads only.

[DaBeeeenster]

Technically, they DO have the power tho. Pragmatically they do not, but technically they do. Who is it that MP's have to swear allegiance to in the house of commons? Who is it Tony Blair has to go and see when he wins the election?

This is beside the point, however.

Figureheads or not, they are still entitled to the position as a birthright, and it is that that I am fundamentally opposed to.

[daverobev]

..in which case, there should be NO inheritance at all, we should all be born equal.

The Queen is Queen because in the long distant past their family beat all the other families in this country, and have been decent enough to give up enough power when required to not have been kicked off the throne.

Basically you are talking communism, its all down that road...no birthright (and what do they GET from their birth right? The right to give out a few honours? Big house?).

I just don't see the problem, unless you believe they are fundamentally wrong badly enough to have a revolution and share everything equally.

Don't get me wrong, communism is a great ideal! Shame it doesn't work though....

So, in the mean time, until all humanity becomes completely altruistic, we live in a capitalist society with inheritance and whatnot.

If you're Rupert Murdoch's son or daughter, chances are you'll inherit a damn site more power (maybe, I'm just using this for an example...) than any Royal. Actual power, I mean.

Basically....for us not to lose that part of our culture, and some great fundraisers/ambassadors, we need to have some people to do those jobs. And not be directors of some big company on the side. Why not leave that job with people who are basically trained for it from birth??

[Big RICHARD]

The queen (read: monarch) has a lot of say when it comes to things like passing laws, going to war, giving us peasants an extra bank holiday just to celebrate her golden jubilee.

I'm not a royalist, but until there's something better, I'm happy with the way it is at present. She does more than we see.