What do you think?

[Wilts#Dave]

8 hours ago, loriusgarrulus said:

At least most of the Royals work. Often long hours up to 7 days a week and well past retirement age. 🤷‍♀️

Is the most palpable argument you can think of to justify the huge public funding they get, that at least most of them work 😂 

They lead a hugely privileged lavish lifestyle propped up by ‘us’ in effect. Obviously it’s no one’s fault who’s born into such circumstances, but I really don’t see the need for such grandeur forever funded by everyone else, they’re hardly self made ‘working’ people are they! 

 

[bostonmick]

so if the monarchy were abolished we would then have a president or similar.the royals in reality have no actual power but a president would.also the old saying comes to mind power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. our system may not be perfect but neither are the regimes of many of the countries that have no royals.maybe just trim the civil list a little.as for the property the state owns this and the royals would never be allowed to sell it but can tale an income from it.when you see the current support for our royals its obvious to me at least most people are happy to keep them.

[12gauge82]

I feel it should end, I liked the Queen, she took her role seriously and did a very good job, it's also one I would not like to do. 

All that said however, it's an archaic system and should be abolished, the Queen did a good job, but what if Charles or the next successor doesn't want to, there'd be nothing us the people could do about it, as technically they still hold ultimate power.

In a forward thinking and right society, that shouldn't be possible and no one, particularly who has been born into that privilege as opposed to being elected, should hold that power. 

[Mice!]

I have found this thread amusing,  if the Royal family stepped down tomorrow it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to any of us, their money,  land and property wouldn't be spread out amongst the population. 

You only have to look at how people have reacted to the Queen dying and the Royals touring the country to know that the country are happy having a Royal family,  those not bothered don't matter, just ignore what they get up to.

Personally I feel having a Royal family is part of being British.

[old'un]

28 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I have found this thread amusing,  if the Royal family stepped down tomorrow it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to any of us, their money,  land and property wouldn't be spread out amongst the population. 

You only have to look at how people have reacted to the Queen dying and the Royals touring the country to know that the country are happy having a Royal family,  those not bothered don't matter, just ignore what they get up to.

Personally I feel having a Royal family is part of being British.

I always thought they received a % income from the Crown estates, I have asked the question before, can anyone tell me what the monarchy actually costs each one of us?

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, old'un said:

I have asked the question before, can anyone tell me what the monarchy actually costs each one of us?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost-a-breakdown-of-the-key-figures?leadSource=uverify wall

According to this - £1.29 a head per year - or £0.77 per head excluding a major long term programme of works on Buckingham Palace (owned by the State, not the Monarch).

Edited September 18, 2022 by JohnfromUK

[oowee]

We should bring in PR establish a president and a constitution that sets out financial parameters and an operational framework. Kick the monarchy into touch, get rid of the house of lords and set up a new political architecture. 

 

[old'un]

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost-a-breakdown-of-the-key-figures?leadSource=uverify wall

According to this - £1.29 a head per year - or £0.77 per head excluding a major long term programme of works on Buckingham Palace (owned by the State, not the Monarch).

thanks.

Bloody hell, if that's all they cost the tax payer, they have got to be good value for money.

[enfieldspares]

13 hours ago, bostonmick said:

so if the monarchy were abolished we would then have a president or similar.the royals in reality have no actual power but a president would.

Not always so. In France, in the USA that's correct.But President of Ireland and the President of Germany (which is why you've never heard of him and most can't even name him) doesn't. They are titular heads of state but have no similar power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ireland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany

Edited September 18, 2022 by enfieldspares

[old man]

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

We should bring in PR establish a president and a constitution that sets out financial parameters and an operational framework. Kick the monarchy into touch, get rid of the house of lords and set up a new political architecture. 

 

A constitution will never be on the card for us, it means a relinquishment of the total power now held over us whereby they are able to slowly but surely weaken our status?

Rats and cheese, nibbling till all gone while the sheeple snooze? All done of course under the guise of keeping us safe?

[12gauge82]

19 minutes ago, oowee said:

We should bring in PR establish a president and a constitution that sets out financial parameters and an operational framework. Kick the monarchy into touch, get rid of the house of lords and set up a new political architecture. 

 

Spot on 👌

[oowee]

15 minutes ago, old'un said:

thanks.

Bloody hell, if that's all they cost the tax payer, they have got to be good value for money.

Its rubbish. The cost is hidden as much of our land and property has been moved to individuals rather than the state. It's not about the money it's being subservient to these unelected, out dated hangers on.

[Mice!]

26 minutes ago, oowee said:

We should bring in PR establish a president and a constitution that sets out financial parameters and an operational framework. Kick the monarchy into touch, get rid of the house of lords and set up a new political architecture. 

 

Good luck 😅😅 absolutely no chance.

Why would we want PR, the house of Lords could certainly go, I doubt they do very much.

[oowee]

13 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Good luck 😅😅 absolutely no chance.

Why would we want PR, the house of Lords could certainly go, I doubt they do very much.

No chance is a bit optimistic. 

We want long term planning and government rather than short term knob swinging that lurches from side to side and makes no progress. We currently have problems with everything, tax, NHs, law, finance education and on and on so the current system clearly does not work. Binning the monarchy would be a good starter for ten as it forces the UK to step back and rethink. Exactly as should have happened post Brexit. Thinking is simply in the too hard box for most. 

[Wymondley]

31 minutes ago, oowee said:

We should bring in PR establish a president and a constitution that sets out financial parameters and an operational framework. Kick the monarchy into touch, get rid of the house of lords and set up a new political architecture. 

 

Spot on, I'm far from left wing with my politics, but how long can we keep going in the present format?

12 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Good luck 😅😅 absolutely no chance.

Why would we want PR, the house of Lords could certainly go, I doubt they do very much.

Because the present two party system offers no real change, and that's how they want it.

The monarchy represents the head of the old guard political and class system, it all needs to go.

People should learn to respect achievement not titles.

 

[henry d]

On 17/09/2022 at 10:48, enfieldspares said:

So too did Prince Andrew in the Falklands being a decoy it is said or claimed (hovering in his helicopter at few yards above wave height) to take the full force of any Exocet missile aimed at the ships of the task force at anchor. Whatever else his later sins and peccadilloes he did also serve.

 

On 17/09/2022 at 11:16, Bigbob said:

The story i heard was at the first sign of trouble they bundled him into a helicopter and flew over the skyline and hoovered  till it was safe to come back , by folk that where there 

Well I was there and if possible the helos were used to drop chaff which showed up on radar as a large target for an exocet missile of fighter bomber to target. Andrew was part of that when on alert and when not was onboard. 

18 hours ago, Wymondley said:

....

The whole concept of a Royal family (and the church with which it's entwined) has no place in modern society, it's just outdated...

1 Samuel 8:15 

[islandgun]

5 minutes ago, Wymondley said:

 

People should learn to respect achievement not titles.

 

Agreed but who are the achievers ? sir Branson, lord Sugar, Dyson....... hmm president Branson.😄

[Mice!]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

No chance is a bit optimistic. 

We want long term planning and government rather than short term knob swinging that lurches from side to side and makes no progress. We currently have problems with everything, tax, NHs, law, finance education and on and on so the current system clearly does not work. Binning the monarchy would be a good starter for ten as it forces the UK to step back and rethink. Exactly as should have happened post Brexit. Thinking is simply in the too hard box for most. 

There aren't two parties though,  it's just the other parties aren't worth voting for so there are two big parties. 

PR seems to me just like a coalition government,  and that never seems to achieve anything. 

But I will agree there needs to be long term plans and goals, lots of things should be outside of the political sphere, cheap point scoring achieves very little. 

5 minutes ago, Wymondley said:

The monarchy represents the head of the old guard political and class system, it all needs to go

How does it? We have Tory and Labour as the two main parties,  I don't see how the Royal family represents either.

Imagine we had a president in place of the Royal family,  it would likely mean more hangers on, with a definite political bias, the Royal family don't get involved with political decisions.

There is an awful lot of military history entwined with the Royal family,  they help hold the Union together and do more for charities than many others are ever likely to do.

12 minutes ago, Wymondley said:

People should learn to respect achievement not titles.

 

How about respecting 70 years service to the country, that is an incredible achievement. 

[ditchman]

17 minutes ago, Wymondley said:

Spot on, I'm far from left wing with my politics, but how long can we keep going in the present format?

Because the present two party system offers no real change, and that's how they want it.

The monarchy represents the head of the old guard political and class system, it all needs to go.

People should learn to respect achievement not titles.

 

like removing the cap on bankers bonus's ?

[clangerman]

3 minutes ago, Mice! said:

How about respecting 70 years service to the country, that is an incredible achievement. 

what service living in a 700 room palace while ex servicemen are homeless or shaming our country by sleeping with young girls paying of victims rather than step up accepting suitcases full of cash the list is endless not one of them has ever done a proper days work closest they come to graft is watching the rest of us sweat 

[old'un]

9 minutes ago, clangerman said:

what service living in a 700 room palace while ex servicemen are homeless or shaming our country by sleeping with young girls paying of victims rather than step up accepting suitcases full of cash the list is endless not one of them has ever done a proper days work closest they come to graft is watching the rest of us sweat 

Blaming the Queen for the homeless is grasping at straws, and I think the Royals (not all) do a lot of work/good for the country.

[Mice!]

5 minutes ago, clangerman said:

what service living in a 700 room palace while ex servicemen are homeless or shaming our country by sleeping with young girls paying of victims rather than step up accepting suitcases full of cash the list is endless not one of them has ever done a proper days work closest they come to graft is watching the rest of us sweat 

Really,  except for living in a Palace which has the Queen done? Would you swap places and live in the fish bowl I know I wouldn't. 

The only thing worth looking at is the ex service people who are homeless,  we shouldn't be taking in legal or illegal immigrants while our own suffer,  but that is down to the politicians not Royalty,  I seem to think the Royals do rather a lot for the services and ex service members. 

 

[oowee]

16 minutes ago, Mice! said:

 

 We have Tory and Labour as the two main parties, lots of things should be outside of the political sphere, cheap point scoring achieves very little. 

I don't see how the Royal family represents either.

There is an awful lot of military history entwined with the Royal family,  they help hold the Union together and do more for charities than many others are ever likely to do.

You have clarified  your own position. What we have doe's not work and is not fit for the future. We need one of the main parties to campaign for reform.

It's nothing at all to do with respecting the previous monarch. We will soon be crying when we get a knob running the show. Lets change it now.

 

 

[clangerman]

1 minute ago, old'un said:

Blaming the Queen for the homeless is grasping at straws, and I think the Royals (not all) do a lot of work/good for the country.

and what do you call paying dukey boys victim of or failing to make him step up good morals? let’s have no pretence here both more than shameful actions 

[oowee]

1 minute ago, Mice! said:

The only thing worth looking at is the ex service people who are homeless,  we shouldn't be taking in legal or illegal immigrants while our own suffer,  but that is down to the politicians not Royalty,  I seem to think the Royals do rather a lot for the services and ex service members. 

Why should they do that and how do they do that? 

Should that work be down to the grace and favour of an entitled few? Why can these few wield so much power? Who are they? What else are they doing for mates and mates of mates. It's a pervading cancer. Positions at the heart of institutions (not just military) are created, propositioned and placed by these few privileged people.