Recommended Posts

Happy to keep the monarchy, but it’s time they sold off some of their properties and allow them to keep one palace/castle. Reduce their security detail (maybe even bring in a private firm, paid for by the royals), and put those well trained police officers back in the streets. Reduce the monarchy’s status to that of the Spanish or Dutch royal family.

Apparently more people visited the Palace of Versailles last year than Bucks Palace, the French monarchy are long gone.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bearman said:

One advantage of having an Elected HoS is we only have to keep one family in luxury.

How many do we pay for?

In my lifetime we have lost 1 King, 1 Queen 3 Princesses ( Maggie, Di, and Marina)

Marina begat 7 whilst  the Queen has begat 18. Throw in 9 spouses and there is a net gain of 29. 

How long until we are all  thrilled to hear the news that Megan is up the duff too?

There's an article here in The Independent, which is hardly a supporter of the Monarchy, about its cost.

The cost of the Monarchy seems a snip to me, however you calculate it. I suspect you'd find that most alternative systems of having a Head of State would cost far more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

..... alternative systems of having a Head of State would cost far more.

..and would do much more harm as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

There's an article here in The Independent, which is hardly a supporter of the Monarchy, about its cost.

The cost of the Monarchy seems a snip to me, however you calculate it. I suspect you'd find that most alternative systems of having a Head of State would cost far more.

Heres another one from an organ that IS a suppoter of the Monarchy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487952/Council-spends-5-000-loo-Queen--doesnt-use-it.html

Its 10 years out of date. When Charles visited a school in Coventry for the morning he had a loo specially commisioned at £10k. He went on to somewhere in the West Midlands where another one was prepared in case he wanted to spend a penny (or £10k).

As pointed out in your Telegraph article there are hidden costs. Policing is only part of it. When they travel roads are closed, trains are shunted out of the way even those things have a cost. I remember once back in the '50's my Dad didnt get home one night as the train he was on was shunted into sidings whilst the Royal train passed, except it didn't. Something when wrong and he spent 7 hours stuck there just in case the train appeared. 

Edited by Bearman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bearman said:

Heres another one from an organ that IS a suppoter of the Monarchy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487952/Council-spends-5-000-loo-Queen--doesnt-use-it.html

Its 10 years out of date. When Charles visited a school in Coventry for the morning he had a loo specially commisioned at £10k. He went on to somewhere in the West Midlands where another one was prepared in case he wanted to spend a penny (or £10k).

As pointed out in your Telegraph article there are hidden costs. Policing is only part of it. When they travel roads are closed, trains are shunted out of the way even those things have a cost. I remember once back in the '50's my Dad didnt get home one night as the train he was on was shunted into sidings whilst the Royal train passed, except it didn't. Something when wrong and he spent 7 hours stuck there just in case the train appeared. 

Those costs would apply whoever the head of state was, if President Cameron went to visit a school the same would happen. Policing costs would be similar as would consequential costs like your dad being left in a siding (or did he perhaps tell your mum he'd been stuck in a siding while he had a couple more in the Ferret & Lamp Post, did this siding also leave a strong smell of curry on his clothing? 😉 )

We'd also have the additional costs of an election cycle every 4 - 5 years and the potential finacing and politicising of the entire process and leaving the selection of Head of State in the hands of the likes of Murdoch and Abramovich. Look at some of the questionable decisions that President Trump has made,  Qatar and China would be good places to start.

There are many reasons why changing from a hereditary to an elected head of state is a good idea, cost is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bearman said:

Heres another one from an organ that IS a suppoter of the Monarchy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487952/Council-spends-5-000-loo-Queen--doesnt-use-it.html

Its 10 years out of date. When Charles visited a school in Coventry for the morning he had a loo specially commisioned at £10k. He went on to somewhere in the West Midlands where another one was prepared in case he wanted to spend a penny (or £10k).

As pointed out in your Telegraph article there are hidden costs. Policing is only part of it. When they travel roads are closed, trains are shunted out of the way even those things have a cost. I remember once back in the '50's my Dad didnt get home one night as the train he was on was shunted into sidings whilst the Royal train passed, except it didn't. Something when wrong and he spent 7 hours stuck there just in case the train appeared. 

If that was the only time your father suffered a delay on a British train, then he was a very lucky man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JohnM said:

Just feel we are better off with a head of state who is not political. Have an elected pres and you end up  with one like say France, who is in effect head of govt too. Who is French PM? Or like US. Trump or Clinton? Putin, In those cases, it seems to me there is as much patronage involved, more cost, and far less continuity and stability.

Never watch the Queens Speech, not too wedded to god saving our gracious queen. Just as long as someone saves her, no one in particular, though. National Anthem needs to be played much faster. Didn't, wouldn't watch the wedding but pleased for those who did and enjoyed it.

President would be too polarising. Support for President Boris or President Mandelson would hardly follow the normal distribution bell curve, . At least with the current lot, it does, in my view.

We get a bit obsessed with the US or French Presidential systems and assume we would have to have the same.

Germany and Ireland are two countries where the president plays a backseat role while being an effective ambassador for those countries.

Edited by Just Browny
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Just Browny said:

We get a bit obsessed with the US or French Presidential systems and assume we would have to have the same.

Germany and Ireland are two countries where the president plays a backseat role while being an effective ambassador for those countries.

The three Presidents I can remember in my lifetime are all almost universally respected by Irish people, across the political spectrum. We know that the presidency is largely ceremonial and people tend to vote for whoever would represent us best internationally.

The idea that the Royals are apolitical is laughable. Even without Charles' more obvious political meddling, the Royals are collectively one of the largest landowners in the UK and therefore have a material interest in defending the interests of large landowners. They are old-school Tories, and if you think otherwise you're deluded.

It's also funny to see people warn against a President Blair or President Mandelson - the beauty of democracy is that these universally loathed bogeymen wouldn't get the votes to be elected President. Loads of people hate Charles but Monarchy means you're going to be stuck with him as head of state for decades.

Edit: The "you" in my post is directed at the monarchists in this thread, not you Just Browny!

Edited by damp squib
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you find tradition and status admirable.  And, you value an ideal to look up to and admire, then you will love the royal family and come up with nonsense economic arguments about how the money is well spent, when you consider the alternative and everything you get for the money.  While probably backing Brexit as the EU is money wasted.

It you want egalitarianism and fairness held as an ideal, you will proably want rid of the Royal family and come up with nonsense arguments about how it is money wasted as that cash could be spent on the NHS.  While wanting to Remain, because you consider the alternative and everything you get for the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, President Blair or Mandelson or whoever can be voted out. But you can bet your bottom dollar that in the meantime they'll be filling their and their families and mates pockets. I'm not a royalist but there's no point getting rid of them to probably spend even more money on yet another bunch of freeloaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mark S said:

Happy to keep the monarchy, but it’s time they sold off some of their properties and allow them to keep one palace/castle. Reduce their security detail (maybe even bring in a private firm, paid for by the royals), and put those well trained police officers back in the streets. Reduce the monarchy’s status to that of the Spanish or Dutch royal family.

Apparently more people visited the Palace of Versailles last year than Bucks Palace, the French monarchy are long gone.

 Think this would be my preferred option; keep the structure pretty much the same, just scaled down. A lot. Seems to work well for other European countries with a constitutional monarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Just Browny said:

We get a bit obsessed with the US or French Presidential systems and assume we would have to have the same.

Germany and Ireland are two countries where the president plays a backseat role while being an effective ambassador for those countries.

Brexit Britain is a country that wants to learn nothing from those pesky Europeans. The idea we would get a benign presidency here is fanciful in the extreme.

Look at the state of our elected leaders. I mean, just LOOK at them!! Clueless, empty vessels who lie and obfuscate to cling onto whatever office they have got their grubby hands on. 

It would be they who would fashion what kind of presidency would replace the monarchy, if such a thing were ever to happen. And it would be they or their ilk who would run for such an office and it would be one of them who would claim it. 

That alone is probably a big reason why the monarchy will endure for a good while yet.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Brexit Britain is a country that wants to learn nothing from those pesky Europeans. The idea we would get a benign presidency here is fanciful in the extreme.

Look at the state of our elected leaders. I mean, just LOOK at them!! Clueless, empty vessels who lie and obfuscate to cling onto whatever office they have got their grubby hands on. 

It would be they who would fashion what kind of presidency would replace the monarchy, if such a thing were ever to happen. And it would be they or their ilk who would run for such an office and it would be one of them who would claim it. 

That alone is probably a big reason why the monarchy will endure for a good while yet.

That’s a good summary for me. I’ve always been against the monarchy and probably will be forever, however the state of politics in this country (both sides) is just woeful I’d hate to see what things were like if any of them became a head of state

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 10:59 AM, Robin Evans said:

Yes i could ignore it, and I've done a decent job of it thus far.

But the sychophantic dribbling has been ramped up today its difficult to get away from it. There's no.place to hide from this nauseating tripe.

(My bold and underline)

Yes there is.  Don't read it.  Just turn the page.

Don't tune in to news about it on the television or the radio, just skip to another channel.  There are surely enough these days to last any channel-hopper for a year or more before needing to repeat.

 

However little you may agree with them, many people all over the world are interested in royal weddings and the like.  And fortunately for us all, here in Britain it is their inalienable right to be so ....... openly, happily, without fear or favour etc., etc and so forth.

By the law of this green and pleasant land, therefore, if you don't agree that people have a right to an opinion that clearly differs from your own, and if you cannot teach yourself to avoid what nauseates you, it seems you will just have to live with the occasional bout of feeling sick.

 

Or of course, you could decide not to live in a country where the right to freedom of opionion and the right to express one's opinion is, and has been, the first order of every day for several hundred years.

 

As for me, a lovely summer wedding, watched and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands `in the flesh' and millions on television, was a delightful (and profit making), feel good way to kick off what I hope will be a wonderful, happy, sun-blest summer after one of the hardest British winters in many a long year.

😄

Edited by Honor James
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2018 at 7:01 PM, graveyard johnny said:

most women end up looking like their mother as they get older, good luck with that one harry 

I assume this remark alludes, without speaking out plainly (which by being at least honest would have been less ridiculous) to the mother of the bride.  And if I assume correctly, then for me it is, without exception, the most offensive remark I have seen posted on this and probably any other thread, ever.

The bride's mother I saw was a quiet, dignified woman, elegantly dressed, and clearly not using the occasion to raise any undue public or media interest in herself as anything other than the mother of the bride.

A woman of middle age; a remarkably self-contained, dignified, attractive and (one can assume from all that) probably intelligent and thoughtful woman.

A woman no longer possessed, it is true, of youth's willowy figure, nor mercifully of the unnatural, un-fleshed `wanna be a teenager all my life' figure so avidly desired (by `celebs' of these days) as prerequisite to a career in middle-age based on constant, self-revelatory appearances in `fun' `reality' television series.   Series in which each successive `celeb' cast member seems ludicrously obliged (for money) to out-do the last, in the depths of banal vulgarity to which he or she must be driven, in this 21st century `holy grail' quest for `ratings'.

A woman appropriately and seemfully shaped for a woman of her age.  Not fat nor skinny; a woman shaped as nature intended women of her age and stature to be.

A woman in fact, and contrary to the implied meaning of your remark, possessed of the entirely appropriate and pleasing remnants of considerable beauty.  A woman happily posessed of the same elegant good taste in clothes as we have seen and admired in her daughter, favouring strongly feminine but uncluttered lines over mere fashion-chasing.

A woman, finally, who with fortitude and quiet grace faced what must have been, for any woman in such circumstances, a daunting and at times sad day.

Good for her!

Edited by Honor James
spellings and a couple of clumsy phrasings
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Their birthrights are incompatible with democracy.

And yet it is democracy that has kept them in place.

Shackled, it must often seem to them, when young, to a self-denying submission to duty very few of us would ever voluntarily take on.

Imagine it - random opinion of every kind, day after day (sometimes offered but) all too often hurled thoughtlessly in their direction!  Wild horses couldn't drag most of us to put on the kind of politely smiling grace they are obliged to wear as a uniform, almost from birth.

Wild rhinos couldn't drag me to that!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give over, they live the life of luxury through no reason other than birthright.

That is the principle that is alien to any healthy democracy.

Self denying submission?  Does this include Prince Charles’ attempted interference on a range of matters and Prince Phillip’s well renown need to make remarks of a racist nature?

Edited by Gerrumonside ref
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Honor James said:

 

By the law of this green and pleasant land, therefore, if you don't agree that people have a right to an opinion that clearly differs from your own, and if you cannot teach yourself to avoid what nauseates you, it seems you will just have to live with the occasional bout of feeling sick.

Yes.... pretty much.

My opinion is only as valid as anyone else and until the country dictates otherwise, we will retain the monarchy no matter how abhorrent i find that system

And yes, i do dind the perpetual fawning over a family born into such privilege really sickening.

Family commitments mean i can't leave this country no matter how nasty i find the direction this country is going, particulary this last 23 months.... but thats brst saved forthe Eu thread.

I would leave today if i could

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Honor James said:

Imagine it - random opinion of every kind, day after day (sometimes offered but) all too often hurled thoughtlessly in their direction!

I was going to mention people born into extreme poverty, abuse, or just the everyday burden of living paycheck to paycheck might have it worse but I had no idea the poor dears had to put up with daily thoughtless opinions throw at them. Puts things into perspective.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, damp squib said:

I was going to mention people born into extreme poverty, abuse, or just the everyday burden of living paycheck to paycheck might have it worse but I had no idea the poor dears had to put up with daily thoughtless opinions throw at them. Puts things into perspective.

Of course, if you're one of the Daily Mail's hated groups - foreigners, travellers, ethnic minorities, poor people - you get the daily thoughtless opinions thrown at you without the billions in the bank and the castles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Honor James said:

And yet it is democracy that has kept them in place.

Shackled, it must often seem to them, when young, to a self-denying submission to duty very few of us would ever voluntarily take on.

Imagine it - random opinion of every kind, day after day (sometimes offered but) all too often hurled thoughtlessly in their direction!  Wild horses couldn't drag most of us to put on the kind of politely smiling grace they are obliged to wear as a uniform, almost from birth.

Wild rhinos couldn't drag me to that!

You're right.

Every member of the royal family, every single one, is better than you. Because they came out of the right vaginas.

That's what you meant, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

You're right.

Every member of the royal family, every single one, is better than you. Because they came out of the right vaginas.

That's what you meant, right?

That's a bit harsh.  How I read it was for their privilege they have one hell of a lot of responsibility.

The core royals, Liz, Chuck, Billy, Harry and family, are extraordinarily busy folk with rarely many days without engagement.  They don't have anywhere near the freedom to do many of the social things we take for granted, it's all staged and in the presence of flunkies.  They do have a level of luxury and privilege that we can only imagine but they also have to do that inside the zoo rails of public opinion.  Think of a mixture of the Truman Show and Downton Abbey.

If I had a vote though I'd still get shot of them today, or grudgingly wait until Liz abdicates/dies.

The non-core royals, Andy and his family, etc., now they're outright scroungers who really deserve to be cut off from every £ of funding.

A non-exec President would be ideal for us.  It works very well for Germany and Ireland so why not for us?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ckn said:

That's a bit harsh.  How I read it was for their privilege they have one hell of a lot of responsibility.

Go on. Explain that to me then. No projection, what responsibilities does the Queen have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gingerjon said:

Go on. Explain that to me then. No projection, what responsibilities does the Queen have?

Shaking hands with Donald Trump on its own should get her a free pass for a while...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday