Greybeard Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 However ridiculous they are to us they pull in thousands of drooling Japanese and American tourists. I wonder how much the continuing war in Iraq is costing us, people don't seem at all concerned about that anymore. There was some speculation recently that it would cost £7 billion to restore Britain's roads to the state they were in 20 years ago, so £36 million is peanuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 A lot of people get uptight about the Royal family because they're thinking of the actual people. The Monarchy is a different matter. Without the Monarchy we'd be stuck with a President, and looking around the world I can't say that prospect is appealing. Legally the Monarchy, albeit a constitutional one, is a check on the politicians. In law, the armed forces, and the judges owe allegence to the monarch, not to Mr Blair or whoever is in number 10. On a day to day basis we don't see much of this, but it enabled the judiciary to put two fingers up to Blunkett when he tried to order the judges about. And should a government try to order the armed forces to do something illegal, they are entitled to tell the politicians to get lost. (which makes the Iraq fiasco all the more interesting!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWilson Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by vidster £36.7m or 61p for each person in the UK. I 'think' we can afford that can't we? Hell.....I'll round it up to an even £1 I'm sure the royal family bring in a damn site more than they take out. We probably pay alot more than that if you exclude the unemployed, elderly, children, asylum seekers etc etc i think they are worth it, but they spend all this money helping other nations and keeping up relations. TRY STARTING HELP AND KEEPING UP RELATIONS WITH YOUR OWN PEOPLE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by algy A lot of people get uptight about the Royal family because they're thinking of the actual people. The Monarchy is a different matter. Without the Monarchy we'd be stuck with a President, and looking around the world I can't say that prospect is appealing. Legally the Monarchy, albeit a constitutional one, is a check on the politicians. In law, the armed forces, and the judges owe allegence to the monarch, not to Mr Blair or whoever is in number 10. On a day to day basis we don't see much of this, but it enabled the judiciary to put two fingers up to Blunkett when he tried to order the judges about. And should a government try to order the armed forces to do something illegal, they are entitled to tell the politicians to get lost. (which makes the Iraq fiasco all the more interesting!) If we had a president that we'd elected then it would be our decision whether or not we kept him (or her). With an unelected monarch we have no such choice. Wholeheartedly admit that there are some pretty dire presidents around at the moment but be honest, do you really want Prince Charles to be your Head of State? Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroughGal Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 A lot of what they are being paid is for civic duties - a job like the rest of us. I agree that maybe they shouldn't get so much for personal holidays etc, but I think they are aware of the public dislike of this now and are ceasing it. And I agree that I'd rather have a monachy that is steeped in tradition than be like America and have a president. I like that we have pomp and ceremony, and, like someone said earlier - I'd miss them if they weren't here. And the tourists don't JUST come to see a member of the Royal Family, they come to see all things related - Buckingham Palace etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by PhilipB If we had a president that we'd elected then it would be our decision whether or not we kept him (or her). With an unelected monarch we have no such choice. Wholeheartedly admit that there are some pretty dire presidents around at the moment but be honest, do you really want Prince Charles to be your Head of State? Do you? Presidents have a track record of changing the rules once they're elected so that you can't get rid of them, and since they control the forces and the judiciary, trying to displace them is a nasty business. As for Prince Charles, if it was a choice between him or any of our politicians, then yes, I'd choose him any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by banesmabes That the Royal family bring tourists to Briatin is a myth. If tourists came to this country because of them then they would have stopped coming a long time ago - a tourist very rarely sees a member of the royal family while on holiday in Britain. I agree. What exactly do tourists get - an audience with the queen? I've seen them on telly more and I live here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by algy Presidents have a track record of changing the rules once they're elected so that you can't get rid of them, and since they control the forces and the judiciary, trying to displace them is a nasty business. As for Prince Charles, if it was a choice between him or any of our politicians, then yes, I'd choose him any time. The forces and judiciary are allegedly, and yes I know by our constitution legally, within the realm (no pun intended) of the monarch. However considering that it's parliament that introduces the law(s) and decides the size, shape and use of the armed forces then the role of the monarch is reduced to that of a figure head. If our unelected head of state were to interfere in the running of the country there would be civil unrest to an unprecedented level. Just look at the furore when a member of the royal family pontificates on some aspect of public life. Sorry but I'd like to see a referendum when the current monarch dies. If the populace say they continue all well and good. If the vote goes the other way then we establish a republic. Either way let US decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lickszz Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Excellent value. Watching the Troop every year makes it all worthwhile. It was excellent this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vidster Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I notice that in tomorrows papers there is a story about a £65 million trial that has collapsed. I wonder if it will get as much press coverage and discussion as the royal family are receiving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.