Mr Gobby Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I owe the Crown sod all as they have done sod all for me .I don't care about the royal family and surly they don't care for me.When i die they won't shed a tear and equally when one of them drops of their perch i will not shed a tear for them, so i guess its quits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Are the two mutually exclusive? I might consider myself both. I find the term "subject" (in the case in question) quite offensive as it implies subservience, and I don't accept that any individual should have "control or authority" over another (which is what the word means in this context). The term reminds me of the fact that we (the people) have no true representation and parliament was simply set up to keep the ruling elite in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The Royals don't own it the "Crown" does which is a lot different. . The Crown Estate will get up to £250 million per annum of which the Royals will directly be given up to £37.5 million, and much of the remainder will no doubt also benefit them indirectly, so not a lot different really. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall--owns-seabed.htm Its leased and the company running the wind farm pays it not us. . You do appreciate that they will pass the expense on to their customers (us) in the form of higher charges? in fact the Royals own very little in the way of land or property. For starters, the queen owns 120,000 hectares of agricultural land, the considerable anual revenues of which go to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Not as drastic as the French however, using the guillotine to solve the problem, or the Russians with a firing squad. I'm (generally) anti-capital punishment, but, if they won't go willingly.... I'd truly love England to become a republic, but people take time to convince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 The fact is that you are a subject.... I'm not sure that's true, according to this the term isn't applicable any more: British citizens are not British subjects under the 1981 Act. The only circumstance where a person may be both a British subject and British citizen simultaneously is a case where a British subject connected with Ireland (s. 31 of the 1981 Act) acquires British citizenship by naturalisation or registration. -Wikipedia: British subject Personally i'm not loyal to the Crown, royal family, or even patriotic. I consider myself a global citizen regardless of my legal/residential status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I may have understood that wrong, but it doesn't really matter to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinner Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Were there no monarchic Head of State, there'd be a politician instead. So it is far more acceptable to have a disinterested and impartially objective hereditary post-holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Were there no monarchic Head of State, there'd be a politician instead. So it is far more acceptable to have a disinterested and impartially objective hereditary post-holder. Why on earth should the position be hereditary? Why not voted, or a lot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I'm (generally) anti-capital punishment, but, if they won't go willingly.... I'd truly love England to become a republic, but people take time to convince. How would England be better off by becoming a republic? The idea might have had some merit a few centuries ago when some kings were powerful despots but that is hardly the case today. Maybe anti-monarchists would gain the satisfaction of seeing hereditary wealth and privlege brought to an end but that would only be a momentary triumph. There would still be the same day to day problems to deal with and how much power would a president be given? How would the power be divided between he and the prime minister? You'd almost have to scrap the whole parliamentary system of government and replace it with something else. That would take years and a few billion quid not to mention the chaos, bickering and divisions which would ensue during the transition assuming that it would reach a succesful conclusion. There's nothing wrong with the system as it now is. It works well for the country as the same system does for the other leading democracies, Canada, Australia and New Zealand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 It works well for the country as the same system does for the other leading democracies, Canada, Australia and New Zealand Australia are trying to sever ties with the monarchy, as are NZ. Who's the king/queen of Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.