Monarchy [absolute loser vs total war king] commentary thread

[the Black Prince]

damn it i missed another good debate


can i just throw something out there for both debators - the civil list

The money the queen uses for her official state functions, for her role as monarch, comes from the civil list.

The civil list is public money, but it does not come from the taxpayer, it comes from the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate is a government agency that manages all property owned by the Crown. This isn't just palaces. By virtue of english law, the queen owns the whole country. Any home "owner" who owns a freehold actually has a rent free tenancy forever, thats what a freehold means. Any property where there is no freehold is owned by the queen. The Crown Estate is a major property dealer and makes over 50 million pounds annually from its property portfolio which goes straight to the Treasury. In return for this money, the Treasury gives back the civil list to pay for state functions. Since the civil list is only about 1.5 million, the treasury has a serious net gain here...

The queens private functions, like garden parties, she pays for herself, from her own private income, which she would have regardless of whether she was the monarch.


Even if we didn't have a monarch, the state functions would still exist, and still be paid for. The royal (presidential) palaces would still exist and still be paid for. The only difference is the title of the person using. The cost of running the white house is much higher than the cost of running buckingham palace you know...

As a direct cost to the UK taxpayer, the queen costs us very little (something like about 6p a year i think) and this goes on maintaining stuff like the royal palaces, the royal art collection etc etc etc...


I'm always puzzled by the idea that getting rid of the monarchy saves money... the state functions have to be done by someone, and if its a monarch whos greeting ambassadors and hosting dinner receptions, it leaves the PM and his staff free to govern. Doesn't the US President spent something like 30% of his time on ceremonial work? where our PM spends 100% of his time governing (albeit badly in the current case)

[Axeman]

Well I just learned something new.

[the Black Prince]

then your day has not been wasted

[Von Kickyourass]

It's not the money involved that i'm worried about its just the fact that some countries leaders (elizabeth 2) appear to be lazier then Homer Simpson.

[Yorkshireman]

It's not the money involved that i'm worried about its just the fact that some countries leaders (elizabeth 2) appear to be lazier then Homer Simpson.

She does more work than any of our politicians bar the Prime Minister.

The Queen carries out around 430 engagements (including audiences) a year, to meet people, open events and buildings, unveil plaques and make speeches.

Such engagements can include visits to schools, hospitals, factories, military units, art galleries, sheltered accommodation for elderly people, hostels for the homeless, local community schemes in inner city areas, and other British and Commonwealth organisations.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/D...Afternoon.aspx

Here's some more of the duties carried out by the Royal family as a whole.

Every year the Royal Family as a whole carries out over 2,000 official engagements throughout the UK and worldwide.

These engagements may include official State responsibilities. Members of the Royal Family often carry out official duties in the UK and abroad where The Queen cannot be present in person. The Prince of Wales and The Princess Royal, for example, may present members of the public with their honours at an Investiture.

When official events such as receptions, State banquets and garden parties are held, the Royal Family supports The Queen in making her guests welcome.

Members of the Royal Family also often represent The Queen and the nation in Commonwealth or other countries, at events such as State funerals or national festivities, or through longer visits to strengthen
Britain's diplomatic and economic relations.

The Royal Family also plays an important role in supporting and encouraging the public and charity sectors. About 3,000 organisations list a member of the Royal Family as patron or president.

The huge range of these organisations - covering every subject from education to the environment, hospitals to housing - allows members of the Royal Family to meet people from a wide spectrum of national and local life, and to understand their interests, problems and concerns.

2,000: the number of official engagements carried out by the Royal Family each year in the UK and overseas.

70,000: the number of people entertained each year to dinners, lunches, receptions and garden parties at the Royal residences.

100,000: the number of letters received and answered each year by the Royal Family.

Some members of the Royal Family have also established their own charities - for example, The Prince's Trust, The Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme and The Princess Royal Trust for Carers, a charity which provides advice and support for people acting as carers.

The Royal Family also plays an important role in recognising and supporting the work of the Armed Services. Members of the Royal Family have official relationships with many units of the Forces, paying regular visits to soldiers, sailors and airmen serving at home and abroad.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Ho...yalFamily.aspx

[Mr. Pink]

The Royal Family can collectively smoke my pole.

That is all.

[Von Kickyourass]

You consider holding a banquet work? That just makes her appear lazier, sitting and eating food.

[the Black Prince]

you think getting rid of a monarch gets rid of formal dinners? They'd still go ahead even if we had a president, just as they do in France and the US. Formal banquets and state dinners are a part of a states diplomatic life. Back in April, Gordon and Sarah Brown attended a banquet hosted by French President Sarkozy at a NATO conference.

besides, you'd be surprised how much work can actually be done at a banquet. Informal conversations between 2 leaders can be far more productive than a 2 hour negotiating session with full staff

[Garrigan]

Surely the Monarchy must bring in a lot of tourist revenue? Revenue that wouldnt come in if it was an elected official.

[Каие]

A President would cost more money and be less unique.

/Thread

[Yorkshireman]

You consider holding a banquet work? That just makes her appear lazier, sitting and eating food.

Obviously did'nt bother reading the rest then did you ?

As already pointed out by BP, a state banquet is normally held when any world leader or prominent statesman visits any country, its only polite to actually feed your guests. What would you propose ? Send them down to the local greasy spoon ?

[Orko]

The main arguement against monarchy is the money problem. The monarchs live well because we give them our tax money and it is not cool. Though a president, prime minister and/or MPs cost MUCH more money, are less unique and bring less tourism.

[Yorkshireman]

It works out at about 62p per head of population a year. It also means we're not saddled with a President Blair.

[the Black Prince]

you see, I don't get the money argument...

A president would cost the individual tax payer more, because unlike a monarch, a president couldn't be funded by the civil list or Crown Estate. The constitutional changes required to turn britain into a republic would get rid of those institutions... so if we had a president, not only would we pay for things like palace maintainance, which we already pay, we'd have to pay for all the direct services that a president would perform, which are already performed by the Queen at a lower cost, without political partiality.

Right now, the monarchy is about the only government institution that works well, we'd be idiots to change it...

[Каие]

Also the President would have to do all those 2,000 state mission a year alone, whereas the Royals split it between them

[Celsius]

tBP makesa good point. I would rather have a monarch than a president anyday. (Or at least with the President we have now )

[Dodge]

then your day has not been wasted

That's a great attitude, given the hours I've wasted on TWC recently, I must be a genius!

[Dodge]

The Royal Family can collectively smoke my pole.

That is all.

Wow a fan of the scottish premier division runners up who doesn't like the monarchy, you don't see that every day.

[Von Kickyourass]

If monarchies are so great how come America is probaly the most powerful nation IMO. Things have turned out pretty great since they abolished a monarchy.

[Burnum]

If monarchies are so great how come America is probaly the most powerful nation IMO. Things have turned out pretty great since they abolished a monarchy.

That's your argument? Firstly, America's power isn't dependent on any political system, if anything it's hindrance. Secondly, America's superpower status cam about because of their massive industrial base and the fact that came out relatively unscathed in both World wars. Not because of American exceptionalism.