The monarchy

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Well, Bush does look like an inbred shrub.... Isn't he supposed to be blah blah blah's royal cousin xth removed? Or was that someone else?

Oh yes, down up monarchy, up with republic.

edity edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2263945.stm

Yup, the shrub is related. I knew he looked like an inbred.

gag! More embarassment!

Off topic question: is prince William gay? No offense meant to the Brits, honest. I was just curious.

[Lalaith_Elf]

I'm not bothered about the Monarchy. At least Tony Blair doesn't rule over this country completely. Twat.. It is pretty much just for the 'tourist attraction'. People make too much fuss about them. And Prince Harry doesn't get into much trouble for smoking dope. Lucky for some!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
royalty eh?

that explains this quote:

"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference. And that difference is, they pass the laws and I execute them." ~ Washington, D.C., 12-18-00

[Hemel]

is prince William gay? No offense meant to the Brits, honest. I was just curious.

No idea But it wouldn't bother me one bit if he was.



And it's been known before .... Edward ... um .... that's it, II He still managed to have children with his wife, though.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Hemel
No idea But it wouldn't bother me one bit if he was.



And it's been known before .... Edward ... um .... that's it, II He still managed to have children with his wife, though.

As I said, I didn't mean it as to offend. I know some people are offended by the whole homosexuality thing (I'm not).

I met this guy at the university I attended. Big, macho-type guy... joined the military and all that. Married his college sweetheart, had 2 kids... and one day... had a nice talk with his wife about him being gay, but that he still loved her and all, and his kids. They had a friendly divorce and now he lives with his SO and gets the kids on weekends and holidays.

Oops... off topic... again... damn, I'm bad

[Hemel]

As I said, I didn't mean it as to offend.

No, I know you didn't Doesn't offend me at all.

As for the royals, in partial answer to your original question, I'm glad we've got them. There are one or two, who, to quote Princess Anne, I think could 'naff off'. But I think some of them do a brilliant job and the ones I've met have been ... um ... well, I suppose, the word 'charming' would match what I'm trying to say

[Radagast]

Alas, Ruinel, what have I begun?

[Hemel]

Oh clearly the questions have been in my mind overnight, because I've woken up with other thoughts.

No, it doesn't particularly bother me, the issue of taxes. I really don't have the figures for what the royals cost and what they bring back into the encomy, and I suspect that it'd be quite hard to work it out (heh! maybe that's in their interests ) because it would include such things as tourism, the affect on trade by visits, and so on. Also things like the Duchy of Cornwall - that's supposed to cover, I believe, Prince Charles' personal and public expenses.

For me I am far more interested, and indeed resentful, over things like the amount of money that is wasted on things like compensation cases against the NHS - that's a double, because not only is it taking loads from the service, but can also involve our paying for legal aid too. Or over the amount of money that gets spent on warmongering. Ah, and if we're talking grovelling - which is a word you used, Ruinel, somewhere - then what annoys me far more is our apparent slavish attachment right now (thanks to our toady PM) to following the US.

So far... most of the UK citizens that have replied to my post are against a monarchy that is supported through taxes.

Just as a matter of interest, how many UK citizens did at that stage reply to your post in this way? ('post', I assume, meaning the one that begins ... 'a recent PM from another Mooter'). I'm asking because I don't know the nationalities of most posters, and you probably will, having been here longer and also because I can't actually see that reference (though I have only scanned the seven posts ). (The three posts before, though from over a year ago, don't seem to reflect that either, and I think they are from two UK citizens )

[Ruinel]

Hemel, I didn't count the US citizens that replied... only those I think are UK citizens. Not many have replied, that's true.

I don't know how much the royals bring in as far as tourism, only some of what they cost the taxpayers (not the Duchy of Cornwall stuff... I didn't see that, so it's not added in to the cost). I can't imagine what the royals bring in for the UK in the form of tourism being more than Disney World to Florida in the US, though, and Disney World is not subsidized by the tax payers (as far as I am aware). I only know one person that has been to Europe/UK and seen Buckingham Palace. No one I know is much interested in any of it, here.

What is NHS? Is that the National Historical Society? What is the compensation you are referring to?

As for the UK being slave to following the US... in a way, it's unfortunate for ME that the UK ISN'T slave to the US. I'm flying into London in less than a month and the exchange rate sucks for Americans (which is why I'm headed straight out after 2 days and on to Italy, Croatia, France, Spain and The Netherlands). My friend and I have plans to see your Natural Science Museum (or something like that), but Buckingham Palace is NOT on our list (no interest from either of us). We might hit some night life someplace (as we'll be on that schedule when we get there).

But as far as the UK following the US, no one here sees that. A lot of us feel 'W' is a slave to the oil companies and big business, and ignores the wants of the citizens. Many of the US citizens did not want the war in Iraq. Did 'W' listen? Of course not!

And of course, MANY of us think Bush needs to get the boot at the next election. And many of us are still in shock that the damn monkey is in the White House right now!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast
Alas, Ruinel, what have I begun?

Hopefully, an indepth and intelligent discussion on the subject.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Oh yeah, because thats likely to happen.

[Hemel]

Yeah, I would be interested, actually, to know if there are any reliable figures out there about costs and benefits of the Royals.

For tourism - ah, well, we get the impression that maybe there are quite a few people interested, and this does include USAmericans. Who knows?

Disney World and the taxpayers ... um ... something about Michael Moore and his new film Fahrenheit 911 recently?

NHS - sorry - I mean the National Health Service.

Hope you have a good stay here - even if it is only short

Hooray for your other comments (Not that I'm partisan or anything )

Hopefully, an indepth and intelligent discussion on the subject.

Well, don't look at me!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Oh yeah, because thats likely to happen.

As always, you have added much to our intelligent discussion. [/sarcasm]

Would you care to make an attempt at including an on-topic addition here? Or is it too much for you today.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Hemel


Yeah, I would be interested, actually, to know if there are any reliable figures out there about costs and benefits of the Royals.

Surely your government provides that information to the taxpayers. Perhaps a department of tourism, or some other department that writes the checks for the royals? I'm not sure.

For tourism - ah, well, we get the impression that maybe there are quite a few people interested, and this does include USAmericans. Who knows?

I'm sure there are some who are interested from here... I just don't know any (but one) that are.

Disney World and the taxpayers ... um ... something about Michael Moore and his new film Fahrenheit 911 recently?

Yeah, I've heard about that. I hope it gets released. Not sure if all this is a publicity stunt or for real. Michael Moore tends to be just as big a drama-queen as Rush Limbaugh (without the drug addiction ). But he's far more entertaining, and he's a much better speaker than Rush L. ever was.

NHS - sorry - I mean the National Health Service.

Oh, then what is the compensation you are talking about?

Hope you have a good stay here - even if it is only short

Oh, thank you very much.

Hooray for your other comments (Not that I'm partisan or anything )
Well, don't look at me!

Just speaking my mind, that's all.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Ruinel
As always, you have added much to our intelligent discussion. [/sarcasm]

Would you care to make an attempt at including an on-topic addition here? Or is it too much for you today.

Alright then, if I must actually put forth a point to avoid the considerable wroth of Ruinel, then I must.

The British Monarchy does serve legitimate purposes in todays world. After the civil war of the 16 hundreds, the English monarch no longer ruled with absolute authority, as they were subject to a constitution (one of the results of the war). Hence the expression "Constitutional Monarchy". Most of Europe did not follow this trend, and thus as people began to realise they were living in a dictatorship, (King = dictator), and as they had no representation, revolutions began all over the place.

In a constitutional monacrhy, the people have the same democratic rights as everyone else, they elect their own leaders and so forth. The Queen still has one great power though, and that is to remove an ineffective government, but this is almost never done. (If it was done, and a government was removed unjustly, the people would simply revolt, so even the Queen is subject to the will of the people.)


The Monarchy's purpose in todays world is one of symbolism. Large amounts of money is poured into their (the royals) pockets by the people, but the people are happy to do it. In the Queen, England sees its vast history alive, and its traditions maintained. In times of war, and at peace, the moral leadership of the Monarchy give people a feeling of assurance that is quite hard to explain. The brits that I know, drinkers and brawlers among them, still all shed a tear when the Queen Mother died.

Just as most Americans cried when JFK jr died.


How was that, Ruinel, no america bashing either!

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Oh and just for the record, I hate the royals and their Illustrious ancestors. Being Fenian, I would just be as happy to see them all overthrown, but thats just me.

I was just answering the question.

[Hemel]

Surely your government provides that information to the taxpayers. Perhaps a department of tourism, or some other department that writes the checks for the royals? I'm not sure.

Hehey! You've already found out some figures, so I thought it was you maybe really interested in all this kind of stuff and'd be finding out? No? But for the record anyway then and just for starters Crown Estate profit for 2002 given to the Government was £163.3m and costs of the monarchy returned for official stuff (remember she's Head of State) £35.3m. If you search on www.royal.gov.uk and on www.crownestate.co.uk you'll find some breakdowns and this year's accounts from Crown Estate already are documented (in PDF)).

Compensation - NHS - yes, it's fair and right that if people sustain harm and costs because of NHS mistakes then they should get compensation. The NHS is the second biggest area of government spending I believe and has a budget of around £70bn this year to cover everything. Compensation has been called by the national audit office a 'significant and increasing drain on the resources available for patient care'. Which clearly isn't good news. Costs the last couple of years have been some £450m (a quarter going in legal costs and in a significant number of lower award cases the legal costs are more than the awards) and there's some nearly £6bn in claims in the way and anticipated and maybe some £3bn on top of that, for the next few years. The system is under review - the current one is open to gravy-training and also is not conducive towards admitting and correcting errors. Fraud is also a significant factor in NHS costs, though that has been much reduced this last year.

But then .... the costs of keeping Brits in Iraq is currently some five times the amount of NHS compensation. And some 70 times the cost of royals for official duties (which costs are less than a quarter of that gained by estate revenue). Kind of puts things in perspective, I think.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
So far... most of the UK citizens that have replied to my post are against a monarchy that is supported through taxes.

My questions now are: [list=1][*]why not change this? [*]if the money is so little compared to other taxes you pay, then why not separate the monarchy from your financial support and put that little bit you're already paying in to some better use? Surely the UK isn't completely without need someplace. [*]If this is a plan you think would work, where do you think that money should be diverted to instead?(i.e., education, highways, etc.)[/list=1]

Good questions. My answers would be:

1 - Because Tony Blair would get to pick the replacement (see what he's done with reform of the House of Lords), probably himself. Otherwise, I'd be up for it. Sadly, most Brits wouldn't, especially the police and armed forces (who act in the name of the Crown), so that's that really.

2 - I suppose that a person who is Head of State ought to have the costs of fulfilling that role paid for by the State. The issue would be separating those costs from all their other jollies.

3 - Retraining scheme for unemployed/-able ex-royals.


I agree with you, Hemel. Compensation culture is a major issue. Not only does it drain money, but also time from the NHS in requiring staff to record and audit everything that they do.

[sun-star]

I've posted here before, so I won't repeat myself. I'll just echo this:

Originally posted by Fenir LacDanan
The Monarchy's purpose in todays world is one of symbolism. Large amounts of money is poured into their (the royals) pockets by the people, but the people are happy to do it. In the Queen, England sees its vast history alive, and its traditions maintained. In times of war, and at peace, the moral leadership of the Monarchy give people a feeling of assurance that is quite hard to explain.

That puts it very well. Basically, if you don't get it, you don't get it. This is one of those cultural differences which you just have to accept that a foreigner isn't going to understand simply by reference to budget statements.

Originally posted by Hemel
Just as a matter of interest, how many UK citizens did at that stage reply to your post in this way? ('post', I assume, meaning the one that begins ... 'a recent PM from another Mooter').

One: Draken.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
[B]Alright then, if I must actually put forth a point to avoid the considerable wroth of Ruinel, then I must.

shouldn't that be "wrath"?
*pulls out a whip and gives Fenir a little flick* MWAHAHAHA!!!

... The Queen still has one great power though, and that is to remove an ineffective government, but this is almost never done. (If it was done, and a government was removed unjustly, the people would simply revolt, so even the Queen is subject to the will of the people.)

Do you know when this might have been done in the past?

The Monarchy's purpose in todays world is one of symbolism. Large amounts of money is poured into their (the royals) pockets by the people, but the people are happy to do it. In the Queen, England sees its vast history alive, and its traditions maintained. In times of war, and at peace, the moral leadership of the Monarchy give people a feeling of assurance that is quite hard to explain. The brits that I know, drinkers and brawlers among them, still all shed a tear when the Queen Mother died.

It doesn't seem that all of them happily pour money into the royals' pockets. Not according to a few of the posts here. Do you give money to the royals in taxes? (I ask because I know you do not live in the UK, currently, and I'm not sure about your taxes.)

Just as most Americans cried when JFK jr died. [/quote]Errrr... I didn't know JFK Jr... so I wasn't affected by his death. None of the Kenedy's cried when my mother died... why should I cry over him.

How was that, Ruinel, no america bashing either!

hmmm... not bad. So, you can post without bashing my country... nice.