Royalty

[Richpur]

She has withheld consent from private members bills - such as the "Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill" that went through parliament largely without notice on the 16th April 1999.

My apologies I realise that is a rather different thing.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Richpur

She has withheld consent from private members bills - such as the "Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill" that went through parliament largely without notice on the 16th April 1999.

My apologies I realise that is a rather different thing.

yes it is different because it's not refusing assent and the prime minister asked her to.

[Richpur]

It's also the most recent and public bill I could remember that the queen got involved in... My mistake.

As for the "threatening" to withhold consent; I'm kind of amused to think of a politics lecture as rumour mongering, but I suppose once lecturers start talking without giving sources they're just as likely to be wrong as any other person.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

we have a separation of powers doctrine.

yeah, i love the way the judiciary aren't in the legislature and the legislative branch isn't connected the executive


wait

[Cooling]

Do not forget that not only is the Queen Sovereign in right of England, but also retains Sovereignty in right of many other Commonwealth nations through various Governors General. Often this serves as an important constitutional link between these countries and Great Britain.

Not only that, it also forms an important link in terms of foreign relations; though perhaps only as a symbol these days.

Whilst you might think it is outmoded, other countries may think it very important to retain the status quo (which works very efficiently I must say).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

that's why I am suggesting that having a president would be paying for something that previously didn't cost us a penny

And I will say again : the monarchy DOES cost us money.

as nod succinctly pointed out "there are so many more important ways in which the respective coutnries are falling apart." there are more important questions to deal with than just vandalising the current system.

I'm not sure I ever said this was the most important thing in the world. Indeed, I said _exactly the opposite_. I do not think the monarchy is a very important issue, and I do not find myself discussing it in day-to-day life very often (if ever). However, if someone makes a thread about it then I will give my view on the subject. Are there more important questions - of course, but that was never in doubt.

Saying things like "vandalism" seems like at best a value judgement, and at worst a rather silly attempt at sloganeering.

we have a separation of powers doctrine.

I am referring to the issue of sovereignty. In the US, the Constitution is "technically" sovereign and the power is seperated from there. Here we have, to quote you "the queen in parliament is sovereign". That seems to be rather different.

my 'claim' was (and I quote) "it can be beneficial to have a head of state (to conduct international diplomacy) who isn't 'politicised' who has no political opinions, ideals or beliefs."

now you either agree with my point or you take the opposite stand, but i'm not going to argue something that I didn't say.

I am asking you to justify this opinion, that is all.

If you can't understand how a knighthood or a peerage would lose validity without the existance of a monarchy then you and I should stop discussing the honour system. your repeated point is the equivalent of saying "I see no major reason why you can't just put water into your car instead of petrol".

I can't really see how that's even a vaguely comparable analogy. But OK.

this isn't the same as racism.

Of course it isn't - and it was never implied that it was. I was giving a similar example about how a (seeming) non-issue could be quite important to some.

it's not discrimination. it's people being envious and having chips on their shoulder.

Of course it's discrimination. It's treating one family and their descendents completely different to everyone else. How is that not discrimination? If the situation was reversed, and we picked one family to treat like shit then I'd hope you'd be dead against it.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you're still not getting this.

with a monarchy you have one coronation after the ruler dies. our last one was in 1953. That's 52 years (and counting) without needing to pay for a coronation.
If we had replaced the queen with an elected president in 1953 then we would have had 13 presidential elections and 13 separate presidential induction ceremonies.

that's why I am suggesting that having a president would be paying for something that previously didn't cost us a penny

I've been trying to work out what you meant by this but I really have no idea (perhaps because I'm unfamiliar with British law). The functional role of the British monarch is completely different from that of the US president, so comparing the costs of both makes no sense. Theres also no reason why getting rid of the monarchy would mean we have to start electing presidents in addition to everything else; we could just keep the parlimentary system as it stands, while removing the Queen from it. I imagine this could cause constitutional problems, but who cares really.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I've been trying to work out what you meant by this but I really have no idea (perhaps because I'm unfamiliar with British law). The functional role of the British monarch is completely different from that of the US president, so comparing the costs of both makes no sense. Theres also no reason why getting rid of the monarchy would mean we have to start electing presidents in addition to everything else; we could just keep the parlimentary system as it stands, while removing the Queen from it. I imagine this could cause constitutional problems, but who cares really.

while we are doing that we can get rid of the element carbon from the periodic table and remove the concept of addition from mathematics.

I'm sure it might cause a few problems but, but who cares really.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

while we are doing that we can get rid of the element carbon from the periodic table and remove the concept of addition from mathematics.

I'm sure it might cause a few problems but, but who cares really.

Yes, history has shown that to imagine a british society without a king is physically impossible.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

while we are doing that we can get rid of the element carbon from the periodic table and remove the concept of addition from mathematics.

I'm sure it might cause a few problems but, but who cares really.

thing is, you can't change how physics or mathematics work. you can change a constitution.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

thing is, you can't change how physics or mathematics work. you can change a constitution.

You can easily change mathematics, because "addition" is an axiomic operator. It just wouldn't be the same mathermatics without it.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You can easily change mathematics, because "addition" is an axiomic operator. It just wouldn't be the same mathermatics without it.

note to self: when emperor, oppress science.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You can easily change mathematics, because "addition" is an axiomic operator. It just wouldn't be the same mathermatics without it.

Mathematics would be unchanged, you'd just be choosing to use a different set of axioms. Ring theory wasnt changed when someone decided to drop an axiom and study semirings instead.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yes, history has shown that to imagine a british society without a king is physically impossible.

yes it has actually.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And I will say again : the monarchy DOES cost us money.

The British Monarchy is a net contributor to Great Britain. Income of the Crown estates, all the land owned by the Windsor Family, is donated to the British Government. In 2004, that was a total donation of £176.9 million, well in excess of the expenses of the Royal family for that year which came to some £35 million. That is not even including revenue brought into the British cofers by tourism and some such.

It has been argued by some that this is irrelevant, as if the Monarchy was abolished, all that land would be appropraited by the Government, and thus the income would still flow. Possible, but complicated, after all some of that land is Windsor land, or at least obtained while the Windsors were in power. And does the government then become the largest single private land-owner in the UK?

Regardless of this hypothetical, is is unarguable that at the moment, the Monarchy is a net vast contributor to the economy of the UK.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by dda

I had hoped that this subject would have come up at some time without me having to broach it, but it hasn't.

As an American, I have never lived in a country which had a monarch. As such, I don't really understand why royalty still exists in this day and age.

However, this is not an attack on particular royals or any particular monarchy. In fact it really isn't meant as an attack on anyone or anything. It is truely a question and not a judgement.

Those of you who live in a country with a king or queen, what do you think of the institution and why?

As a general rule, Americans are very fond of royals of every type and variety though we have none of our own. I myself have a great deal of admiration for JohnnyBGood, King of the Irish Tossers.

Anyhow, tell me what you think.

they are a pointless national figurehead. that being said, I think the whole idea of a figurehead is silly, and I wouldn't want a president either.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

And does the government then become the largest single private land-owner in the UK?

I think it's fairly obvious given various governments track records over the last twenty or so years that if this did occur they would simply sell the land over a period of time (or at least lease it out, or something to that effect). If central government barely wants to own new hospitals it's unlikely going to want to manage a bunch of previously private estates. In any case, it's hardly a huge problem.

And even if they are a net contributor (and as I have said before, imo that's a ridiculous argument anyway), it's still a "cost", which was my point. A cost still exists (in balance sheet terms) even if it is weighed against something else at some point. To use an analogy : the cost of the US Military for 2003 according to the CIA factbook is given as $370bn. Quite a lot of that money will actually flow back into government coffers anyway (taxes on military pay, sales tax on soldiers expenditure, corporation tax paid by contractors who the army buy off, etc) - but that doesn't change the headline cost figure.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

The British Monarchy is a net contributor to Great Britain.

Thank you for actually supplying numbers, evidently my post was worth ignoring.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The Royals actively make money for the state simply because the money they give to the state by the land they possess is greater than the civil list.

[Dante Hicks]

The only reason I didn't respond to this point before (aside from laziness) is that we've actually had this discussion before, where Verm made the same point and said I was "into national privitasation on a level higher than even Lenin was willing to do".

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think it's fairly obvious given various governments track records over the last twenty or so years that if this did occur they would simply sell the land over a period of time (or at least lease it out, or something to that effect).

Yes, they probably would, meaning the loss of the income of the land for a one-time financial gain the government would probably spend on some asinine 'get re-elected' project. In the Hands of the Royal family, the trust has been very carefully managed and turns a bigger profit every year, every penny of which is donated to the Government. In fact the Royal Estates have been brilliantly managed, and provide a long-lasting, stable very large source of income for the government.

And even if they are a net contributor (and as I have said before, imo that's a ridiculous argument anyway),

Its not rediculous, its a fact. If you claim otherwise, please feel free to explain how an income of 176 million poiunds and an outlay of 35 million pounds equals AMNYTHING but a net contribution...

it's still a "cost", which was my point. A cost still exists (in balance sheet terms) even if it is weighed against something else at some point.

Uh... OK...

Technically, you are correct, there is a cost in the running of the monarchy, thus in the strictest sense allowing you to say there is a cost to having a monarchy. That is only of course if you ignore the massive income described above, but whatever.

Of course, according to that slightly silly technical definition, there are no profitable businesses on the planet, after all they all run at a 'cost'. If youn ignore their resulting income, you can in the strictest sense say every business in the world is run at a cost.

Forgive me, I mean no disrespect, but how is that strict definition in any way relevant? By any reasonable standard, the Royal family produces far more money than they spend. Again, the 176 million is just donated income, and does not include tourism and merchandising, which also bring in flipping great wodges of cash...

The only reason I didn't respond to this point before (aside from laziness) is that we've actually had this discussion before, where Verm made the same point and said I was "into national privitasation on a level higher than even Lenin was willing to do".

Hehehe... I don't remember that, but it does sound like the kind of thing I might say...

[eJohn]

Benign monarchy is pretty much harmless if extremely irritating and irrelevant. But you cant always presume the sovereign will be as dopey and inoffensive as Liz.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Its not rediculous, its a fact. If you claim otherwise, please feel free to explain how an income of 176 million poiunds and an outlay of 35 million pounds equals AMNYTHING but a net contribution...

It's ridiculous because the lands they "own" are part of the state. Tell you what, give me a billion quids worth of land (or more), I'll let you have the rent on that money in exchange for living in a big palace, thirty million quid a year, and then I'll claim self-righteous superiority on the basis of my net contribution status. They don't actually "do" anything productive, or value-producing or however you wish to term it. They may be "brilliant managing it" with larger profits each year but that's hardly difficult given the rise in land costs over the years.

What the government would choose to do with the land is up to them, they are at least elected officials. Personally I'd build a **** load of housing on it (where appropriate) but that's just me.

Of course, according to that slightly silly technical definition, there are no profitable businesses on the planet, after all they all run at a 'cost'. If youn ignore their resulting income, you can in the strictest sense say every business in the world is run at a cost.

I'm not sure if this is a language thing you are using cost where I would use "loss". I've never heard anyone use the expression "run at a cost". Run at a loss, sure. But that's a different term with different implications. I guess it depends on how you view these things. If someone asks my work how much our rent department "costs" to run, they can't answer minus £41 million pounds (i.e. their salaries + other costs minus the money the bring in).

But anyway, I reject the "income" argument as I don't see "their" lands as being theirs. But I've said that.

[dda]

Thank you, one and all for this discussion. It has been helpful. As I said in the original post, as an American I was unaware of what those in a monarchy might think were the benefits or draw backs in having a royal family. I knew there must be some but did not have the background or insight to think what they were from the point of view of one who had grown up under a monarchy.

This being GD, I had rather expected a less serious response, something like "If we didn't have the monarchy we might as well be Irish or, god forbid, French." The discussion has thus been a pleasant surprise.

The fact that I wasn't neg-repped into the red blob zone for asking the question was also very kind of you all.

[JonnyBGood]

The french had a king once too, as I'm sure you well know. Of course they chopped his head off. One does always struggles to understand the gallic mindset.

[dda]

The English king chopped of the queens head and had her head brought to him.

Leave it to a king to throw away the best parts.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by dda

This being GD, I had rather expected a less serious response, something like "If we didn't have the monarchy we might as well be Irish or, god forbid, French." The discussion has thus been a pleasant surprise.

Her Majesty is Queen of France as well! The bastard frogs just refuse to give us the land back!

[JonnyBGood]

Quite so. What's more they did it before the french as well. Damnable impressionists

[Vermillion]

By the way, the argument as to wheither the Monarchy is a net contributor or net drain on funds in the UK is utterly irrelevant to the maintenance of the Monarchy. Unless the cost of the Royals rises into the Billions, the monarchy will never remain or fall based on financial grounds.

Think of it this way, in almost every first world nation on the planet, governments run a series of museums at a loss, sometimes a significant loss. War museums, national history museums, etc.

They all lose money, so why not shut them down? Or is it possible they have a value beyond the dollars and cents they bring in/ lose?

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The french had a king once too, as I'm sure you well know. Of course they chopped his head off. One does always struggles to understand the gallic mindset.

All i heard was that it had something to do with cake, can you guyz fill me in plsta?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

By the way, the argument as to wheither the Monarchy is a net contributor or net drain on funds in the UK is utterly irrelevant to the maintenance of the Monarchy.

I agree which is why I am mystified that the pro-Monarchy lot introduce that argument.

They all lose money, so why not shut them down?

Because they are not hideous anachronistic stains on the nation, for the most part.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Because they are not hideous anachronistic stains on the nation, for the most part.

Are we going to the same museums? (Boom boom)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Are we going to the same museums? (Boom boom)

I live ten minutes away from the Imperial War Museum!

[Phang]

milton keynes central library has two biographies on stalin, and three on freddy starr.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phang

milton keynes central library has two biographies on stalin, and three on freddy starr.

I don't even know who that is















There is nowhere near enough Uncle Joe love in the world. I demand a threefold increase across five years. Also no other love can be ignored so this quota is met. Unless it's in any way useful of course.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Its not rediculous, its a fact. If you claim otherwise, please feel free to explain how an income of 176 million poiunds and an outlay of 35 million pounds equals AMNYTHING but a net contribution...

Forgive me, I mean no disrespect, but how is that strict definition in any way relevant? By any reasonable standard, the Royal family produces far more money than they spend. Again, the 176 million is just donated income, and does not include tourism and merchandising, which also bring in flipping great wodges of cash...

As I said earlier, this is not the way that costs are calculated.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

No

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

As I said earlier, this is not the way that costs are calculated.

a) just because you prefer to think in terms of opportunity cost doesn't mean that opportunity cost is the only relevant measure or even the only relevant form of cost.
b) If one does think in terms of opportunity costs then maintaining the monarchy is still the logical conclusion.

[dda]

Do you have the option of ignoring Charles and getting someone better looking?

[s|k]

You bumper.

[dda]

I wasn't here yesterday.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by dda

Do you have the option of ignoring Charles and getting someone better looking?

Yes, it's called "treason".