Proposed Change in Monarchy Succession.

brucewarren · Post by **brucewarren** » Fri, 28. Oct 11, 23:14

Just found this.

It sounds like a sensible change, since there is no sensible reason for
sexism in the succession, but then is there any reason for a head of state
role to be inherited in the first place?

xavierd · Post by **xavierd** » Fri, 28. Oct 11, 23:19

Is there any reason for this "executive" and ridiculously expensive role to even exist in these times? Wonder how many hospitals or schools could be built from the money it costs to maintain these unelected sponges for a month...

Rant aside, decency at least partly prevails with this bit of news

Stars_InTheirEyes · Post by **Stars_InTheirEyes** » Fri, 28. Oct 11, 23:33

Don't understand why we still have a Royal Family. They do very little to help with the running of the country AFAIK.

amtct · Post by **amtct** » Fri, 28. Oct 11, 23:39

Stars_InTheirEyes wrote:Don't understand why we still have a Royal Family. They do very little to help with the running of the country AFAIK.

Because the Royal family is a symbol and a part of your history ....you should know that

cappedup · Post by **cappedup** » Fri, 28. Oct 11, 23:50

Stars_InTheirEyes wrote:They do very little to help with the running of the country AFAIK.

Is that apart from the 100s of millions of pounds they rake in?

I read somewhere it costs 60p per person in the country to pay for the royals.

How much does it cost per person to pay for all the scum bags in prison?

Not sure of my point.

I dont mind the royals. Better that than whatever the US has.

EmperorJon · Post by **EmperorJon** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 00:01

The royals provide such a symbol and, although it may be unseemly, a tourist attraction. I bet they pay for themselves in the long run. Plus, Phillip is one hilarious man.

jlehtone · Post by **jlehtone** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 00:11

cappedup wrote:How much does it cost per person to pay for all the scum bags in prison?

And how much do the elected "rulers" cost you?

Incubi · Post by **Incubi** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 00:15

AdrianM wrote:
Stars_InTheirEyes wrote:Don't understand why we still have a Royal Family. They do very little to help with the running of the country AFAIK.
Because the Royal family is a symbol and a part of your history ....you should know that

Are we talking about the only wel-fare recipients that the conservatives like?

IMO put them in a museum! That should feed an additional 10 thousand poor english peoples.

bobxii · Post by **bobxii** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 01:13

AHAH good one there.

But... it's better to have a 'messiah' with no power than one with power, right?

berth · Post by **berth** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 01:28

Makes sense, imho, and the freedom to marry a Catholic is also a welcome revision.

See also this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

amtct · Post by **amtct** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 01:40

Incubi wrote:Are we talking about the only wel-fare recipients that the conservatives like?

IMO put them in a museum! That should feed an additional 10 thousand poor english peoples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_of_Romania (he's still alive)
If you want I can post the wiki link to the almighty KGB president that's now to see the differences.

Now which one is better ,a jerk with no school or a "messiah"

You can remove the royal family and feed an additional 10 thousand poor people or remove the government and their habbit of "borrowing" money from the budget and feed an additional 100 thousand poor people

Incubi · Post by **Incubi** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 02:38

AdrianM wrote:
Incubi wrote:Are we talking about the only wel-fare recipients that the conservatives like?

IMO put them in a museum! That should feed an additional 10 thousand poor english peoples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_of_Romania (he's still alive)
If you want I can post the wiki link to the almighty KGB president that's now to see the differences.

Now which one is better ,a jerk with no school or a "messiah"

You can remove the royal family and feed an additional 10 thousand poor people or remove the government and their habbit of "borrowing" money from the budget and feed an additional 100 thousand poor people

Without the borrowing government, the same people who bitch about giving money to people, will have no problem taking it from them!, all ideals of working for your money will go out the window with an easier weay of getting more money! The poor will still suffer and crime would get worse

Apothos · Post by **Apothos** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 04:14

cappedup wrote:I dont mind the royals. Better that than whatever the US has.

I think you'd struggle to find a better system anywhere on the planet, or at least struggle to find one that is so much better as to be worth switching to.

EmperorJon wrote:I bet they pay for themselves in the long run.

Any money that comes from the tax payer is used for official stuff only; state visits, maintenance of the historical buildings, paying the wages of staff members etc. and the added cost of security at events, all of which would be spent anyway whatever kind of Head of State we had. They apparently live off their own wealth - of course the origin of this wealth is another story, haha.

Using the Royal Family / Institute as unpaid trade ambassadors, charity patrons, tourist attractions etc. works well for us (aside from the odd embarrassment, but every family has one ;)).

bobxii · Post by **bobxii** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 04:23

I think the chief benefit of the Crown (from this side of the pond) is that they prevent any kind of reverent aura from settling around the people who operate the government.

amtct · Post by **amtct** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 04:31

Incubi wrote: Without the borrowing government, the same people who bitch about giving money to people, will have no problem taking it from them!, all ideals of working for your money will go out the window with an easier weay of getting more money! The poor will still suffer and crime would get worse

Incubi za republican

Usenko · Post by **Usenko** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 06:00

Going in to bat for the Royals:

Just on pure numbers, I'll bet you can find plenty of CEOs on higher salaries than the Queen. And I'd wager few of them would be willing to put in the kind of hours she does, and has for 60 years. Most highly paid businessmen are well and truly retired 20 years before they reach her age, and she's still going strong, still working hard, still keeping a typically British stiff upper lip no matter what goes wrong with her family and her life.

It's worth mentioning that in Australia, the easiest way for the Republican movement to lose traction is to start Rubbishing the actual PEOPLE of the Royal family, and most particularly Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second; Whatever people think of the institution, there is widespread agreement that she has been the best head of state Australia has seen.

Personally, I don't mind retaining the Royal family. They don't cost any more than any other head of state, and the cost of changing to something else would be immense.

Incubi · Post by **Incubi** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 06:37

AdrianM wrote:
Incubi wrote: Without the borrowing government, the same people who bitch about giving money to people, will have no problem taking it from them!, all ideals of working for your money will go out the window with an easier weay of getting more money! The poor will still suffer and crime would get worse
Incubi za republican

How dare you! lol re-read, republicans would not admit to what I said they would do!

greypanther · Post by **greypanther** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 15:54

I am pretty certain that the money from the tourists more than makes up for what we spend on them. Also how many CEOs are still working at her age?

The fact is that they are also very, very rich people. They own an awful lot of land. Charlie owns just about half of Cornwall for instance and his Duchy of Cornwall business makes a very good profit I seem to remember. The Queen also owns huge tracts of Lancashire too, the Duchy of Lancaster is hers.

I seem to remember reading that the there are not many British people who are worth more than the Queen; the Duke of Westminster being one. He owns a lot of Cheshire and London.

The change of rules wont make much difference reall though will it, the next two will be kings anyway.

amtct · Post by **amtct** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 16:16

greypanther wrote:I am pretty certain that the money from the tourists more than makes up for what we spend on them.

We all know that tourists visit the queen's guards not the queen

Btw you can make them laugh ...myth busted

greypanther · Post by **greypanther** » Sat, 29. Oct 11, 16:21

I am sure I have said it before, but you are a bad man Adrian!

( Tut, tut . I want to ask how he did it, but am afraid of the answer.. )

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Proposed Change in Monarchy Succession.

Proposed Change in Monarchy Succession.