Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Queen is just a position. Respect that, sure. Respect the mad old bint on the throne? Nope. Just another human being that got lucky by birth.

I have said it many times, Constitutional Monarchy is THE idea form of government in my mind. You Brits should let is be run the way it was meant to be.

We tried it for a few hundred years but fancied a change

Heinous Lies!!!!

mattyrm wrote:As Orlanth said, you can not like the idea of a monarch, thats fine, but the way the class warriors talk about her disgusts me for a very obvious reason, rather than give as clear and concise an answer as Orlanth did, i will simply say.

Not sure what a class warrior is.

The Queen is a very nice old lady.

I remember seeing on of her speachs on TV once. She seemed kind of cold, I didnt really expect her to start cracking jokes but she hardly seemed happy.

I wouldnt swear or act aggressively towards ANY pensionable woman. Let alone a dignified, polite one.

Yeh, disliking her and screaming curses at her are different things though.

You insult her because she is wealthy? Which Politicians are poor? Do they not all live in big houses? Do they not fiddle their expenses and lie more than any lawyer?

Hay! No one said the Politicians were good.

Orlanth wrote:available slot for an evil overlord in the UK is already filled by an old lady who likes to drink tea, take corgis for walks and meet her subjects.

What about in years to come, where the queen is dead and there's a King on the throne, that power could be abused. Wouldnt it be better to remove that power entirely even if it acts a safety net incase of power corruption?

I wonder why the Royal Family should live in such wealth, its not like they did anything to earn that wealth, thats one of the things that annoy's me.

Lord-Loss wrote:
Not sure what a class warrior is.

Socialists/communists usually.

I remember seeing on of her speachs on TV once. She seemed kind of cold, I didnt really expect her to start cracking jokes but she hardly seemed happy.

I think you're mistaking the whole 'dignified composure' thing. Although to be honest, I'd be bored stiff if I had to read out one of those speeches.

Yeh, disliking her and screaming curses at her are different things though.

Why would you dislike someone you've never met? I can understand disliking the position, but what did she ever do to you personally?

What about in years to come, where the queen is dead and there's a King on the throne, that power could be abused. Wouldnt it be better to remove that power entirely even if it acts a safety net incase of power corruption?

If they ever tried to wave their power around again, Parliament would take it away quicker than you could say, 'Parliamentary bonuses'.

I wonder why the Royal Family should live in such wealth, its not like they did anything to earn that wealth, thats one of the things that annoy's me.

Why does anyone live in wealth? Because they make it themselves, or are born into it. Unless you're a communist, its pretty much a given in life.

Ketara wrote:

I wonder why the Royal Family should live in such wealth, its not like they did anything to earn that wealth, thats one of the things that annoy's me.

Why does anyone live in wealth? Because they make it themselves, or are born into it. Unless you're a communist, its pretty much a given in life.

Or because they are funded by the taxpayer?

whatwhat wrote:

Ketara wrote:

I wonder why the Royal Family should live in such wealth, its not like they did anything to earn that wealth, thats one of the things that annoy's me.

Why does anyone live in wealth? Because they make it themselves, or are born into it. Unless you're a communist, its pretty much a given in life.

Or because they are funded by the taxpayer?

Aye. I bet Tony Blairs kids are loving their taxpayers funded life. One of the perks of government.

Yeh they should scrap that too.

What about in years to come, where the queen is dead and there's a King on the throne, that power could be abused. Wouldnt it be better to remove that power entirely even if it acts a safety net incase of power corruption?

And replace it with what? Would a UK President be any less corrupt, no. but could they have an opportunity to be more, yes far more.
Besides why replace it, the monarchy really is working. We have some of the freakiest self serving leaders in Europe, a nation with a political population balance centered on apathetics, graspers and fundamentalists, a grossly biased national broadcasting service and a throughly dogmatised and party politicised civil service. If Her Majesty was not doing her job (which is essentially be there and be untouchable) things would be a lot worse. You seem unaware of just how far Blair went to erode our national institutions and its anyones guess say how far he would have gone had the basic safeguards not been in place.

If they ever tried to wave their power around again, Parliament would take it away quicker than you could say, 'Parliamentary bonuses'.

They will try anyway from what I have heard. The abuse is likely to go the other way around. But New Labour cannot move against Her Majesty, they will wait until she dies.

What New Tory thinks on this I do not yet know, but if I have got Cameron down he will want to prolong the stystem essentially replacing Blair as Brown has tried to do. We will get more dogma more control and more ways to destructure the nation to refocus the power and wealth into a handful of very corrupt people.

They will try anyway from what I have heard. The abuse is likely to go the other way around. But New Labour cannot move against Her Majesty, they will wait until she dies.

In other words, if she can hang on for four months, we're safe!

Yep your ill spent tax money is safe.

Oh and to comment on the option I voted for ...rock salt?

whatwhat wrote:Yep your ill spent tax money is safe.

What ill-spent tax money? The billions thrown at the NHS? The money wasted on a war in Afghanistan? The supporting of plutocrats, quangos, and meaningless buearacracy? Tony Blair's kids? The Welfare Estate?

To be honest, is there much 'well spent' tax money? I bet the ill spending outweighs the good spending by as margin of £10 to £1.

So your point is, not much tax money is well spent, therefore whats wrong with wasting more of it?

Oh and yes, how dare they spend money on the NHS.

whatwhat wrote:

Ketara wrote:

I wonder why the Royal Family should live in such wealth, its not like they did anything to earn that wealth, thats one of the things that annoy's me.

Why does anyone live in wealth? Because they make it themselves, or are born into it. Unless you're a communist, its pretty much a given in life.

Or because they are funded by the taxpayer?

The 'funded by the taxpayer' arguments, nice to see that one trawled out by people who havent a fething clue.

Here is the civic list breakdown. Note the item in bold. The Royal estates generates more money going to the government than the Royal family gets from the government.

How would you like it if you owned a small farm and the government said, we will take all the income from your farm, and generously give you a minimum wage stipend, which we will now tax, so be grateful the taxpayer is giving you this! Yes the Queen does not get a minimum wage, but she isnt handing over the income from a small farm either. 148M GBP income is no small amount of money by anyones standard, note thats income not turnover. Games Workshop makes 5M GBP income a year.

Also note that a lot of the money goes on salaries, the Civic list is a major employer. These people pay taxes too, so the money goes back. The Civic list is not like a honey pot for a rich elite, its the overheads of a large institution employing a lot of people.

In case you are wondering a 400k garden party is not a rave up, its a diplomatic event to whome the government invites who they want. To the Royals is a grueling ordeal playing host to Sir Fethedover Banks and Sir Ripov Moe Bilecustomer and several slithering variants of Rt Hon E. Spense Grabbers because the government wants them to. Trust me, if you met these annoying dicks you would want to kick them, not chat to them and pretend they are interesting. Paris Hilton might blow millions on a private party, the Queen does not, funnily enough the Royal family is a lot more frugal than people think. Buckingham Palace is an office block of sorts, nicely decorated but an office block nonetheless, its also a garrison. This is what a palace actually means, palaces are where governments are run and meetings are held. The Royal Family occupies a very small part of it. This is not a case of MTV cribs where someone gets a big house and chills out in all of it looking down on those who havent 'made it'.

Key spending figures

Spending by the Queen as head of state increased by 1% last year to £35.3m

Spending on travel by air and rail fell £432,000 from £5,368,000 in 2000-01 to £4,936,000 in 2001-02

Property maintenance and services spending increased from £15.29m to £15.52m

Revenue from the crown estate rose from £93.5m to £148m last year

Civil list payments

The Queen received a civil list payment of taxpayers' money of £8,153,000 in 2001 compared with £6,509,000 in 2000 The 25.3%-increase draws on a £35m reserve fund from savings made in previous years The annual civil list is fixed for a 10-year period and meets central staff costs and running expenses of the Queen's official household

74% of the £8,153,000m went on salary costs of 284 full-time staff Salaries rose from £4,608,000 to £6,057,000

Food and kitchen spending rose from £294,000 to £330,000

Wines and beverages costs fell from £107,000 to £45,000

Garden party expenditure rose from £430,000 to £442,000

Carriage processions fell from £111,000 to £82,000

Car costs fell from £42,000 to £38,000

Stationery costs rose from £131,000 to £147,000 Furnishings and equipment rose from £57,000 to £116,000

Computers and information systems rose from £28,000 to £34,000

Legal advice and other professional fees fell from £66,000 to £22,000

Uniforms and protective clothing bills rose from £68,000 to £94,000

Flower spending fell from £25,000 to £24,000 Salary payments among top palace officials Lord Chamberlain, Lord Luce, earned £57,326 (part time)

The Queen's private secretary, Sir Robin Janvrin, earned £121,459

Keeper of the Privy Purse (treasurer), Sir Michael Peat, earned £172,021

Master of the household, Vice-Admiral Tom Blackburn, earned £69,373

Comptroller Lieutenant Colonel, Sir Malcolm Ross, earned £69,345

The average salary at the palace was £19,078 before housing deductions

If we're, quite rightly, pretty much removing or not doing attacks on the person who is the monarch, best we also leave cheap, snice and rather baseless comments about people's children as well. M,kay.

Say what you want about Cherie though.

I am heartily intrigued though as to how those who are so staunchly defending the Monarchy now would be if they acted as many monarchs in the past have, which make our current political "elite" look like saints from heaven.

Spending by the Queen as head of state increased by 1% last year to £35.3m

Ah yes, the bs 62p per head figure which has no inclusion of the huge police, military and transport bill which the royal family weighs up.

Orlanth wrote:

[i]The 'funded by the taxpayer' arguments, nice to see that one trawled out by people who havent a fething clue.

indeed.

whatwhat wrote:So your point is, not much tax money is well spent, therefore whats wrong with wasting more of it?

Erm.....basically, yes. Complaining about wastage of taxpayers money at this stage of the game is like complaining about natural disasters. It happens, its not necessarily a good thing, but its a feature of life(or in this case, government). The monarchy is such a tiny drop in that ocean that if her drain on the taxpayers purse is enough to get you all riled up(disregarding whether she is a drain or gives value for money), then I must imagine you positively froth at the mouth any time anyone mentions the various other organs of government!

Oh and yes, how dare they spend money on the NHS.

When it does sod all but hire another thirty five managers to set priorities, then yes. 'What the hell?' is an appropriate term I believe. Heaven forbid that the money should go to anything important like, y'know.....a dedicated cleaning staff...matrons....drugs...etc.

The Queen represents very little in modern Britain.
Nearly all of her important "powers" have been transferred to Parliament. Even Royal Assent and her "opening" of Parliament are just for show, really.

Ketara wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Yep your ill spent tax money is safe.

What ill-spent tax money? The billions thrown at the NHS? The money wasted on a war in Afghanistan? The supporting of plutocrats, quangos, and meaningless buearacracy? Tony Blair's kids? The Welfare Estate?

Yeah, it doesn't matter if we're wasting money with X because we're already wasting it with Y!

Thorgut wrote:
Yeah, it doesn't matter if we're wasting money with X because we're already wasting it with Y!

Exactly! If you're doing it on such a mass scale anyway, why not go overboard!? I mean, let's face it, its our grandchildrens money we're spending now, so who cares anyway? Hurray for national debt!

reds8n wrote:I am heartily intrigued though as to how those who are so staunchly defending the Monarchy now would be if they acted as many monarchs in the past have, which make our current political "elite" look like saints from heaven.

Indeed, and in my case how much I would not be criticising New Labour if Blair and Brown behaved like the far more ethical Labour leaders of earlier generations.

If Charles becomes king we will see what a bad monarch is in due course. However I am hopeful that he will step down in favour of Prince William who will make a good king. Just guessing here, but I half suspect that this was the deal by which he could keep Camilla. So baring assassination or other trajedy we might be looking at a competent monarchy for the forseeable future.
We cetainly need that, and yes if Her Majesty was a bad monarch we would likely have had abolition by now, after all the powerbrokers in Westminster are very unforgiving of other peoples perceived failures, as it draws attention away from their own.

Ketara wrote:

Thorgut wrote:
Yeah, it doesn't matter if we're wasting money with X because we're already wasting it with Y!

Exactly! If you're doing it on such a mass scale anyway, why not go overboard!? I mean, let's face it, its our grandchildrens money we're spending now, so who cares anyway? Hurray for national debt!

A brilliant policy in Ketara. I've now determined you are either not in full time employment or are not even a taxpayer yet.

Gentlemen, this is a reminder, lets keep this one polite. Lets also refocus back on Queen Bling please, lest I have to smote people like Jean Lafitte politely remonstrating the British about their poor sense of direction outside New Orleans.

Bad analogy reds, the current monarch has no real power. Granted the only problem with a monarch is, if you get a bad one (in the past) you were screwed. That is not the case these days, and they are merely a figure head.

And why cant i attack Tony Blairs kids? Its fine for people to attack the monarchs en masse but i cant point out he is a spoilt little gaks as well? When i got sent to Iraq i recall seeing Cherie and Tony sobbing cos Euan was off to some top university in the US shortly afterwards, you know.. one that his dad wangled him a place at.

The mans a viper, and no doubt his weasely little boy is as bad as his parents.

My point is, Wills and Harry could have a life of excess, but they both do charity work, and serve in the military. Doubtless class warriors like whatwhat dislike them with such zeal because they know that if they were in their shoes they would lead a life of excess and contribute nothing.

I dont see how people can argue against Liz by offering up the nest of snakes and their spoilt offspring that we have in charge of the country at the moment.

whatwhat wrote:

Spending by the Queen as head of state increased by 1% last year to £35.3m

Ah yes, the bs 62p per head figure which has no inclusion of the huge police, military and transport bill which the royal family weighs up.

I would like to see the Civic list scrapped, so the arguments against the Monarchy being leeches are evaporated with a portion of the Royal estate funds being returned to the Crown. A net no change, or better yet increase in the Royal families accounts.

I just noticed how the report emphasised how the 8M GBP the Queen gets is 'taxpayers money'.

whatwhat wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Thorgut wrote:
Yeah, it doesn't matter if we're wasting money with X because we're already wasting it with Y!

Exactly! If you're doing it on such a mass scale anyway, why not go overboard!? I mean, let's face it, its our grandchildrens money we're spending now, so who cares anyway? Hurray for national debt!

A brilliant policy in Ketara. I've now determined you are either not in full time employment or are not even a taxpayer yet.

My policy? No, no, I can't take the credit for that one silly. That's the policy as ordained by our glorious leader and comrade Brown!

I'm actually currently a student working part time as a security guard and contributing towards the fat cats in Westminster just like everyone else. i like the implication that to have my point of view I have to be either immature or a benefits scrounger though. Nice shot. *congratulates on amazing discussion capabilities*

Orlanth wrote:

reds8n wrote:I am heartily intrigued though as to how those who are so staunchly defending the Monarchy now would be if they acted as many monarchs in the past have, which make our current political "elite" look like saints from heaven.

Indeed, and in my case how much I would not be criticising New Labour if Blair and Brown behaved like the far more ethical Labour leaders of earlier generations.

If Charles becomes king we will see what a bad monarch is in due course. However I am hopeful that he will step down in favour of Prince William who will make a good king. Just guessing here, but I half suspect that this was the deal by which he could keep Camilla. So baring assassination or other trajedy we might be looking at a competent monarchy for the forseeable future.
We cetainly need that, and yes if Her Majesty was a bad monarch we would likely have had abolition by now, after all the powerbrokers in Westminster are very unforgiving of other peoples perceived failures, as it draws attention away from their own.

I often wonder how things would be if John Smith hadn't died so suddenly and had .. ah well....

Charles I'm unsure about. I'm sure, essentially, that he's a sound enough bloke and ( as we've covered before) some of the pressures and situations the "firm"/he have been caught up in I feel very very sorry for them.

But... hmm... I dunno.... there's something... something.... hmm.. not slimey but... spoilt ? Ungrateful ? Not sure.

You're an old git like me : do you remember "To Play the King" part 2 of the Urquhart trilogy ? The sort of smug pseudointellectual pretension of the monarch in that...

.. that's my worry with Charles, he'll want to "help" and "be involved". It seems if all those stories about the letters he sends out are even half true, that he already wants to be a bit too much hands on.

Perhaps it might be the making of him though. ?

And why cant i attack Tony Blairs kids? Its fine for people to attack the monarchs en masse but i cant point out he is a spoilt little gaks as well? When i got sent to Iraq i recall seeing Cherie and Tony sobbing cos Euan was off to some top university in the US shortly afterwards, you know.. one that his dad wangled him a place at.

Because they're children who have nothing to do with any polices their family may have been involved in.

Many people's parents sob when their children go off to Uni. We do a roaring trade start of every term in tissues, cards etc etc.

When defending the Royal familt from "people attacking them" it's not the best argument to say that the PM/whosever children are "spoilt" and have things wangled for them.

You think Charles or any of his boys earnt their degrees or even their places at University ?

What was all that about Harry's coursework again ?

mattyrm wrote:Doubtless class warriors like whatwhat dislike them with such zeal because they know that if they were in their shoes they would lead a life of excess and contribute nothing.

Wasn't it you the other day who accused ME of being obnoxious and rude Matyrm? by the by, my issue with the royal family has nothing to do with class, and nothing I have posted even suggests that.

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Spending by the Queen as head of state increased by 1% last year to £35.3m

Ah yes, the bs 62p per head figure which has no inclusion of the huge police, military and transport bill which the royal family weighs up.

I would like to see the Civic list scrapped, so the arguments against the Monarchy being leeches are evaporated with a portion of the Royal estate funds being returned to the Crown. A net no change, or better yet increase in the Royal families accounts.

I just noticed how the report emphasised how the 8M GBP the Queen gets is 'taxpayers money'.

Did you just ignore what I just said entirely. The police, military and transport bill of the royal family will not appear in any report on the royal family, it will be mixed in with the figures in the reports of police, military and transport spending. All of which utilise taxpayers money.

Ketara wrote:I'm actually currently a student working part time as a security guard and contributing towards the fat cats in Westminster just like everyone else.

So you make no use of the tax reductions students can claim if in employment?

Ketara wrote:i like the implication that to have my point of view I have to be either immature or a benefits scrounger though. Nice shot. *congratulates on amazing discussion capabilities*

How exactly did I imply that?

Dont retort to whatwhat insulting you.. he gets upset by it.

And no mate, i didnt say you were insulting, i said you were just as insulting as everybody else but you play the victim when people answer you back. There is a sizeable difference.

mattyrm wrote:Dont retort to whatwhat insulting you.. he gets upset by it.

So I respond, therefore I'm upset? That how you work that one out?

mattyrm wrote:And no mate, i didnt say you were insulting, i said you were just as insulting as everybody else but you play the victim when people answer you back. There is a sizeable difference.

Ah this old chessnut. STILL waiting on an indication of where exaclty I'm 'playing the victim.'