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.

Don't the Royal estates generate more wealth then the Royal family uses? I seem to recall someone mentioning that the Royal's budget is completely generated by their private estate, and they turn over the surplus to the Government pretty much out of the goodness of their hearts.

The British do not live in a monarchy, a monarchy is ruled over by a monarch.

We have a titular monarch in an unwritten constitutional democracy.

It's far less costly than a president, attracts tourism and is a useful binding agent for the diverse cultural mix of our island states.

Her Madge retains lots of ancient powers on paper, none of them feasible unless somehow a lunatic assumed control of the isles and then Queenie can instruct the entire armed forces to stop following that person and depose them. And they would...

I consider the monarch to be a very good idea as a mostly harmless insta-celeb for boosting morale and opening stuff.

I view the thousands of peripheral hangers on with less favor.

 Salad_Fingers wrote:

Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis

Could we get some good old fashioned White Tower action going?

If anyone is interested.

A quick overview of the monarchys finances.

Roughly 33 million given
Over 200 million to the government from the crown estates.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-does-the-monarchy-pay-for-itself/10711

But doesn't include security. Feel free to browse and see what you think.

Anarcho-syndicalist communes tend to avoid the violence inherent to other systems.

 kronk wrote:
Anarcho-syndicalist communes tend to avoid the violence inherent to other systems.

And the occurence of orgies is a lot higher too!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Anarcho-syndicalist communes tend to avoid the violence inherent to other systems.

And the occurence of orgies is a lot higher too!

If you saw my neighbours then that's the very last form of government you want.

I'd rather the royal family than more politicians. Hell, I'd rather have a monkey throwing excrement at a decision board than politicians (and at least with the monkey it might get some things right ).

Federalism is the way to go.


Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Federalism is the way to go.


Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.

Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?

 Albatross wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Federalism is the way to go.

Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.

Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?

Particularly if you like castles... the git

 azazel the cat wrote:

Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.

Cromwellian England was a nightmare state of religious fanaticism and terrifying abuses of the people.

And you do know what he did to Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland

Anarchism.

Wait, what? No option?

Fine. Dump the monarchy, and overly lauded former politicians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flashman wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Federalism is the way to go.

Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.

Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?

Particularly if you like castles... the git

Hey, look, a southerner. Cool.

Anyway, I don't think we'll get another Cromwell.

Worth noting that much of the land that was seized during the Norman invasion remains in the hands of aristocrats.

Lord Grovenor, Duke of Westminister is the wealthiest British person, worth £7.3bn ($11.2bn), virtually all of it accumilated from land seized during the Norman invasion. I am ambivilent about the monarch, but would be quite happy to see this spanker's land confiscated and sold to private bidders pro bono publico.

What makes his seizure of land any different to the probable seizure of his holdings by ultra rich property tycoons?

Republic or go home.

 Albatross wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Federalism is the way to go.


Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.

Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?

Which considering the impressive record of many English monarchs is quite the feat of bastardry.

Albatross wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Federalism is the way to go.


Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.

Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?

Some English kings. And that's not the point.

 Da Boss wrote:
What makes his seizure of land any different to the probable seizure of his holdings by ultra rich property tycoons?

The transfer of wealth into public coffers.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Salad_Fingers wrote:

Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis

Could we get some good old fashioned White Tower action going?

Frazz, whenever Brits and/or Europeans have commented on threads about the 2nd amendment, you've always threatened to unleash an army of wieners on us. This is a thread about British monarchy, so I'm warning you to keep your Texas loving, Nancy Reagan loving, weak American beer loving, John Wayne loving nose out of our business!!
Do you think a weiner dog is a match for one of the queen's corgi dogs? Do ya??




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The British do not live in a monarchy, a monarchy is ruled over by a monarch.

We have a titular monarch in an unwritten constitutional democracy.

It's far less costly than a president, attracts tourism and is a useful binding agent for the diverse cultural mix of our island states.

Her Madge retains lots of ancient powers on paper, none of them feasible unless somehow a lunatic assumed control of the isles and then Queenie can instruct the entire armed forces to stop following that person and depose them. And they would...

I consider the monarch to be a very good idea as a mostly harmless insta-celeb for boosting morale and opening stuff.

I view the thousands of peripheral hangers on with less favor.

I've never bought the argument that the monarchy attracts tourists to Britain, because the French get more tourists visiting their palaces/castles than us, and their monarchy famously had a meeting with a sharp edge! Maybe it's the cheese?

Not having a go at you personally, but the thing about unwritten constitutions is that they are, er, unwritten!

Your average American can point to their constitution and amendments, but the average Brit? What have we got? European conventions? English Common law?

Since we have this pseudo-monarchy thing here too. And a new king being put on the throne in 2 weeks, I might as well add something.

Here the Queen got booted from any involvement in the forming of government not too long ago and honestly, since then, it seems like they are just over payed celebritity version of ambasadors.

At least our Queen is better then the brits, she at least waves.

 Soladrin wrote:
At least our Queen is better then the brits, she at least waves.

Our queen has her own *patented wave!

Have you never heard of 'The Royal Wave'?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/06/royal-wave-how-do-the-royals-do-it/

*not really, but it should be...

 Soladrin wrote:

At least our Queen is better then the brits, she at least waves.

Our Queen has nukes, yours has Edam.



But thanks for playing.

Not to mention that Liz could take Beatrix in a brawl.

What kind of Queen abdicates after only 33 years on the Throne? Workshy wench...

Now while obviously from a Canadian perspective, that thing with the Aussies and the GG dissolving an ineffectual parliament, it's just that, it's a way to have elections until someone gets the votes to either form a coalition or a minority government that can actually get things done.

Also, it's not like the royals haven't used their powers in good ways either, I'm pretty sure Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister of Britain by King George the VI. I don't remember an election for the position ever being held after the downfall of Chamberlain.

As for the monarchy, I love them personally. I would actually like them to take an actual greater role in politics then they do now, but I'm weird like that.

As to the poster who was aghast at the monarch or her representative having a veto power over a bill, it's no different then the President having a veto.

As an American, I definitely favor a monarchy. I feel like life long rulers tend to be more stable, and less drawn to crowd pleasing laws and movements in the pursuit of reelection.

 BryllCream wrote:
Worth noting that much of the land that was seized during the Norman invasion remains in the hands of aristocrats.

Lord Grovenor, Duke of Westminister is the wealthiest British person, worth £7.3bn ($11.2bn), virtually all of it accumilated from land seized during the Norman invasion. I am ambivilent about the monarch, but would be quite happy to see this spanker's land confiscated and sold to private bidders pro bono publico.

I'm down with that. Death to the monarchy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Salad_Fingers wrote:

Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis

Could we get some good old fashioned White Tower action going?

Frazz, whenever Brits and/or Europeans have commented on threads about the 2nd amendment, you've always threatened to unleash an army of wieners on us. This is a thread about British monarchy, so I'm warning you to keep your Texas loving, Nancy Reagan loving, weak American beer loving, John Wayne loving nose out of our business!!
Do you think a weiner dog is a match for one of the queen's corgi dogs? Do ya??

No no, I'm not commenting on the efficacious ness of monarchy vs. republic. I'm just the guy with a box of popcorn on the sidelines shouting FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[
Not having a go at you personally, but the thing about unwritten constitutions is that they are, er, unwritten!
Your average American can point to their constitution and amendments, but the average Brit? What have we got? European conventions? English Common law?

That is misleading, on my side, we call it unwritten but it is written, just not codified. Britain's laws, policies and codes are developed through statutes, common law, convention and more recently E.U law.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Also, it's not like the royals haven't used their powers in good ways either, I'm pretty sure Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister of Britain by King George the VI. I don't remember an election for the position ever being held after the downfall of Chamberlain.

That's more of a function of how our parliamentary system works - the PM is directly elected, the party with the overall majority forms the government, with the party leader assuming the role of Prime Minister. Upon Chamberlain's resignation, Churchill assumes the role of PM. All PMs have to formally ask permission from the monarch to form a new government, which in Churchill's case was a coalition. Chamberlain was still part of it before his illness forced him to step down, incidentally.

Huh, I thought it was more along the lines of, "Hey this Churchill fellow is a badass who loves gunboats and believes in the Empire, lets make him the next PM." kind of deal instead of being the next in line in the party succession.