Printable View
If we (the UK) were to get rid of HM the Queen and the monarchy in general what would we do with them?
What do they acutely mean by getting rid of them (throw them out of the country, ignore them, just stop her from having the right to make decisions or just cut her of from government funds.
Would she still have the right to call herself the queen?
And finally do you actually think that there is any point in getting rid of her?
Happy birthday to her (two birthdays a year just plain greedy)
You get the ankles and I'll get the wrists.
There is no model in the world that either works better or is less expensive than the monarchy. Getting rid of them would be a terrible mistake that would be difficult to reverse.
~:smoking:
your joking right?
You guys should take away her status, if she protest...civil war (which she'll lose in 3 days:2thumbsup: )
Im anythink but a monarchist, but I dont see the point in getting rid of Lizzy. The style of government in the UK, where the power is de facto with the Prime Minister, but where there is still a need for a figurative head of State, why the hell not just keep her in place. We have a similar enough system in that we have a PM (Taoiseach) and then a President who does next to nothing except finally sign legislation when its gone through the bicameral system. Presidential elections every 7 years are a joke here. The last one went UNCONTESTED! Imagine that! So why not just enjoy the fact that the Monarchy brings hundreds of thousands of eager tourist to London each and every year.
All UK military personnel swear to serve the Queen, so if the military does it's duty, chances are she will win.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
I believe funding of said military is a different story, but I'm sure they could last long enough to seize Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Attestation
http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...m/monarch.html
http://www.serendipity.li/more/monarch.htm
''Startling new facts came to light in research for a Channel 4 programme on Richard III. The historian Michael K Jones had uncovered what appears to be strong proof that the 15th-century English monarch Edward IV was, in fact, illegitimate, thus throwing the legitimacy of all the kings and queens who followed into question. In fact, it appears that the royal line should have extended, not through Edward, but through his brother, George, Duke of Clarence, and his heirs.''
Erm, her line is from Germany...
~:smoking:
Well it could be worse. We could have President Bliar..(jeez) or President Prescott. :sweatdrop:
At least Prescott would be willing to give 'good 'ol boy' Shrub a 'Kirkby kiss'...now I'd pay for a ticket for that.
:2thumbsup:
Doesn't matter. *Checks British royal desent* Henry VII's (as Henry Tudor) claim to the throne is based on his marriage to Elizabeth of York. King Edward VI daughter. The Stuarts claim is based off of James I great-grandmother being Henry VII's daughter Margeret. The Hanovrian claim comes from George I's grandmother being James I daughter Elizabeth. So you see if Edward VI is illegitimate then all who came after him are too. After all they didn't just toss George I the throne for no reason right?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And I've seen that show Byz-merc is linking too. That man Michael is an Auzzie. Or rather is a naturalized Auzzie who happens to be a peer of the (British) realm.
And they got in through the Stuarts who got in through the Tudors who used Edward's legitimacy as their basis of power (Damn, beaten to it). Either way it doesn't bother me that much. They worked their way onto the throne.. good for them. Perhaps it would be better if they weren't there, but given how well many of us live would you really want to risk such a major change? Personally I can understand Republicans and Monarchists.. the problem is they both generally say the same things.Quote:
Erm, her line is from Germany...
Besides.. if we did kick out the royal family we couldn't just pull a Russian and shoot them all. We'd be doing Republicans in Canada, Australia, and certain other Commonwealth nations a favour, aye, but to a certain extent wouldn't that be like declaring war, explicitly killing off their Head of State and all? Add on to that the fact that the Windsors own a fair chunk of Britain regardless of their station.
Psst, I've got a suggestion on how to get rid of a monarchy... http://matousmileys.free.fr/fluester.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts
Psst, I've got a suggestion on how to get rid of a monarchy...
Do we have to supply our own wool for the knitting ?
As Arthur Scargill said on Question Time back in the 80's, "I am sure we could find her a nice little cleaning job" - or words to that effect.
Kick the leechers out, at least politicians are accountable.
She costs me $4 a year.
To the lions. :stupido:
LOL! :laugh4: Politicians accountable. That'll be the day. I'd actually be curious to see how much and to whom the public purse pays to the royal family.
The monarchy will be in trouble when old big-ears assumes the throne. Is there anybody in Great Britain that actually likes this clown?
On the other hand, you may have a resurgence of popular suport of the crown with those two young scrapper princes there. A couple of storybook princes, they are. Who was it- William or Harry that demanded to "serve in combat"? Good lads. :2thumbsup:
edit: BTW, it seems the monarchy these days is at the mercy of the populace, much as is a politican.
I say keep 'em, for tradition alone. God knows the Crown won't extend the veto. It would be "Republic" from shore to shore!
"God save the Queen!", but maybe we could chuck out that incessant Charles :hanged:.
P.S: Isn't it hung, not hanged?
A person is hun, dead meat is hanged. So technically both takes place...
There have been problems with the Monarchy before. Victoria was not liked, George III was mad.
Charles has more substance in his little finger than most politicians do in their whole bodies'. He has beliefs and sticks to them. He doesn't lie to hide what he has done, and doesn't change his views as the fickle public's short concentration flits to a different issue. The Princes Trust quietly helps people, as opposed to Dianna's Trust which appears to be better at fame than doing anything.
The populace seems to be mainly ambivalent about the monarchy until someone tries to get rid of them. But then that's England all over: muddles along until some sod tries to pinch something, then focused as a sex crazed rhino on acid.
~:smoking:
Leave her in place, she has no power and the NET cost to the country is nothing.
anybody that cant see that, needed their bumps checking over by a doctor. That is of course if you can find one. :laugh4:
Hehe the French model for abolishing monarchy :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Why, the royal family is like a huge tourist attraction, and if there was a civil war id Be royalist all the way and die for it.
Without the queen the English are just Americans with bad teeth an funny accents. There my hat is in the political arena
Since we are civil, unlike the Greeks, she would keep the bulk of the Crown Estates and the Royal Collection as private property. If she was cut from government funds, them she would presumably take up her own income which currently goes entirely to HM Treasury to be spend as public funds and such, like our taxes. This income amounts to £180+ million, which far outstrips the monies she receives from the government for State business. The public purse would be out of pocket by a considerably sum...Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts
And just like the Greeks, the Germans, and so on, our Queen would still be able to call her self HM Queen Elizabeth, like HM King Constantine
Do you have hard figures for those assertions? Not that I don't believe you but I'd just like to see some figures that the government has put together (aausming they exist at all :sweatdrop:).
Being as Chuckles will be my king too I can say I'd have him as my monarch. His problem is that he's socially inept, and a wierdo. But if I was in his place I doubt I'd come off any different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Harry, either in Afghanistan or Iraq. Not sure which place. Chances are though that he'll go. His grandmother sent his helicopter pilot uncle to the Falklands in '82. The MoD was ready to keep Andrew home too. But the Queen said he's a serving officer if his unit is deployed he'll be going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Ahahaa, its the other way round mate, the americans are just english with a funny accent and weight problems and no monarch.
It was taking too long to traipse around the website of HM Treasury only to find how much it spends...Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Here's something from the Crown Estate
So basically all the private property owned by the royal family is managed like a corporation. All of it's profits are turned over to the treasury each year as taxes. Is the landlord on over 10000 tenancies all over the UK. And has extensive mineral rights, gold and silver on shore and all offshore save hydrocardons. Damn!, all corporations should be run like this. That's what I was looking for. :2thumbsup:
Touche:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ragnar
Getting rid of the queen will hurt tourism alot... I think.
hmm... I don't think that the Queen should be overthrown... but maybe Prince Charles as no one likes him should be limited in what he can do after the illegitimate marriage to Camilla [also hate her]
He should be banned from becoming the King! :inquisitive:
You are aware that you don't get to vote for kings? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraWar
Well it would be possible to get him to step down as King if he becomes King if there is a overwhelming majority.... which last happened around 1936...Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I enjoyed the trooping of the colour today, what would we have in it's place eh? A 41 gun salute to Blair and big gurning cherie? It would be horrible...
I wouldn't think so... I would guess it would be a anti-Eric Bauman march...Quote:
Originally Posted by Masy
The abdication of Edward VIII had nothing to do with the voters, but with the opinions of a select group of political advisers who were concerned about a constitutional crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraWar
The average joe quite liked Edward, since he was good-looking, a playboy and filled the tabloids. Much better than a stammering, shy fella with a stern scottish wife... :dizzy2:
As some pro-monarchists have claimed as the reason for keeping the monarchy, it's precisely because it isn't a popularity contest. For that, you get a president.
Lol sending the welsh guards in their bearskins and red tunics to go and blow up his servers for public amusment...I like it! Screw the queen, who needs her anymore!?!? Down with Bauman!!! ahem...Quote:
I wouldn't think so... I would guess it would be a anti-Eric Bauman march.
I'm not particularly fond of a head of state that we can't get rid of, but I would be willing to keep the monarchy, if only because of the difficulty of changing the whole constitution of the land. What I am concerned about is the sweeping powers of the Royal Prerogative. I'm not concerned about the monarch misusing these powers, but rather the executive. The prime minister, who is not directly elected into that post, can declare war without referral to Parliament, just by telling the monarch to use the Royal Prerogative. I think this has to change.
Nah mate it'll never happen...Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
WAIT!!! it already has....:wall: :sweatdrop:
If the Queen did do that, it was the darkest hour of the Monarchy for a long time.
Monarchy is supposed to block measures that abuse powers, no facilitate them.
~:smoking:
Actually, the monarch has very limited powers to block anything without provoking a full-blown constitutional crisis. She is there to give assent, in that power is considered still to derive from the Crown, not the people. But exercise of that power is entirely down to the people's representative Parliament and its executive, which the monarch may not gainsay.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The Queen does not use the Royal Prerogative, the Prime Minister does. He does not have to ask her for permission, but if he does, she has no choice but to give her assent.
The Queen is blameless in any use of the Royal Prerogative.
Thank you for that clarifcation.
As you might be able to guess, I'd be keen for power to be further spread than it currently is. The Commons can force something through on an issue that was never mentioned at an election up to 6 years previously against the wishes of the populace, the Lords and the Monarch.
If not directly the Monarch saying in extremely rare cases "No", then I feel that having the legislation placed for review by a royal Commission should be possible.
I don't feel that this should be happening every 2 months, but I feel that the option should be there.
It has been shown that the PM can effectively wield dictatorial powers when the Commons is sufficiently cowed. A undemocratic balance to guard against undemocratic abuse.
~:smoking:
England is not England without the Queen. Monarchy rules! :2thumbsup:
Theoretically this is possible, even under the settlement of 1688. However, it would need an Act of Parliament to derogate to a Royal Commission and provide the powers of review to that commission. Currently (you guessed it) only the PM can set up a Royal Commission.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
In addition, this is what the House of Lords is supposed to do as the second chamber. Even stuffed with pork barrel appointees it still does on occasion.
But with the Parliament Act, all these avenues can be overruled. The constitution would need to be refined to make these minor irritations into a genuine system of checks and balances. But since the PM would be changing the constitution to reduce his powers, its not very likely to happen, methinks.
As it is, the British Prime Minister has all the powers of an unrestrained monarch. Parliament is supposed to be there to hold the executive to account, but with the party system being as it is, there are precious few checks on his almost absolute power, save a tedious election every four or five years. (And he even gets to choose when that will be!)
So, far from scrapping the Queen, it should be scrapping the PM!
~:smoking:
From an enhancing democracy perspective, damn right! Though I prefer your traditional method of dealing with untrammeled autocrats:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
'Off with his head!'
(Just think of the ticket sales - clear the national debt in no time). :balloon2:
May I be the first to volounteer to wield the axe. I'm afraid I'm not that good at using it, and it'll probably be rather blunt... But hell's bells he's earnt it :2thumbsup:
~:smoking:
I thought the Queen had no real power, but if you must rebel, go the full 100% and start a coup de'etat. We have no such problems, hahahaha!
Actually, thats how it used to go. The Monarch requests the axe, and a novice exicutionar!Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
If the Queen were to address the nation and say "I will not give my assent" to X Bill then the Speaker couldn't stamp it and it couldn't pass into law, if he did it would cause a constitutional crisis that, legally, would probably come out with the Queen on top.
Our William III in the 19th century once refused to sign a law, after wich the government under Thorbecke offered their resignation out of principle (and received it). That was the only such incident though, modern monarchs can't afford to be so arrogant.
Did that ever happen in the UK?
Pitt the younger regarding equal rights for Catholics in Ireland. King refused to sign the bill, so Pitt resigned.
~:smoking:
Isnt that just like getting rid of the emporer of Japan? it is a ceremonial title isnt it? upholding traditions that have existed since the dark ages.
A Texan speaks French: definitely a sign of the Apocalypse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Except that the Emperor is still decended from the sun and he was always a figurehead more than anything else. Remember Shogun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal99
Remember the history PDF from the WArlord CD. The Shogun ruled in place of the Fujiwara PM's who ruled in the place of the emperor.
Henry VII does not claim legitimacy through his wife, as such a case has never happened in England since women are allowed to assume the throne. Henry VII claims his right through his mother who was the great-grandaughter of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
So far as I can see the only objection to getting rid of the queen is that all those things with "Royal" in their name would sound silly. Try it. Her Majesty's ship Invincible of the Royal Navy has a ring to it, but "Ship" Invincible of the "Navy" is daft.
Otherwise though, its a bit much if we have to keep hold of that prat Charlie just to entertain tourists. All this talk of the Royals not costing anything is total cobblers, where did all this land and stuff that they own "privately" come from, eh? What were they doing, saving their green shield stamps really carefully until they popped down the Co-op one day and found they had enough to buy Cornwall?
Anyway, we have a perfectly good king, King Arthur. He never exactly died, and he is supposed to be the King again in the future at some point, so I say we kick big ears out after Brenda pops her clogs and declare the throne vacant pending Arthur's return from Avalon. Problem solved.
Then, where did anyone's ownership of anything come from?
I'd happily have Charlie with more power if it stops creatures as Tony having more.
~:smoking:
Well, in my case I went to work, got paid, paid my taxes, paid into my pension plan, paid for my food and clothes, and then what I had left over I spent or saved up. That's basically where everything I own came from.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Even if Charlie saved really really hard, I somehow don't think he paid the mortgage on Windsor castle from his brief stint playing sailors.
I feel you're missing the point.
Where does ownership for anything come from? Go back far enough and ownership always comes to people having land as they'd kill anyone that tried to take it. That's been dressed up down the centuries, but it comes back to that.
Items are inhereted, and why does inhereted belnogings not count in Charles's case?
~:smoking:
Far from missing the point that is exactly my point. I, in common with most people, have earned what little I own. Charlie hasn't. So, when someone says "oh, they pay their way, they aren't a burden on the taxpayer", the answer is cobblers. They pay their way on the basis of land and assets that at some point have been expropriated from their rightful owners, ie the people.
I'm glad you referred to inheritance though, because inheritance does apply to us all, or anyway, anyone with money, and you are right, charlie should have the same rules are the rest of us. So once Brenda pops off to ask God what he does for a living, Charlie should get £ 285,000 tax free and pay 40% inheritance tax on the rest, same as I'd have to.
Oh, but wait. He won't have to pay any bloody inheritance tax: http://www.guardian.co.uk/queenmothe...712192,00.html
Quote:
Paul Flynn, Labour backbencher and veteran republican, said yesterday: "If some of the richest people in the country can avoid inheritance tax, why not the butcher or baker, or anyone on a lower income than the royal family? Anyone who owns a house in London these days will be liable to have inheritance tax levied on their estate. This [expletive deleted] must end
You talk as though there was some time that the people who lived in this land owned it all. They never did. Many businesses grew from the landlord class. Many large landowners still exist. Many magnates have massive fortunes. They don't seem to be the target of your wrath. Why is this? All didn't earn it (which in essence seems to mean that the money you get is fine even though it is given to you from backers that for some reason don't deserve it).
Inheritance tax can easily be avioded by transfering assets 7 years before death. So, by passing on assets to both Charlie and his sons there would be nothing, or little to tax. It is often called "idiot's tax" as it is so easy to aviod with foresight.
~:smoking:
[Pedant on]Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
You can't use Greensheild stamps at the Co-op.
[Pedant off]
:laugh4:
What of say, the Rothschilds? I'm sure that the latter members of the family have not worked as hard as the first Rothschilds who made the family fortune, much less than most people. On the other hand, they are much, much richer than most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
You say that the land was expropriated from the people. The fact is, the land was never expropriated from the people since they never owned it in the first place.
Perhaps Charles ought to pay inheritance tax. However, as revenue from all royal estates passes into government coffers, whether or not he pays inheritance tax makes little difference, since it all goes to the government anyway.
I'm in favour of a tax on idiots too, and the Royal family would certainly be liable for that.Quote:
It is often called "idiot's tax".
Now, what's with all this the people never owned the land business? Who did own it then? When the Beaker people got here, just after the glaciers, the white cliffs of Dover didn't have a big Foxton's To Let sign on them did they? You wouldn't say, for example, that the estate that now belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall was created by a massive bit of armed robbery round about 1066 or so? And did the enclosure acts never happen?
ASs for the Rothschilds (actually, lets assume someone like Bill Gates, since I suspect the Rothschilds history is pretty murky) I don't care so much because (1) the fortune came from someone working or taking a financial risk or having a good idea and (2) Bill Gates doesn't think I should kiss his backside just because he is the son of Mrs Gates.
I don't know what you mean about revenue from the royal estates going to the government, but if you mean the crown estate that's mainly because the crown estate is used as a convenient catch all for a lot of public sector land holdings. Eg DVLA take land in the name of the crown estates but if Liz is down in Swansea processing road tax I'd be surprised.
But look, gang, this is basically an emotional judgement. Charlie is stupid. Charlie is a prat. Charlie think's he is important. Any two of those things I might live with, but its three strikes and out. Frankly I say we just make huim illegal.