What is the Queen for?
Discussion
I suggest you study the history of the UK, RH. The constitutional settlement reached by the C18 followed a long process of civil wars, one famous capital trial, and various deals and accommodations. It's not a simplistic tale, or a forensic one. By the C18 the UK was no longer an executive monarchy. It took until the C20 for it to become a democracy.
Breadvan72 said:
I suggest you study the history of the UK, RH.
Can you recommend a good book?Breadvan72 said:
The constitutional settlement reached by the C18 followed a long process of civil wars, one famous capital trial, and various deals and accommodations. It's not a simplistic tale, or a forensic one. By the C18 the UK was no longer an executive monarchy. It took until the C20 for it to become a democracy.
That still doesn't justify taking the royals' remaining assets now. To do so IMO requires a reason, not just 'because it makes sense'.Further to my earlier post, the single most effective and beneficial thing our Westminster political class could do to reinstate a sense of democracy and accountability in our present system is to immediately (or at least from the next election) introduce complete PR for the next parliamentary elections - if people feel their vote will count it could completely rejuvenate our political system. I used to view PR as offering weak European style coalition governments, but given the parlous state of our traditional parliamentary system I have been convinced for some time that this is only way to restore confidence it and to help get things back on track. The major parties will of course hold-out on doing this for as long as possible as they have so much to lose, but the raise of UKIP and the SNP may force their hand, esp. if Scotland foes decide to breakaway....
Blue One said:
Further to my earlier post, the single most effective and beneficial thing our Westminster political class could do to reinstate a sense of democracy and accountability in our present system is to immediately (or at least from the next election) introduce complete PR for the next parliamentary elections ...
Why would any winners instigate a system that would reduce their future power to the benefit of minority groups?Where do you morally draw the line, when it comes to conquest and land grabbing?
The Windsors
The Roundheads
The Tudors
The Normans
The Saxons
The Vikings
The Romans
The Celts (Mel Gibson)
The Greeks (Alexander)
The Persions (Xersies etc)
Ugg the Caveman and his mates?
At what point do you say 'this was the last person that really owned this item', before drawing a line in the sand.
Breadvan72 said:
RH, you appear to be under the misapprehension that Buck House etc belong to the Queen. They no more belong to her than 10 Downing Street belongs to the PM. The Queen does have houses that she owns, and if pensioned off could keep those.
She owns Balmoral.Will pay no IHT on it though.
Hol said:
For me, the argument that always seems to fall flat - is that the Royal families pocket money (Civil List) comes straight from the taxpayers pocket.
The Civil list is supposed to be funded ultimately by the Crown Estate, which generates hundreds of millions in profit more than they pay back to the crown.
Wherever/when ever you read about the civil list in books or on the internet, it always proclaims that as one of the agreements to its creation/why the government gifted the land to the people.
Why then, do we still hear arguments about 'freeloaders' and 'benefit' scroungers?
Because no one puts the other side of the argument properly, as you just didn't. The Civil list is supposed to be funded ultimately by the Crown Estate, which generates hundreds of millions in profit more than they pay back to the crown.
Wherever/when ever you read about the civil list in books or on the internet, it always proclaims that as one of the agreements to its creation/why the government gifted the land to the people.
Why then, do we still hear arguments about 'freeloaders' and 'benefit' scroungers?
For instance you might start with the fact that the civil list no longer exists.
REALIST123 said:
Because no one puts the other side of the argument properly, as you just didn't.
For instance you might start with the fact that the civil list no longer exists.
And you might continue with mentioning that the Civil List, a kind of Sovereign support grant, was replaced in 2011 by something called the Sovereign support grant, whilst complaining of course that others fail to advance the facts of an argument.For instance you might start with the fact that the civil list no longer exists.
Justin Cyder said:
REALIST123 said:
Hol said:
For me, the argument that always seems to fall flat - is that the Royal families pocket money (Civil List) comes straight from the taxpayers pocket.
The Civil list is supposed to be funded ultimately by the Crown Estate, which generates hundreds of millions in profit more than they pay back to the crown.
Wherever/when ever you read about the civil list in books or on the internet, it always proclaims that as one of the agreements to its creation/why the government gifted the land to the people.
Why then, do we still hear arguments about 'freeloaders' and 'benefit' scroungers?
Because no one puts the other side of the argument properly, as you just didn't. The Civil list is supposed to be funded ultimately by the Crown Estate, which generates hundreds of millions in profit more than they pay back to the crown.
Wherever/when ever you read about the civil list in books or on the internet, it always proclaims that as one of the agreements to its creation/why the government gifted the land to the people.
Why then, do we still hear arguments about 'freeloaders' and 'benefit' scroungers?
For instance you might start with the fact that the civil list no longer exists.
It's a real shame you fellas missed that bit.
Edited by Hol on Friday 12th September 20:30
Breadvan72 said:
RH, you appear to be under the misapprehension that Buck House etc belong to the Queen. They no more belong to her than 10 Downing Street belongs to the PM. The Queen does have houses that she owns, and if pensioned off could keep those.
What about the Royal Collection? IIRC that's conservatively valued at around £10 billion and worth quite a bit more than the houses and land. 
"The Queen has made a rare intervention on the political stage to express the hope that voters will "think very carefully about the future" before the Scottish independence referendum on Thursday.
Speaking after the Sunday morning service at Crathie Kirk near her Balmoral estate in Scotland, the Queen told a well-wisher: "Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/14/qu...
Speaking after the Sunday morning service at Crathie Kirk near her Balmoral estate in Scotland, the Queen told a well-wisher: "Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/14/qu...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff