nfr....the cost to the taxpayer and the country for this wedding.

[GoldCoastWhite]

Now should we still have a Royal Family OR become the same as the USA or Australia. Should we remain unique or become the same as everybody else?

....Ay ??? Last time I checked HRH was the queen of Australia and a referendum held in late 1999 resulted in a majority voting to maintain the status quo, rather than accept the proposed republican model offered. I'm sure we will become a republic eventually but current polls suggest that the probability of William becoming king will see Australia retaining the monarchy for the immediate future. Not overly fussed one way or the other personally, probably put myself in the "pragmatic monarchist" camp for the time being, whilst open to debate.    

Sorry, it is just the Aussies act all Republican and have prime ministers who touch her Madge. We just feel so dirty when her Madge is touched in an inappropriate way.  :021:

Ah yes, "The Lizard of Oz" - I remember it well !  :019:

[SG]

What I do know as a FACT is that by declaring the day a public holiday 'Dave - we're all in this together' - has cost my business £10,000 in lost margin/profit that we will never recover. A drop in the ocean to the Royals and their ilk. I wont be watching a minute of the thing. Down to the County Ground, Hove provided the game goes into day 4

[White Noise]

Redskins - Bring It Down

[White Noise]

ITV - No-one does it better!

ITV Granada - Royal Wedding Live

[AlFayedsChequebook]

As someone who hates royalty and all that comes with it, I have actually been less and less bothered about this event.

IF we are to keep a Royal Family the following things must occur:

1) No more taxpayer subsidies - they own plenty of land in the UK, they should be self sufficient
2) All royal palaces should become publicly owned
3) The British Constitution should be revised and the royal family completely expunged from it - I realise this is very difficult, but hey ho.

I actually feel sorry for Kate - no job, just touring various countries shaking hands with fools desperate to feel subservient. If she is not looked after well, she will end up messing about.

Vive La Revolution!

[TonyGilroy]

The whole hereditary thing bothers me and is inexcusable. It embarrasses me.

Someone has to do the ceremonial stuff and better it not be the serving prime minister if only because he's got better things to do and is always a partisan figure but it should be possible to find worthy non political people, respected by most, who could submit themselves to a 4 yearly election with only one term possible.

The sort of people that become university vice chancellors but on a much larger scale.

No political power merely a respected person to represent the nation.

Judi Dench? Vera Lynn? Stephen Hawkins? Bobby Charlton?

[AlFayedsChequebook]

The whole hereditary thing bothers me and is inexcusable. It embarrasses me.

Someone has to do the ceremonial stuff and better it not be the serving prime minister if only because he's got better things to do and is always a partisan figure but it should be possible to find worthy non political people, respected by most, who could submit themselves to a 4 yearly election with only one term possible.

The sort of people that become university vice chancellors but on a much larger scale.

No political power merely a respected person to represent the nation.

Judi Dench? Vera Lynn? Stephen Hawkins? Bobby Charlton?

Why is it the English feel the need to keep some form of hereditary power within the framework of government? It took years before the peers stopped being hereditary.

[White Noise]

Why is it the English feel the need to keep some form of hereditary power within the framework of government? It took years before the peers stopped being hereditary.
[/quote]

I guess its the tradition/heritage thing. The same outmoded concept that keeps people believing we will stay at Craven Cottage.

[sipwell]

As someone who hates royalty and all that comes with it, I have actually been less and less bothered about this event.

IF we are to keep a Royal Family the following things must occur:

1) No more taxpayer subsidies - they own plenty of land in the UK, they should be self sufficient
2) All royal palaces should become publicly owned
3) The British Constitution should be revised and the royal family completely expunged from it - I realise this is very difficult, but hey ho.

Vive La Revolution!

England/Britain has a constitution?  :58: :58: :58: Where have you been hiding it? How come you only tell us now? What...wait...where?

As for numbers 1 and 2: replacing the Royalty with a president (elected or not) will cost at least as much money. There is plenty of research on that. The German, Italian (non-elected but appointed and powerless presidents) presidency cost as much as the Belgian Royal family...
It would surprise me if the palaces weren't publicly owned as they are part of the political structures of England/UK. These can never be in private hands.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

As someone who hates royalty and all that comes with it, I have actually been less and less bothered about this event.

IF we are to keep a Royal Family the following things must occur:

1) No more taxpayer subsidies - they own plenty of land in the UK, they should be self sufficient
2) All royal palaces should become publicly owned
3) The British Constitution should be revised and the royal family completely expunged from it - I realise this is very difficult, but hey ho.

Vive La Revolution!

England/Britain has a constitution?  :58: :58: :58: Where have you been hiding it? How come you only tell us now? What...wait...where?

As for numbers 1 and 2: replacing the Royalty with a president (elected or not) will cost at least as much money. There is plenty of research on that. The German, Italian (non-elected but appointed and powerless presidents) presidency cost as much as the Belgian Royal family...
It would surprise me if the palaces weren't publicly owned as they are part of the political structures of England/UK. These can never be in private hands.

The British Constitution is supposedly spread across several documents, but cannot be found as one singular document.

Not suggesting putting pointless presidential figures in place, just that the current royal family use their generations of wealth built on the backs of the ordinary Britains to fund their jollying around the world/at home.

Amazingly, the royal residences are all privately owned by the family. They only open up bucks palace when they need more cash.

[King_Crud]

Now should we still have a Royal Family OR become the same as the USA or Australia. Should we remain unique or become the same as everybody else?

....Ay ??? Last time I checked HRH was the queen of Australia and a referendum held in late 1999 resulted in a majority voting to maintain the status quo, rather than accept the proposed republican model offered. I'm sure we will become a republic eventually but current polls suggest that the probability of William becoming king will see Australia retaining the monarchy for the immediate future. Not overly fussed one way or the other personally, probably put myself in the "pragmatic monarchist" camp for the time being, whilst open to debate.   

Sorry, it is just the Aussies act all Republican and have prime ministers who touch her Madge. We just feel so dirty when her Madge is touched in an inappropriate way.  :021:

well she is a lovely bit of totty that Liz.

[sipwell]

As someone who hates royalty and all that comes with it, I have actually been less and less bothered about this event.

IF we are to keep a Royal Family the following things must occur:

1) No more taxpayer subsidies - they own plenty of land in the UK, they should be self sufficient
2) All royal palaces should become publicly owned
3) The British Constitution should be revised and the royal family completely expunged from it - I realise this is very difficult, but hey ho.

Vive La Revolution!

England/Britain has a constitution?  :58: :58: :58: Where have you been hiding it? How come you only tell us now? What...wait...where?

As for numbers 1 and 2: replacing the Royalty with a president (elected or not) will cost at least as much money. There is plenty of research on that. The German, Italian (non-elected but appointed and powerless presidents) presidency cost as much as the Belgian Royal family...
It would surprise me if the palaces weren't publicly owned as they are part of the political structures of England/UK. These can never be in private hands.

The British Constitution is supposedly spread across several documents, but cannot be found as one singular document.

Not suggesting putting pointless presidential figures in place, just that the current royal family use their generations of wealth built on the backs of the ordinary Britains to fund their jollying around the world/at home.

Amazingly, the royal residences are all privately owned by the family. They only open up bucks palace when they need more cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace
Quote: "The palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the British state. It is not the monarch's personal property." It is a political building hence cannot be owned by individuals.

If you want to scrap the Royal Family you will HAVE to have a replacement in the form of a president. I am a "royalist light" (for Belgium that is) because a president would do considerable worse.

There is no British constitution, hence you cannot change it. There are rules but no documents :)

[AlFayedsChequebook]

As someone who hates royalty and all that comes with it, I have actually been less and less bothered about this event.

IF we are to keep a Royal Family the following things must occur:

1) No more taxpayer subsidies - they own plenty of land in the UK, they should be self sufficient
2) All royal palaces should become publicly owned
3) The British Constitution should be revised and the royal family completely expunged from it - I realise this is very difficult, but hey ho.

Vive La Revolution!

England/Britain has a constitution?  :58: :58: :58: Where have you been hiding it? How come you only tell us now? What...wait...where?

As for numbers 1 and 2: replacing the Royalty with a president (elected or not) will cost at least as much money. There is plenty of research on that. The German, Italian (non-elected but appointed and powerless presidents) presidency cost as much as the Belgian Royal family...
It would surprise me if the palaces weren't publicly owned as they are part of the political structures of England/UK. These can never be in private hands.

The British Constitution is supposedly spread across several documents, but cannot be found as one singular document.

Not suggesting putting pointless presidential figures in place, just that the current royal family use their generations of wealth built on the backs of the ordinary Britains to fund their jollying around the world/at home.

Amazingly, the royal residences are all privately owned by the family. They only open up bucks palace when they need more cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace
Quote: "The palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the British state. It is not the monarch's personal property." It is a political building hence cannot be owned by individuals.

If you want to scrap the Royal Family you will HAVE to have a replacement in the form of a president. I am a "royalist light" (for Belgium that is) because a president would do considerable worse.

There is no British constitution, hence you cannot change it. There are rules but no documents :)

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

Interesting stuff, you are of course correct that the government 'own' bucks palace and Windsor, although there is some sort of contract to the Royal Family for use.

However, you have offered me no explanation as to why a single family should continue to hold a position of much influence (official or not) rather than an elected official.

[Lighthouse]

Verily I say onto you tishposh. Elected officials have hardly made our country a place where fair maidens, or not so fair for that matter, can travel safely without being bothered by the commoner.

We did try and have a civil war, but the riff raff became involved. We ended up wanting to make Laurence Olivier Cromwell a king in all but name. Then when he died his son was pushed forward. So elected officials are not the answer. Nor is Judi Dench or Bobby Charlton.

We have a history. They do more good than harm. Which is more than many elected officials can say.

Tony Blair would cause a war by openning a fete. The Royals are what they are. Nothing better has come along and until it does. Down with Popery.

[sipwell]

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

Interesting stuff, you are of course correct that the government 'own' bucks palace and Windsor, although there is some sort of contract to the Royal Family for use.

However, you have offered me no explanation as to why a single family should continue to hold a position of much influence (official or not) rather than an elected official.

I am not arguing in favour or against a monarchy. The mere point I want to make is that people tend to forget that a presidency costs a considerable amount of money too but is not necessarily a guarantee to continuity (look at Germany where a president had to resign because of disgraceful political comments). A Royal family IS a guarantee to continuity of power as they are bound by the constitution (or constitutional rules in Britain) to guarantee the survival of the state.

In the literature, a King/Queen is often described as someone who stands in front of the throne (rather than sits on the throne). He or she guards the absolute power of the state from being usurped by one individual (or a group of individuals). The Prime Minister, in other words, can never claim to have the "absolute power" in a nation and he/she will always be checked by a King/Queen who protects the country from dictatorship.

Of course, excesses like Royal Marriages are ammunition to scrap the whole thing. At the same time, how often do you have a royal marriage of this scale? Once every twenty years. Then again: it is easy to calculate the cost but very difficult to calculate the profit for they are not all expressed in material terms. Royal marriages in the past, for instance, have brought in contracts with big businessmen who were invited to attend the wedding. Etc. etc.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

Interesting stuff, you are of course correct that the government 'own' bucks palace and Windsor, although there is some sort of contract to the Royal Family for use.

However, you have offered me no explanation as to why a single family should continue to hold a position of much influence (official or not) rather than an elected official.

I am not arguing in favour or against a monarchy. The mere point I want to make is that people tend to forget that a presidency costs a considerable amount of money too but is not necessarily a guarantee to continuity (look at Germany where a president had to resign because of disgraceful political comments). A Royal family IS a guarantee to continuity of power as they are bound by the constitution (or constitutional rules in Britain) to guarantee the survival of the state.

In the literature, a King/Queen is often described as someone who stands in front of the throne (rather than sits on the throne). He or she guards the absolute power of the state from being usurped by one individual (or a group of individuals). The Prime Minister, in other words, can never claim to have the "absolute power" in a nation and he/she will always be checked by a King/Queen who protects the country from dictatorship.

Of course, excesses like Royal Marriages are ammunition to scrap the whole thing. At the same time, how often do you have a royal marriage of this scale? Once every twenty years. Then again: it is easy to calculate the cost but very difficult to calculate the profit for they are not all expressed in material terms. Royal marriages in the past, for instance, have brought in contracts with big businessmen who were invited to attend the wedding. Etc. etc.

I think the issue is more that I struggle to see how a society that see's itself as democratic and free, can also uphold an institution that encourages hereditary power. Modern History has taught us that kings and queens are outmoded forms of government and that although it comes with inherent difficulties, it is better to allow people the freedom to build up their own lives and fortunes regardless of background.

I have little faith in politicians, but have even less in a monarchy.

What irritates me is that Britain has a unique opportunity to pave the way in modern democracy yet stubbornly holds onto its traditional values for no real good reason, other than a rose tinted nostalgic belief that being British means being a royalist. Some of the greatest minds to come from this country such as Locke or Paine were anti-monarchy and some of the most influential people, such as Cromwell mentioned above, held the same beliefs.

Politically, Britain is a relatively stable place, people actually listen to and debate opposing views and I really believe that a republic would actually work well in Britain, since people show more of an ability to work together and a penchant for acceptance and understanding (despite what the daily mail will tell you).

[sipwell]

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

Interesting stuff, you are of course correct that the government 'own' bucks palace and Windsor, although there is some sort of contract to the Royal Family for use.

However, you have offered me no explanation as to why a single family should continue to hold a position of much influence (official or not) rather than an elected official.

I am not arguing in favour or against a monarchy. The mere point I want to make is that people tend to forget that a presidency costs a considerable amount of money too but is not necessarily a guarantee to continuity (look at Germany where a president had to resign because of disgraceful political comments). A Royal family IS a guarantee to continuity of power as they are bound by the constitution (or constitutional rules in Britain) to guarantee the survival of the state.

In the literature, a King/Queen is often described as someone who stands in front of the throne (rather than sits on the throne). He or she guards the absolute power of the state from being usurped by one individual (or a group of individuals). The Prime Minister, in other words, can never claim to have the "absolute power" in a nation and he/she will always be checked by a King/Queen who protects the country from dictatorship.

Of course, excesses like Royal Marriages are ammunition to scrap the whole thing. At the same time, how often do you have a royal marriage of this scale? Once every twenty years. Then again: it is easy to calculate the cost but very difficult to calculate the profit for they are not all expressed in material terms. Royal marriages in the past, for instance, have brought in contracts with big businessmen who were invited to attend the wedding. Etc. etc.

I think the issue is more that I struggle to see how a society that see's itself as democratic and free, can also uphold an institution that encourages hereditary power. Modern History has taught us that kings and queens are outmoded forms of government and that although it comes with inherent difficulties, it is better to allow people the freedom to build up their own lives and fortunes regardless of background.

I have little faith in politicians, but have even less in a monarchy.

What irritates me is that Britain has a unique opportunity to pave the way in modern democracy yet stubbornly holds onto its traditional values for no real good reason, other than a rose tinted nostalgic belief that being British means being a royalist. Some of the greatest minds to come from this country such as Locke or Paine were anti-monarchy and some of the most influential people, such as Cromwell mentioned above, held the same beliefs.

Politically, Britain is a relatively stable place, people actually listen to and debate opposing views and I really believe that a republic would actually work well in Britain, since people show more of an ability to work together and a penchant for acceptance and understanding (despite what the daily mail will tell you).

***geek alert***

The idea that the hereditary power is inherently undemocratic is actually a fallacy. Any governing power/decision is necessarily an expression of the people's will. Those who were legitimately in power opted for a royal family way back (look at Belgium for instance). The "people" - who hold the sovereignty - can decide to scrap the royal family as they are the only ones holding the power. The fact that they don't do so has many causes (laziness, tradition, power politics, ...). That doesn't make the institution undemocratic as it was installed by the sovereignty of the people. The case of Britain is, of course, rather unexceptional but then again... the Parliament gave the power back to the Royal family, hence have taken the democratic decision to opt for a constitutional monarchy. You can oppose that but you can never say it is undemocratic.

Every political system with a royal family has such a family for one reason or another. In Belgium we have a royal family which is above the inherently big societal divisions (Walloons vs. Flemings; Catholics vs. Atheists). The King is hence a neutral figure (at least in public). Britain will have similar reasons (keep Scots, Welsh and English together by placing one person who is neither of the three and all three at the same time) to cling on to the monarchy.

The British political system works because it is a "winner takes all" system (FPTP). If Britain is going to evolve towards a more proportional system, you will see that the debate will get tougher and the extremes will get a say too. That is what you see on the continent (Belgium for instance) and it is a more rightful expression of the true sentiment of the populace. Unfortunately it also shows a fairly grim picture of that population :)   

[jarv]

Mr. Sipwell, like your comments, very thoughtful.

I, like others, detest these wasters. If anyone thinks they are worth their money, lets see some real cost /benefit analysis, like any business and prove it.

As for their land, they didn't buy it. They were not given it, like in America when the settlers arrived (who had to work the land which was the condition I believe.)

Their nasty, cruel ancestors stole it from the peasants and then worked them like slaves, taking all the money in the form of "taxes". Driiving families into starvation and illness.

IT IS TIME TO GIVE THE LAND BACK to it's rightful owners. The British people. They have enough money, they can just fade away and do whatever they want. I hear Monaco is a nice place. If not big enough, try Montana, awsome place! :011:

[TonyGilroy]

As for their land, they didn't buy it. They were not given it, like in America when the settlers arrived (who had to work the land which was the condition I believe.)

Their nasty, cruel ancestors stole it from the peasants and then worked them like slaves, taking all the money in the form of "taxes". Driiving families into starvation and illness.

IT IS TIME TO GIVE THE LAND BACK to it's rightful owners.

I think I'm right in saying that the Native Americans who had populated the land for thousands of years were delighted that hard working European immigrants were willing to work the land and herd the few survivors into reservations after a quick dose of genocide.

[finnster01]

As for their land, they didn't buy it. They were not given it, like in America when the settlers arrived (who had to work the land which was the condition I believe.)

Their nasty, cruel ancestors stole it from the peasants and then worked them like slaves, taking all the money in the form of "taxes". Driiving families into starvation and illness.

IT IS TIME TO GIVE THE LAND BACK to it's rightful owners.

I think I'm right in saying that the Native Americans who had populated the land for thousands of years were delighted that hard working European immigrants were willing to work the land and herd the few survivors into reservations after a quick dose of genocide.

:011: :clap_hands: