[video] The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained

[Dos_Box]

Thought this was a really good explanation of how much the Royal Family actually costs us:

 

[fairm010]

That was actually really good!

[SpuffMonkey]

Yeah - but I'd still have the lot of them up against a wall...

 

Oh and I see France earns roughly 30% more tourist income than the UK and they got rid of their royals and stripped them of their land some time ago....I believe

Edited January 28, 2014 by SpuffMonkey

[Dos_Box]

Yeah - but I'd still have the lot of them up against a wall...

 

Oh and I see France earns roughly 30% more tourist income than the UK and they got rid of their royals and stripped them of their land some time ago....I believe

 

So, what you are saying, in essence, is that you would like to kill people you disapprove of and steal their possessions?

 

*backs slowly towards the door not trying to make eye-contact with Spuffmonkey*

[laserblazer]

Yeah - but I'd still have the lot of them up against a wall...

 

Oh and I see France earns roughly 30% more tourist income than the UK and they got rid of their royals and stripped them of their land some time ago....I believe

 

France is nearly 3 times as big as the UK, has winter sports, a Mediterranean coastline and is part of mainland Europe. Realistically, you'd expect a higher percentage.

[elsiegee40]

Yeah - but I'd still have the lot of them up against a wall...

 

Oh and I see France earns roughly 30% more tourist income than the UK and they got rid of their royals and stripped them of their land some time ago....I believe

 

If tourist income is what is important... the state of the overall French economy is much worse than ours at the moment! Tourist income isn't everything and I certainly wouldn't attribute theirs to the lack of a royal family... the climate south of Lyon has much to do with it. We just don't get the weather here.

[CAM]

They voluntarily give up a significant portion of their profits for the nation, allow tourists into some of their properties when they don't have to, act as a safeguard against some nutter seizing power in parliament (The Queen can dissolve parliament as a last ditch measure if they are really inept or dangerous), and royal events provide a significant boost to the economy. They also carry out public duties ranging from meeting foreign dignitaries to plucking civilians like you and me out of the sea in rescue helicopters. All whilst trying to balance family life in the public eye with wolves howling at the door to rip them out of power and kill them.

 

I'll keep the Queen on the front of my banknotes thank you.

[laserblazer]

The Queen can dissolve parliament as a last ditch measure if they are really inept or dangerous

 

and if she was forced to do it, there would be a few Challenger 2 tanks backing her up. Given the option of supporting the Monarch or the Government, I can hazard a guess which side the Armed Forces would be on.

[synaesthesia]

What does it say about the state of our politics when most of us would rather back a mad German family headed up by someone rapidly losing her marbles and her increasingly daft racist husband.

I know I do

 

Given the option though, it'd be nice to see Kate on the notes...

[GeekyPete]

and if she was forced to do it, there would be a few Challenger 2 tanks backing her up. Given the option of supporting the Monarch or the Government, I can hazard a guess which side the Armed Forces would be on.

 

It's the Queens armed services and they are in no doubt about that. Yes she can dissolve Government if it really came to it. The Americans do it another way. They call it the right to bear arms. It is actually in their constitution so they can raise a milita and protect themselves from THE GOVERNMENT. We don't need that because the forces are the Queens, not the governements, they just borrow them.

 

So another question

 

Queenie and her corgies or American Guns laws (or lack of). Think it through, Think of the kids in your schools. Would you want them to be able to buy guns and ammo in supermarkets at 16 or 18 yrs old?

[laserblazer]

someone rapidly losing her marbles

 

For someone approaching 90, she seems to be pretty compos mentis to me.

[sparkeh]

Regardless of financial concerns, the Monarchy is anti-democratic, unaccountable, unrepresentative of a modern country and harms us as a nation.

 

For example, the Royal Prerogative, which is now in the hands of the serving PM, allows for a huge range of actions to be taken without any vote in Parliament, eg going to War.

Another example is The Privy Council which can enact legislation without any vote in Parliament.

If we truly want to be a democratic country then we need to have a fully accountable governing body with an elected Head of State, not an unelected elite who have the power to pass any legislation without any debate or vote in Parliament.

[FishCustard]

Another example is The Privy Council which can enact legislation without any vote in Parliament.

 

Out of curiosity, has this ever happened?

[sparkeh]

Out of curiosity, has this ever happened?

Here is a list of Privy Council Orders up to Oct 2000: List of Privy Council Orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post Oct 2000 are available from the Privy Council website: Privy Council meetings | Privy Council

 

One notable case is the eviction of an entire island's inhabitants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom#Notable_orders

In the 1960s, the Privy Council made an order to evict the 2,000 inhabitants of the 65-island Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, in preparation for the establishment of a joint United States-United Kingdom military base on the largest outlying island, Diego Garcia, some 60 miles (97 km) distant. In 2000 the High Court ruled the 1971 Immigration Ordinance preventing resettlement unlawful. In 2004, the Privy Council, under Jack Straw's tenure, overturned the ruling. In 2006 the High Court of Justice found the Privy Council's decision to be unlawful. Sir Sydney Kentridge, QC described the treatment of the Chagossians as "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards". He said there was no known precedent "for the lawful use of prerogative powers to remove or exclude an entire population of British subjects from their homes and place of birth"

Disgusting, illegal and a result of Royal Powers.

Edited January 29, 2014 by sparkeh

[SpuffMonkey]

So, what you are saying, in essence, is that you would like to kill people you disapprove of and steal their possessions?

 

*backs slowly towards the door not trying to make eye-contact with Spuffmonkey*

 

If it was good enough for them, its good enough for me ;-)

[Dos_Box]

It's the Queens armed services and they are in no doubt about that. Yes she can dissolve Government if it really came to it. The Americans do it another way. They call it the right to bear arms. It is actually in their constitution so they can raise a milita and protect themselves from THE GOVERNMENT. We don't need that because the forces are the Queens, not the governements, they just borrow them.

 

So another question

 

Queenie and her corgies or American Guns laws (or lack of). Think it through, Think of the kids in your schools. Would you want them to be able to buy guns and ammo in supermarkets at 16 or 18 yrs old?

 

Actually, it's not strictly the Queens army. Whilst members of the forces swear allegiance to the monarch and the govt, the Army is one of the strange anomalies as regards it's history.

For instance, we have the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, but the army is known as the British Army. It's all down to the fact that the civil war was won by the parliamentarians and not the royalists and most regiments are descended from these.

It is also because of the outcome of the civil war and what Oliver Cromwell did next that we have a monarchy again*#

Primarily the head of state (be it a king or queen) has the ability to veto parliament. Not that this has ever been used afaik, but it does prevent the Prime Minister from declaring all out war on Tongo and Tobago without permission as they would have to go to the head of state to ask for it first.

The Queen doesn't wield ultimate power, she is there to prevent others from doing so (and vice-versa). And it's a good system that has worked well over the years.

 

*If you are a 'Geeker and not from the UK it is well worth reading up what Oliver Cromwell got up to after the civil war and what we did to him after he died.