Sunday, December 30, 2007
Support for monarchy steady
Despite the anti-monarchist sentiment expressed in barrel loads here, support for the British Monarchy remains high. The 80% support for the Monarchy now, and 70% when Charles becomes King is about the same as in this poll more than 18 months ago.
Michael Shilliday @ 02:34 PM
just goes to show that the british do not base their opinions and are brained washed.
up the republic
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 03:31 PMHeck,
You are clearly an uneducated buffoon. Please attend an adult literacy course before posting any more crap!
God Save The Queen!Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 04:22 PMyea
I have an idea for a head of state--let’s take a not very bright german family, inbreed them, and as long as they don’t become catholic let’s worship them. We can make sure that men have a preference over women for monarch-(and attack arab countries and kill people to liberate their women!) We can take the philanderers and make them head of our church. We can fund a lot of hangers on who are descended from court pimps and prostitutes.
and if anyone questions this well they are “clearly an uneducated buffoon”. II are you sure you are note related to the royal family -I suspect your parents are cousins.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 04:44 PMIntelligence Insider,
You are clearly a literate buffoon. God Help The Queen!Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 04:44 PMMeanwhile, the Nepalese parliament just overwhelmingly voted to disband their monarchy.
Strange old world.Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 04:44 PMheck and Pancho’s horse,
Remember that the British (or at least the English) did once abolish their monarchy.I am in favour of the monarchy but do have considerable sympathy for the idea that there is “None King save Christ alone”. Remember not the Boyne but Naseby anyone? Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 05:20 PMthe idea that anyone has a divine right to rule, to live lavishly and freely at the expense of those they are supposed to serve is the anti-thesis of democracy.
If the British sorry English want a monarchy let them pay for it…Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 05:25 PMTwinbrook,
1)The Monarchy hasn’t ruled by divine right for hundreds of years
2)We do pay for it. 61p per year.Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 05:38 PMBy we of course I mean British taxpayers.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 05:51 PMis it per taxpayer or is it per person? also if its so little then you monarchists won’t mind paying for those republicans amongst us that don’t wish to pay for the monarchy at all.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 05:58 PMThen you wont mind paying for roads I don’t use, hospitals and schools I’ll never visit.......and at the end of the slippery slope you’ll have started everywhere but the South East will be economic wastelands. If you want a republic vote for a party that will give you it.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:03 PMif you`re going to post figures please ensure they`re correct.
That figure of 61 pence has already been shown to have emanated from the one of the Royal PR`s and has no basis in fact..
The true cost of the British Monarchy is hidden and is NEVER revealed...neither are the true taxes the British Queen pays and on what basis she taxed…
As to divine right that was a figure of speech but still one based on reality...remember the British Queen still holds a position outside the realms of the law and the LIMITED British constitution…Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:04 PMIt’s these petty little irritants which will set Ireland free so don’t knock them. The further England retreats into becoming a quiet little Ruritania the easier will be the break when it comes.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:06 PMI can’t find any reference to those figures being discredited. The civil list is regularly published.
Are your taxed published? Mine neither. Neither should they be.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:09 PMwhen in a hole stop digging...............
I don`t live lavishly at the expense of the British state and the British taxpayer…
I, whether I like it or not pay taxes to the British state which are all above board and not hidden for the sake of “national security”....
As to the British civil list....why are these Windsors better than any other British citizen and why are they afforded a place above the rest of the population and the British Queen afforded a place outside British law and the British constitution?Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:15 PMMainly as all laws are in her name and my her authority, but clearly you’re not very familiar with such basics of the constitution you live under.
And it’s not so much national security as personal privacy. The civil list is about 8 million a year, the rest of the Families income is private income they accrue as anyone else does.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:20 PMbut the the British Queens position is based on historical precendent and tradition and as such has no basis in the British written constitution unless you know better?
Fact the British Queen holds a position outside the laws of the British state...has powers such as the right to annul parliament which make a laughing stock of the Glorious Revolution....Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:29 PMAny criticism of the Royal Family on the basis of their cost is as well founded as the “taxpayers money” criticism of civil service costs - time and again these have been shown to represent a fraction of a fraction of a per cent of total public expenditure. Does it stop people shouting for cuts in the civil service? :)
I think at present - and for the foreseeable future - the existence of the monarchy is a net benefit to the coffers of UK PLC. That is its guarantee of continuity.
The recent BBC series on the Queen et al’s activities showed her to be a grumpy old woman made so by a combination of stultifying routine, mind numbing ceremony and deference and her own more than slightly autocratic and anal personality. Anyone else see the bit where she was looking at her watch to ensure the cannon salute (to her of course)was EXACTLY at 1pm?
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:31 PMYou aren’t quite grasping this, laws are in her name, she couldn’t possibly be outside the law.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:35 PMagain you misrepresent the civil list...can you gave me one reason why this Windsor family should be treated better than any other British subject? Why are they afforded an exclusive, elitest position within British society? Why is this family given state hand outs, live at the states expense and have a position well above the standard of their British subjects?
As to the civil list,the British Queen agreed to some of this out of her own fortune on the basis that HER taxes were Never open to the scrinity of the elected representatines the Bristish Electorate have voted in to represent them…Doesn`t sound like open democracy…
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:38 PMI suspect the British monarchy-as an institution is very secure.
the institution and the Queen herself remains popular throughout the UK.
Possibly the institution is least popular in Scotland, though Salmond has played a clever hand on this.
Separating both issues of independence and the Crown.Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:39 PMagain you refuse to answer any direct questions and try and fudge the subject and throw some personal abuse?
You highlight clearly your ignorance of the British constitution, written and unwritten, the importance and the relevance of tradition and historical precendent and more importantly the LEGAL position of the reigning British Monarch.
Maybe you should research a subject before you start a thread?
And as to the Glorious Revolution...how has the British Monarch negated this?Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:43 PMThe bizarre situation is this:
England is oft cited as being post-Christian yet why do they hanker after the Monarchy?
In a devious way we need only look back to the connivance of the Royals during the outbreak of World War II but then in contrast the Concord signed by Rome with Hitler was just as bad.
A continuance of cutting both ways yet again.
Personally, apart from foreign affairs and formation of links across the world to form British foreign policy, given Britain’s historic links, would losing the Monarchy really impact on British life other than to tidy up democratic rule?
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:55 PMThe “cost” of the monarchy is discussed at some, albeit hostile length (but not fully quantified) at http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon5.html
Even the figures there are a couple of years out-of-date.
The “61p” figure per person is pure drivel: a more realistic estimate might be around £180M in total. In any case, the British monarchy is by far the most expensive around.
Since the monarchy is purely ceremonial, comparisons with (say) the US President do not work. Now, ex-Presidents are a different matter: the Toledo Blade extracted the figures from the Congressional Record—see http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070107/NEWS09/70107004
This suggests a cost of less than $3M a year for the then-surviving four ex-Presidents.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 06:59 PMFascinating links Malcolm - Lizzie has 307 staff - that’s more than a decent sized factory.
Posted by on Dec 30, 2007 @ 07:24 PM
