Richard Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Do you think we should have a Queen / King or should we have a republic? I ask because of the "royal" wedding at the weekend. The new wife of Princess Anne's son gave up her religion so that he could retain his position as 11th in line to the throne. For me that was obviously so he could retain his privilege and whatever allowance he gets. So do you think we should retain the monarchy? Poll now added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 20, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 20, 2008 Republic and its throne. Thrown however is what they should be, thrown out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Firm Republican here. Not a fan of position/privilege through birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 Republic and its throne. Thrown however is what they should be, thrown outFreudian slip now altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Allowance from where, Richard? He doesn't receive anything from the civil list, I don't think. Maybe he's planning a bit of a coup? :winkold: Anyway, I'm a republican at heart - not that I don't recognize that our head of state does play a part in many things from ceremonial occasions to tourism to raising the national profile. At least the Queen is paying tax (whereas a great deal of those in the same bracket wealth-wise aren't). With a republic comes the difficulty of electing or appointing a head of state. The former would require great constitutional change and the latter - well, appointed by whom? We've had enough problems with peerages for sale let alone 'head of state'-ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 Allowance from where, Richard? He doesn't receive anything from the civil list, I don't think. I thoughtb his mother got an increased allowance based on her children and their closeness to the throne, I could be wrong. He still gets title and privilege from his position though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 20, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted May 20, 2008 Republic. Make the Royals live in a council flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I have changed my opinion completely, I am now a Royalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Allowance from where, Richard? He doesn't receive anything from the civil list, I don't think. I thoughtb his mother got an increased allowance based on her children and their closeness to the throne, I could be wrong. He still gets title and privilege from his position though Anne may receive some sort of allowance from The Queen but that would come direct from the Queen's coffers and not from the taxpayer via the Civil List. Peter Phillips doesn't have a title. Does he still work for Williams (F1)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 Title of 11th in line to the Throne! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJRM050389 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 The Royals bring in more income than what they get in benfits, although the benefits they get is too much (Prince Charles and his farms spring to mind) but as they bring in revenue they still have a use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 20, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 20, 2008 The Royals bring in more income than what they get in benfits, although the benefits they get is too much (Prince Charles and his farms spring to mind) but as they bring in revenue they still have a use. I'm sorry but has anyone ever actually quantified that line that always gets trotted out about them bringing in more revenue than they recieve? Its up there with "they do so much for tourism in this country", People do not come here because we have a royal family, they come here to see the sights just like they do everywhere else in the world And its quite possible to have a Royal Family and be a republic anyway, you just take away their constitutional entitlements, let them live their lives and tax the **** like everyone else. And the queen doesnt pay tax like the rest of us either, she just makes a "donation" to the public coffers, she hardly has customs & excise round inspecting the books does she Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Title of 11th in line to the Throne! Ok. I meant Prince, Lord, Marquis, Duke, etc. As pointed out earlier, though, 11th in line doesn't mean much - in fact he will only, in all likelihood, move further away from the throne (when other children are born) unless we have something akin to the Nepalese palace massacre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.I.C.O. Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Off with their heads! The French had the right idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 And the queen doesnt pay tax like the rest of us either, she just makes a "donation" to the public coffers, she hardly has customs & excise round inspecting the books does she Well, she (like Charles) pays tax voluntarily (since 1992) but I'd say that it is more than a 'donation'. (Though this is obviously speculation without the crown opening up its accounts to the public like Charles has done). I'd be pretty confident that she pays a higher amount in tax (and a higher proportion of her income) than the likes of Philip Green, Mittal, Abramovic, the bloke running Northern Rock, etc. Anyway, going a bit off topic, so I'll desist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 20, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 20, 2008 Nice position to be in though isn't it, to be able to volunteer to pay tax. Wish I could do that................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 .... its quite possible to have a Royal Family and be a republic anyway, you just take away their constitutional entitlements, let them live their lives and tax the **** like everyone else. And the queen doesnt pay tax like the rest of us either, she just makes a "donation" to the public coffers, she hardly has customs & excise round inspecting the books does she spot on Gareth. Keep the buildings/history, and have them as tourist attractions, relics if you like to a bygone age. The tourists will still flock to see the history, not the people, as you don't get to see them now anyway. I'd like an elected head of state i think, although i'm not sure i'd trust the general public to vote in someone suitable. we'd end up with someone like Jade Goody as head of state! we'd be a laughing stock ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Nice position to be in though isn't it, to be able to volunteer to pay tax. Wish I could do that................. I agree completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted May 20, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted May 20, 2008 All taxes should be voluntary (and with my asset-based taxation plan, they will be...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Republicans just want to kick the royals out so that there is more room at the trough. Ten years of New Labour have taught us that. President Tony and First Lady Cherie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts