endof Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Republican all day long,let's get the revolution going......anybody ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDrums Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Besides that, a President Blair and first lady Cruella? No thanks! Straw man/woman. See earlier lottery suggestion. You may watch for what you wish for snowy. Simon Cowell might make a Saturday night game show out of the whole thing. A similar production to that Red or Black lottery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 You may watch for what you wish for snowy. Simon Cowell might make a Saturday night game show out of the whole thing. A similar production to that Red or Black lottery. No, no. Quite safe. A purely random selection followed, swiftly, by the 'lucky' individual being whisked off the streets by the security services, escorted to the banks of the Thames and publicly lauded and annointed in some kind of Dennis Wheatley style pseudo satanic ritual (should start the aforementioned circle off perfectly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Would be just our luck that Britain is a republic before Australia is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomzep Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 After studying this at uni for a short while and stumbling over this video I decide we need to keep royals. This is a very basic explanatins but accurate http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbhyYgnhhKFw%26feature%3Drelmfu&h=4AQFkaTG7AQGCO3dpY9t-cgAjEJoXcnDqvrbNsWduBpbdWQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 ...This is a very basic explanatins but accurate... That's rather questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomzep Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 There is a lot of academic stuff to back it up, this is just a basic over view for youtube. I actually went into the project arguing for a [process to do a way with the royals. Afterlooking at what would be needed we would basically have to disregard all laws regarding private property and in effect have a revolution. Its far more complicated than simply cutting them off and also potential damaging to the nation. I can understand the ideological opposition to a royal family, I agree, but we find ourselves in a very difficult situation which isnt a simple for or against It was a few years back but ill see if I an find my essay to pull out some of the references I used that explain the legal and financial implications Basically my arguement ends up at we are too far gone with it now and make money off it so....... Id make a poor revolutionary I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDrums Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Point 1) They don't own the land in which they give away their so called profits. Point 2) The vast majority of the costs they incur are hidden by statue law and exempt from the Freedom of Information act, so it is next to impossible to know the final and absolute cost of this family. You then add in the cost of security, policing and costs to regional councils for photo opportunities and the estimated costs start to spiral out of control. There are far more costs of this family than the released figure of £40m. People still visit the Tower of London. They absolutely would still visit the palaces and other stately homes. They never get to see the Royals anyway, nor do tourists book holidays to fly over on the off chance Elizabeth looks out of her window. They visit to look at the actual buildings and landmarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsky_11 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 After studying this at uni for a short while and stumbling over this video I decide we need to keep royals. This is a very basic explanatins but accurate http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbhyYgnhhKFw%26feature%3Drelmfu&h=4AQFkaTG7AQGCO3dpY9t-cgAjEJoXcnDqvrbNsWduBpbdWQ would suggest that the original is perhaps a bit too basic and not entirely accurate. I'm sure that to present the true cost or otherwise of the monarchy, hundreds more factors would need to be considered on top of those featured in both videos. Fundamentally though, in my opinion, the moral objections to the monarchy that are touched on towards the end of the response video, eg. royal privileges, "subjects" vs. "citizens", separation of church and state, stand regardless of any monetary issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 22, 2011 Orf with their heads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomzep Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Point 1) They don't own the land in which they give away their so called profits. This is what I thought until I was forced to read about the subject and they do have property claims to land that the state makes huge sums from. Morally im with you, I dont belive in a royal family but they are well and truely entrenched and would be very difficult and complex to get rid of now. I hope I can find the article, its arguement is that paperwork and legality protects the royals more than the guards ever could or did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Royalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I don't care about them, I have no reason to be bothered about these people, much like I don't give much of a shit about any other Tom Dick or Harry. It doesn't actually over bother me that they make money for er... **** all. But I dislike what they represent, so, for want of a better turn of phrase, orf with their heads. Very much with the esteemed Chindleton on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I do find it stupid that some people are born into positions of power in this day and age but I am not really all that bothered about it so I will go with “ambivalent”... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Keep them. The stuff that doesn't get reported is how HM the Q has over 60 years of political and diplomatic experience. Every PM since Churchill has looked to her for advice and guidance on affairs of state. Even into her 80s she is one of the smartest and shrewdest people you would ever meet. Keep em - by all means shrink the civil list..... but keep them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Long Live The Queen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Royalist As Eames mentions no political politician in the UK for the last 30 years could go to a country and be followed everywhere, and raise the profile of the UK as much as they do. Not only that, architectural achievements in the name of the royals or as a result of the royals admiration for people is stunning. If we could turn back time and have no monarchy we would have very few or no castle and certainly no Blenheim Palace. Which if you have ever been to is pretty epic. All in the name of the duke of Marlborough was it? simply awesome. I am also not religious however some architectural structures created in the name of religion are just awe inspiring. So I wouldn't get rid of religion either no matter how foul it can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Royalist As Eames mentions no political politician in the UK for the last 30 years could go to a country and be followed everywhere, and raise the profile of the UK as much as they do. Not only that, architectural achievements in the name of the royals or as a result of the royals admiration for people is stunning. If we could turn back time and have no monarchy we would have very few or no castle and certainly no Blenheim Palace. Which if you have ever been to is pretty epic. All in the name of the duke of Marlborough was it? simply awesome. I am also not religious however some architectural structures created in the name of religion are just awe inspiring. So I wouldn't get rid of religion either no matter how foul it can be. It was a certain John Churchill, Duke of Malborough, who had a decendant called Winston..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Nobody should be above the law, respect should always be earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Nobody should be above the law, respect should always be earned. Disagree. The default setting should be to give respect to everyone unless they give you a reason not to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts