Royal Family

Dick7Access

Dick S
Local time
Today, 18:34
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
4,325
This question is not meant to malign anybody. Just curious. Are the majority of the people in the UK in favor of supporting the Royal Family with tax dollars?
 
This question is not meant to malign anybody. Just curious. Are the majority of the people in the UK in favor of supporting the Royal Family with tax dollars?

Sure if you guys want to send your dollars over here to support them that will be fine :D , in the meantime we will just use the pound.

There has not been a referendum on this so the majority view is not known, I would like the number of minor royals supported curtailed, but then I am against the whole "titles" thing and an unelected House of Lords, however having a Royal Monarch does stop people like Cherie Blair being the First Lady.

Brian
 
Sure if you guys want to send your dollars over here to support them that will be fine :D , in the meantime we will just use the pound.
Brian
Surley you :D jest,
I don't even want my dollars support some of our own non-elected people.
 
As an American, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I think they should have been tossed out on their respective bums a long time ago.
I know they bring in the tourists. How about a zoo instead (complete with elephants)?
 
As an American, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I think they should have been tossed out on their respective bums a long time ago.
I know they bring in the tourists. How about a zoo instead (complete with elephants)?
Lib,
Your thinking like a Yankee. That's why we kick UK out of US, we didn't want a king over us, but these post they are putting up a financial picture. As I understanding the Royal F. have only ceremonial duties, and no ruling power. If the governments stops giving themRF money the government looses a lot of money. Supposedly Royal family could make more money if they took over counrol of there own land. Did I get it right UK?
did you ever offer them $24.00 :Dworth of trinket for there land?

While I'm here learning do I remember my history correct. UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Is that correct?
 
Lib,
Your thinking like a Yankee. That's why we kick UK out of US, we didn't want a king over us, but these post they are putting up a financial picture. As I understanding the Royal F. have only ceremonial duties, and no ruling power. If the governments stops giving themRF money the government looses a lot of money. Supposedly Royal family could make more money if they took over counrol of there own land. Did I get it right UK?
did you ever offer them $24.00 :Dworth of trinket for there land?

While I'm here learning do I remember my history correct. UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Is that correct?
You're probably right, but I'm sick and tired hearing about the RF and their petty little scandals and looking at their horse faces and how they're actually broke and the roof of the palace needs replacing. The Queen has some class but really, haven't they outlived their usefulness? Would people stop going to England if these ceremonial jokers were turned out? They'd still have Stonehenge and Abbey Road studios.
 
Very interesting! Do you think the average UK citizen have knowledge of this. Is it taught in schools.
I am not a citizen of UK, so I have not been fortunate to study in UK schools, but I think it should be highlighted. After all English colonization, and tradition is a great history, I don't think anyone would want to miss out on that. Unless they hate history or stories. :D
While I'm here learning do I remember my history correct. UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Is that correct?
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Ireland is now Republic, I think that was during somewhere around 1920's. Yes, the Queen is only the Head of the State, she cannot elect PM's or do anything to put people under the axe. She is just there, putting the royal crest on the bills passed by the Government (which by the way; is also elected by the people through general elections. Not the crown). She has to remain politically neutral !
How about a zoo instead (complete with elephants)?
Sure, why not Zoo's, but they do not make the news that often. As you have said in your next post. RF make the news,

Duke is sick - Queen has her knee operated - Prince is getting married - Pippa's bottom - Princess is pregnant. - Queen celebrates her 60 year reign over UK and commonwealth - A new Prince is born - New prince is named George.

This will attract attention, agree to disagree. Some make fun of it, some truly do take pride in it. The only reason people do not like the Royal Family is because, they are either jealous or they do not know what is truly going on in the background. Yes they need money to save the castles, they all form a part of the culture and heritage that Britain takes much pride in.
 
I just love this video about the Royal family : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

God save the Queen !

Some people complain about The Queen having all this land and us giving her all this money. After all, she wasn't elected.

But the Parliamentarian won the English Civil War, in 1651 by defeating and subsequently beheading King Charles I. As we didn't have a monarch wouldn't ownership of the land have transferred to Parliament?

In 1660 the monarchy was restored to King Charles II.

On 4 April 1660, Charles II issued the Declaration of Breda, in which he made several promises in relation to the reclamation of the crown of England. Monck organised the Convention Parliament, which met for the first time on 25 April. On 8 May it proclaimed that King Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the execution of Charles I on 30 January 1649.[7] "Constitutionally, it was as if the last nineteen years had never happened."

So, parliament give him back all his lands and parliament proclaimed his right to rule.

So the Crown owning loads of land and the current monarch sitting on the throne is probably down to parliament not the monarchy.

Like France we had a war (English Civil War / The French Revolution), got rid of the current monarch (King Charles I / King Louis XVI), then invited another one (King Charles II / Louis XVIII) back.
 
Last edited:
The royal's income and land ownership is slightly more complex than at first sight, nanscombe is correct to say that it is controlled by parliament, in addition to what he posted the following is a quote from Wikipedia


In Britain, the hereditary revenues of Crown lands provided income for the monarch until the start of the reign of George III when the Crown Estate was surrendered to the Parliament of Great Britain in return for a fixed civil list payment – the monarch retains the income from the Duchy of Lancaster.

However in addition the Duchy of Cornwall owned by Prince Charles generates income instead of payments from the civil list.

Brian
 
If Libre is going to adopt his usual offensive approach then I would say that I would rather have Phil and Liz as our number one family than the Clintons or the Bushes, I've already mentioned Cherie Blair so you needn't come back on our PMs .

Brian
 
Dick I thought that the excuse for the revolution was taxes, didn't know it was merely anti monarchist.

Brian
 
American Revolution

The American Revolution was a political upheaval, 1765–1783, as the Thirteen American Colonies broke from the British Empire and formed the independent nation, the United States of America. Starting in 1765 the Americans rejected the authority of Parliament to tax them without elected representation; protests escalated as in the Boston Tea Party of 1773, and the British imposed punitive laws on Massachusetts in 1774. In 1774 the Patriots suppressed the Loyalists and expelled all royal officials. Each colony now had a new government that took control. The British responded by sending combat troops to re-establish royal control. Through the Second Continental Congress, the Patriots fought the British in the American Revolutionary War 1775–83.

British parliament at the hub of it again and the Monarch getting the blame, nothing seems to change. :D
 
Dick I thought that the excuse for the revolution was taxes, didn't know it was merely anti monarchist.

Brian

The cry at the time was no taxation without representation. So I have read. I suppose that could be attribute to just taxes, but it seems to me to mean than they didn't like any one over them, but I could be wrong. I would not be surprised if someone who was to say that they found the real reason was the old saying, "follow the money". Just my thoughts. However I wasn't there. Secondly I am so tired of so many rewriting history that I don't trust much of it lots of the time. Thirdly, I am more future than history so I don't study it much.
 
If Libre is going to adopt his usual offensive approach then I would say that I would rather have Phil and Liz as our number one family than the Clintons or the Bushes, I've already mentioned Cherie Blair so you needn't come back on our PMs .

Brian
At least we can get rid of our 1st families.
At least they have to move out at least every 8 years.
At least they are not monarchs.
At least they're accountable to the people.

Offensive approach?
Don't get me started.
You had me apologizing to you the last time we tangled.
How often has THAT happened on this forum?
And I wasn't even wrong.
I'm TOO damned nice.
That's my problem.
 
At least we can get rid of our 1st families.
At least they have to move out at least every 8 years.
At least they are not monarchs.
At least they're accountable to the people.

Offensive approach?
Don't get me started.
You had me apologizing to you the last time we tangled.
How often has THAT happened on this forum?
And I wasn't even wrong.
I'm TOO damned nice.
That's my problem.

Don't fall for it!!!
 
However our "first family" neither make nor enact laws, nor do they collect taxes that's the function of our government (via parliament).

The Prime Minister, as head of the government, is probably closest in function to the US President.

We can get rid of our Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has to move out at least every time (s)he's ready to call an election.
The Prime Minister is not a monarch.
The Prime Minister is (theoretically) accountable to the people.
 
Last edited:
Offensive approach?
Don't get me started.
You had me apologizing to you the last time we tangled.
How often has THAT happened on this forum?
And I wasn't even wrong.
I'm TOO damned nice.
That's my problem.

You have an aggressive style of writing, you say that you don't have a dog in this hunt and then write offensively about the Royal Family, I am not a royalist but see no need to write "their horse faces"

Brian
 
You have an aggressive style of writing, you say that you don't have a dog in this hunt and then write offensively about the Royal Family, I am not a royalist but see no need to write "their horse faces"

Brian
This forum is a place to post opinions.
We rude and vulgar Yanks are used to doing just that.
That's because we never had a king that could chop our head off if we commented on his family's equine facial features.

I wonder why it's perfectly acceptable to state that that the Old Testament God - the object of my race's worship (although not necessarily my own) is a misanthropic monster - that's perfectly fine.
I (and many others) write pointedly sometimes.
Makes the forum interesting.
I prefer hot sauce to gruel.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom