SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   72,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About SE23.com | Advertising | Contact | |
 Armstrong & Co Solicitors



Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (3): « First < Previous 1 [2] 3 Next > Last »
The Royal Family: response to Roz
Author Message
exfhpat


Posts: 15
Joined: Jun 2011
Post: #21
16-06-2011 08:54 AM

Now I used to always be anti royals, yet what is the alternative, a president maybe who is elected, do we want the UK to go down the same road as other Countries with this process

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sherwood


Posts: 1,412
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #22
18-06-2011 07:23 PM

We will still have a head of State. Presumably the costs of a Head of State will be the same as for a monarch. But this will also incur the additional expense of an election.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
roz


Posts: 1,796
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #23
20-06-2011 01:03 PM

The election could always be held at the same time as a general election or local elections in order to save money. At least we don't have to fund the weddings and funerals of their family members....

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
exfhpat


Posts: 15
Joined: Jun 2011
Post: #24
20-06-2011 01:17 PM

No President Blair would just steal it

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sherwood


Posts: 1,412
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #25
20-06-2011 01:32 PM

William and Catherine's wedding was "supposed to be a small family affair"! I don't think the state funded it. Quite the reverse. It raised revenue for the UK.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #26
20-06-2011 02:44 PM

I think all these economic arguments distract from real reason for abolishing the monarchy - it is undemocratic.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #27
20-06-2011 03:09 PM

I think more people would prefer to abolish Bob Crowe and he might claim to be democratic.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #28
20-06-2011 03:14 PM

But that's not an argument for abolishing something that IS undemocratic, is it, Brian?

I think the arguments about whether or not the monarchy is value for money is beside the point. Can someone tell me why we need a head of state, whether hereditary or elected, given that the Prime Minister basically performs all the political functions of a head of state already?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
michael


Posts: 3,255
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #29
20-06-2011 03:56 PM

I don't think the argument is really about democracy since the monarchy has no real constitutional power.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #30
20-06-2011 04:48 PM

Quote:
Can someone tell me why we need a head of state, whether hereditary or elected, given that the Prime Minister basically performs all the political functions of a head of state already?

Most (all?) democratic countries either have a head of state with executive power, as in the USA, or split the jobs of head of state (hereditary or elected) and de facto head of government (i.e of the executive), typically a prime minister accountable to the elected legislature. We fall into the second category.

The role of the head of state in the second category is to be symbolic representative of the nation, mostly for ceremonial purposes, but often with reserve powers, which may seldom or never be used, but which are available if for one reason or other the parliamentary system suffers a serious crisis. An example is when the King of Spain successfully called upon the armed forces to obey the elected government when a group of army officers attempted a coup in 1981.

In my view the advantages of a hereditary rather than an elected head of state are, first, that they are not seen as creatures of party politics, which arguably helps them to be more effective as symbols of national unity; and, secondly, because the hereditary principle is a powerful symbol of the continuity of our national institutions. (To be fair however I should however perhaps point out that in another thread Baboonery described this argument as 'nauseating claptrap'.) The Queen is directly descended from the Saxon kings who first formed the English national state, from William the Conqueror and from the old Scottish kings. I think that is nice; it gives me a warm glow.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #31
20-06-2011 05:05 PM

We are all descended from someone, right back to the apes. So does it makes you feel warm inside that the Queen's lineage is better documented than yours or mine? Geneticists have proved that all modern Europeans are related in some extremely distant way to Charlemagne. In which case, I'd quite like to be Emperor of Europe, please. Or has Tony Blair already got that one sewn up.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #32
20-06-2011 09:32 PM

Quote:
We are all descended from someone, right back to the apes

.
Indeed, but in most cases all we inherit from them is our genes, not our jobs or ranks or titles. The thing about the British monarchy is that it's been in the same family (well, more or less), and for much of the time in the direct line, for twelve hundred years or so. In my view, that's a really powerful symbol of continuity. And the fact that it's fully documented makes it even more so.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #33
20-06-2011 09:40 PM

We shall just have to agree to disagree on this one, Robin. They very thing that appeals to you about the monarchy - a long line of people who have inherited a job with great wealth and power attached - is the very thing that I object to about it.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #34
20-06-2011 09:54 PM

But, as I've said earlier in this thread, the Queen has very little power, and there are quite a lot of people who are richer than she is.

I meant to mention your aspiration to be Emperor of Europe, Rachael. One of my secret (until now) dreams is that the EU should agree to reconstitute the Electoral Council and that our Queen should then be elected Holy Roman Emperor (Empress?) But no doubt you could stand against her - I'm sure you could do the job with style and élan!

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
notstoppin


Posts: 32
Joined: Jun 2009
Post: #35
01-07-2011 07:59 AM

Roz is surely right when she points out that our royal family appears to be a good deal bigger, more expensive and more influential than other surviving European monarchies? Given the current economic crisis, now might be a good time to do a little pruning. After all, as that nice Mr Cameron keeps telling us, "we all have to make sacrifices; we're all in this together".

Of course, no-one can really justify the retention of the monarchy - even if it does generate a surplus for the British economy. (So did the slave trade.) The question is what you would put in its place. An elected President? If we'd had a Presidential system since the war, we might well have had both Thatcher and Blair as Head of State. Worse still (if that's possible) the next Presidential election would probably be between Boris Johnson and Simon Cowell!

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
michael


Posts: 3,255
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #36
01-07-2011 08:25 AM

notstoppin wrote:
now might be a good time to do a little pruning

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13984364

Quote:
Chancellor George Osborne has outlined plans for a new Sovereign Grant, which would see the amount of funding for the Royal Household's public duties lowered by 9% in real terms by 2015.
...
Mr Osborne said the Royal Family will "do as well as the economy is doing".

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
notstoppin


Posts: 32
Joined: Jun 2009
Post: #37
01-07-2011 10:29 AM

I was thinking of pruning their numbers rather than just their budgets. There are so many of them. At least with a President, the taxpayer doesn't have to keep all their relations.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
roz


Posts: 1,796
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #38
01-07-2011 07:59 PM

The Catholic Church had the same idea about supporting the families of its priests and I agree entirely

Its a great move and I never thought it would be the Tories who did it however 9% isn't a great deal and I still would want to see it was more than a publicity stunt.

The Telegraph had a very indignant headline today about the royal family being stripped of their dignity. As if the rest of us aren't being so.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #39
05-07-2011 12:08 PM

Roz
I thought Catholic Priests did not have families ( except parents that is ).

Be happy for Our Royal Family . They are a great plus factor for Britain.

They cost a fraction of the benefit frauds and at le

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilson


Posts: 19
Joined: Feb 2010
Post: #40
06-07-2011 08:21 PM

Priests used to have lots of children which is why the Catholic Church instilled celibacy in its staff to avoid having to pay for them. There is nothing in the Bible about priests having to be celibate- even Jesus had a family apparently after all.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields