So you think our monarchy is symbolic, and therefore benign, do you?
01 December 2015, 11:53 AM
#121
Here you go: enjoy.
https://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances
And before you, or anyone, says it, it has as much credence as any other "evidence" on here.
PS: I'd forgotten the comic book quote. Thanks, it fits you royalists well.
https://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances
And before you, or anyone, says it, it has as much credence as any other "evidence" on here.
PS: I'd forgotten the comic book quote. Thanks, it fits you royalists well.
Last edited by alcazar; 01 December 2015 at 11:54 AM.
01 December 2015, 01:29 PM
#122
I don't for a second believe that the Monarchy/Republic debate is just about money, but if we're going to bring that up, the annual cost to the French public finances of all its living ex-Presidents runs to around 5M Euros a year:
http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/v...15-4485953.php
That of course doesn't include all of the expenses for the current President, the maintenance of former royal palaces like Versailles, and so on.
http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/v...15-4485953.php
That of course doesn't include all of the expenses for the current President, the maintenance of former royal palaces like Versailles, and so on.
01 December 2015, 01:43 PM
#123
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking a completely neutral stance, even the most dyed-in-the-wool republican can see that there is no mention of the costs of having the Royalty being offset by the income generated by the Monarchy in that piece.
Come on you can do better than that surely.
If not you'd better give up and let somebody else with a more cogent argument have a go
01 December 2015, 03:41 PM
#124
Scooby Regular
Talk about a one sided argument, that's nothing more than a petulant rant written by a jealous republican
Taking a completely neutral stance, even the most dyed-in-the-wool republican can see that there is no mention of the costs of having the Royalty being offset by the income generated by the Monarchy in that piece.
Come on you can do better than that surely.
If not you'd better give up and let somebody else with a more cogent argument have a go
Taking a completely neutral stance, even the most dyed-in-the-wool republican can see that there is no mention of the costs of having the Royalty being offset by the income generated by the Monarchy in that piece.
Come on you can do better than that surely.
If not you'd better give up and let somebody else with a more cogent argument have a go
so don't accuse it of trying to answer a question it is not really asking
it does not really tackle the VFM argument, although I accept that the implication is that they think monarchy is not
the "tourism argument" is dealt with in a different article - and also the fact that in reality the fact is you can't ague for or against the monarchy on an accounts spreadsheet - the arguments are deeper and more fundamental
all the actual article really says, if you read it - is that the finances should be more transparent, doesn't sound too controversial to me
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 01 December 2015 at 04:26 PM.
01 December 2015, 04:04 PM
#125
Talk about a one sided argument, that's nothing more than a petulant rant written by a jealous republican
Taking a completely neutral stance, even the most dyed-in-the-wool republican can see that there is no mention of the costs of having the Royalty being offset by the income generated by the Monarchy in that piece.
Come on you can do better than that surely.
If not you'd better give up and let somebody else with a more cogent argument have a go
Taking a completely neutral stance, even the most dyed-in-the-wool republican can see that there is no mention of the costs of having the Royalty being offset by the income generated by the Monarchy in that piece.
Come on you can do better than that surely.
If not you'd better give up and let somebody else with a more cogent argument have a go
Why didn't I see that?
Nope...won't wash, it's a credible as anything supposedly neutral you can find, sorry.
In any case, this whole thread has degenerated into money and VFM.
The original post was about misuse of royal power...which the FOI says HAS happened.
So lets get shut so neither queenie nor Charlie can do it (us) again.
01 December 2015, 04:42 PM
#126
Scooby Regular
Nicely thought out thread...let's take your last point: the royals aren't posting on here, so any insults are moot. I can take insults with the best, I just feel that a) they add nowt to the discussion and b) show a lack of any decent argument from the insulter...a bit like playground insults.
Anyway.....
I've rewad your evidence and refute it. If I could be bothered I could turn up the same "evidence" showing that they are the bunch of takers I've labelled them as....as Martin would say: "Google it yourself".
I could also find evidence for all SORTS of misdemeanours........but still you lot worship the ground they tread on.
Anyway.....
I've rewad your evidence and refute it. If I could be bothered I could turn up the same "evidence" showing that they are the bunch of takers I've labelled them as....as Martin would say: "Google it yourself".
I could also find evidence for all SORTS of misdemeanours........but still you lot worship the ground they tread on.
I had doubted that. Anyway, I'm a Scottish nationalist Jeff. I far from worship the ground they walk on. Quite the opposite in fact. But even I can see the value they have. 
Almost wanted to take you seriously up until then. Almost.
01 December 2015, 05:24 PM
#127
You takes your choice.
Bitter? No....just despairing of a nation that wants to be infatuated with someone just because of who they were born.
But then...any nation that can base 50% of it's prime time TV on bullying, belittling and otherwise abusing people, HAS to be weird.
Bitter? No....just despairing of a nation that wants to be infatuated with someone just because of who they were born.
But then...any nation that can base 50% of it's prime time TV on bullying, belittling and otherwise abusing people, HAS to be weird.
01 December 2015, 09:58 PM
#128
You takes your choice.
Bitter? No....just despairing of a nation that wants to be infatuated with someone just because of who they were born.
But then...any nation that can base 50% of it's prime time TV on bullying, belittling and otherwise abusing people, HAS to be weird.
Bitter? No....just despairing of a nation that wants to be infatuated with someone just because of who they were born.
But then...any nation that can base 50% of it's prime time TV on bullying, belittling and otherwise abusing people, HAS to be weird.
02 December 2015, 09:41 AM
#130
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a good idea.
Oh wait a minute don't we already do that?
And look at the list of successful and popular leaders that has produced.
Heath.
Wilson.
Callaghan. (who?)
Thatcher. (war monger)
Major (who?)
Blair. (another war monger)
Brown (
)Cameron. (Wait for it!).
So what kind of process does it take to 'find the BEST person for the job' in your view?
Last edited by Blue by You; 02 December 2015 at 09:42 AM.
03 December 2015, 12:02 PM
#134
Someone who wants the job, lays out what he/she wants for the country, is intelligent and motivated, and most of all, isn't just born to the "right" family?
Change every five years if not satisfactory, voted in again if doing a good job.
Symbolic, with no real power. gets paid a decent wage, but doesn't own huge tracts of the UK and five places all upkept by UKPLC.
03 December 2015, 01:55 PM
#135
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that's not exactly a precise criteria for selection is it? How would you enforce somebody who doesn't want it to take the job on?
Don't all electoral candidates do this? Anyone for the Monster Raving Loonies?
Intelligent? By who's standards is that going to be assessed? Are you suggesting we get applicants to sit an aptitude test.?
Motivated? By what? Power, money, ambition. Hmmm see point 1.
Maggie Thatcher was a Grocer's daughter, she managed to get elected to the highest civil office. Not too popular to most as I recall, so jealousy and snobbery don't equate to the selection of a suitable figurehead either.
Sounds just like a system already in operation to me.
So what you're asking for is an altruistic, benevolent, and obedient toothless tiger.
What a lot of old tosh!
Don't all electoral candidates do this? Anyone for the Monster Raving Loonies?
Intelligent? By who's standards is that going to be assessed? Are you suggesting we get applicants to sit an aptitude test.?
Motivated? By what? Power, money, ambition. Hmmm see point 1.
Maggie Thatcher was a Grocer's daughter, she managed to get elected to the highest civil office. Not too popular to most as I recall, so jealousy and snobbery don't equate to the selection of a suitable figurehead either.
What a lot of old tosh!
03 December 2015, 02:19 PM
#137
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amongst pretty stiff competition, this has to be one of the most absurd exchanges I've read on S'net. I'm sorry to criticise you, Alcazar, but you're so far off the mark it's untrue - everyone else, stop wasting your time refuting this madness!
03 December 2015, 03:00 PM
#140
03 December 2015, 05:30 PM
#141
Still laughing at the ineptitude of some posters on here.
You haven't an argument? Just resort to insulting the poster.
Honestly, if you can't see that, I'm wasting my time.
As for a head of state, well anyone could do the job our royals do, and a damned site cheaper too..
But you lot are still ducking the original question, which wasn't about should we HAVE a royal family, it was about how they comport themselves as regards legislation.
I wonder how many of you royals ALSO support the idea that an unelected house of lords should, and does, change legislation?
You haven't an argument? Just resort to insulting the poster.
Honestly, if you can't see that, I'm wasting my time.
As for a head of state, well anyone could do the job our royals do, and a damned site cheaper too..
But you lot are still ducking the original question, which wasn't about should we HAVE a royal family, it was about how they comport themselves as regards legislation.
I wonder how many of you royals ALSO support the idea that an unelected house of lords should, and does, change legislation?
03 December 2015, 06:37 PM
#142
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as regards ducking the original question goes, your own second post in this thread was 'off topic' by implying the Monarchy extract their living from the British public.
In fact you were the first one to venture off topic in your own thread by hinting at the cost of the Monarchy, so who are you to determine what others choose to debate on a public forum?
03 December 2015, 11:34 PM
#145
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm out.