I've reccent written this article on the monarchy, and submitted it to several forums. On them a general consensus has arisen and it is largely among Americans. Many of them have the opinion that the Monarchy is a great asset for the UK, do you agree? The article is below: http://integraltruth.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/yacht-for-the-queen-is-she-worth-it/
Oh, for a second, I thought you were talking about the Obama administration. In my opinion, the monarchy can be an asset as long as the UK wants them to be or permits them to be. Society generally stratifies itself and creates classes based on what that particular group of people consider important, so even if the UK gets rid of its historical monarchy (along with its historical roots) the society there will not be a classless society. Look at American society. We have our own parasitical creatures who have their own perceptions of their entitlement: politicians in federal office and Hollywood celebrities who are famous for being famous. Personally, I'd rather have a monarchy and know where everyone is supposed to stand.
I stopped reading halfway through the article and I have to say, this is actually a 50/50 issue because it is similar to the United States and what the government thinks it's entitled to. Granted here we don't have a hereditary thing going on but I personally believe that it's wrong. Why on earth would the people give in to such a person just for the purpose of her power in goverment? I'm never going to fully understand why she thinks she controls everything because it robs the people of believing in either a republic or democracy. It's almost a downright communism if you look at it really. How free are the people really under her reign?
Not real sure what powers you think the queen has LOL she is a constitutional monarch with most of her role been cerimonial and is subject to the will of Parliament She also pays her tax's like every other person in the UK The British monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/HowtheMonarchyworks.aspx
I think it is stupid but for those in the United Kingdom I guess the two questions are 1. How much tourist dollars do they bring in against how much money is spent on their upkeep. 2. Do they help united the United Kingdom as symbols or something.
£32.1 Million last year down £1.9 million from the previouse year http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...9/Cost-of-the-monarchy-falls-1.8-million.html Now tourism aside last year the surplus profit from the Crown estates was in the region of aprox £230 million which all went to the tax man http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about-us/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-offshore-windfarm-windfall--owns-seabed.html The last question is much harder to answer for me they are a symbol of continuity and stability but how others see them!
I think monarchies along the lines of the British, Japanese, Dutch, Swedish, and Danish ones are just fine. I think that a predictable continuing human link with a nation's past and traditions is good thing. I also think that the state benefits from having a non-political human face. As for the cost, I see them as a bargain.
Making a profit, then there should be no discussion. My number 2 question would come into play if they were losing Great Britian money that could have gone to schools, etc.
The anti monarchist group 'Republic' puts the true cost at £202 million http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf This is over 5 times their quoted official cost of £38.3 million Republic points out that the Crown Estates is not the property of the Queen and say: As for tourism - the palaces will still be there and the guards could still do their ceremonial thing to please the tourists.
UM strange how a Anti Monarchy site might say something like that LOL If the palaces are still there and the guards etc are still there what would they cost? and do we then have a President as head of state? If so do they tell you what the cost of that might be to the country LOL If you want to live in a republic thats your choice I dont, nor do I think do the vast majority of those who live in the UK
Strange how the Tory Telegraph repeats what the Palace says as fact Presumably they would make money as tourist attractions. The 'Republic' link does give lists of cost for various Euro countries for head of state, monarchy or otherwise. I agree with that. I think the popularity of the monarchy is the reason why the SNP want to keep the Queen as Head of State (although this has been policy since the party's inception).
Got most of my info from the Crown estates web site as well as the Gov web site so I did not simply take the telegraphs report at face value You see you presume that they would make money while I know that they make money with the Queen, can you imagine for example a tea cup with the face of President Cameron/Brown selling better than one showing a Royal LOL or a tea towel (and the UK sells a hell of a lot of Royal memrobilia) What would sell better in Scotland Princess Anne or Alex
I'm sure various items for tourists could be organised - even if it was a tea towel with a picture of Buckingham Palace. Anyway, I wonder if the money from tourism covers the over £100 million difference between the cost of the monarchy and the French Presidency
