coprolite Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 32 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said: According to their website: Of course you could have a revolution and confiscate their assets, but the claim that the monarchy are subsidised is not factually true, in fact the opposite is true. They're net contributors, as I stated previously. As for doing away with the Monarchy, what would they be replaced with? President Blair? President Beckham? We could choose our figurehead through some sort of reality TV show, I suppose. I'm sure it will attract lots of viewers who could vote to eliminate candidates. Personally, I quite like the history of the Monarchy and think they're preferable to the alternative. However, I think they'll be gone in the next twenty years or so. The claim that the monarchy are net contributors to the exchequer is not factually true. From the same website you've presumably looked up: "The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch" The income the queen gets is a grant from the treasury, which does own the revenues from the crown estate. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Stanton Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 3 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said: The Queen's broadcast was watched by 9 million viewers, which equates to 13.1% of the UK population, ie just over 1 in 10. Which means 9 in 10 didn't watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, AlbionSaint said: Actually, I believe they're net contributors to the Exchequer, given the contributions from The Crown Estate. Not quite true. The Crown Estates form a corporation sole, owned by the legal entity of the Crown. If the monarchy was abolished, the Crown Estates would still belong to the Crown (and likely figuratively owned by whoever represents it, if anyone). There’s a reason Edward VII didn’t walk away with a single bit of Crown Estate - he never owned any of it. If the monarchy was abolished and any of the Windsors tried to claim the Crown Estates as their property, they’d be arguing that they want to pay for the government (which was the original purpose of the Crown Estates, and the income of which is now dwarfed by government expenditure). When George III struck a sweetheart deal with the government to surrender Crown Estate income in return for his gambling debts being paid off and the government assuming fiscal responsibility for England, he wasn’t being put out of pocket - he was being done a massive favour. To argue that the Crown Estate is somehow owned by the Windsors and its income being altruistically sacrificed is a nonsense; it’s like saying the Royal Collection (which is legally “held in trust for the nation”) is theirs. It isn’t, although they make citizens of the nation jump through hoops to access artworks. The Crown Estates’ income being surrendered to the nation, less a significant chunk going to her family’s upkeep, is doing notoriously acquisitive Liz a favour; it means that she’s being funded by monies intended for government consumption and not putting her withered hand in her own pocket. Edited December 27, 2021 by Antlion 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 44 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said: As for doing away with the Monarchy, what would they be replaced with? President Blair? President Beckham? We could choose our figurehead through some sort of reality TV show, I suppose. I'm sure it will attract lots of viewers who could vote to eliminate candidates. Personally, I quite like the history of the Monarchy and think they're preferable to the alternative. However, I think they'll be gone in the next twenty years or so. Doesn’t this just boil down to “the people are stupid and can’t be trusted not to unaccountably elect a politician they hate, or an old sports personality - therefore the aristocracy should breed heads of state to save us from ourselves”? Countries which elect apolitical heads of state - like Ireland - don’t seem to do too badly. No reason why we couldn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Stanton Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 44 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said: As for doing away with the Monarchy, what would they be replaced with? President Blair? President Beckham? We could choose our figurehead through some sort of reality TV show, I suppose. I'm sure it will attract lots of viewers who could vote to eliminate candidates. It would then be one person, democratically elected instead of the myriad of inbred cunts we have now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 2 hours ago, AlbionSaint said: As for doing away with the Monarchy, what would they be replaced with? President Blair? President Beckham? What is your opinion of Franz-Walter Steinmeier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 We need to keep the Queen. Who else are pished accountants dressed as bananas and the where's wally character meant to sing for god to save at the darts in-between two plays from the low countries hitting 35 and 37 respectfully? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 You are all lucky you have her. She brings in £20m to the economy. Without her, you would all be living on £10 giros. Just look at Ireland for example. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 8 minutes ago, SlipperyP said: You are all lucky you have her. She brings in £20m to the economy. Without her, you would all be living on £10 giros. Just look at Ireland for example. Yeah and look at France. No Monarchy and how many tourists do they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 1 minute ago, Fullerene said: Yeah and look at France. No Monarchy and how many tourists do they get. Who goes to France on holiday? School trips and a few unhealthy Catholics! Not many is the answer. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroadlesstravelled Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 3 hours ago, Arch Stanton said: Which means 9 in 10 didn't watch it. They were on Pornhub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 6 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said: I honestly know very little about him. I'm waiting now for you to make your point! p.s. why are so many of you up all night? If you don't even know much about the German Head of State then does it really matter who the Head of State is? I am up all night because the Queen is getting old and I am very worried for her. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 19 minutes ago, SlipperyP said: Who goes to France on holiday? School trips and a few unhealthy Catholics! Not many is the answer. .. and me. I've been there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, AlbionSaint said: Fair points, gentleman. However, it is technically owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign. I think it will be a sad day when the Monarchy is deposed, however I'm convinced it will happen within the next twenty years. Why are so many of you up all night? In the same way that Bute House is owned by the First Minister, I suppose. Because it’s that nightmare limbo between Christmas and New Year, during which out of office reigns, sleeping at 2-5pm is acceptable, and the body demands - and gets - coffee and sugary treats at 11pm! Edited December 27, 2021 by Antlion 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 I could be wrong but there appears to be a suggestion coming through on this thread that if there was no longer a monarchy, all existing and potential income from the Crown Estate would cease. I don't see the land and property generating less income just because we no longer have to give completely ridiculous deference to a not particularly special family. It would be reasonable to suggest that if the "Royal" properties were no longer occupied by God-appointed mammals (even I don't think they are lizard people ) you'd have coach loads of foreign tourists shelling out wads of cash 18 hours a day 365 days a year. The Palace of Versailles gets about 10 million visitors a year - not particularly strong evidence that the lack of an incumbent family equals a lack of income. However, to me, a hereditary monarchy isn't a matter of income. It's the message it sends about privilege and inequality. There were financial aspects to many aspects of societal change. To me, maintaining a hereditary monarchy seems as absurd as it would be for me to say we should reintroduce child labour and bear baiting..... 'but... but... think of the loss in income...' Lords, Ladies, Knights, Barons, The Order of the Bath, the Order of The Garter? In the 21st century? What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 4 hours ago, Fullerene said: .. and me. I've been there. School teacher? or pushing a wheelchair? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 The stress of protection her paedo son will probably see her off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blootoon87 Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 Dig a hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Tunbridge Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 On 26/12/2021 at 10:36, Joe Terrapin said: i think it was a stand in(and not a good one at that). I think she's dead already and they're doing what they did with the Queen Mother (a spitting image puppet was wheeled out for the cameras) They believe that news of Queenie's demise would be a step too far for the general british public in this biannus horribilis. My own personal conspiracy theory is that she has been deed for a couple of months now (Oct/Nov maybe) and the powers that be didn’t want to announce it so close to Christmas because they can’t have your poor grannies crying into their Turkey. I think they’ll announce it sometime in Feb or March. If not I’ll be taking my tinfoil hat back as I’ve kept the receipt anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 22 minutes ago, Scotty Tunbridge said: My own personal conspiracy theory is that she has been deed for a couple of months now (Oct/Nov maybe) and the powers that be didn’t want to announce it so close to Christmas because they can’t have your poor grannies crying into their Turkey. I think they’ll announce it sometime in Feb or March. If not I’ll be taking my tinfoil hat back as I’ve kept the receipt anyway. The Queen dying in her 69th year at the helm would be too funny to allow anaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts