The British Monarchy

gordondaviesmoustache said:
If I had carte blanche to reshape the constitution then I think I would abolish the monarchy, or at the very least make them wholly extraneous to the political process.

I think our political system is ineffectual, undemocratic and anachronistic and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to exclude the presence of a hereditary system within that equation, as it plainly is.

The stability that a monarchy has provided must also have contributed to the oscillation within our political system and institutions which has undoubtedly (imo) precipitated our decline as a nation. One only has to look at the pitiful quality of politicians across the political spectrum today compared to a generation ago to appreciate how stark that decline is.

The whole thing needs ripping up and starting again, and the position of a hereditary head of state has to be part of that process, as it has to be part of the problem. It’s difficult to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting argument. Can you say a little more about why you think the monarchy have helped our Politics decline to the extent it has? There is an argument that as head of state and protector of a nations values they could and should have applied much more of a challenge. I can’t argue that politics in the U.K. needs a fresh and radical shake up. It is certainly the only thing that would help save the Union.
 
Octavian said:
that’s because you can actually walk into Versailles as nobody lives there, rather than standing outside.
Click to expand...
How many houses does one person need - We could open it up all year round and let the people visit.

Octavian said:
How does it belong to you?

The profits go back into the exchequer anyway.
Click to expand...
I assume we're talking about the Crown Estate - the reality is it's owned by the country, and is only tied up with the crown because they once ruled and therefore "owned" pretty much everything.

If "we", the people of the UK, own it and the profit goes to the Exchequer, then it's not really the Royal Family that are generating a profit is it?
 
bluenova said:
How many houses does one person need - We could open it up all year round and let the people visit.


I assume we're talking about the Crown Estate - the reality is it's owned by the country, and is only tied up with the crown because they once ruled and therefore "owned" pretty much everything.

If "we", the people of the UK, own it and the profit goes to the Exchequer, then it's not really the Royal Family that are generating a profit is it?
Click to expand...
It’s not automatically returned, they donate it back.

The crown founded the country, going right back to Athelstan, Anne and George.
 
Octavian said:
It’s published how much they take off the taxpayer, how much they make themselves and how much is given back.

I did a quick Google last night and they always make a profit (Covid aside) and it’s given back into the pot.
Click to expand...

I think it’s the how much they take off the tax payer and how much they make themselves that can get a bit blurry.
 
bluenova said:
How many houses does one person need - We could open it up all year round and let the people visit.


I assume we're talking about the Crown Estate - the reality is it's owned by the country, and is only tied up with the crown because they once ruled and therefore "owned" pretty much everything.

If "we", the people of the UK, own it and the profit goes to the Exchequer, then it's not really the Royal Family that are generating a profit is it?
Click to expand...
We could build a retail park and new mock Tudor housing. Balmoral drive, Buckingham ave Windsor Way. Maybe leave the thrones on the kiddies play area next to the hungry horse pub and people could sit on them for a £1 a pop.
 
mexico1970 said:
She wasn't THAT omnipotent mate :)

A lot of the things like football being cancelled and the wall to wall coverage is decided by sycophants, I don't watch it at all.

It's the hand rubbers at the FA and PL who decided to cancel the togger, it wasn't cancelled when George died.
Click to expand...
George Best? ;)
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
I doubt there’s a set of people anywhere in the world that can trace their history back and show they haven’t invaded and pillaged another set of people at some point in time.
Click to expand...

I got a shock at a family reunion when someone had brought old information about my Irish great & great great grandparents and family :/
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
If I had carte blanche to reshape the constitution then I think I would abolish the monarchy, or at the very least make them wholly extraneous to the political process.

I think our political system is ineffectual, undemocratic and anachronistic and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to exclude the presence of a hereditary system within that equation, as it plainly is.

The stability that a monarchy has provided must also have contributed to the oscillation within our political system and institutions which has undoubtedly (imo) precipitated our decline as a nation. One only has to look at the pitiful quality of politicians across the political spectrum today compared to a generation ago to appreciate how stark that decline is.

The whole thing needs ripping up and starting again, and the position of a hereditary head of state has to be part of that process, as it has to be part of the problem. It’s difficult to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
I’m always very wary of this sort of thing, completely ripping up political systems and starting again more often than not ends up in widespread bloodshed, it’s at least a very dangerous process.

I’m not saying I don’t believe in any change, as our current system has been changed over the last 400 years quite a bit, I just think ripping the whole plaster off will cause a lot of bleeding.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
That’s an interesting argument. Can you say a little more about why you think the monarchy have helped our Politics decline to the extent it has? There is an argument that as head of state and protector of a nations values they could and should have applied much more of a challenge. I can’t argue that politics in the U.K. needs a fresh and radical shake up. It is certainly the only thing that would help save the Union.
Click to expand...
It’s simply predicated on the basis that it is a central component in a system that is completely broken and undemocratic. A system that allows the will of 35-40% of the people who vote to dictate to the rest how the country is run for half a decade. That allows a handful of (marginal) constituencies to shape the political narrative for that period.

There is no empirical basis for this view, it’s simply based on instinct and principle. If you are going to engage in comprehensive change of the political system then nothing should be beyond that. I’m conscious of the baby and the bath water argument, but I think the fear of change carries more risks for us as a nation than us being bold and iconoclastic.

That doesn’t mean I can’t see a role for a greatly diminished monarchy, but the stuff around appointing Prime Ministers and Royal Assent etc… needs to go imo.
 
Octavian said:
I’m always very wary of this sort of thing, completely ripping up political systems and starting again more often than not ends up in widespread bloodshed, it’s at least a very dangerous process.

I’m not saying I don’t believe in any change, as our current system has been changed over the last 400 years quite a bit, I just think ripping the whole plaster off will cause a lot of bleeding.
Click to expand...
Two words: Liz Truss.
 
Oh, eff it. I can no longer restrain myself.

Historically, the King was expected to 'live of his own' and taxation was only given in wartime. (There were some odd exceptions like customs duties on wool and wine which were usually granted in peacetime and often for the King's lifetime.)

In other words, the crown estates (with a few other sources of income) were intended to maintain the whole of medieval government. Not just pay for the court. They had to pay for defence (eg the Calais and Berwick garrisons) justice, diplomacy, the civil service (such as it was) and so on and so forth.

The crown estates therefore belong to the state, not the sovereign personally. This is why when George VI became king he had to buy Balmoral and Sandringham off his brother (they were and remain private property) but not any part of the crown estates, because they came with the job. They are not personal possessions.

If they were personal possessions they would rightfully belong to the Jacobite claimant, who has a far superior hereditary claim. Clearly, this is not the case. If the office of king was abolished, they would remain with the state, (Balmoral and Sandringham would not, along with the rest of the sovereign's private portfolio.)

George Fucking Osborne muddied the waters by giving the royals a fixed percentage of the income from the crown estates instead of the annuity previously agreed with parliament. This was a major error as it implies an ownership which does not exist.
 
Octavian said:
It’s not automatically returned, they donate it back.

The crown founded the country, going right back to Athelstan, Anne and George.
Click to expand...
How generous of them.

I would suggest that they donate it back because they're not quite daft enough to believe that they really own everything. However, they probably do think they own it, but someone with more brains has explained to them that this isn't the 10th Century any more, they're not really appointed by God, and they don't own everything in "their" lands.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s simply predicated on the basis that it is a central component in a system that is completely broken and undemocratic. A system that allows the will of 35-40% of the people who vote to dictate to the rest how the country is run for half a decade. That allows a handful of (marginal) constituencies to shape the political narrative for that period.

There is no empirical basis for this view, it’s simply based on instinct and principle. If you are going to engage in comprehensive change of the political system then nothing should be beyond that. I’m conscious of the baby and the bath water argument, but I think the fear of change carries more risks for us as a nation than us being bold and iconoclastic.

That doesn’t mean I can’t see a role for a greatly diminished monarchy, but the stuff around appointing Prime Ministers and Royal Assent etc… needs to go imo.
Click to expand...
Whilst I would probably be for inclusion of the royal family in any top down review of government and politics, my impression is that they are observers of the political process other than meaningless ceremony. If they are indeed heads of state and overall protectors of the nations values (Charles words yesterday) Who, if not they, should be capable of applying checks and balances to a government hellbound in driving U.K. off a very high cliff? The answer is not the House of Lords. It’s a moot Point as no review will take place and I fear we are doomed to diminish further.
 
bluenova said:
How generous of them.

I would suggest that they donate it back because they're not quite daft enough to believe that they really own everything. However, they probably do think they own it, but someone with more brains has explained to them that this isn't the 10th Century any more, they're not really appointed by God, and they don't own everything in "their" lands.
Click to expand...
It’s not “everything” is it?

Everyone owns private property in this country
 
bluenova said:
How generous of them.

I would suggest that they donate it back because they're not quite daft enough to believe that they really own everything. However, they probably do think they own it, but someone with more brains has explained to them that this isn't the 10th Century any more, they're not really appointed by God, and they don't own everything in "their" lands.
Click to expand...
(Inserts rapturous applause gif)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top