[Callum]

Nope, they're good for tourism and it's not like we pay hundreds of pounds each year for them to stay. Plus The Queen/royal family is good for foreign relations, she's the only person who can conjure up crowds of thousands of people all pleased to see her around the world. No president or prime minister could ever do that.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Callum

Nope, they're good for tourism and it's not like we pay hundreds of pounds each year for them to stay. Plus The Queen/royal family is good for foreign relations, she's the only person who can conjure up crowds of thousands of people all pleased to see her around the world. No president or prime minister could ever do that.

Absolutely Callum, really she hasn't put a foot wrong that I can see and from all I hear form people much older than me, only the period at the time of Princess Diana's death was there a likely tricky moment for the Monarchy which very soon was turned around again.

I agree with every word of your post.

[Saph]

No I love the royal family, they're all we have going for us

For now at least, I can only see the monarchy getting more popular, with the Royal Wedding last year and the Jubilee this year, its sort of introduced them to the younger generations. I wasnt really that bothered about them before the wedding but now Im facinated by them

[Saph]

Originally Posted by Patrick

trying to celebrate something silly like a Royal Wedding or a 60th Anniversary of some silly hag - when any other day of the year, no one pays any attention to them.

[Sticks]

There is this anomaly where we encouraged the emerging nations after the fall of the old Soviet Union, and other emerging states to embrace democracy and yet our own head of state is not democratically elected.

Pot calling kettle black anyone?

[Kizzy]

I agree with saphlike, in a way they are all we have going for us.....
And no we should not be without them I guess, however I would prefer it if her maj made a concious effort to connect more with her subjects.
To see the level of social depravation that some Britains live in, the link I provided earlier lays out the expenditure for the royal family.. To say I understood it would be a lie, as It is really mind boggling.
The upkeep of the residences alone...I read of the modernisation of the drainage and the heating system currently being undertaken at Buckingham palace...Really?...In a double dip recession?...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...al-family.html
QUOTE:
How is the Royal Family currently funded?

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh receive an annual Civil List grant from the government to the monarch to meet the expenses of acting as Head of State. This was fixed by the Chancellor at Ł7.9 million for 2011, a figure unchanged for more than a decade. Separate grants are paid to cover the cost of running the Royal household, set for 2011 at Ł22 million. The Queen will receive a one-off Ł1 million supplement in 2012 to help pay for diamond jubilee celebrations.

What I find unusual is why the royal family family can not effectively be a not for profit organisation?
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHous...penditure.aspx
QUOTE:
Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In 2008-09 the Treasury’s gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate were Ł230 million

So in 2009 the public funded the royal family to the tune of 41.5 million and yet the royal estate had brought in 230 million in revenue during 2008-9?.... It makes no sense to me.

[Kizzy]

To me this topic is similar to another that has been opened....

[Marsh.]

So in 2009 the public funded the royal family to the tune of 41.5 million and yet the royal estate had brought in 230 million in revenue during 2008-9?.... It makes no sense to me.

What makes no sense?

Edit - Ah, I see what you mean, it is quite confusing. But your post highlights why a certain poster was so very wrong in his other thread.

[Jords]

I said yes then I read the comments about what actual benefits they bring and I sorta agree with it, so maybe not.

I do agree with Niall also though that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

[Marsh.]

I do think moving forward, where the Royals like William and Harry are becoming more and more identifiable with the general public that "connecting" with their subjects will eventually happen. Possibly anyway. They take after Diana for being very open, natural and not really afraid to get their hands dirty.

We seem to be coming away from the "stranger in a crown living in a mansion" and knowing the new generations of Royals more as people.

[spitfire]

Why get rid of one of the few British institutions that works really well?
Ours is the oldest monarchy in Europe. It has constantly changed with the times in order to retain consent. That is its genius.
There has been a social revolution in Britain since the Queen came to the throne in 1952.
This is now a multicultural society based on enterprise, not birth.Monarchy has not hindered that. Indeed, having a head of state beyond and outside politics has really helped the country to change democratically and peacefully.
Before the Queen was crowned, she pledged to serve the country always, she has kept that promise.She has now been on the throne for 60 years, she is 86 and, unlike most OAPs, she still works on and on and on, week after week, year after year.
Among her many duties, she heads the Army (which loves her) and countless charities (which depend on her) and she has assisted each of her Prime Ministers since Winston Churchill.Every Prime Minister has praised her guidance at their private weekly meetings. They have all known that the Queen is the one person who will never leak their views and never stab them in the back.They also know she has the national interest, not party politics, at heart.She has never done anything to embarrass this country. She is greatly admired by statesmen as different as Ronald Reagan, Boris Yeltsin and Nelson Mandela.There are many republics with corrupt or irrelevant "revolving door" presidents where the people envy the stable continuity of our constitutional monarchy.
It is part of the country's DNA; we would lose it at our peril.The polls show that, despite the ups and downs of her family in recent years, the overwhelming majority of the British people still support the monarchy.

RULE BRITANNIA.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

I do think moving forward, where the Royals like William and Harry are becoming more and more identifiable with the general public that "connecting" with their subjects will eventually happen. Possibly anyway. They take after Diana for being very open, natural and not really afraid to get their hands dirty.

We seem to be coming away from the "stranger in a crown living in a mansion" and knowing the new generations of Royals more as people.

That is great but how does that relate in monetary terms?...
The likeability factor is great, kudos to them....still solves nothing as to the promoting themselves as ambassadors of the people...Just still glorified show ponies.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kizzy

That is great but how does that relate in monetary terms?...
The likeability factor is great, kudos to them....still solves nothing as to the promoting themselves as ambassadors of the people...Just still glorified show ponies.

That's why I said "possibly". It's ever changing, but as far as their role as Head of State goes the lines are blurry considering their limited actual power.
At the moment it is just a representation of British history and as is, they're not a great deal of harm.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

That's why I said "possibly". It's ever changing, but as far as their role as Head of State goes the lines are blurry considering their limited actual power.
At the moment it is just a representation of British history and as is, they're not a great deal of harm.

They?... We only have one head of state...The Queen
I never suggested they were harm...I suggested they could use their influence to do more good within the UK is all....

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kizzy

They?... We only have one head of state...The Queen
I never suggested they were harm...I suggested they could use their influence to do more good within the UK is all....

I never meant they are all heads of state. I meant them as the Royals, they (the family- Charles, William, his kids) as future heads of state and how that role and position may change and evolve in the future as it has done already. How hopefully it does take a more positive and active direction. No need to be pedantic.

I never said you suggested they were harm, I understood perfectly what you said. I actually agreed with you.

Fgs, you don't half make it difficult sometimes with your comments.

[Z]

I imagine I speak on behalf of a large percentage of the population when I say I don't mind either way. They don't impact upon my day to day living and I don't mind that they are there. I don't take any interest in them, I've not seen any of this jubilee stuff on TV at all and appreciate the bank holiday, that's about it really.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

I never meant they are all heads of state. I meant them as the Royals, they (the family- Charles, William, his kids) as future heads of state and how that role and position may change and evolve in the future as it has done already. How hopefully it does take a more positive and active direction. No need to be pedantic.

I never said you suggested they were harm, I understood perfectly what you said. I actually agreed with you.

Fgs, you don't half make it difficult sometimes with your comments.

Ok reading back that did sound a bit abrupt marsh soz

[billy123]

The monarchy has an approval rating of 86% and that is pre jubilee that is far more of an accurate rating than a little poll on a kiddy dominated forum.
They are very approved of by the majority.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Ok reading back that did sound a bit abrupt marsh soz

Thank you.

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by bobnot

The monarchy has an approval rating of 86% and that is pre jubilee that is far more of an accurate rating than a little poll on a kiddy dominated forum.
They are very approved of by the majority.

Is that the Queen who is loved and admired and has the approval rating or the position? We are fortunate in this part of history we have someone like Lizzy on the throne, but go back in history the monarch of the time was not as good. Remember we even had one that precipitated a civil war and was executed for treason.

Monarchists and republicans alike make the same error, they do not separate the person from the position.

[Sticks]

Just in case you missed it a message from the Queen

Youtube video

[joeysteele]

While it's true we did have a civil war in the Country,that was a vastly different time, for my part after reading loads about it, I would still have fought on the Royalist side then.
The Monarch then however had absolute rule,(unlike now), the civil war was as to who held the greater power or all the power, Monarch or Parliament. Not that anyone at that time in Britain had any lawful right to try a King,the Monarch was the highest law in the land.

Even then again though, after only 11 years, the people soon were screaming out for a return to a Monarchy,which was then restored in 1660,having been abolished in 1649.

Different rules then applied to the Monarch after that though and Parliament had much greater control of events.
Today, the Monarch has no real power but still commands its status and I don't think it matters who is on the throne, the Queen is a perfect Ambassador for the UK,she is adored by the vast majority, I believe though, the generation of William and Harry and their children are only likely to strengthen the position of the Monarchy further and that will be the great legacy left by this Queen through her descendants.