[BBC News] Four get honours in New Year list

[Sneaky Dolores]

"Princess Elizabeth changing a vehicle wheel during WWII"

 

From: Wiki: Elizabeth II

 

Why do I find that strangely exciting?

[Plectrum Infusion]

"Princess Elizabeth changing a vehicle wheel during WWII"

 

From: Wiki: Elizabeth II

 

Why do I find that strangely exciting?

 

Monarch fetishism?

 

In all fairness, old Lizzie was pretty hot back in the Coronation days.

[VinnieK]

The idea that there is such a thing as 'an accident of birth' is ridiculous.

 

Of course it's not. Those born into the royal family are awarded with status, wealth, and security regardless of the talents or skills of them and their forefathers, precisely because they happen to be born into the right family - their position in life is assured, irrespective of their qualities or

 

The royal family is perfectly entitled to claim subsidy under the CAP, and is probably a lot more deserving than many French farmers are. The idea that rich people shouldn't be entitled to benefits is absurd.

 

Indeed it is, but the idea that such an apparently successful business, with revenues seemingly far in excess of the subsidy could do without the subsidy isn't.

 

Perhaps you did not fully understand my previous post, but the Queen does not receive any money direct from the taxpayer. She (and her family) receive money from the Treasury through the civil list, but as I explained, this is financed through the Crown Estate.

 

Actually, the civil list is funded by the taxpayer. That profits from Crown estates and money put in the civil list both pass through the treasury does not then mean that the Queen is funding herself. Also remember that whilst the revenues of the Crown estates are large, they are also tax exempt. It's true that Prince Charles voluntarly pays income tax on his revenue from crown estates, but at the 25% he's decided to pay this is proportionately just over the basic rate of tax.

 

The most important aspect of this is, however, not the sums involved, but that it's simply wrong that the Royal family should have possesion of the Crown Estates fall into their laps thanks to birth, an anachronism left over from the half finished job of ridding the UK of its antiquated social hierarchy centuries past. So it's a profitable business - great, either deliver it entirely into the public's hands or partition it and sell it into the private sector.

 

Let us not also forget that many of the Queen's 'palaces and residences' are historical buildings and should arguably be preserved anyway for heritage reasons.

 

Indeed. But we don't need the Queen in order to preserve them: The Palace of Versailles has managed to be preserved and attracts tourists to this day, despite not being in the hands of a reigning monarch.

 

Far from being a 'perculiar arrangement,' Britain's constitutional monarchy has many centuries of precedent behind it and has in fact proved to be one of the most stable systems of administration in the entire World. It is certainly not a perfect system, but criticisms of the UK's constitutional structure rarely highlight having a monarch as the main problem.

 

Disingenuous -This is only an argument for monarchy if we accept that monarchy itself is the reason for the stability of the system.

 

'Class' is a concept born out of industrial-era shared experience and identity, something the monarchy was never part of. Those who see the monarchy as part of the 'establishment' have missed the point entirely. The whole reason there is no real republican movement in Britain is that the monarchy, as an institution, transcends all that.

 

No, the reason there is no real republican movement in Britain is because the monarchy has been rendered so powerless by parliamentary constraints that it is now little more than a frippery or indulgence that people either enjoy, are are largely apathetic towards. Also, to say that the monarchy transcends class or social hierarchy is the fanciful whimsy of one besotted with the romance of a dead idea. It's true that the class system has been marginalized and pushed to the boundaries of society where it can gather dust like any other relic or museum piece, but that makes it no less real: the royal family's hereditary right to status, influence, wealth and property is proof enough of that.

 

There are a number of countries in the modern World that maintain monarchies. Aside from those in the Commonwealth, Spain, Japan and Sweden, among others, still have royal families.

 

And a number of countries don't, such as the United States, Germany, France, Finland, Italy, and Switzerland. Your point being... what, exactly?

 

It is hardly spin, but nonetheless I forgive you for being wrong. I never claimed a monarchy was a necessary precursor to tourism, just that in the British case, it helps.

 

Assuming of course that tourism would fall without the royal family, which as the example of France shows probably wouldn't be the case. The U.K. can still boast its historical legacy under monarchy, ham up its claims old world charm, and send people around the old castles they want to see.

[triskelion]

Of course it's not. Those born into the royal family are awarded with status, wealth, and security regardless of the talents or skills of them and their forefathers, precisely because they happen to be born into the right family - their position in life is assured, irrespective of their qualities or

You have missed the point. Using the phrase 'accident of birth' implies that the same person could have been born into any other family, which is a patently ridiculous concept. You are not making a point here beyond the idea that being a member of the royal family confers on a person certain advantages you feel are undue. However, this is irrelevant seeing as no child's family is selected on the basis of the former's personal merit.

 

Indeed it is, but the idea that such an apparently successful business, with revenues seemingly far in excess of the subsidy could do without the subsidy isn't.

This is again, a non-point. It may well be the case that without the current CAP arrangement, royal lands may not be profitable. However, if we they were to be, as you suggest below, sold off to the private sector, this would still be the case, resulting in, at best, a zero-sum for the taxpayer, but likely a loss, given the more diverse portfolio the royal family has.

 

Actually, the civil list is funded by the taxpayer. That profits from Crown estates and money put in the civil list both pass through the treasury does not then mean that the Queen is funding herself. Also remember that whilst the revenues of the Crown estates are large, they are also tax exempt. It's true that Prince Charles voluntarly pays income tax on his revenue from crown estates, but at the 25% he's decided to pay this is proportionately just over the basic rate of tax.

You are forgetting that the Treasury is the Queen's, not the taxpayers', as it is not a civil institution, but a royal one that is now, by convention more than anything else, civil-administrated. You are obscuring the main point here, which is that the income the Treasury derives from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown Estate is greater than that which it pays out to the royal family.

 

The most important aspect of this is, however, not the sums involved, but that it's simply wrong that the Royal family should have possesion of the Crown Estates fall into their laps thanks to birth, an anachronism left over from the half finished job of ridding the UK of its antiquated social hierarchy centuries past. So it's a profitable business - great, either deliver it entirely into the public's hands or partition it and sell it into the private sector.

I do not accept that it is immoral in any sense to have a right to your family's property. That these landowners may also form part of what I agree to be out-dated nobility class is beside the point. They are still the rightful owners of the property in question. Even if you were to completely strip the royal family of its constitutional role, they would still maintain ownership of their property. You could, in theory, issue a complusory purchase order for the Crown Estate, though I should think the legality of that would be extremely questionable as, in your scenario anyway, the primary purpose would be for onward sale. That aside, the value of the Crown Estate is £7 Billion, which the British Government would be obligied to pay if it wanted to then sell off the lands to the private sector.

 

Indeed. But we don't need the Queen in order to preserve them: The Palace of Versailles has managed to be preserved and attracts tourists to this day, despite not being in the hands of a reigning monarch.

You have again missed my point, which is that much of the money provided to the royal family by the Treasury is used for the upkeep of such buildings, rather than their own personal use.

 

Disingenuous -This is only an argument for monarchy if we accept that monarchy itself is the reason for the stability of the system.

What would be wrong with that? The monarchy has been the one constant in the British political system. Yes, there was the short-lived republic, but Cromwell ended up giving himself greater powers than Charles I ever had, and oversaw perhaps the greatest period of political instabilty in Britain since the conquest. The monarchy is certainly not the only stabilising factor in the system, but its role cannot be dismissed.

 

No, the reason there is no real republican movement in Britain is because the monarchy has been rendered so powerless by parliamentary constraints that it is now little more than a frippery or indulgence that people either enjoy, are are largely apathetic towards. Also, to say that the monarchy transcends class or social hierarchy is the fanciful whimsy of one besotted with the romance of a dead idea. It's true that the class system has been marginalized and pushed to the boundaries of society where it can gather dust like any other relic or museum piece, but that makes it no less real: the royal family's hereditary right to status, influence, wealth and property is proof enough of that.

You have abandoned reason for the ad hominem. You totally underestimate the extensive role the monarchy plays in British identity and the British experience. Nor is it evidence of class system in British society. Your argument strongly suggests that you do not quite understand what 'class,' in the British context, is actually about and instead think it is about resenting rich people. I say again, the idea of class has very little to do with the nobility or monarchy, as it was born in an era in which such people were largely already an irrelevance in day-to-day social sense. The vast majority of their wealth was in the old sectors of land and agriculture, which were overtaken as Britain moved into the industrial age and what we would now call the middle class became the real force in the country in terms of money and political influence. Putting the nobility and monarchy together and calling it the upper class is totally arbitrary and bears little resemblance to the realities of social, political and economic life in Britain over the last 200 years.

Despite increasing irrelevance in constitutional terms, the monarchy has maintained its role in how Britain sees itself and lends a uniqueness to its peoples' identity and provides an image of Britain greater than a sterile republic, most of which are seen to be over-concerned with the needs of business. The monarchy is not something about which the British people can truthfully say 'I could take it or leave it;' it is too great a part of the British experience; too engrained in the culture. Even Jeremy Paxman, who counts himself as nominally a republican and at the very least one of those you deem apathetic, and whom we can all agree is a sophisticated intellectual, admits to having been too nervous to speak to the Queen when he had the chance. Or Steven Gerrard, as was shown in the BBC's recent monarchy program, who, despite having to perform at his job to a high standard at his job for between many thousands to several millions of people every week and enjoying massive renumeration for doing so AND being held in adoration by a large number of people around the World, was clearly anxious and the prospect of meeting a little old lady who didn't really know who he was and was giving him a rather commonly awarded medal.

That the Queen can have such an effect on such people who have risen on merit to the pinnacle of their respected fields is surely evidence that the monarchy remains very much more than 'something that is nice to have,' and is instead a large part British identity.

 

And a number of countries don't, such as the United States, Germany, France, Finland, Italy, and Switzerland. Your point being... what, exactly?

Clearly my point was that there a number of modern countries that retain monarchies. Two of them, Norway and Sweden, are regularly placed among the the very highest in most assessments as to the standard of countries, suggesting that a monarchy is not (or at least not necessarily) an obstacle to modernity.

 

Assuming of course that tourism would fall without the royal family, which as the example of France shows probably wouldn't be the case. The U.K. can still boast its historical legacy under monarchy, ham up its claims old world charm, and send people around the old castles they want to see.

Who was assuming that tourism would fail without the royal family? No one. For the third time, my point was that having an existing monarchy does help tourism in Britain, by giving special significance to their residences. I used this in support of the fact that the British people get very good value out of the royal family.

[Stu Peters]

'Would you like the 5-minute argument or the full half hour'?

 

...ah, the latter, it seems...

[mollag]

Personally i would go the way of Old Noll but i am sad to admit that if it went to a democratic vote, royal family yes or no?

then i think the answer would be yes

 

tis a strange fact that they are popular and the majority of the realm seem to want them.

[Diomed]

Triskelion. I discovered a long time ago it is pointless getting into a discussion on these forums on any serious thread. Whilst everyone has their opinion and entitled to it, usually they are so ill informed there is no point persuing the subject.

[Sebrof]

People who sound off about the cost of the monarchy forget that any alternative would be equally or more costly, and often less effective.

 

The cost of supporting ex-presidents (let alone the incumbent) of the USA is mind-boggling. Vast amounts are spent on security, gigantic pensions, libraries, you name it. Usually there are several ex-presidents knocking around. Then there's the Vice-presidents, who also expect to be maintained and guarded.

 

The cost of keeping French presidents is similarly huge. The Elysee Palace is (I understand) a much more extravagant operation than Buck House.

 

And, of course, the British monarchy tends not to be corrupt.

 

There is no need for presidential elections, which themselves consume a huge amount of cash and energy.

 

Electing a president doesn't seem to ensure that you get a better class of person for the job. After all, how could it? A monarch is trained from birth. If you disagree, name any recent presidents of other countries that you feel do a better job as head of state than the queen. For every one you name (assuming you can come up with any), I shall name ten worse ones.

 

In fact, the British monarchy is damn good value.

[Albert Tatlock]

And, of course, the British monarchy tends not to be corrupt.

...with £1.9 billion in the bank I suppose they don't have to be. Where did all that come from do you suppose?

[VinnieK]

However, this is irrelevant seeing as no child's family is selected on the basis of the former's personal merit.

 

True, but not every family occupies a constitutional role for the nation. I am arguing that in this day and age it is unacceptable that a person can be appointed to such a role, with all its varied benefits and influence on the basis of birth and relation alone.

 

This is again, a non-point. It may well be the case that without the current CAP arrangement, royal lands may not be profitable. However, if we they were to be, as you suggest below, sold off to the private sector, this would still be the case, resulting in, at best, a zero-sum for the taxpayer, but likely a loss, given the more diverse portfolio the royal family has.

 

And the reasoning behind this stated likelyhood? It's difficult to see what has led you to this conclusion, given that in private ownership such holdings would be subject to their true taxable value instead of falling under the tax exempt status of crown properties. Also, I note that you completely ignored the suggestion of effective nationalization of the Crown Estates - keeping everything exactly as it is, only cutting the royal family out of the profits and ownership. Well done.

 

I do not accept that it is immoral in any sense to have a right to your family's property... in your scenario anyway, the primary purpose would be for onward sale. That aside, the value of the Crown Estate is £7 Billion, which the British Government would be obligied to pay if it wanted to then sell off the lands to the private sector.

 

You're distorting my argument. In my previous post I clearly listed delivering the Crown estate into public hands, along side an alternative possibility of selling it into private ownership. In actuality I would be more than happy to accept the Royal Family's ownership of these properties provided they were stripped of rank, status, and their constitutional role. Then both the crown estate and the royals will be subjected to the appropriate levels of taxation, and the United Kingdom will be able

 

 

You totally underestimate the extensive role the monarchy plays in British identity and the British experience.

 

Perhaps I do, or perhaps I simply realise that the idea of national identity and experience should not be treated as some kind of sacred invariant. Identity and culture changes, and certainly there's a good chance that it would change in the absence of a monarchy, but that in itself is not an argument for monarchy - it could just be as much an argument for its abolition.

 

Nor is it evidence of class system in British society. Your argument strongly suggests that you do not quite understand what 'class,' in the British context, is actually about and instead think it is about resenting rich people.

 

I have no resentment towards the rich, they are a vital component of any economy and riches themselves constitute an important incentive for innovation and improvement within nearly every area of the economy. I do however resent those born into power, disagree that the U.K.'s constitution should preserve a privileged position for a dynasty such as the royal family, and find the fact that that dynasty is then exempt from paying the same kind of taxes everyone else has to labour under repellant.

 

Take Prince Charles as an example. Here we have someone who as a young man achieved mediocre A-levels yet was still awarded a place at Cambridge, who has little knowledge of science and is in fact given to making deeply stupid and potentially harmful comments regarding medicine, and yet whose opinions on these matters are often treated as seriously and given more attention in the news than those of doctors and scientists themselves. A man who despite vast personal wealth does not pay inheritance tax and is free to choose exactly how much income tax he pays, and who one day will be crowned and will represent the U.K. internationally and fulfill a (admittedly marginal) role in the government of that country, without the public once being officially consulted as to his suitability for such a position. And this is what those in the U.K. are expected to be proud of and use as a source of national identity?

 

 

Despite increasing irrelevance in constitutional terms, the monarchy has maintained its role in how Britain sees itself and lends a uniqueness to its peoples' identity and provides an image of Britain greater than a sterile republic, most of which are seen to be over-concerned with the needs of business.

 

Ah, when all else fails, invoke the spectre of americanisation of the proud British Isles! I rather think the French and Italians would be surprised, as would most other people, to find them described as a "sterile republic over concerned with the needs of business"

 

Even Jeremy Paxman, who counts himself as nominally a republican and at the very least one of those you deem apathetic, and whom we can all agree is a sophisticated intellectual, admits to having been too nervous to speak to the Queen when he had the chance.

 

He also happened to write a book where he made a convincing case for the abolition of the establishment, including the Royal Family.

 

That the Queen can have such an effect on such people who have risen on merit to the pinnacle of their respected fields is surely evidence that the monarchy remains very much more than 'something that is nice to have,' and is instead a large part British identity.

 

Or it could simply be that she had such an effect due to the length of time she has spent in public affairs, and that she herself, through this position, has become invested with this kind of power, rather than it being a mystical and intrinsic quality of "royalness" that has the capacity to win over even the most rational of individual

 

Clearly my point was that there a number of modern countries that retain monarchies. Two of them, Norway and Sweden, are regularly placed among the the very highest in most assessments as to the standard of countries, suggesting that a monarchy is not (or at least not necessarily) an obstacle to modernity.

 

As is Finland and Switzerland, so it appears, all things being equal, we can do away with the Royal family and enjoy founding a new identity that doesn't favour or confer advantage upon a family that is little more than an empty, if fondly regarded relic than a national asset.

 

Who was assuming that tourism would fail without the royal family? No one. For the third time, my point was that having an existing monarchy does help tourism in Britain, by giving special significance to their residences. I used this in support of the fact that the British people get very good value out of the royal family.

 

Then you're misunderstanding the implications of your own post. If the existing monarchy helps tourism, then its abolition must surely act to its detriment. This is what I have been arguing with.

[Lonan3]

 

Get rid of them!

[Sebrof]

And, of course, the British monarchy tends not to be corrupt.

...with £1.9 billion in the bank I suppose they don't have to be. Where did all that come from do you suppose?

 

Good question. Prince Albert was always petitioning Parliament for more money. Since then, appreciating land values and no tax have done wonders for the royal family's finances.

[Celt]

Hopefuly getting back on thread.

 

I always thought that the " New Years Honours List " was the peoples list.

 

Someone who had done well in the community and such.

 

So apart from the Cop Out Copper, the rest must have had someone to be put them forward?

 

I don't know any off these people who recieved, apart from the Cop Out Copper, who i doubt got any local votes. But if it is the case of voting for the local people who do good, why in the hell do people winge like a slapped bitch when someone gets something?

 

In future, take the time to vote for someone YOU think deserves it and not belittle the one who have, at least, made a difference in someones life and/or took the time to put a name forward. Saddo Copper Excluded.

 

 

The Queens Honour List is the one you should go for, what a laugh.

 

She even Knighted, Charles " The Bandit " Kerriush. Now that's taking the P, imo.

[mollag]

Im not a Royalist nor religous but the biblical quote of "render unto Ceaser" seems about right, if it gives you pleasure, im glad for you, if it dont, then refuse it, many have.

[Freggyragh]

Hmmm, Triskelion, thanks for the long posts, I never took any interest in all that royal stuff before, but I think I'm starting to get it. Surely we need one of these monarchs for ourselves? - How about King Dave?