25 minutes ago, transam said:

Perhaps because we British are not American, Chinese or Russian......

Yeap, and please keep common sense out of it, and everything will be greater! Make Great Britain Great again ????

 

Just love the emotional responses it create to make a healthy debate. Proves my point actually to ther pin point ☝️

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Yeap, and please keep common sense out of it, and everything will be greater! Make Great Britain Great again ????

 

Just love the emotional responses it create to make a healthy debate. Proves my point actually to ther pin point ☝️

Great Britain will always be Great Britain, you may not of noticed, but, it is actually called Great Britain.............????  

I am a citizen of a constitutional monarchy. In my country, that particular institution Is not a divisive matter, and there is little to complain about the behaviour of our royals. Like most of my countrymen, I am not particularly in favour of abolishing our monarchy. However, as a principle, I have to admit that there is an issue with the very institution, in every country where it still can be found.
Historically, the higher classes of society (the nobility and the wealthy) gradually put in place systems to curb the absolute power of the sovereign, not necessarily because of lofty democratic ideals, but because the power of one, from father to son, was a major constant threat to them and their own standing. 
But the fundamental fact is that hereditary monarchy, even tempered by a constitution to the point of being ceremonial only,  is simply incompatible with democracy. Irrespective of whatever actual power or influence is left with today’s constitutional monarchs, it is not acceptable that the position of Head of State in a democratic country is left to the whims of genetics and to one particular family grabbing or receiving the throne/crown centuries ago. Equally unacceptable for a citizen of a democratic country is not to be able to elect the Head of State, nor to be able to be a candidate to the role of Head of State.
And from the point of view of human rights, it is unacceptable to maintain an entire family of prisoners of state, whose lives are tightly controlled, which causes many issues with them, especially now that they are under constant scrutiny. It is a recipe for disaster to force individuals that never chose that lifestyle to be held to such impossible standards.
In conclusion, while a constitutional monarchy is not harmful to the point of needing to be overthrown, it is incompatible with a democratic society, and it is also quite cruel to maintain an entire family of innocent people in a gilded cage as a tourist attraction and to satisfy a craving for waving the flag from time to time.
 

16 hours ago, it is what it is said:

 

because succession to the British throne is determined under common law, and not by the people.

could have been done, its called abdication, they have done it in resent history, Charles is outdated and last years model, and have horse face as a queen, William would be a better choice for the younger generation

55 minutes ago, transam said:

Great Britain will always be Great Britain, you may not of noticed, but, it is actually called Great Britain.............????  

yeah I bought my souvenir already. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, steve187 said:

could have been done, its called abdication, they have done it in resent history, Charles is outdated and last years model, and have horse face as a queen, William would be a better choice for the younger generation

What an educated post, it all depends on what you look like to become King, nothing to do with decades in waiting..............Gawd 'elp us.............

3 minutes ago, still kicking said:

yeah I bought my souvenir already. 

 

 

You need 2 hands to drink coffee, sorry to hear of your plight, old bean, but chin-up......????

18 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Benefits? Please explain.

Well they certainly live a grand lifestyle without working.

 

Somebody has to pay for it. 

2 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Well they certainly live a grand lifestyle without working.

 

Somebody has to pay for it. 

You obviously know nothing about Royal duties.................

Like others here, you know nothing.............

With any monarchy the internet has made it easy to what's true and what is fiction. 

Just now, MrJ2U said:

With any monarchy the internet has made it easy to what's true and what is fiction. 

Yes, you seem to be a prime example of know nothing on it.........????

3 minutes ago, transam said:

You obviously know nothing about Royal duties.................

Like others here, you know nothing.............

My parents were Royal subject's before immigrating. 

4 hours ago, transam said:

Don't you worry about the UK, it's been around for quite a while....????

Keep up the good work. I'm proud of our monarchy and my daughter is currently benefiting from taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh awards while here in Thailand. She's also proud.

1 hour ago, MrJ2U said:

Well they certainly live a grand lifestyle without working.

 

Somebody has to pay for it. 

I think you'll find what they do is working.

 

Also, they more than pay for themselves. Why not read up on where the Sovereign Grant comes from?

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I think you'll find what they do is working.

 

Also, they more than pay for themselves. Why not read up on where the Sovereign Grant comes from?

Honestly can't be bothered.

 

Anyways looks like they'll be around for a long time.

 

No skin off my back whether or not the last another day or another 20 generations, I could care less. 

 

The elderly and infirmed Britts seem to like them. 

1 minute ago, MrJ2U said:

Honestly can't be bothered.

Ignorance is bliss, eh? ????????????

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

Ignorance is bliss, eh? ????????????

Seems that way in your case. 

1 hour ago, MrJ2U said:

Well they certainly live a grand lifestyle without working.

 

Somebody has to pay for it. 

Firstly the Royal Family DO work and damned hard for a living.

 

Secondly, the Civil list which pays them only pays out about 15% of the income it gets to the Royal Family, so in reality they cost nothing and the government makes a profit from them.

 

Thirdly they are a great tourist attraction, and bring even more money into the country.

 

9 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Honestly can't be bothered.

 

Anyways looks like they'll be around for a long time.

 

No skin off my back whether or not the last another day or another 20 generations, I could care less. 

 

The elderly and infirmed Britts seem to like them. 

So if you can't be bothered, your words, why are you even commenting on the topic?

Just now, billd766 said:

Firstly the Royal Family DO work and damned hard for a living.

 

Secondly, the Civil list which pays them only pays out about 15% of the income it gets to the Royal Family, so in reality they cost nothing and the government makes a profit from them.

 

Thirdly they are a great tourist attraction, and bring even more money into the country.

 

So if you can't be bothered, your words, why are you even commenting on the topic?

Because I think the British Monarchy is a waist of time and taxpayer funds.

 

Why are you bothering posting.

 

This is exclusively for people in the know. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I think you'll find what they do is working.

 

Also, they more than pay for themselves. Why not read up on where the Sovereign Grant comes from?

 Well, it is a matter of perspective, I guess.
Obviously, the Royals are working, in the sense that they have a large number of engagements and public functions. However, most of those can be considered entirely ceremonial and very dispensable. Ribbon-cutting and visits of choc9late factories are hardly necessary, and if so, could be performed by ministers and local authorities. Justifying the existence of a royal family by the things they do to justify their existence is a sort of circular reasoning.
As for the funding of their lifestyle and upkeep, the Sovereign Grant in the UK, and to an extend the Civil List in other countries with a monarchy, is funded by the income of the Crown Estate, which for all practical purposes is the property of the state. Wherever a monarchy was overthrown, the Crown Estate of that country was simply taken over by the Treasury of the country. The Crown Estate is quite distinct from the private wealth of the royal family. In a number of cases of abolition of the monarchy, the deposed monarch retained much of not all of his family’s private wealth, to this day. For example, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany had to flee in exile in the Netherlands, but the new German government sent him several trainloads of private items, and the deposed Kaiser remained the owner of many properties in Germany.×
Justifying the funding of the royal family in the UK or elsewhere by the fact that it is funded by an estate that in effect belongs to the state anyway is another circular reasoning.  

12 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Seems that way in your case. 

No.

 

I'm the one giving the information. You are the one ignoring it to suit your own agenda.

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No.

 

I'm the one giving the information. You are the one ignoring it to suit your own agenda.

Taxpayers money is used for funding the royal family.

Look it up.

 

 

"released in June of 2022 show that they cost the taxpayer £102.4m during 2021-22 – an increase of 17% from the previous financial year."

 

https://britishheritage.com/royals/royal-family-cost-british-taxpayer#:~:text=Ever wondered how much the,from the previous financial year.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Taxpayers money is used for funding the royal family.

Look it up.

 

 

"released in June of 2022 show that they cost the taxpayer £102.4m during 2021-22 – an increase of 17% from the previous financial year."

 

https://britishheritage.com/royals/royal-family-cost-british-taxpayer#:~:text=Ever wondered how much the,from the previous financial year.

 

 

 

 

Funny. I asked you to look it up. Anyway, it's not the tax payer that pays it. It is the treasury. The treasury use money from the Crown estate. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance

 

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

Funny. I asked you to look it up. Anyway, it's not the tax payer that pays it. It is the treasury. The treasury use money from the Crown estate. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance

 

Funded by taxpayers money.

 

Talk about denial. 

1 minute ago, MrJ2U said:

Funded by taxpayers money.

 

Talk about denial. 

The link you posted even quotes tge Sovereign Grant. It confirms what I said.

 

You obviously didn't read the bit about how the treasury have reaped £3 billion in the last 10 years from the Crown Estate.

 

In case you're nit that good at maths, £3 billion divided by 10 is £300 million. Sovereign grants average around £80 million a year. 300 minus 80 is 220.

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Funny.

Hilarious.

 

Odd sense of humor. 

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The link you posted even quotes tge Sovereign Grant. It confirms what I said.

 

You obviously didn't read the bit about how the treasury have reaped £3 billion in the last 10 years from the Crown Estate.

 

In case you're nit that good at maths, £3 billion divided by 10 is £300 million. Sovereign grants average around £80 million a year. 300 minus 80 is 220.

Your an elderly guy who loves the pagentry and gayity of the British Royal family.

 

More power to you.

 

 

26 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Because I think the British Monarchy is a waist of time and taxpayer funds.

 

Why are you bothering posting.

 

This is exclusively for people in the know. 

 

 

Really?

 

quote " This is exclusively for people in the know".

 

Says who. This is an open thread and ANYBODY can respond to it.

 

quote "Because I think the British Monarchy is a waist of time and taxpayer funds."

 

I think exactly the opposite as do many other posters, and sadly for "your" exclusive post, I can and I will respond as I see fit.

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Says who

Me, but I'm letting you slide because I like you and your posts. 

7 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Me, but I'm letting you slide because I like you and your posts. 

Well said, and respect to you for saying so.

 

It should be possible to have an healthy educated debate about monarchy without bickering posts.

 

Not to forget the benefits is huge for the country as face of British culture and history, but as constitution is another matter which do not belong in modern society.