Originally posted by Omega Vision
By the way, if anyone here is planning on visiting France, my advice is just to avoid Paris. Overrated, overpriced, smelly, full of especially rude Frenchmen.Go anywhere in France but Paris and you'll be happy, well-fed, and relaxed. Try Languedoc--it's Provence's less well-known, more relaxed neighbor. Normandy is awesome too.
Spoken like a true french 👆
Originally posted by Knife
You see if the 36 million was the total cost, I'd have no problem however hidden costs like protection etc. Put it at probably nearer 100 million some people claim it's much higher and of course the Jubilee celebration cost 1.3 Billion at the last estimate.Republic for example have published an alternative royal budget which puts the real annual cost to the taxpayer at £200m – more than five times the figure acknowledged by Buck House.
The group says we ought to include other small grants from government, the money spent by local councils on accommodating royal visits, the cost of security, and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
Re: The Crown Estates, the deal only looks good for the tax payer if you ignore the fact that parliament took over responsibility for paying for civil government from the king in 1760 as part of the deal.
In other words, if we decided the current arrangements were bad for the taxpayer and we wanted to turn the clock back to 1759, we would lose all that money from the Crown Estate. But in all fairness we ought to expect the Queen to start shelling out for half the cost of running the government of the country.... Which would be far more.
Virtually all those things you quote- like local security etc.- are things you would spend on an elected head of state anyway, so that'a a nonsense. Likely you would spend more on a president, in fact, and would get far less coming in in return.
Counting lost revenues from the Duchy only counts if you think it is reasonable simply to take land from people- the sort of thing we criticise Zimbabwe for. Like I say, if you want to dispossess rich people of their land, that's a far bigger deal than the Royal Family, who are small fry all things considered.
The Crown Estate thing IS a good deal for the taxpayer- what does it matter how it was spent in the past? That's simple deflection. For centuries now the Crown Estates have mostly gone to the public treasury and otherwise financed the Royal Family so the taxpayer doesn't have to. It's as simple as that.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Virtually all those things you quote- like local security etc.- are things you would spend on an elected head of state anyway, so that'a a nonsense. Likely you would spend more on a president, in fact, and would get far less coming in in return.Counting lost revenues from the Duchy only counts if you think it is reasonable simply to take land from people- the sort of thing we criticise Zimbabwe for. Like I say, if you want to dispossess rich people of their land, that's a far bigger deal than the Royal Family, who are small fry all things considered.
The Crown Estate thing IS a good deal for the taxpayer- what does it matter how it was spent in the past? That's simple deflection. For centuries now the Crown Estates have mostly gone to the public treasury and otherwise financed the Royal Family so the taxpayer doesn't have to. It's as simple as that.
I don't disagree that security etc. would be paid for any head of state, but what about the entire civil list, the whole extended family is paid for, the likes of Andrew, Beatriz and all the ex's and hangers on.
Now, your second point is an interesting one as the law of bona vacantia does exactly that for the Queen and Charlie boy, it states that the estates of duchy residents who die without leaving a will pass to the Queen or Charles. A nice little earner. 😉
Finally, the crown estates work for both the royals and the public only as long as we have royals and it's not a deflection. The crown estates mean the Queen doesn't have t pay for the Government, it saves her billions she doesn't have.
If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow the income would stay in the hands of the Treasury, the annual ritual of the Queen “surrendering” the money to parliament is really nothing more than a formality.
Despite the fact, the ownership of the Crown Estate is so obscure some monarchists say that it’s not that easy to say what would happen if we suddenly decided to scrap the monarchy.
because it's run like a business but there’s no shareholders. All profits go to the Treasury, but it’s not a government body. The land is owned by the monarchy but it’s not the private property of the Queen.
This means, there’s no legal instrument guaranteeing that future revenue would pass to the state, although the trustees of the estate are ultimately subject to the will of parliament so the Treasury would simply win out.
Finally, the issue of whether the royal family make the country money is irrelevant.
Sometimes you just have to do the right thing and get rid and as a republican for me that's get rid of them.
I understand monarchists like the ritual, the history and perhaps even being ruled over. Black spider letters, the Duchy of Cornwall etc. aside.
Everyone always says “What if we got Rupert Murdoch as a President instead?. Why imagine the worst example? We could equally have something as bad as Jeremy Clarkson if the people willed it!
For me we should be positive and regard changes with hope for the future rather than possible disasters. Britain needs to be more confident in itself as a nation and not cling to the ermine-lined capes of an outmoded and undemocratically chosen family as an identity to underpin a lack of social mobility and a rigid class system.
Of course it is a deflection- the idea that the Queen should pay for the government in entirety is a ludicrous one dating from the time when the monarch actually governed the country. If you abolished the monarchy, unless you actively want to steal the Crown Estates, what happens next is that the government gets NONE of the money and the taxpayers foot the bill. Hence deflection for you to suggest that the alternative is for the Queen- or any individual- to be personally liable for paying for the costs of running a country. It's an absurd argument to bring up at all.
The issue of whether the royal family makes the country money or not IS relevant in this thread when I was originally replying to OV's comment about them being good value for money. If you want the royal family got rid of out of pure Republican sentiment, then fine- but that's not actually what we were talking about, so you are the one being irrelevant in that sense. If you want to make a thread about Britain becoming a Republic, then please do so.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course it is a deflection- the idea that the Queen should pay for the government in entirety is a ludicrous one dating from the time when the monarch actually governed the country. If you abolished the monarchy, unless you actively want to steal the Crown Estates, what happens next is that the government gets NONE of the money and the taxpayers foot the bill. Hence deflection for you to suggest that the alternative is for the Queen- or any individual- to be personally liable for paying for the costs of running a country. It's an absurd argument to bring up at all.The issue of whether the royal family makes the country money or not IS relevant in this thread when I was originally replying to OV's comment about them being good value for money. If you want the royal family got rid of out of pure Republican sentiment, then fine- but that's not actually what we were talking about, so you are the one being irrelevant in that sense. If you want to make a thread about Britain becoming a Republic, then please do so.
The Monarch was responsible until the setting up the Crown Estate for the payment of the Government. The Queen is still not a true constitutional monarch (as such a thing is a misnomer) The removal of the monarchs need to pay was part of the deal. It's what happens when you have a monarch. If we want to go back to the year before the crown estates then the monarch did pay for it.
I realise the irrelevance in this thread, although the thread has deviated in numerous ways. I also don't disagree in terms of the original topic I have deviated.
I will come up with the thread you suggest, although it won't be up for a few days as I will have to research things like the black spider letters etc and decide what I need to put in the opener as the issue is complex.
Originally posted by vansonbee
I don't blame the Queen for anything, she was a little lad back in the day, not knowing anything about the wide world.The positive out of all this, I didn't know Hitler was well respected before the war.
In some ways it was respect, but it was more just people didn't know the full extent of what was going on. See they felt the way they did about Jews, etc. but they also felt they were the superior race and wanted *others* to see that as well. But they also knew if other countries saw their intense hatred they wouldn't be viewed in a good light..so it was a strange give and take for a while.
I think drugs skewed Hitler as well, since he was on a boatload of them and it messed his mind up. I am not blaming drugs for his beliefs, but rather for some of the unsound strategic decisions he made late into the war. He was apparently big on meth.
Originally posted by Surtur
In some ways it was respect, but it was more just people didn't know the full extent of what was going on. See they felt the way they did about Jews, etc. but they also felt they were the superior race and wanted *others* to see that as well. But they also knew if other countries saw their intense hatred they wouldn't be viewed in a good light..so it was a strange give and take for a while.I think drugs skewed Hitler as well, since he was on a boatload of them and it messed his mind up. I am not blaming drugs for his beliefs, but rather for some of the unsound strategic decisions he made late into the war. He was apparently big on meth.
Hitler was popular because many German people had suffered during the first world war and depression. He promised and delivered work and bread. Many German people, Hitler among them believed that the Jews had somehow caused this turmoil particularly financially as Jews were linked to Banking. Hitler used and built on this.
As for the British Royals.
Behind the infant Queen’s gesture lies a dark history of aristocratic Nazi links
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/nazi-hitler-royal-family