Thread: Prince of Wales costs us £3m!

Originally Posted by billybongo

It would be good to see a coherent argument that puts the case for a monarchy as opposed to a democracy.

Right back atcha!

I would like to hear a coherent argument that puts the case for a Presidential system.

By the way, having a constitutional Monarch does not preclude this being a democracy.

This is one argument where neither side will persuade the other but you will tend to find that most of the members of this site will be pro-monarchy rather than traitorous rebels like your good self :D

Tubs

I already indicated that I am happy with the arrangement of the Monarchy as it is, and see no reason to change it. It has worked for this country for centuries, and there is no need to change it now. There is no need to elect our Head of State, it doesnt happen in any other Monarchy in the world and there is no reason to suppose we need to do it here or now.

Changing our government on the other hand is something we should all be able to do, this particular government has abused the democratic processes of the country.

The monarchy still provide some useful escapism.

I don't know how I'd feel swearing an oath of allegiance to Gordon Brown and The Labour Party if I decided to join the army tomorrow.

Swearing an oath of allegiance to the queen who has herself "served" in the armed forces (As have her children and grand children) is alot easier. Not to mention with tours like NI, The Falklands and Afghanistan under their belt they're not doing too bad either. You only have to compare them to Tony Blair/Gordon Brown and their families to see the difference.

Politicians come and go and Political Parties rise and fall. The Monarchy stays and is a constant beacon of light for many especially when times are as low as they are. Not just for members of the Services (Armed and Emergency).

Moaning about Prince Charles costing £3 million is like moaning about yours HIV/AIDS costing you another shag when you were asked about it and couldn't lie.

Its not going to go away. You will keep paying, until there is a cure.

Edit: Like it or not, don't forget that the UK is his mum's manor. Kings, Queens and Princes do the kingdom thing so that they can be in charge and have many a fat jolly. Subjects are for providing their lieges with jollies, one way or another.

Maybe it's just me, but the bit that puts me off joining up (not enough to stop me) is that I'm effectively serving Broon and whichever cnut is Defence Secretary. I'd rather have the Queen tell me what to do- at least her family have the balls to get out there run the risks and with the lads.

Originally Posted by auxie

Originally Posted by southernfairy

Originally Posted by Ancient_Mariner

Originally Posted by barrett

They have no power - except of the ceremonial/symbolic kind

And the kind that allows Liz to dissolve Parliament and forcibly remove the government if Gordon stops taking his pills and tries to cling to power via a State of Emergency.

And the kind that allows Liz to refuse the Royal Assent if Labour decide to pass legislation to make MPs immune to prosecution before the next general election.

The queen does have that power, but only technically. If she tried it these days, it would be taken away, most likely the monarchy would go with it. However, the royal family cost us about 20p a head per uk citizen, they work extremely hard for our country, and are part of our heritage. why would you want to be a republican? In what way would the royal family offend you? Its a plus for our country, and we have precious few of those these days.

Why wouldnt you wish to be republican most other countries seem to get by without wasting millions on these parasites, two members work hard the rest should be got shot of

You call them parasites? Yet you want to replace them with a politician - politicians who are the real parasites of this country. They steal, they lie and they would sell their mother's if they thought it would get them a few votes or a job on the Cabinet or on a Commons Committee, with all the perks that they don't actually need, but will claim for.

Never mind the 'milking of the system' so they can get as much as they can out of the coffers.

Added onto that - do you have any idea how much a Presidential election campaign would cost? Candidates would have to be supported by sponsors - you know - the sort that hand out great wads of cash in order to get their man (or woman) in the big seat for their own benefit. Sod the electorate.

The US is finding out that although they are a democracy - it's big business that actually 'influences' the policies of government.

And then there's security. Each ex-President would require security 24/7 for the rest of their lives to 'protect' them from terrorists and anarchists and other people they managed to p*ss off during their tenure.

The cost would escalate and escalate - and who would pay for it all in the end - yes the taxpayer - as usual.

No better the system we have - a none partisan Monarch who, in the long run, would be far cheaper than an elected President, even taking into account the other Royals on the Civil List.

Besides HM was 'elected' by God for the Head of State of Britain. If she wasn't meant to rule - she wouldn't have been born to that position.

If you 'republicans' want to live in a republic so much - feel free to emigrate to one - and don't let the door hit your arrse on the way out. I hear the the Islamic Republic of Iran is a nice place to live! :D

P.O.W. driving a Bentley back from up north to London, passenger and map reader Barry Mannakee. They hit standing traffic on the motorway because it is p1ssing with rain.

POW, "Barry, find me an alternative route". So he does so through minor roads. In a flash Barry notices a road sign 'FORD' the next thing he notices is a flooded stream. After that 'whoosh' as the Bentley aqua planes into the flooded stream.. A moment of silence, then the Bentley moves sideways downstream.

POW, "Barry, what should I do?

Barry, "Well you're the Naval Officer Sir".

He's worth every penny, God bless him! He's of more use to the country than any footballer, and they cost more than that!

Originally Posted by flamingo

He's worth every penny, God bless him! He's of more use to the country than any footballer, and they cost more than that!

Or Politician. At least footballers have a use!

Apart from giving Bentley dealerships something to do, what else are footballers good for?

Originally Posted by nebapneb

now on to more important topics
camilla, would you?

After a few strong ales the answer is yes!

swearing an oath of allegiance to Gordon Brown or 3million? The latter i think...

Originally Posted by Tubbyboy

Originally Posted by billybongo

It would be good to see a coherent argument that puts the case for a monarchy as opposed to a democracy.

Right back atcha!

I would like to hear a coherent argument that puts the case for a Presidential system.

By the way, having a constitutional Monarch does not preclude this being a democracy.

This is one argument where neither side will persuade the other but you will tend to find that most of the members of this site will be pro-monarchy rather than traitorous rebels like your good self :D

Tubs

Love the traitorous bit !! Of course, traitorous depends which side you are on and i would rather betray a single family than a nation. Fortunately there are those of who do think and care about democracy and there are those lemmings happy to be subservient to a parliament which is partly unaccountable and not as democratic as it could be.

But fear not lemmings - change isn't all that scary.

Originally Posted by billybongo

Love the traitorous bit !! Of course, traitorous depends which side you are on and i would rather betray a single family than a nation. Fortunately there are those of who do think and care about democracy and there are those lemmings happy to be subservient to a parliament which is partly unaccountable and not as democratic as it could be.

But fear not lemmings - change isn't all that scary.

I like having a constitutional monarch as it lends a non-political head of state. Something non-partisan that can act as a head of state for everyone. Long serving for stability. Probably bring in more cash in aditional tourism than it costs to have. Why do you dislike that and what better have you to offer? More politicians I can do without. Even just 1 more is too much.

Can you name a current politician and family who has done as much for their nation? Lets see.
The Queen and her sister drove ambulances in London during WWII.
Her husband served in the RN during WWII.
Her eldest son comanded a ship.
Her 2nd son piloted a helicopter in the Falklands war.
A grandson served as a TAC in Afghanistan.

What political family compares to that?

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Originally Posted by billybongo

Love the traitorous bit !! Of course, traitorous depends which side you are on and i would rather betray a single family than a nation. Fortunately there are those of who do think and care about democracy and there are those lemmings happy to be subservient to a parliament which is partly unaccountable and not as democratic as it could be.

But fear not lemmings - change isn't all that scary.

I like having a constitutional monarch as it lends a non-political head of state. Something non-partisan that can act as a head of state for everyone. Long serving for stability. Probably bring in more cash in aditional tourism than it costs to have. Why do you dislike that and what better have you to offer? More politicians I can do without. Even just 1 more is too much.

Can you name a current politician and family who has done as much for their nation? Lets see.
The Queen and her sister drove ambulances in London during WWII.
Her husband served in the RN during WWII.
Her eldest son comanded a ship.
Her 2nd son piloted a helicopter in the Falklands war.
A grandson served as a TAC in Afghanistan.

What political family compares to that?

And her third son didn't - yet he is nearer to being head of state than any of us. I assume by your comments that you think that some service in the forces gives an individual poitical insight and an ability to play the part of a statesman on the international stage? That service is not peculiar to the Windsors. Tony Benn, Edward Heath, Enoch Powell and et al served in the forces and thereafter went on to serve their country - you may not have liked their style or politics but one of the joys of a democracy - the electorate gets rid of them once their usefulness is run. Fortunately we don't have political families (despite Blair's best efforts), so I'm not sure where your point takes us?

Long serving doesn't necessarily bring stability - the two are not intrinsically linked.

For me there is a very simple reason why a democratic system is inexorably preferable to a monarchy. I don't want to live subservient to a monarch that is there by accident of birth, who is virtually unaccountable and has the inexorable right to remain in power regardless of the will of the people. I like the idea of having a say (albeit very small) in how my country is run at all levels.