homeguard

I'm already logged as a devout royalist, but I'll tell you how Prince Phillip's mind works if you have a minute.
We started our company up supplying expedition equipment and military supplies and called it Outdoor Bound. For four years we made sure that all young people's organisations like Cadets and Duke of Edinburghs participants were given large discounts on their purchases. It seemed a good way to help. We also undertook to pass on to enquirers the telephone number of the Outward Bound organisation, so that people could book on their courses. They didn't have their own published contact numbers. Then one day a chap called in at the shop and bought a sweatshirt with Outdoor Bound printed on it, the only line that did. A week later we had a letter from that organisation demanding many thousands of pounds in 'damages', the destruction of all stock marked as Outdoor Bound, and delivery to their offices - a solicitor in Bristol - of all our letter headed stationary.
The reason was that our name was too similar to the Outward Bound name. Their attention had been drawn to us by us forwarding all the enquiries to their clients.
Totally p***** off we decided this was not fair, and found out that the Outward Bound organisation was being assisted by the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme. A letter to Prince Phillip explaining the circumstances ensured we were never bothered again. He also took the trouble to let us know that he valued our contribution to the youth of this country. That's a gentleman, and one with an all too rare sense of humour.
Regards,
HG

ShirlGirl

Not really. As head-of-state, the Queen is really only a figurehead. Running things past her is mostly just a formality, to keep her informed and to obtain her signature on documents. But even if, as Steve says.... "the role of the monarch is to advise, inform and warn. And that's about it." ....then the British monarchy would have to be the most exorbitantly expensive consultancy firm in existence. A consultancy firm with just one consultant and all the other family members being grossly overpaid PR personnel.

I have the impression that many British think the monarchy is the be-all and end-all of the UK tourist trade. Not so. I'm sure even without the monarchy you would still find the tourists pouring in. You have such an incredibly beautiful scenic country and so much exciting history and nothing can change all that. Going to London to see the Queen and processions etc. is merely the icing on the cake. I've heard that the cost of the monarchy to the British taxpayer far exceeds the tourist trade revenue.

Of course, I'm speaking from my head and not from my heart. I am in fact very fond of Aunty Betty Windsor and feel quite attached to her and her family. My roots are English, Scottish and Northern Irish and I was brought up in a staunchly pro-British, Anglo-Celtic, monarchistic environment. When I was a little girl I was a big "fan" of the young Princess Margaret and even had a scrapbook I made from pictures I cut out of magazines!

While Australia is destined to become a republic, I can't see that it could ever happen in Britain. Tradition means a lot to the British. Personally, I would hate to see it happen over there - but that's purely nostalgia on my part. Money-wise, the monarchy is an extravagance in this day and age when it doesn't really serve much practical purpose any more. Still, if you think it's worth it......

penfold

The problem with GB becoming a Republic, from the pragmatic point of view, is that we would have to replace the Monarchy with a Presidency....which would also involve a great deal of the pomp and circumstance, and therefore expense; plus the added expense of periodic elections. The Royal family have the advantage over any putative president in that while they can express their opinions on certain issues...cf. Charles on the environment, they are able to float above the cesspool of modern politics....whereas any President would have risen through said cesspool.
We realise it's not an ideal system; but it's the devil we know; and if they behave themselves within reason, we'll let them continue in their gilded prison....if there is an argument for the dissolution of the monarchy, it's on the basis of human cruelty. After what happened to Diana, would any right-minded woman really want to marry the heirs to the throne??

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

Steve Crook

How much do you think they cost us?
See Head of State expenditure

"Head of State expenditure has reduced significantly over the past decade, from £87.3 million in 1991-92 to £37.3 million in 2006-07. In the year 2006-07 The Queen cost the taxpayer just 62 pence per person."
(62 pence = AU$1.29)

That's a lot cheaper than what most politicians cost us (one way or another)


As for Australia, yes, there are many good arguments for it becoming a Republic. That would probably be the best thing for it. But I would expect that it would remain a member of the Commonwealth

Steve

Mark O

Good point.......I don't think I'd be too happy to have my Head of State living in another Country.......isn't the Queen still head of State in Canada?, if she is I don't think they've had a referendum as Australia and New Zealand have done in recent years, I recall once seeing an interview with the Primeminister of New Zealand (of whom the Media was carping on about the fact she was wearing a Trouser-suit when first presented to HM.......shock, horror!) and she said that having a Head of State who lives on the other side of the World is very 'quaint' in this day and age, but on the other hand we're not in any rush to upset the status quo (or words to that effect!)

Mark

Steve Crook

Hasn't she heard of teleworking?

As for the media getting upset about a trouser suit. It's only ever the media that gets upset. Everyone else has got more sense.

Steve

Marky B

Worse still,Cherie as First Lady (which she never was when Bliar was in No 10).
Ta Ta
Marky B

I am special. The heavens always open for me.

faginsgirl

With respect to what you have all said on the subject.

I do agree with Shirl girl that tourists would still come if it wasnt for the modern monachy, after all we have an enourmous history behind us. We can still maintain the castles and jewels etc. We pay for stuff like this in our taxes anyway in connection with English heritage! A lot of people dont realise that!

Even if we had one person on the throne I dont see a need for the whole clan to be paid for in different ways by the tax payer, our money could go to more essential things, when they are literally people begging and homeless outside of `The Palace`!

As I said, with respect.

xx

We`re changin` lodggggggggings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve Crook

Write to her and tell her you don't want to pay your 62p next year.
That'll get her worried

Steve

faginsgirl

Well, you have a point, if we all did that the country could get its priorities right, maybe it could go to something important to help those less fortnuate!

xx

We`re changin` lodggggggggings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve Crook

It'd take a lot more then the amount the Royal Family costs us

Steve

ShirlGirl

When you break it down like that, 62p per person seems like peanuts. But in reality, £37.3 million is a helluva lot of money to go to one family every year! (A family which is privileged purely by accident of birth.)

As Faginsgirl says, it could be put to better use. I could think of a lot of things that a government could do with £37.3 million to improve conditions for the benifit of the community, or at least certain sections of the community. Just think, if that amount was distributed - not just once but every year, don't forget! - amongst all the most worthy charities in the land, what a tremendous amount of good that would do.

Or it could build a hospital, or buy equipment for existing hospitals, or finance medical research. And much more.

Steve Crook

All very true. But how much does any other head of state cost? With all the state visits abroad and receptions at home? Is there really much difference? You might well find that we actually get a bargain

£37.3 million, or even £373 million, might seem like a lot to you but it's chicken feed when compared to what almost any government project costs or what any national charity gets through per year. They spend more than that just running the head office and doing a bit of advertising.

With £37m you could pay for a new hospital every 2-5 years. Save up for another few years and you could even buy some equipment to put into it. Save for some more years and you could even pay for some staff.

Look at some of the figures in this article

Steve

homeguard

It never ceases to amaze me how little British citizens know about their history and the systems which keep the country going. On the one hand you have the likes of every socialist government since they were created selling off all our assets - (what gold would that be Gordon) - and on the other a Royal Family who give millions to the country every year.
What you republicans probably don't know is that the Queen gives all the profits from her estates - The Crown Estates - in return for the Civil List. So this scumbag government collected £200 million in exchange for thirty odd. The next time you are picking up your Giro, just murmur a thankyou to the most hard-working woman in the country.

Chief Executive's Report - Crown Estates.
Our turnover has increased by 3.9% to £262.2 million and our net revenue surplus, the profit which goes to the Exchequer for the benefit of UK taxpayers, rose by 4.9% to £200.1 million. Our total capital value at the end of the year was £7.1 billion, an increase of £1.2 billion, nearly 20%, over the previous year. Of that, the total value of our property portfolio accounted for £6.6 billion, an increase of 15.6% over the year before.

Get a life!
HG

faginsgirl

I do know a lot about history thankyou, we`re not talking about history, we are talking about the present.

I don`t have a giro so cant pick one up, but I in fact DO have a life!

Thanks for the debate anyway.

xx

We`re changin` lodggggggggings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!