The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 06-14-2011, 06:25 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
I've always thought that the Queen is in an interesting position. She is said to be above politics, but she has real constitutional duties, e.g. appointing a Prime Minister. Here her duties are not nominal, but practical, IMO.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 06-14-2011, 09:38 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly1994 View Post
Very true. I can't possibly imagine America without a President. It's so much with who we are as a nation. Personally I like Obama. I think he is doing a good
I'm American too and while the current system we have has worked amazingly well, I wouldn't be opposed to having a set-up like Canada and Australia have--with their own elected governments, but with Queen Elizabeth as their head of state, with a local representative (picked by the local government).

I'm a Republican (big R) and one reason I'd be fine with a Canada-type system is because of Obama. Since he's an elected official who belongs to one party, he frequently plays up partisanship- it's just part of being an elected politician). When Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, all Democrats, were the three most important elected officials, and were constantly attacking Republicans, I just felt so alienated from national government. I'd think that Democrats would have thought the same from 2001-2007, with Republicans in charge of all three branches of government.

Basically, having a nonpartisan head of state would be fine with me, and the only way to do it that I can think of is to have that be a monarch. (Just removing a party designation from someone won't work- someone who makes it high enough to become head of state by being picked for it would have partisan links).

I wouldn't want our own home-grown royal family, since basically everyone has some partisan connection. We'd need to bring back the British royal family or import another one.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 06-15-2011, 02:37 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
I'm American too and while the current system we have has worked amazingly well, I wouldn't be opposed to having a set-up like Canada and Australia have--with their own elected governments, but with Queen Elizabeth as their head of state, with a local representative (picked by the local government).

I'm a Republican (big R) and one reason I'd be fine with a Canada-type system is because of Obama. Since he's an elected official who belongs to one party, he frequently plays up partisanship- it's just part of being an elected politician). When Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, all Democrats, were the three most important elected officials, and were constantly attacking Republicans, I just felt so alienated from national government. I'd think that Democrats would have thought the same from 2001-2007, with Republicans in charge of all three branches of government.

Basically, having a nonpartisan head of state would be fine with me, and the only way to do it that I can think of is to have that be a monarch. (Just removing a party designation from someone won't work- someone who makes it high enough to become head of state by being picked for it would have partisan links).

I wouldn't want our own home-grown royal family, since basically everyone has some partisan connection. We'd need to bring back the British royal family or import another one.
Very well put, CSENYC. I am an Australian and these are my thoughts exactly. Why alienate a significant portion of the population by having a popularity contest every few years for the highest office in the land? Yes, not everyone in a constitutional monarchy agress with the system, but at least the petty politics is life to the career politicians and the nation has a respectable, reputable figurehead at the top
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 06-19-2011, 10:29 PM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 263
The BRF, and other royals families, well at least their personas, are presented to the public as empathetic, sympathetic, down-to-earth, hard-working. I also realize in countries with a RF, many of their 'subjects' seem to believe the RF of their country/region is part of their culture and their heritage.
We should all really think of the practical reasons to keep funding their salary, travel, and up-keep. For practical reasons, a RF is simply a waste of money in a world that is very strapped for cash.
Emotions aside, and please do not bring emotions of sentiment into the picture, royal houses of Europe should not be at all. 'Royal blood' itself does not exist within any of us. Royal titles simply exists on paper and in the cyber world. Why should anyone have to bow/curtsy to anyone else?????? Royals are not above everyone else, sorry. These people fear to lose their 'positions,' their lavish lifestyles, etc. Why????? The practicality of a royal family does not exist. Sure, many seem very people- friendly, and do spend time working with charities/causes. If really committed to these c/c, they can still volunteer their time. I could go on and on, but I am not. The point of my post is made.
A practical and valid reason to keep wasting money on royals???
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 06-19-2011, 11:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
The BRF, and other royals families, well at least their personas, are presented to the public as empathetic, sympathetic, down-to-earth, hard-working. I also realize in countries with a RF, many of their 'subjects' seem to believe the RF of their country/region is part of their culture and their heritage.
We should all really think of the practical reasons to keep funding their salary, travel, and up-keep. For practical reasons, a RF is simply a waste of money in a world that is very strapped for cash.
Emotions aside, and please do not bring emotions of sentiment into the picture, royal houses of Europe should not be at all. 'Royal blood' itself does not exist within any of us. Royal titles simply exists on paper and in the cyber world. Why should anyone have to bow/curtsy to anyone else?????? Royals are not above everyone else, sorry. These people fear to lose their 'positions,' their lavish lifestyles, etc. Why????? The practicality of a royal family does not exist. Sure, many seem very people- friendly, and do spend time working with charities/causes. If really committed to these c/c, they can still volunteer their time. I could go on and on, but I am not. The point of my post is made.
A practical and valid reason to keep wasting money on royals???

In Britain only two members of the royal family are paid for by the state - the monarch and the monarch's spouse. The rest of the royal family are supported by the monarch, or from the private income of theheir to the throne, but they all work for the nation - effectively as unpaid employees of the state.

So from a money standpoint they are good value - do away with them and someone else will do the job and probably want to be paid for it.

The Queen's official duties still have to be done by someone - e.g. a President - so no saving there - as someone will have to do the job.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 06-20-2011, 12:55 AM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

In Britain only two members of the royal family are paid for by the state - the monarch and the monarch's spouse. The rest of the royal family are supported by the monarch, or from the private income of theheir to the throne, but they all work for the nation - effectively as unpaid employees of the state.

So from a money standpoint they are good value - do away with them and someone else will do the job and probably want to be paid for it.

The Queen's official duties still have to be done by someone - e.g. a President - so no saving there - as someone will have to do the job.

As the crown does not want to be affiliated with political party, it would be more advantageous for GB to simply have a PM, if the PM gets less pay than the monarch. Why does the monarch's spouse also receive income from the state? There are millions of married folks in the world, and their spouse receives no income from the other halfs' place of employ.
I do believe the members of the BRF are basically wonderful people, but to pay any of them taxpayers' money is a waste for GB. Education, medical insurance and other social services for the citizens should never be cut by lawmakers. Ridding GB of it's monarchy, is simply a practical solution to help GB now and perpetually. Economically, it does make sense.

Ask yourself this question - why are royals in general fearful of losing royal status? Why? Of what are they so fearful? If they lose royal status so what? They would still retain all private real estate and assets. Why are they fearful of being commoners? Again, I do not believe any royal is malicious in nature, but they simply are an extra financial burden on their tax-paying citizens and are unnecessary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 06-20-2011, 02:45 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
As the crown does not want to be affiliated with political party, it would be more advantageous for GB to simply have a PM, if the PM gets less pay than the monarch. Why does the monarch's spouse also receive income from the state? There are millions of married folks in the world, and their spouse receives no income from the other halfs' place of employ.
I do believe the members of the BRF are basically wonderful people, but to pay any of them taxpayers' money is a waste for GB. Education, medical insurance and other social services for the citizens should never be cut by lawmakers. Ridding GB of it's monarchy, is simply a practical solution to help GB now and perpetually. Economically, it does make sense.

Ask yourself this question - why are royals in general fearful of losing royal status? Why? Of what are they so fearful? If they lose royal status so what? They would still retain all private real estate and assets. Why are they fearful of being commoners? Again, I do not believe any royal is malicious in nature, but they simply are an extra financial burden on their tax-paying citizens and are unnecessary.

The Queen is above politics so that she is able to give advice to both sides equally - the advantage of having someone who has been at the centre of things for as long as she has (and she has ensured that Charles is equally well informed) means that their is a wealth of knowledge at the fingertips of any PM.

Having an elected official in that role who leaves after a set number of years means that that experience is lost every so often.

Having an apolitical Head of State also means that they can handle changes between the different parties having the majority within the governing body without feeling any tension over the sides.

The reason why the spouse is paid is that that spouse has no choice but to give up any personal career aspirations simply because of who they married. Philip would surely have preferred to be a serving officer in the navy from 1951 - 1981 (when he would be been 60) or even later if possible but due to the nature of his wife's position that option wasn't open to him - any more than it is to Camilla or Kate or Sophie (as we saw when Sophie tried it and it was bad for the monarchy) - thus the spouse has to have some sort of financial recompense due to having no choice. If Philip had been able to continue his naval career he would now be on a naval pension and able to access all the benefits of that position.

Of course the payments are to cover the expenses of the job e.g. the expenses of the recent State Visits are paid from the Civil List but it isn't a salary at all. The Queen doesn't get paid a salary to do the job - she gets an allowance to cover her expenses and Philip, as her consort, also gets one.

Having lived in a country with the Queen as Head of State (and having been converted to republicanism for Australia) I also wouldn't want to live in a country with a political Head of State but love knowing that the Head of State can deal with both sides of politics without the baggage of having political affiliations (and these days the Australia GG is more that likely to be from outside the political spectrum than from within it after the Sir John Kerr and Hayden appointments).

As for why the royals are fearful of losing their royal status - I didn't know they were.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 06-20-2011, 08:33 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Why does the monarch's spouse also receive income from the state? There are millions of married folks in the world, and their spouse receives no income from the other halfs' place of employ.
I do believe the members of the BRF are basically wonderful people, but to pay any of them taxpayers' money is a waste for GB. Education, medical insurance and other social services for the citizens should never be cut by lawmakers. Ridding GB of it's monarchy, is simply a practical solution to help GB now and perpetually. Economically, it does make sense.

Ask yourself this question - why are royals in general fearful of losing royal status? Why? Of what are they so fearful? If they lose royal status so what? They would still retain all private real estate and assets. Why are they fearful of being commoners? Again, I do not believe any royal is malicious in nature, but they simply are an extra financial burden on their tax-paying citizens and are unnecessary.

Just to be clear, neither the Queen nor the DoE receive a "salary". The Civil List payments are designed to cover the costs of their public duties, and to cover the costs of running the office of the Head of State. Not disimilar to what the costs of the White House might be, except unlike the President of the US, our monarch is not paid a salary at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Economically, it does make sense.
Not really. The costs of running the office of president / Head of State and re-electing one every 4-5 years will exceed covering the costs of the Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 06-20-2011, 09:30 AM
Iva's Avatar
Iva Iva is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: -, Slovakia
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
The BRF, and other royals families, well at least their personas, are presented to the public as empathetic, sympathetic, down-to-earth, hard-working. I also realize in countries with a RF, many of their 'subjects' seem to believe the RF of their country/region is part of their culture and their heritage.
We should all really think of the practical reasons to keep funding their salary, travel, and up-keep. For practical reasons, a RF is simply a waste of money in a world that is very strapped for cash.
Emotions aside, and please do not bring emotions of sentiment into the picture, royal houses of Europe should not be at all. 'Royal blood' itself does not exist within any of us. Royal titles simply exists on paper and in the cyber world. Why should anyone have to bow/curtsy to anyone else?????? Royals are not above everyone else, sorry. These people fear to lose their 'positions,' their lavish lifestyles, etc. Why????? The practicality of a royal family does not exist. Sure, many seem very people- friendly, and do spend time working with charities/causes. If really committed to these c/c, they can still volunteer their time. I could go on and on, but I am not. The point of my post is made.
A practical and valid reason to keep wasting money on royals???
Some pretty strong words, every time it just amazes me how people who are not even living in Europe are telling Europeans what should they do and what don't. There are currently 10 reigning monarchs in Europe and although in every country there are people who would prefer republic, in none of them the majority of people things so.
So, republic vs. monarchy:
1. In Europe there is not a tradition of strong president as in USA, in most countries that are republic the position of president is the same as the position of the monarch, he's ceremoniary head of state with the majority of powers in hands of the prime minister and the goverment.
2. What I see as a benefit of a monarchy is that the monarch is politically neutral. In my country president although said to be politically neutral is always linked to some political party and there are mostly negative effects linked to this. President/Monarch is there to represent the country and it's citizens at home and abroad, he's not there to represent just the sympathizers of one political party or coalition.
3. Wasting money... The Monarch recieves money to cover the expenses of representing his country, so would the president. The monarchy recieves also money to keep the castles etc., so would the republic, everyone wants to preserve the cultural heritage in top shape.

And I could go on and on. I think it's up to the citizens of the country to decide which one is the best for them. What I see as positives of monarchy is continuity and political neutrality. What I see as positives of republic is that if you don't like your president you can get rid of him after 4-5 years if there are enough people who also thing so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 06-20-2011, 10:40 AM
dbarn67's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: BROOKLYN, United States
Posts: 3,441
Wow, once again as an American I thought politicking on this forum was forbidden. Yet folks come here to play politics when there are plenty of partisan boards where they can find like-minded followers. But given the topic Americans can't help but start throwing political stones. As an American and a big D Democrat I will trying to answer the question without resorting to partisanship. I love everything superficial about traditional monarchy, the gowns, the jewels and the wonderful palaces and castles and the appearance of rules that define what is proper behavior. I love looking at pictures and fantasizing about royal life and beautiful weddings etc. But that's the limit of my interest in royalty and I would be 100% against any form a monarch here in the U.S. IMO the U.S.'s greatness comes from it's very foundation; which is that any one can come from anywhere can be successful and even rise to the highest position of authority. Monarchy suggests that highest position can only be occupied by an exclusive few. The U.S. is too diverse in every way to expect citizens to view 1 family as the right "type" of people to emulate. No, I love my country and am proud the way it is and see no need to change it just because I don't like who's in power at any one time.

Saying that, I wil defend the notion that royal families are a financial liability to the European nations that support them. I think they're a bargain compared to what they bring in with regard to tourism and general interest. One estimate of the financial windfall share throughout England due to the wedding of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge is about $1 billion in revenue against whatever the cost of the entirety of the wedding. Also, I know I went to England last year with an eye on seeing some historical royal sites....and some Hary Potter sites lol.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 06-20-2011, 11:42 AM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 263
Any monarchy is simply a waste of taxpayers' money!!! I do respect others' opinions about retaining their royal family - I just do not agree.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 06-20-2011, 12:03 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,555
In point of fact, potentially any form of head of state is a waste of tax payers money depending on how good a job they do and the relative benefits they bring to the office of head of state and the country pitched again the general running costs of that system. It is incorrect to state that one form of head of state is any better or any worse than any other form of head of state - it simply depends on the incumbant of that particular office of that particular country.

Around the world there are monarchs, presidents and rulers who are inappropriate to be holding that type of office. Yet if it's cost effective is it still an acceptable form of system to have for that country?

I trust that those with specific political views will be able to compare and share with this forum the administrative and running costs of an elected presidential system with the administrative and running costs of a monarchical system for each country around the world so that we can decide collectively and in unison once and for all the system that is the most cost effective.

Finally, when someone states that a monarchy (or to be fair a presidential system) is a waste of tax-payers' money, I should appreciate it if they would kindly explain exactly why this is the case and whether the explanation might just as well work with an opposing form of head of state.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 06-20-2011, 01:49 PM
Iva's Avatar
Iva Iva is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: -, Slovakia
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Any monarchy is simply a waste of taxpayers' money!!! I do respect others' opinions about retaining their royal family - I just do not agree.
Just out of pure curiosity, do you have any figures that proof that monarchy and only a monarchy is a waste of taxpayers money? Neither monarchy nor republic are for free and both are funded by taxpayers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 06-20-2011, 01:58 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Again, I do not believe any royal is malicious in nature, but they simply are an extra financial burden on their tax-paying citizens and are unnecessary.
I suggest you do more research before making such a statement. In the case of the facts, it is incorrect. In the case of the opinion, it is arguable.

In short, the British Monarchy creates a net contribution to the economy of the United Kingdom. This is a result of tourism dollars (which is a huge factor), taxes paid by the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster (indirectly, I believe, via the Queen's personal income tax payment) and income generated by the various royal houses and other revenue generating activities associated with properties and ceremonies.

Further, as a tax paying citizen of the other country to which the Sovereign is the actual Monarch (via the Maple Crown) I could argue with you all day long as to the "necessity" of them. In strict terms, Beethoven, Mozart, Michelangelo, Raphael and Monet weren't "necessary" either. Should we ever find ourselves reduced to the "necessities" only, I think that might be the day most of us lose a little of our will to live. Our entire human existence is based upon reaching out for MORE than the necessities. The "PR", if you will, that the Monarchy brings to the Commonwealth is considered one of the world's most reliable, if not the most reliable, "brands". You *really* need to do the math and a little more research.

They're a financial boon and I am capable and qualified to make a case as to their social and cultural importance, as well. In my own case, I consider them a necessity.

Either way, isn't this a weird place to express Republican sentiments? It's the sort of act that demands polemic, not debate -and ... um ... well, it strikes me about the same as walking into a gay bar and asking if there are any fags around.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 06-20-2011, 02:50 PM
Mia_mae's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SP, Brazil
Posts: 1,092
Once one English friends ,who is not a fan of the monarchy system, started talking about the importance of monarchy and how other countries like France and Italy don't have them anymore and people still go visit. To which our Portuguese friend replied:"But you don't have their weather nor food".
Of course we can fight about this, but that sounded so true for me. No other country can say the monarchy has given more financial benefits than the British.
__________________
There's not much of a difference between a stadium full of cheering fans and an angry crowd screaming abuse at you. They're both just making a lot of noise. How you take it is up to you. Convince yourself they're cheering for you. You do that, and someday, they will - Sue S.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 06-20-2011, 04:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,318
What everyone forgets, is tht all the fortunes that RF's have is, because, they took the lion's share in the beginning, kept people in fear, appropirated lands, never paid taxes, still avoid taxes on may things and amassed great fortunes, while other guys had to earn the living, pay the taxes, pay for all their needs. It was an inequitable system, that evolved into, today's, super wealthy royals.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 06-20-2011, 04:45 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
What everyone forgets, is tht all the fortunes that RF's have is, because, they took the lion's share in the beginning, kept people in fear, appropirated lands, never paid taxes, still avoid taxes on may things and amassed great fortunes, while other guys had to earn the living, pay the taxes, pay for all their needs. It was an inequitable system, that evolved into, today's, super wealthy royals.
Let's say this is true.

All forms of government and all nations can trace themselves back to similar starts, however inauspicious we consider them now. The Americans and Canadians and Australians have their aboriginal populations, as an example. North America's wealth today might be considered to be "stolen", etc. We could break down every country and/or empire that exists today and point out similar issues of "the way things were".

And let's not get started on the other form of government which spread itself through some pretty terrible means: religion.

Yeah, yeah. That was then. This is now. If we had to get rid of everything that had a blemish in its past or even a genesis that meets none of today's standards for behaviour we'd have no countries, no religions and very few large corporations.

When Obama gives Wounded Knee back to the people from whom it was stolen (using your argument's basic premise), I will reconsider my rebuttal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 06-20-2011, 04:47 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,097
Okay...let's stay away from political and/or religious aspects of this topic.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 06-20-2011, 05:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine J View Post
Let's say this is true.

All forms of government and all nations can trace themselves back to similar starts, however inauspicious we consider them now. The Americans and Canadians and Australians have their aboriginal populations, as an example. North America's wealth today might be considered to be "stolen", etc. We could break down every country and/or empire that exists today and point out similar issues of "the way things were".

And let's not get started on the other form of government which spread itself through some pretty terrible means: religion.

Yeah, yeah. That was then. This is now. If we had to get rid of everything that had a blemish in its past or even a genesis that meets none of today's standards for behaviour we'd have no countries, no religions and very few large corporations.

When Obama gives Wounded Knee back to the people from whom it was stolen (using your argument's basic premise), I will reconsider my rebuttal.
Zonk, I don't think this is political, just facts so here goes. Wounded Knee is a National Historical Monument to our massacre of the native Americans. It is a monument to a shameful deed. Yes, of course, we took land, but as a people. Manifest Destiny was the cry. For the country. In Europe, it was taken for the benefit of a few. Taxes are a great issue to the accumulation of wealth. When taxes were established here, everyone paid, Preisdents and street cleaners. The Winsors only started a few years ago. And property can be passed from Sovereign to Sovereign, so vast amounts of land and jewels and other articles of worth, are passed without be taxed, while the janitor inherits a small plot of land or some jewelry or whatever, he is taxed. Many of the British have to sell part of their inheritance, to pay the taxes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 06-20-2011, 05:45 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Any monarchy is simply a waste of taxpayers' money!!! I do respect others' opinions about retaining their royal family - I just do not agree.

All nations have a Head of State and that Head of State costs taxpayers money.

In nations with a President with a set time period of office the taxpayers continue to pay that person for the rest of their lives even out of office as they get a pension e.g. in the US at the moment there are 4 living ex-presidents all being a continuing drain on the US taxpayers.

Britain only has the monarch and spouse paid by the taxpayers and that money is to cover their official duties - duties which would have to be done by somebody anyway.

e.g. the recent State Visit by the US President was paid for by the Civil List money that the Queen receives for being the Queen. The Civil List isn't for her personal expenses but official expenses only. Two republics having a State Visit between each other would also have those same expenses paid for by the taxpayers.

Actually the monarch of GB costs the taxpayers less than a President would for the simple reason that a President would also expect and need a salary as well as the Civil List - the Civil List for official expenses and a salary to cover the private expenses that the rest of us pay for from our incomes. Unless you advocate that only a very rich person could become President - one with a substantial private income that could cover their personal expenses while in that position.

You entire argument is actually flawed - they don't cost taxpayers money but save them money - certainly in Britain they do - if you actually undertand for what purpose the monarch receives the Civil List or taxpayers money. The Queen can't use that money to go on a private holiday to say Italy but can only use it to host State Dinners, attend to State matters, carry out investitures, pay the official staff - staff that would have to be paid anyway no matter who is the Head of State such as her private secreatary - just like a President has a private secretary or secretaries who get paid by the state.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which country is likely to become a monarchy (again), and why? Lox General Royal Discussion 308 03-11-2014 05:30 AM
Future of The Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 685 02-20-2014 10:16 AM
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne Ellie2 British Royals 147 06-15-2013 07:14 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 03:36 PM
Summer 2006 Newsletter: Featuring Queen Elizabeth II & The Duchess of Cornwall GrandDuchess Picture of the Month, Special Features, Blogs & Articles 56 07-25-2006 09:46 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim prince laurent princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sheikh state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:31 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]