The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2301  
Old 02-02-2016, 08:44 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
If you, really, believe a pound a year, I think that is a good sell. And do not compare these people with President's of the U.S. who work and earn the money, they usually do not keep and the perks. The Royals cut ribbons, attend farm and flower shows and attend to their specific charities, the queen has very limited powers. Should they disappear tomorrow, they need not be replaced. They received their monies from large benefits that regular Britons did not have. For many years the Royal Family paid no income taxes. How sweet that was. And they are born into positions and get these perks at any rate. Their great wealth did not come from working or inventing something. And the Sovereign to Sovereign transfer of property and priceless jewels the ultimate rip off. So, the Camilla's engagement ring, belongs to the queen, because if it were directly left to Prince Charles there would have been a high tax on it, as with many other pieces, such as the Bucheron Tiara. Trust me, they do not pay their fair share.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2302  
Old 02-02-2016, 08:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
Well, if all that you have pointed out, Countess, doesn't worry the British people, (and it obviously doesn't, as there's no republican movement to speak of within Britain), I don't see why it should trouble a citizen of the US.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2303  
Old 02-02-2016, 09:49 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Well, if all that you have pointed out, Countess, doesn't worry the British people, (and it obviously doesn't, as there's no republican movement to speak of within Britain), I don't see why it should trouble a citizen of the US.
The population of the UK is currently about 65 million. About 80% of them are over 18. Polls a few years ago, when the country was still swept up in pro-monarchy Jubilee/Prince George fever, indicated about 1/5 of the population had no use for the Royals and thought the country would be better off as a republic. On my very rough calculations, that means there are about 10 million adults in the UK who want a republic. Percentage-wise that's not enough to bring in change, but 10 million is a lot of people, and republican views are strongest among the young.

Higher percentages were dissatisfied with specific incidents of monarchy, e.g. about 40% considered that the 36 million pound Sovereign Grant was not good value for money. Only 43% did, and 17% didn't know.

The opinions of US citizens, and citizens of other countries, on these matters are of interest to me. I think that it's easy, and perhaps natural, for people to have a blind spot about the flaws in their own country's system of doing things, and the objective opinions of a foreigner can be helpful, or at least should not be dismissed scornfully. I think that system of sovereign-to-sovereign inheritance is very iffy, as was HM's reluctance to pay tax. It's one thing for something is being done in order to preserve the asset for the people, but very different when an individual member of the already privately wealthy RF - which got wealthy in the first place by means that were often very foul - gets a personal benefit under the pretext of preserving things for the people. The line between personal and institutional can be very fuzzy. The people don't get to wear those jewels or live in those palaces or mansions or shoot those pheasants. If they're lucky they get to have a look at parts of them at certain times of the year, but they have to pay an entrance fee to do that!

I actually support the continuation of the monarchy with all its pomp and splendour, for Britain, because I think it's an important part of British history and culture, and the system works there. The Royals are like a living history exhibit, and it's great entertainment. But I also think the members of the RF need to be keenly aware that they are only still there because that is the people's will. Enough of the people need to keep getting a benefit that they consider makes it worthwhile for them to allow the members of one enormously privileged family to remain living in luxury and decked out in all those jewels and feathers and gold trinkets and getting their pictures on coins and stamps.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2304  
Old 02-02-2016, 09:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Trust me, they do not pay their fair share.
No, I won't trust you because you are making sweeping generalisations based on a narrow and dismissive interpretation of the work done by the Queen and her family.
Reply With Quote
  #2305  
Old 02-02-2016, 09:57 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
If you, really, believe a pound a year, I think that is a good sell. And do not compare these people with President's of the U.S. who work and earn the money, they usually do not keep and the perks. The Royals cut ribbons, attend farm and flower shows and attend to their specific charities, the queen has very limited powers. Should they disappear tomorrow, they need not be replaced. They received their monies from large benefits that regular Britons did not have. For many years the Royal Family paid no income taxes. How sweet that was. And they are born into positions and get these perks at any rate. Their great wealth did not come from working or inventing something. And the Sovereign to Sovereign transfer of property and priceless jewels the ultimate rip off. So, the Camilla's engagement ring, belongs to the queen, because if it were directly left to Prince Charles there would have been a high tax on it, as with many other pieces, such as the Bucheron Tiara. Trust me, they do not pay their fair share.
The Queen has worked everyday for almost 64 years (as I and others have told you several times). I think you need to get a real understanding of how a constitutional monarchy works because from your comments you haven't a clue.

And you're right, we can't compare the british monarchy with the Presidents of the US. And that, I'm very happy about because the US political system is completely broken. A head of state should be apolitical and not have power/be head of government.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #2306  
Old 02-02-2016, 10:25 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,192
Totally agree Royal Norway - whether the Head of State is a monarch or a president I too think they should be apolitical and totally able to unite the country and not a divisive figure. When Australia becomes a republic I hope that the president will be such a unifying figure and actually only have the powers that he/she has now.
Reply With Quote
  #2307  
Old 02-02-2016, 10:29 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,327
Regarding the sovereign to sovereign transfer, if you remove it. You are just making each sovereign poorer and poorer over time. Then they are more dependent on the state for money.

Or they will just do like other wealthy people with tax advisers and put the private wealth into trusts so it can be passed down without heavy taxes. Put the jewelry as part of the Royal collection. Basically only thing left is Balmoral and Sandringham, the race horses and the corgis.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2308  
Old 02-02-2016, 10:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
I was referring really to a more formal republicanism within Britain in my post such as adults who actually do something about their republican feelings and join organisations like Republic. This doesn't just encompass people who may have felt irritable on a day they were contacted by pollsters, or those who like to vent online with tabloids like the Daily Mail. Republic boasts about 35 thousand members.

Yes, views from people who live elsewhere are certainly of value. However, it's good, when attacking the British Royal family and its many privileges from afar, to keep in mind that the vast majority of the British public aren't idiots but still prefer a constitutional monarchy. Of course the royals have to be careful about their privileged lives and I believe they are.

The link below leads to an article which shows the somewhat contrary views of the 20 to 25% of the British population (I believe) who state they would like a republic. Scots, whose views on the British Royal family are mixed with desire for independence, would be among that number.

The article is elderly (from 2012) but still quite interesting I think.

British Future
Reply With Quote
  #2309  
Old 02-08-2016, 10:01 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,890
In H.R.H. The Man Who Will Be King, Tim Heald and Mayo Mohs wrote:
If King Charles were able to appoint a new Prime Minister, he could also dismiss one.
The future King Charles could also, though, dissolve or refuse to dissolve Parliament.
Reply With Quote
  #2310  
Old 02-08-2016, 11:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,192
He 'could' do so but ... that would cause a constitutional crisis with an election fought basically on the powers of the monarch - and the monarch would lose so he is not going to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #2311  
Old 02-08-2016, 11:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
If Edward VIII had been rash enough to try to dissolve Parliament during the abdication crisis of 1936 the subsequent election would certainly have brought the powers of the monarchy into question.

However, barring some sort of terrible scandal involving the entire Cabinet including a recalcitrant PM, I can't see King Charles ever trying it.
Reply With Quote
  #2312  
Old 04-03-2016, 03:49 PM
eya eya is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 5,412
According this lady within 14 years the Royal Family to be Abolished!! under the King Charles!!!

Royal Family: Historian Dr Anna Whitelock predicts monarchy will be abolished by 2030 | Royal | News | Daily Express
Reply With Quote
  #2313  
Old 04-03-2016, 04:54 PM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 5,673
I'm not expert and can't tell the future, but I also think tht after the passing of HM the monarchy will be a more shaky and may be abolished in the foreseen future. Just a hunch.
__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
Reply With Quote
  #2314  
Old 04-03-2016, 05:57 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,925
The title of the article is rather misleading, I must say.

I have no doubt though, that during Charles' reign, there will be more debate about the future of the monarchy.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #2315  
Old 04-03-2016, 07:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 775
I don't think so.
Reply With Quote
  #2316  
Old 04-03-2016, 07:38 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,528
I don't think so. But why the monarchy would be abolished? what the United Kingdom would have to gain from this?
__________________
Acclamation Manuel II of Portugal: 6 May 1908
Reply With Quote
  #2317  
Old 04-03-2016, 09:05 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Royal Family: Historian Dr Anna Whitelock predicts monarchy will be abolished by 2030 | Royal | News | Daily Express
Quote:
Dr Anna Whitelock predicted the Queen's successors will be booted out of Buckingham Palace by 2030 because the public do not like the future royalty.

The academic's outlandish claim will shock the world and comes as Her Majesty prepares to mark her 90th birthday.

In a stinging attack on Princes Charles and William, Dr Whitelock said affection for the monarchy is reserved for the Queen herself, meaning her death will spark a constitutional crisis.

She predicted that support for the thousand-year old institution will plummet under King Charles, leading to Britain eventually becoming a republic.
It's not a shock that she says it. This is a person who sat on Sky News during the wedding in 2011 and said that the monarchy is going to be abolished right after the Queen's death. She repeated it during the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 on the same channel and said that the monarchy is a bad thing for the UK, and that it will be abolished right after the Queen's death because no one likes the other members. She said the same thing last year when the Queen became Britain's longest-reigning monarch. And she have criticized/moaned about the monarchy's expenses/costs for years, mostly on Sky News, but also on BBC News Channel.
Quote:
The outlandish claims were today bound to anger many monarchists, who make up three quarters of the general public.
I'm not angry. This person is republican and has the right to say what she thinks, but most British historians/experts do not agree with her.
Quote:
Dr Whitelock, a reader in early modern history at Royal Holloway university and director of The London Centre for Public History, claimed that important questions about the relevance of the monarchy in modern society have been constrained out of respect for the Queen's long reign.
Have they? Which world do she live in. Has she heard about the organization Republic? Has she read the (Guardian which she writes for), the Independent, the Mirror etc?
Quote:
She said: “All of those questions about ‘What the hell do we want this kind of unelected family (for)? What does that represent in Britain today?’, all these profound questions have been held in check because of the Queen.”
All of those questions have already been raised by the republicans and several journalists, and by you on television at least 5 times.
Quote:
She the predicted that within two decades, the British monarchy could be challenged in a way that it never has been before when the Queen is likely to be no longer on the throne.

She said: “I think there’ll be a discussion and a debate in a way that there hasn’t before.

“As the older generation who are generally more wedded to the monarchy die out, the question of the future of the monarchy will become even more pressing, and then potentially more critical voices will come to the fore.”

She added: “I would say by 2030 there will be definite louder clamours for the eradication of the monarchy. I can’t say that there won’t be a monarchy. I would definitely say that the monarchy - its purpose, what it’s about, will be questioned and challenged in a way that it hasn’t been before.

“I don’t think it’s out of the question that the monarchy would be potentially be on its last legs.”
I know that I've said this many times before on others threads, but I actually thinks the British Monarchy is the safest Monarchy in the world, along with the Japanese.

Republicanism in the UK remains among the lowest in the world, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, some polls have it as low 13%, and consistent 70% support for the Monarchy. Some polls have the support for the monarchy as high as 82%, others at around 70 to 76%, another poll has the support for the monarchy from 66 to 70%.
To abolish the British monarchy will be very difficult.
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the house of commons for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.
4: Changing the country's name, changing the pound, remove the royal name from all state institutions. These are just some of the things that must be changed.
5: All of this is going to cost so much money that even many Republicans will start doubting it, and the vast majority of the population will never vote to replace a constitutional monarchy with a divisive politician or a celebrity etc.

The only thing that can destroy the British Monarchy in the coming years is some very serious scandals or an abdication and this is why:
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne
But I don't even think that major scandals can destroy/weaken it by 2030.
Quote:
Support for the monarchy during the last quarter of a century of the Queen’s reign peaked during the Diamond Jubilee year of 2012 with 80 per cent being in favour of Britain remaining a monarchy.

It dipped to 65 per cent at the time of the Prince of Wales’s wedding to the Duchess of Cornwall in 2005 and to 69 per cent in 1993 - the year after the Queen’s “annus horribilis”.

But throughout the remaining years support averaged at 73 per cent of those questioned being in favour of a monarchy, an analysis of Ipsos MORI research showed.

In 2012, 90 per cent of the British public were also said to be satisfied with the way the Queen was doing her job as monarch, while in the wake of Diana, Princess of Wales’s death, this fell to 66 per cent.
Much factual errors here. The Queen's satisfaction numbers was at 74% in February 1996, and at 72% in December 1997. They fell to 66% in March 1998 and was back at 73% in August 1998. They was at 71% in 2000, 82% in 2002, 85% in 2006 and 90% two times in 2012.
Quote:
Dr Whitelock said the Queen had commanded respect for the duty she has shown during her reign so far.

She said: “Whether you are a monarchist or not, and even fervent republicans, I think, no one is saying whilst the Queen is alive the monarchy should be abolished.
There are several republicans including the organization Republic who says that the monarchy should be abolished today.
Quote:
“Everybody, given her constancy and given her selflessness, thinks she’s a pretty amazing woman, regardless of where you stand on the monarchy debate.
And yet she is criticized/humiliated for the most ridiculous things, including: When she at the age of 86 didn't go on walkabouts, when the Sun published nazi pictures of her, the EU thing etc.
Quote:
“After that, I think it’s going to be a free-for-all.”
After that we would have the most remarkable event in British and world history: The death and the funeral of the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, 12 other Countries and head of the Commonwealth. This will be be the first royal state funeral since 1952. And as EIIR (a former member here) wrote in 2012:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
When it comes to Charles acceding the throne I feel people miss the point. There is likely to be a huge outpouring of national grief when The Queen passes away. It's important not to underestimate how powerful that will be. Hundreds of thousands of people queued for days in order to file past the Queen Mother's coffin. The level of mourning for the Queen is likely to be a great deal deeper - the Queen is not only a much loved head of state, she's an international icon.

That national grief will, naturally, lead to a great deal of sympathy flowing to the RF generally, and Charles as the next in line.

There will also be a certain fascination in having a new monarch - the vast majority of Britons have only ever known one monarch. The process of new stamps, notes, coins, not to mention a coronation to look forward to. There's also the fact that Charles' reign is likely to be relatively short and William and Catherine will be closer to the throne while also having their own children who will, no doubt, fascinate us all in much the same way their parents have.

This is all a rather long winded way of saying I really don't believe that there will be any significant change to the British monarchy when Charles takes over. I think Charles will be a surprisingly popular King; he'll be at the 'sweet old man' age rather then in middle aged no mans land. It's an unfortunate fact of life nowadays; we see the young as interesting and cool, and the elderly as sweet and wise. It's the in between stage where people just aren't that interested.
This was written by a historian/expert last year and I agree with him. He predicted this 20 years from now:

Charles and Camilla - (if living) will be the respected old monarch and consort.
William and Kate - Will be popular (more than Charles and Camilla), but perhaps not as interesting as their yong and very popular children.
Quote:
Dr Whitelock admitted the future prospects of “The Firm” were difficult to predict, saying: “At the moment there is pretty great support for the Queen and the monarchy, but the problem is that is about the Queen and not about the monarchy.”
That's wrong. The British constitutional monarchy is more popular than politicians in itself, regardless of the members of the royal family. And William/Kate was very popular with the people/press in 2011, 2012 and 2013. They are still pretty popular and their popularity is likely to rise when they take on more duties and becomes full-time working royals. And Harry has been very popular in 2014/2015.
Quote:
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
What the heck should they say.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #2318  
Old 04-03-2016, 09:10 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Sorry for my ridiculously long post.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #2319  
Old 04-03-2016, 10:06 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,416
Some folks think like this, because it's hard for some to picture the monarchy going on after Elizabeth II. Her reign has gone on for so long, she's the only person people are used to leading the grand old institution.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #2320  
Old 04-03-2016, 10:39 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,048
I think you have really nailed the crux of the matter. Queen Elizabeth is the monarchy of the UK and Commonwealth. There has been no change in most of our lifetimes save those of she and Philip's generation.

They remember King Edward with disdain and King George with genuine fondness and respect. They remember the young princess and they remember her Coronation and have lived their entire lives alongside her. She isn't just their Queen or Queen Elizabeth II, but rather "The Queen".

Her death (long may she live) and the Succession of Charles will be a nexus of almost unimaginable momentousness and impossible to predict the outcome, although IMO it seems a given that the Monarchy will not fall.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 309 10-31-2016 06:54 PM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 392 10-16-2016 10:14 AM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 05:06 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit june 2016 catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece harald kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander may 2016 member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess stéphanie's fashion & style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion royal visits september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark state visit to france succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


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

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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises