The other change was the law against a monarch being married to a Catholic. I understand that this is to be rescinded but is it still the case that the monarch must be a member of the established church? Given that very few of us go to any church (let alone C of E) isn't it about time we disestablished the Anglican Church. We got rid of papal influence, logic says we should now go the whole hog and remove the legal privileges of the C of E. We are supposed to live in a modern democracy but still have vestiges of medieval theocracy i.e. the Lords Spiritual,
BTW I am an atheist so am not picking on any particular religion.
The other change was the law against a monarch being married to a Catholic. I understand that this is to be rescinded but is it still the case that the monarch must be a member of the established church? Given that very few of us go to any church (let alone C of E) isn't it about time we disestablished the Anglican Church. We got rid of papal influence, logic says we should now go the whole hog and remove the legal privileges of the C of E. We are supposed to live in a modern democracy but still have vestiges of medieval theocracy i.e. the Lords Spiritual,
BTW I am an atheist so am not picking on any particular religion.
Arguably that's covered by the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act (which followed the ECHR), both of which ban discrimination on religious grounds.
The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.£202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.
Any replacement (President etc) will still need security for his/her family around the clock - so this would not be a total saving.
The same goes for the civil list, or the cost of the replacement doing public duties - not a total saving.
As for the profit from the Duchies of L and C, they would not revert back to UK ownership - unless taken by force, probably resulting in another civil war.
As for the Duchess of York - no different to Cherie Blair and her Bristol apartment purchases etc. The replacements wife / hubby is not guaranteed to be 100% perfect, so why take the risk?
When it comes to formal titles and address, this is the same all over the world in some way or another - even Jimmy Carter is still referred to as Mr President.
Benefit fraud costs the UK around 1.1 Billion a year, (although it is thought to be 3 times that in reality), nevertheless, this is still 5 times the cost of the monarchy that you quoted.
The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year). The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades. £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme. The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system. Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy. Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.
Any replacement (President etc) will still need security for his/her family around the clock - so this would not be a total saving.
The same goes for the civil list, or the cost of the replacement doing public duties - not a total saving.
As for the profit from the Duchies of L and C, they would not revert back to UK ownership - unless taken by force, probably resulting in another civil war.
As for the Duchess of York - no different to Cherie Blair and her Bristol apartment purchases etc. The replacements wife / hubby is not guaranteed to be 100% perfect, so why take the risk?
When it comes to formal titles and address, this is the same all over the world in some way or another - even Jimmy Carter is still referred to as Mr President.
Benefit fraud costs the UK around 1.1 Billion a year, (although it is thought to be 3 times that in reality), nevertheless, this is still 5 times the cost of the monarchy that you quoted.
I say again,
I know where I would rather try and make savings.
'do 'both .. a scrounger is a scrounger be they a caravan, inner city estate council flat or palarse dweller. My main objection is the idea that some people are born 'royal' .. utter nonsense.
Benefit fraud costs the UK around 1.1 Billion a year, (although it is thought to be 3 times that in reality), nevertheless, this is still 5 times the cost of the monarchy that you quoted. .........
As for the Duchess of York - no different to Cherie Blair and her Bristol apartment purchases etc. The replacements wife / hubby is not guaranteed to be 100% perfect, so why take the risk? .......
One is a talentless sponger who's only qualification was for social climbing and has had to be bailed out by her ex-husband on several occasions and therefore indirectly by us the tax-payer. The other very unwisely used a conman to negotiate the purchase of a couple of apartments, but has not as far as I know lived it up on funds provided by the tax-payer and has managed to become not only a barrister (finishing top of her year) but also a part-time judge.
As for the Duchess of York - no different to Cherie Blair and her Bristol apartment purchases etc. The replacements wife / hubby is not guaranteed to be 100% perfect, so why take the risk? ....... One is a talentless sponger who's only qualification was for social climbing and has had to be bailed out by her ex-husband on several occasions and therefore indirectly by us the tax-payer. The other very unwisely used a conman to negotiate the purchase of a couple of apartments, but has not as far as I know lived it up on funds provided by the tax-payer and has managed to become not only a barrister (finishing top of her year) but also a part-time judge. So, a considerable amount of difference.
fair comment but I don't think Cherrriiieeeeeeee would have got a job as a part time court usher let alone beak if it weren't for her dad's notoriety and her husband's status and fame
I've no problem with people saying they are pro royals but I do have a problem when they talk bullshit about there not being an alternative- I would say most other civilised countries manage to have an alternative which is much cheaper and democratic. Also, the amount of money they cost, as has been pointed out is understated and how many tourists decide to come to this country to see the Queen? You would have to be pretty gullable to swallow the rubbish that the establishment like to feed us but it seems quite a few of us are.
But as a figurehead the Queen does do a decent job IMO, so by chance I wouldn't do anything till she goes but after that -well it has to be time to join the 21st century surely. I respect the Queen but not because she is the Queen - In my world people have to earn respect not be born into a world wherestuck up establishment prats have to lick their arses for who they are not what they do. No knighthood for me then! Which is another thing - nobody who cant fight their way out of a paper bag should be called a knight. I could select 50 current knights and take them on on my own - the quality of knights has gone down a bit since Sir Lancelot. Very sad.
We are constantly fed information by the establishment:
WMD's in Iraq
The suicide of Dr Kelly
The Deepcut barracks enquiry
The thousands of tons of gold that Gordon Brown sold cheap
Not to mention those guys who had 6 flying lessons and piloted 2 jets through a confined space and into skyscrapers.
So let's get rid of the Queen because she's not pulling-in enough tourists and one of her sons married a gold digger ?
I'm not saying there's no alternative, just why bother to change.
Look at what happened when the Mayor of London was reinstated - we have been offered Ken, Boris, Brian the Liberal cop bloke, Lembit cheeky girl, Alan Johnson the smiling postman, and Frank Malony the boxing promoter. Hardly anything to be proud of.
As for knights, I agree, - wouldn't wan't to fight that Steve Redgrave though, or his Mrs from Dale Farm, that Vanessa.
The why bother to change is the only valid postion IMO and one I agree with. That could change when the next one succeeds who might not be quite up to the job. I don't like the way we get fed the crap you mention, and hate the way so many just swallow it up. The examples you give are perfect ones.
As for the knights thing - I agree about the Redgraves, but I did say I could pick 50 - I wouldn't pick them. When we have a war, shouldn't we send our Knights out there first to sort it out?
Comments
Arguably that's covered by the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act (which followed the ECHR), both of which ban discrimination on religious grounds.
.........
Still less than tax fraud though...
.......
One is a talentless sponger who's only qualification was for social climbing and has had to be bailed out by her ex-husband on several occasions and therefore indirectly by us the tax-payer. The other very unwisely used a conman to negotiate the purchase of a couple of apartments, but has not as far as I know lived it up on funds provided by the tax-payer and has managed to become not only a barrister (finishing top of her year) but also a part-time judge.
So, a considerable amount of difference.
But as a figurehead the Queen does do a decent job IMO, so by chance I wouldn't do anything till she goes but after that -well it has to be time to join the 21st century surely. I respect the Queen but not because she is the Queen - In my world people have to earn respect not be born into a world wherestuck up establishment prats have to lick their arses for who they are not what they do. No knighthood for me then! Which is another thing - nobody who cant fight their way out of a paper bag should be called a knight. I could select 50 current knights and take them on on my own - the quality of knights has gone down a bit since Sir Lancelot. Very sad.
As for the knights thing - I agree about the Redgraves, but I did say I could pick 50 - I wouldn't pick them. When we have a war, shouldn't we send our Knights out there first to sort it out?