What British people think about their monarchy?

Page 2 of 2 [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

babybird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 44,011
Location: Top deck of the funny bus....blowing bubbles

27 Feb 2014, 5:41 am

Well I think they're alright.


_________________
I can't say that I have ever shat on my own doorstep.

Woof Woof! Cheep Cheep!


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,655
Location: Reading, England

27 Feb 2014, 6:00 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

Besides, how can you have a United Kingdom without a reigning monarch? But if you get a chance, look up the song "Elizabeth Reigns" by Ringo Starr. Ringo has openly stated that he feels once Elizabeth II dies, the monarchy should end.

(That said, I do hope Elizabeth II makes it another couple years so she can surpass Queen Victoria as longest-reigning monarch of Great Britain.)

The kingdom might not be united by the time Elizabeth dies!

Must say I agree with Ringo though, I think they've outlived their purpose. I've got respect for the Queen for essentially being ever-present through a very interesting time in history, and I don't think Charles etc. could ever live up to her.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 107
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,418
Location: Dystopia Planetia

27 Feb 2014, 1:05 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
slave wrote:
The 'CROWN' is the absolute owner of ALL of the land in the 53 nations of the 'Commonwealth' and as such the 'CROWN' has more power than many people think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_st ... of_Nations

Imagine the total value of all that land!! !! 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O


On the eve of world war two the British Empire comprised one fourth of the dry land on the planet's surface, and was larger than the old Soviet Union, and the USA combined.

But the royal family does not personally own all of the real estate in Britain and its former colonies. They own alot of land. But not that much.


Let's use Canada as an example: Since Canada uses primarily English-derived common law, the holders of

the land actually have land tenure (permission to hold land from the Crown) rather than absolute ownership.

The majority of all lands in Canada are held by governments in the name of the monarch and are called

Crown Lands. About 89% of Canada's land area (8,886,356 km²) is Crown Land, which may either be federal

(41%) or provincial (48%); the remaining 11% is privately owned. All land in Canada, including that which is

'privately owned' is a land tenure by definition. Land tenure is the name given, particularly in common

law systems, to the legal regime in which land is owned by an individual, who is said to "hold" the land (the

French verb "tenir" means "to hold"; "tenant" is the present participle of "tenir"). The sovereign monarch,

known as The Crown, held land in its own right. All private owners are either its tenants or sub-tenants. The

term "tenure" is used to signify the relationship between tenant and lord, not the relationship between

tenant and land.

This is the case in all 53 countries in the Commonwealth. 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O Shocking isn't it?

source: Wikipedia and readings from other sources such as legal dictionaries.


_________________
Since the birth of civilization, small sets of dominant individuals have controlled the numerical majority. Even a cursory reading of world history will substantiate this claim. Kings, Pharaohs, Emperors, Sultans, Czars, and Dictators have imposed their will upon their subjects. This pattern has not changed over the millennia and it remains so, today. Our Masters rule over every nation and no one can defy them. They will attain Absolute Power as we reach the Singularity. All those who oppose their will, will be destroyed. Given the obvious futility, I will not resist. 2+2=5.


Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,922

27 Feb 2014, 2:28 pm

^^^^

So this is saying that basically the Queen ultimately owns your private land?



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 107
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,418
Location: Dystopia Planetia

27 Feb 2014, 3:10 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
^^^^

So this is saying that basically the Queen ultimately owns your private land?


for anyone who lives in those 53 countries, YES.

that person is a tenant only, as per the definitions relevant to 'land tenure'

all these people pay a mortgage for decades and still do NOT own the land


_________________
Since the birth of civilization, small sets of dominant individuals have controlled the numerical majority. Even a cursory reading of world history will substantiate this claim. Kings, Pharaohs, Emperors, Sultans, Czars, and Dictators have imposed their will upon their subjects. This pattern has not changed over the millennia and it remains so, today. Our Masters rule over every nation and no one can defy them. They will attain Absolute Power as we reach the Singularity. All those who oppose their will, will be destroyed. Given the obvious futility, I will not resist. 2+2=5.


Pobbles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 596
Location: The Dire Swamp, NW UK

27 Feb 2014, 5:15 pm

The 'turn out' always amazes me at public manifestations of royalty, I usually conclude that the idiots lining the streets with their tacky plastic flags and Union Jack facepaint and clothing are paid actors at best. Or slaves.

I would personally like to see the monarchy removed, and the bloody House of Lords. I'd argue that we're not a democracy until both are gone, and their members are reduced to the status of normal people.

... having said that, I've met Prince Charles (at work) and he seemed like a likeable enough chap. Even though I was reprimanded by colleagues for not addressing him as 'your Highness' (sir or madam fits all), he personally didn't seem bothered, and spoke to me with the same level of respect and courtesy.

Interesting fact: My diagnostician reckons Charles is Aspie.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,083

27 Feb 2014, 5:17 pm

Actually, the land is held by the Crown, which according to precedent is controlled by parliament, which in theory belongs to the citizens of the United Kingdom, which means *we* technically own the land, which means it's not trespass...


_________________
...and the state must be destroyed.

http://needsmoremarshmallows.blogspot.co.uk/


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

27 Feb 2014, 5:27 pm

Some food for thought:

I once derived the cost per citizen for the Danish Monarchy (all tax payer costs/number of citizens).

It amounted to less than $ 13 per citizen.

Add to this that most expenses of the Danish Monarchy are derived from maintenance of nationally conserved sites (predominantly castles), that would probably be maintained even if the Monarchy was dissolved.

Then there is the "business" value of having a royal family which can promote your country in the world. Asian countries really dig royalty, for some reason. They also buy a *lot* of goods.

Bottom line: As silly as it may seem, a (figurehead) monarchy *might* just be economically beneficiary to a country.

It would be interesting to see a similar assessment in the UK.


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

27 Feb 2014, 5:47 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Then there is the "business" value of having a royal family which can promote your country in the world. Asian countries really dig royalty, for some reason. They also buy a *lot* of goods.


The first time I visited London (aged around 8) I bought a souvenir. Got home and looked at it more closely. "Made in Korea". Hmmm. Like all those Eiffel tower souvenirs sold in Paris... "Made in China". Not sure what country benefits the most from tourist purchases.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

27 Feb 2014, 7:56 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Some food for thought:

I once derived the cost per citizen for the Danish Monarchy (all tax payer costs/number of citizens).

It amounted to less than $ 13 per citizen.

Add to this that most expenses of the Danish Monarchy are derived from maintenance of nationally conserved sites (predominantly castles), that would probably be maintained even if the Monarchy was dissolved.

Then there is the "business" value of having a royal family which can promote your country in the world. Asian countries really dig royalty, for some reason. They also buy a *lot* of goods.

Bottom line: As silly as it may seem, a (figurehead) monarchy *might* just be economically beneficiary to a country.

It would be interesting to see a similar assessment in the UK.


Again I repeat. Surgical scissors. Sawdust. Glass cabinet.

Every person could get that 13 dollars back and retain the tourist revenue.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,785
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

01 Mar 2014, 2:26 am

thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Some food for thought:

I once derived the cost per citizen for the Danish Monarchy (all tax payer costs/number of citizens).

It amounted to less than $ 13 per citizen.

Add to this that most expenses of the Danish Monarchy are derived from maintenance of nationally conserved sites (predominantly castles), that would probably be maintained even if the Monarchy was dissolved.

Then there is the "business" value of having a royal family which can promote your country in the world. Asian countries really dig royalty, for some reason. They also buy a *lot* of goods.

Bottom line: As silly as it may seem, a (figurehead) monarchy *might* just be economically beneficiary to a country.

It would be interesting to see a similar assessment in the UK.


Again I repeat. Surgical scissors. Sawdust. Glass cabinet.

Every person could get that 13 dollars back and retain the tourist revenue.


LOL Surgical scissors why did you mention it :)



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,508
Location: Lancashire, UK

01 Mar 2014, 6:20 am

thomas81 wrote:
Again I repeat. Surgical scissors. Sawdust. Glass cabinet.

Every person could get that 13 dollars back and retain the tourist revenue.


The Danish monarchy is the most popular in Europe.

Ah, but the Danish monarchy has a very high approval rate (about 80% of those polled in 2012 support the Danish monarchy). Only about 15% of Danes want a republic. Which is unfortunate for you.

Funnily enough, it's only demented Irish nationalists/republicans like yourself that still rant and rave so bitterly about monarchy.

Pleasing to read that you hate it so much though. GSTQ. :)



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 792

01 Mar 2014, 9:45 am

The Queen doesn't have much real power. The last time the monarch declined royal assent (vetoed a bill) was 1708 under Queen Anne.