The Queen to abdicate???

[Mekorig]

I think the british would benefit if they become a republic and bury all the monarchy nosense.

Very interesting. The own land worth 160 millong pounds/years and cost 40/year. Why not just taking that land and gvigin it to the country? The you get the 160 milllon pounds. And yes, they create a lot of money by beign just tourist traps...yay!!!:angel:

Could be my liberal education, or the values that hold the founding father of my nation, but i do not like monarchies, even if they are plastic ones. I still belive that people from england and the british islands would be better without them.

 

[teh_skeeze]

Correct me if I'm wrong Cardguy, but Kate will only been queen in name. Wouldn't her proper title be King's Consort? Another question, the media claims that they are more of a tourist attraction than anything else. That's not really true, is it?

 

[Goldin Boy]

Really not bothered either way. Doesn't affect any of our lives one iota.

^^^This.

No offense but, the monarch is the appendix in the British body politic: It used to have a role once upon a time but it is just there taking up space presently.

So what if the figurehead quits and is replaced by another figurehead?

 

[Excelsior]

Very interesting. The own land worth 160 millong pounds/years and cost 40/year. Why not just taking that land and gvigin it to the country?

I mean, why stop there? Why not take all private lands from wealthy families and give it to the country?

These are not things you can legally do in a democracy.

The you get the 160 milllon pounds.

The country (UK) already gets that money:

The cost to maintain the royal family today is 40 million pounds per year.

But the revenue paid to the UK from the royal lands is 200 million.

200 million in revenue subtract 40 million in salary costs equals 160 million pounds in profit.

That’s right: The United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the Royal Family.

That isn't counting all of the income the royal family generates via its appearances, events, media profile, ability to draw tourists, etc, etc.

Could be my liberal education, or the values that hold the founding father of my nation, but i do not like monarchies, even if they are plastic ones. I still belive that people from england and the british islands would be better without them.

You've a right to your opinion, but in this case it's just not a practical one. The monarchy costs the UK very little money, but provides plenty. Its historical significance and status draw substantial income from across the planet via tourism, media and marketing. It is one of the few fundamental aspects of English cultural identity/history that remain in an age when Britain is a shell of its old self (no more empire, no more global superpower, minimal remaining industry thanks to globalization, etc, etc), and it's profitable to boot:

Don’t forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists.

Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube and refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, travel ludicrously short distances by public transport, and generally act silly a long way from home.

Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is.

And who are the biggest spenders? The Yanks.

After they’ve finished buying maple syrup and cheap, pharmaceuticals, Tijuanaian professional services and illegal pharmaceuticals, where do they go next?

The United Kingdom.

Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren’t plastic.

And why do the Americans think Frances castles are so boring and stinky and the UK’s castles so awesome? Because real monarchs still use them.

The tower of London is so stunning to visitors because the Royal Crest on the Yeomen Warders Uniform is real. It’s not a lame historical re-enactment or modern LARPing.

It’s the embodiment of the living, breathing queen.

Everywhere you look she’s sprinkled fairy dust on banal objects to make them magically attractive to tourists.

12 million of whom visit every year spending 7,000 million [7 Billion] pounds.

Which suddenly makes those direct profits look like rather small change.

There's just no good reason to get rid of it. The elimination of the monarchy provides zero practical benefit (the royals have no actual political power and don't cost anything) while also bringing substantial losses (removal of one of the last remaining fundamental pieces of English cultural identity and removal of one of the few solid economic contributors the UK has that provides a stupendously high return on investment and cannot be outsourced).

Anti-monarchists would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It just wouldn't make sense.

 

[teh_skeeze]

Stopped 30 seconds in. I refuse to listen to any anit-monarch rants from an American. We already proved our point 230 years ago (201 if you wish to consider the War of 1812 and extention).

 

[Emancipator]

If England got rid of the monarchy what the hell happens to other commonwealth countries with the monarchy?

That's going to be one expensive transition.

 

[Benoit]

If England got rid of the monarchy what the hell happens to other commonwealth countries with the monarchy?

That's going to be one expensive transition.

Cardguy recommended the Niall Ferguson Documentary series Empire (episode 1 on Youtube), and it's a great way of understanding just how much impact the British Empire had in shaping the modern world.

One of the points Ferguson makes, regarding the USA and other countries that left the Empire, was that in the short term they lived up to the Heartiste maxim "Proximity + Diversity = War" without the restraining hand of the distant parliament.

We're taught that America fought for freedom, but Britain abolished slavery a generation before the USA did.


That's a long-winded way of saying that the first-world commonwealth countries would no doubt be fine, but the third-world ones would be seriously impacted.

Britons may see the royals as an anachronism, but Africa is a lot more tribal, and the Africans I've met who moved here are staunch monarchists and traditionalists who want it to endure.

 

[Valhalla]

The monarchy makes the UK 160 million from land

Land that the monarchs stole and conquered hundreds of years ago

They're essentially giving people back land they stole and charging you for it

 

[Saga]

Britons may see the royals as an anachronism, but Africa is a lot more tribal, and the Africans I've met who moved here are staunch monarchists and traditionalists who want it to endure.

I've noticed many Africans, including the well-educated, often harbor a disinterest in republicanism; it's probably because out of about 50 republics in Africa only a handful of them have managed to function somewhat properly. In some ways it echoes Britain's historical insistence on keeping its crown after the mess made under Cromwell and his 'republic'.

 

[Quintus Curtius]

I'm not even British, so I say to the Englishmen reading this, forgive my offering my uninformed opinion.

And even I'm in favor of the monarchy. Some traditions are worth keeping. The most common type of government throughout history, going back 4000 years, has been monarchy. Obviously, it serves some deep-seated need in people to have the stability and security of a hereditary sovereign.

 

[svenski7]

It's hard to fight something you have no control over. The Queens has all UK'ers as subjects, only blood or money will make the German house of Windsor flee off into the night back to the woods they came from.

Uk's best scenario is what she has done with Canada. She basically scrubbed herself from petty political matters aside from her financial interests and granted us a full constitution but she still owns our asses by default (by owning our assets) and forever will.

The structure of power and money between te Banks, the Monarchy, and Westminster forever holds lower with the Queen forever until he UK ceases to rely on perpetual debt via its central bank. Your only breaking these things with a barrel of a gun and not much else. What reason does the Bank or Queen have to grant UK people anything? I'm very blunt because it's just realltalk. You have no ability to get anything granted to you, she is sovereign for a reason and it's equal to a control nation pitting against it's colonial subject. Look how easy India broke free from your shackles in its day and all the blood that was drawn, it's more or less the same principal. The British had to help kill a million of my people before my country fell into such a mess they had to patch it to back together and wash there hands of it (Nigeria).

She won't grant shit. Both Labour and Conservatives are hacks on his subject as both sides perpetuate the need for debt which is a key factor in the Monarchs control in the first place.

Here is a relevant post of mine on he power relationships between the Queen and the Bankers of Central City London:

www.rooshvforum.com/thread-26133-post-496230.html#pid496230#pid496230

See more on Know Your Meme

 

[svenski7]

Great video, CJ. Not being a Brit myself, that helped me understand how all this came to pass.

Despite getting 40 mil. pounds / year, the Queen asked Parliament for a "bailout" three years ago so that needs to be factored into the analysis.

As Kosko pointed out earlier, a lot of the royal family's assets are things which were plundered many hundreds of years ago: art, land, estates, castles, gold, jewels, etc...

I can't fathom how nobility can piss such vast amounts of wealth away during a turning point in public opinion as to the necessity of monarchy. Benjamin Franklin left the cities of Boston and Philadelphia a trust fund of 1,000 pounds when he died in 1790. Those funds were not touched for two hundred years (according to his will). In 1990, they were worth 4.6 and 1.6 million USD, respectively.

So sell some precious art and squirrel that money away for a rainy, recession day. That's the lesson of retirement and passive income but even the monarchy which once ruled a third of the world didn't pay heed.

 

[cardguy]

@Kosko - that post of yours about the relationship between the bankers, the Queen and the Lord Mayor is very interesting. I love shit like that - and it is the first time I have heard about this one.

Its interesting that the Queen needs permission to enter the Square Mile (as the financial district is known).

The only place the Queen is explicity banned from is the House of Commons (the UK parliament). So she is not as powerful as many might think since I can visit the House of Commons (if I was elected as an MP or as a member of the public in the visitor's gallery) whilst The Queen cannot.

Please let me know where I can find out more about the relationship between the Mayor of London and The Queen. Indeed - I don't even know the history behind why the Square Mile was created in the first place.

Although the other day I read that in exchange for funding another of the King's wars (319 years ago) - the bankers requested an independent Bank of England which would be separate from the King. So - I imagine that was a key moment in the history of this area.

Lastly - as for The Queen touching the Lord Mayor's sword. I am not sure what it means - since some people say it is supposed to be a sign of respect to the Queen (perhaps symbolising the fact that the Queen is sovereign over the Square Mile?). I find it hard to be sure what the exact meaning is of that symbolism. But agree that your analysis makes more sense.

 

[cardguy]

The Queen doesn't have to carry a passport.

But - the UK came very close to introducing ID cards a few years ago (my job was involved in this area). And from what I could gather at the time - The Queen would have been required to carry an ID card. Which I thought was amusing. The project would have gone ahead if Labour had won the last election.

 

[cardguy]

@Kosko - just did some Googling. Wow - the Queen really does have to get permission to enter the Square Mile (ie The City of London). And the touching of the sword really is an act of submission.

Fascinating stuff! I really do love shit like this. You have made my day. And you are right about turning your back on The Queen. That is very symbolic.

This is most clearly seen at the State Opening of Parliament:

cDLL45b0uEo?t=6m40s

Although it is inconsistent. It used to be that you would never turn your back on The Queen - but the tradition has come and gone over recent years.

 

[Truth Teller]

Britons may see the royals as an anachronism, but Africa is a lot more tribal, and the Africans I've met who moved here are staunch monarchists and traditionalists who want it to endure.

I've noticed many Africans, including the well-educated, often harbor a disinterest in republicanism; it's probably because out of about 50 republics in Africa only a handful of them have managed to function somewhat properly. In some ways it echoes Britain's historical insistence on keeping its crown after the mess made under Cromwell and his 'republic'.

While the Empire was racist and often brutal, it did maintain the peace between warring tribes in Africa and really modernized areas that probably wouldn't have been modernized until much later.

 

[kosko]

Britons may see the royals as an anachronism, but Africa is a lot more tribal, and the Africans I've met who moved here are staunch monarchists and traditionalists who want it to endure.

I've noticed many Africans, including the well-educated, often harbor a disinterest in republicanism; it's probably because out of about 50 republics in Africa only a handful of them have managed to function somewhat properly. In some ways it echoes Britain's historical insistence on keeping its crown after the mess made under Cromwell and his 'republic'.

While the Empire was racist and often brutal, it did maintain the peace between warring tribes in Africa and really modernized areas that probably wouldn't have been modernized until much later.

The peace in the colonies was kept by having constant tension. The British maintained peace by appeasing which ever tribal side which looked to boil over and did not hesitate to swing or continue support.

The British indeed modernized many of their colonies but in hindsight it was all very hodgepodge, no frills, and simply self-serving to facilitate British trade and interests. They had many grand ideas they did no execute such as a continuous rail line from Ciaro all the way to Cape Town, which would of been a project that would of had unforeseen economic benefits. It was partially completed but as a mess and so trying to go back to it today would be a project twice as confusing as it was the first time around.

 

[cardguy]

To follow on from the post that Kosko linked to (about The Queen needing permission to enter the Square Mile). Below is video footage of the most famous parliamentary occasion which has happens each year in the UK.

Black Rod (the Queen's representitive) is sent to the House of Commons to request the MP's to come and visit the House of Lords where The Queen is waiting to read out the Government's agenda for the following year.

Each year - Black Rod goes to the House of Commons - and each year the door is slammed in his face as a way of demonstrating Parliament's independence from The Queen. See the 1min mark in the video below:


[Also if you watch the start of the video - and look carefully - you will see that the chair that the Monarch sits in is slightly higher than the one their wife/husband sits in.]

Another subtle point. Is that the MP's traditionally dawdle, and take their time in popping round the corner to hear the Queen's speech - as another symbol of their independence from any requests from The Queen. And each year - maverick MP - Dennis Skinner usually makes a (unfunny) joke at The Queen's expense.

Government consists of Power and Authority. In the UK - the politicians have the power and The Queen has the authority. And as such they are supposed to act as a constitutional check and balance on the excesses of each other's role in the running of the State.