Peter T Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 OR "Hot Air". :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 That makes two of us Asp !!!! I've no idea at all but it could be down to the wind or something This is perfect example of what happens when a person starts a topic and then walks away from it!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 Not to worry eh (although I have never believed that there is such a thing as a 'perfect example' of anything Algy ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 When I joined this forum I believed two things 1) It is not expected to be a full time occupation, I did not "do a runner" as someone put it but I do have other things to do and I claim to be neither omnipresent nor, indeed, omniscient. 2) I beleieved it to be a platform for discussion and of the expression of opinion - even if those views are not universally held . it would appear that some, including those who responded with "Nick Tessla get lost" and "Sod off" do not feel that way - or perhaps they are not capable of forming and expressing more complex responses. As to the subject in hand, someone described my views as "paranoid". I can only assume this was in connection with Charles Windsor having the right to veto legislation. This is a factconfirmed by Downing Street and reported in mainstream media including the quality newspapers and by the BBC ( and not just republican newsletters edited by beardy weirdy lefties). Yes, republics can become dictaorships, as can monarchies. However, it does not follow that they become dictatorships because they have an elected head of state. Synchronicity does not mean causality. There will have been many other factors - historical, social, cultural etc. involved - factors that would not apply if we had an elected head of state. There has been some comparison of Elizabeth II with George Bush II.In reply 1) As I believe i have previously stated - this is not a criticism of the current encumbent - it is the role I detest not the present individual. 2)There is no guarantee that no future monarch will not be as much of a liability as the chimp faced one. Fortunately he was restricted to two terms ( and I would hope that a british equivalent would get voted out after one)- but imagine 60 years of such an embarassment on the throne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 .......but imagine 60 years of such an embarassment on the throne. Can you imagine if Bliar had managed to weedle himself into the EU top job which is what was wanted??? As for Charles dictating policy; well I feel happier with that than the likes of the three main parties making policy in the first place. Charles is an honourable man and has no financial axe to grind when it comes down to it; unlike many things done by this and previous governments which all seem to be about their own political and financial futures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Not too fussed about this anacronistic method of choosing a head of State; my only beef would be the costs. The Scandanavian model for Monarchs appears to be less expensive, but I guess we'll have to wait for Wills to take it into the 21st Century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Charles is an honourable man and has no financial axe to grind when it comes down to it; unlike many things done by this and previous governments which all seem to be about their own political and financial futures. Actually Baz, his finances were involved - to quote teh Downing Street spokesperson it related to legislation.... ".....that affected the principality of Wales, the earldom of Chester and the Duchy of Cornwall - his private business and property empire." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I agree about Charles. Like his father, he is apt to say what he thinks. I would trust both more than any politician. As to cost, the royal family cost each person in this country 62 pence per year. Fancy their presence brings in a lot more. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I agree about Charles. Like his father, he is apt to say what he thinks. I would trust both more than any politician. As to cost, the royal family cost each person in this country 62 pence per year. Fancy their presence brings in a lot more. Happy days I object to the unelected head of state as a matter of democratic principle, not cost However..... ..... The usually quoted cost of the monarchy is £38.3 a year. This is a piece of highly creative accounting which hides the true cost - when you add in security, travel etc. etc. a more realistic figure is around seven times that figure. Put in perspective our head of state is 112 times more expemsive than the irish one and the most expensive royal family in europe. All of which is not relevant to my basic objection - although I am sure an elected head of state would not get away with such an obscene cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 " although I am sure an elected head of state would not get away with such an obscene cost." What is it that makes you so sure? Please share it with us. "but imagine 60 years of such an embarassment on the throne." In what way has Her Majesty been an embarrassment? Please share it with us. Her Majesty (long may she reign) as been nothing but the most gracious Ambassador for our (that includes you) country that ever there was. And I believe you will find the majority of citizens of this country and, indeed, worldwide would agree. God Save The Queen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 " although I am sure an elected head of state would not get away with such an obscene cost." What is it that makes you so sure? Please share it with us. "but imagine 60 years of such an embarassment on the throne." In what way has Her Majesty been an embarrassment? Please share it with us. Her Majesty (long may she reign) as been nothing but the most gracious Ambassador for our (that includes you) country that ever there was. And I believe you will find the majority of citizens of this country and, indeed, worldwide would agaree. God Save The Queen! Read what I put again Cleopatra - I was asking what 60 years of an unelected head who was like George Bush would be like. You may also note that I said I was not criticising Elizabeth Windsor - it is the office she holds I detest - not her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 As for the costs - using an open and publicly reported set of accounts. One that covered ALL the costs with all expenditure open to public scrutiny. Only one residence, for example a wing of Buckingham Palace, could be a first step. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 " although I am sure an elected head of state would not get away with such an obscene cost." What is it that makes you so sure? Please share it with us. "but imagine 60 years of such an embarassment on the throne." In what way has Her Majesty been an embarrassment? Please share it with us. Her Majesty (long may she reign) as been nothing but the most gracious Ambassador for our (that includes you) country that ever there was. And I believe you will find the majority of citizens of this country and, indeed, worldwide would agree. God Save The Queen! Anyone that watched 'The Queen's Cousins',would certainly have seen a cause of embarrassment where her mothers nieces were commited to a mental institution by their parents for the remainder of their natural lives without any contact whatsoever from their parents and any other members of royalty and were officially declared deceased while still very much alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 When formulating your highly dubious figures for the Royal family Nick, why aren't you factoring in the revenue generated by the Crown Estates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 When formulating your highly dubious figures for the Royal family Nick, why aren't you factoring in the revenue generated by the Crown Estates? I am talking about expenditure. Any revenues could be used in far better ways - so are irrelevant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I am talking about expenditure. Any revenues could be used in far better ways - so are irrelevant So all the revenue, made from the Crown Estates, which the Queen owns, and which are given to the Treasury, are irrelevant? Only if you know the £230 million blows your argument to pieces. You know what Nick, if I felt as strongly against a countries constitution as you seem to do then I'd move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 So all the revenue, made from the Crown Estates, which the Queen owns, and which are given to the Treasury, are irrelevant? Only if you know the £230 million blows your argument to pieces. You know what Nick, if I felt as strongly against a countries constitution as you seem to do then I'd move. Elizabeth Windsor only "owns" these as the unelected head of state. She should not be seen as personally owning these any more than Obama would not claim to personally own the whitehouse.* Please don't sink to the level of if you don't like it go somwhere else - I am british and my identity as such is not tied up with having a monarchy. The monarchy and their supporters talk about various things being held in trust for the nation - well I reckon it's about time they gave them back *The Crown estate website actually says "It is not the private property of HM Queen. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 And what would happen to them then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 It would go to the government who would then waste it as usual :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 *The Crown estate website actually says "It is not the private property of HM Queen. " Added while I was posting. So if it is not the private property of HM Queen, how can HM Queen give it back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 *The Crown estate website actually says "It is not the private property of HM Queen. " Added while I was posted. So if it is not the private property of HM Queen, how can HM Queen give it back? In the same way as a salesman gives back his Ford Mondeo and company iphone when he is made redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Or a shop manager hands back the keys to a shop to the owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 In the same way as a salesman gives back his Ford Mondeo and company iphone when he is made redundant. Well she isn't being made redundant and neither will she be made redundant! Get used to it! Long live the queen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Well she isn't being made redundant and neither will she be made redundant! Get used to it! Long live the queen! Still think she should have looked after her cousins!!, Cleo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 [quote name='Nick Tessla' timestamp There has been some comparison of Elizabeth II with George Bush II.In reply 1) As I believe i have previously stated - this is not a criticism of the current encumbent - it is the role I detest not the present individual. You must be a time lord to have experienced any other monarch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.