Britain is in trouble

[Cyberman]

Actually, we're doing better than that. Much like with our church, we're making our monarchy irrelevant - and not a single shot fired in anger.

The monarchy is always relevant as long as it is there.

Yet it's powers are so limited they have almost as much influence on world events as any god - ie none at all. They have the Royal Assent over Government legislation but that is just about it.

For instance: do you happen to know the penalty under UK law for treason?

You can't make it irrelevant just by saying so. It's there, so its relevant.
Its as simple as that. The monarchy is not going to step down just because you tell them to.

I agree, my word cuts no ice. By the same sword, neither does yours. The British monarchy is actually far less relevent to the lives of UK people than it is to foreign opinion.

Besides, why would you fire a shot in anger? The monarchy isn't really hurting you or anything.

Me? I wouldn't fire any shot whatsoever. You're the one promoting revolution and extermination.

As for whether I or anyone else is being hurt, is harm the only criterion for relinquishing any irrelevant and outdated institution? We pay more than £30,000,000 - that's thirty million pounds - annually to keep these people in the manner to which they have traditionally become accustomed; not to mention the queen's own personal wealth, an undisclosed sum but estimated by Forbes as being in excess of £260,000,000. How many schools and hospitals would that little lot buy, I wonder?

[zebo-the-fat]

The Queen is the legal owner of one-sixth of the Earth’s land surface

[kılıç_mehmet]

Yet it's powers are so limited they have almost as much influence on world events as any god - ie none at all. They have the Royal Assent over Government legislation but that is just about it.

For instance: do you happen to know the penalty under UK law for treason?

So? She's still there. As I said, she is purely a representational figure.
And from what I know the maximum penalty for high treason is life.

I agree, my word cuts no ice. By the same sword, neither does yours. The British monarchy is actually far less relevent to the lives of UK people than it is to foreign opinion.

As I said, it does not matter, that's the point of constiutional monarchy. The foundations of your state are in the monarchy, so to abolish the monarchy, you need to create a new state, with a new name, and new laws, new bureaucracy, and abolish all titles and relating forms of personage from your state.

You also need to form a new national identity that is unrelated to the crown, and perhaps allow the Scots and the Northern Irish(amongst whom the loyalists will probably oppose you) to form independent states. The Queen and monarchy is the foundation, the very basis of your country, and all its legitimacy. Abolish the crown, abolish everything.

Me? I wouldn't fire any shot whatsoever. You're the one promoting revolution and extermination.

Because monarchies are not removed in any other way. That's why.

As for whether I or anyone else is being hurt, is harm the only criterion for relinquishing any irrelevant and outdated institution? We pay more than £30,000,000 - that's thirty million pounds - annually to keep these people in the manner to which they have traditionally become accustomed; not to mention the queen's own personal wealth, an undisclosed sum but estimated by Forbes as being in excess of £260,000,000. How many schools and hospitals would that little lot buy, I wonder?

Constitutionally, she is entitled to that money as the sovereign of the country, the queen.
She is your Queen, your monarch. She is entitled to that money as it was her ancestors that have actually built this country, so I'd say that she has a hereditary right to it.

[NoraBrimstone]

Oh no! The Royal Family cost us £30m a year??? Good thing they make us more than that in the tourism they pull in. How many years do you reckon they will buy with the £2bn boost to the economy that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's wedding brought in? Or the £240m from the birth of Prince George? Without the Royals, we'd be France. Do you want to be France???

[Cyberman]

I'd actually have no objection to their upkeep, if I had a choice as to whether I wanted to contribute or not. As it is UK taxpayers are paying in excess of (iirc) £900,000 each yet not everyone supports the royals. Such is the nature of taxation, yet the things that are paid for by the public purse usually do something. Tourism is great - millions of visitiors a year flock into London to look at the buildings and the jewellery. How many tourists get to chat with the queen?

The silly thing is we don't even have to substantially change much of our system of government. Our governmental structure is already on place - that's why we had a Civil War a few years back. Just trim off the dead wood, do a little rebranding, maybe a little financial restructuring. Tomorrow it's business as usual and nobody would really notice.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The monarchy is in vouge now, and probably will be for a few lifetimes yet.

But it is a relic of an era no longer relevant to the modern world. Republicanism will one day win out, and I will be glad for it.

As for disestablishing the church - that will almost certainly occur before I breath my last breath, and I will be extremely grateful for it. Christianity is an irrelevant relic to the Britain now, especially the Anglican churches. There's greater political and social will today for disestablishment than there ever was.

[NoraBrimstone]

I don't get a choice as to whether or not I want to contribute to our troops being sent abroad to murder thousands of people and make our country look awful, but far more of my money is spent to do that than is spent on the Royal Family, who make us look quite appealing.
They do us a lot of good, and £30m a year is nothing.

[Cyberman]

Then if their upkeep really is as trivial as all that, it shouldn't be too much hardship for them to sustain themselves. Many people are forced to exist on Social Security benefits, generally paid for out of contributions whilst in work. I see no need for the Mall family to do so.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Oh no! The Royal Family cost us £30m a year??? Good thing they make us more than that in the tourism they pull in. How many years do you reckon they will buy with the £2bn boost to the economy that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's wedding brought in? Or the £240m from the birth of Prince George? Without the Royals, we'd be France. Do you want to be France???

What about the duchy of Cornwall, an institution which has utilised tax payer money to to build a massive portfolio of property and land which is all entirely tax exempt goes all to Charles' estates.

Not to Mention the fact that Charles is a crackpot who regularly involves himself in matters if state and has been influential in enacting, for example, NHS funding for hokum such as homeopathy.

I realise that republicanism is unpopular in the Uk, but eventually the royals will be removed by political mandate from the people.

But this is a debate done to death, with no resolution in sight.

---

Then if their upkeep really is as trivial as all that, it shouldn't be too much hardship for them to sustain themselves. Many people are forced to exist on Social Security benefits, generally paid for out of contributions whilst in work. I see no need for the Mall family to do so.

They can sustain themselves. As my post above says, the duchy of Cornwall alone brings in tens of millions to Charles.

The exact amount is unknown because, unlike every other organisation, it's accounts aren't released to the public...or parliament, despite the fact it's out capital.

[Cyberman]

Beyond Charles being a Goons fan and a lifelong personal friend of late messrs Secombe, Sellers and Milligan, I have no other respect for the man. Even if he does share my sister's birthday.

They can live off his income and be happy with that. Social Security benefits are either income- or contribution-based. I doubt they've made many National Insurance contributions, not actually having paid jobs, and their savings would rule out the other. Of course if any of them want to get work, I know some cracking job sites.