Should he stay or should he go?

robcav

Member
Here's an idea, get rid of all the Royal Family then it's no longer an issue:)

Well said Sir. And the money saved from the abolition of the civil list could be spent on properly equiping British troops who have to deal with the fall-out of the hairbrained schemes of a British government overtly influenced by an inarticulate former drunk and a bunch of scaremongering neo-cons.
 

Sueperc

New Member
Well said Sir. And the money saved from the abolition of the civil list could be spent on properly equiping British troops who have to deal with the fall-out of the hairbrained schemes of a British government overtly influenced by an inarticulate former drunk and a bunch of scaremongering neo-cons.

Get real.

Civil List 2006 - £7.9 million
Planned UK defence expenditure 2005-6 - £32.5 Billion.

Just how many British troops would you "properly equip" (and God knows they do need to be better equipped) by tearing down the constitutional arrangements of the nation?

Edited to say: MartinT talking, not Sueperc.

The rest of your post I can go along with.
 

Morghoven

Member
Here's an idea, get rid of all the Royal Family then it's no longer an issue:)

First off, how did we get from a sensible discussion to rabid Republicanism?! Why should we get rid of the Royal Family? Or do you think that an elected Presidency would always guarantee a balanced ruler who wouldn't make a fool of themselves and would never send the country to an unwinnable war on false pretences? [See also: United States of America]

Secondly, how would it no longer be an issue? What we have now at the top of the British political system is a group of people who are not constantly "spinning" in order to win elections, and whose family ideals are geared to public service. Can you imagine Blair's children joining the forces? And even if they did, can you imagine them being given anything more dangerous than a cushy desk-job in Whitehall? I thought not... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Rapier

Supporting Member
Don't bother Morghoven. They'll ignore the fact that the Royal Family actually makes money for the UK.
 

Pythagoras

Active Member
That's not the point here. If there wasn't a royal family the issue of Harry going to Iraq wouldn't be an issue.

(But to comment, the royal family making money or not is irrelevant to whether its ethically right or not - but won't get into that debate again.)
 

Morghoven

Member
That's not the point here. If there wasn't a royal family the issue of Harry going to Iraq wouldn't be an issue.

But what I'm saying is that the basic issue would still potentially exist. If you get rid of the monarchy, you don't have no-one ruling the country - just someone different, chosen a different way! That person could have children or grandchildren of suitable age to serve in the forces.

Say this new elected politician who is the new head of state has a (grand)child in the forces, posted to the front line. It's basically the same situation we have now, so the issue still exists.

Trouble is, by design of being elected, the politician has to look after their own interests - that's what election winning is all about. So are they going to encourage their offspring to possibly sacrifice their lives for the country? Or are they going to get them hid away somewhere?

The issue still exists, but the details have become a whole lot murkier.
 

TheMusicMan

tMP Founder
Staff member
Get real.

Civil List 2006 - £7.9 million
Planned UK defence expenditure 2005-6 - £32.5 Billion.

Just how many British troops would you "properly equip" (and God knows they do need to be better equipped) by tearing down the constitutional arrangements of the nation?

Edited to say: MartinT talking, not Sueperc.

The rest of your post I can go along with.
Don't know where you got that £7.9M figure from... last year it was more like £37.4M according to the Royal Public Finances report to 31st march 2006.

http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/Page4965.asp
 

TheMusicMan

tMP Founder
Staff member
Sure Dave, but also nearly a factor of 4 out from the figures quoted for Civil List costs 2006. We don't want people thinking it only costs £8M to run the royals do we ;)
 

DaveR

Active Member
Sure Dave, but also nearly a factor of 4 out from the figures quoted for Civil List costs 2006. We don't want people thinking it only costs £8M to run the royals do we ;)

Well, apparently you don't! :tongue: Personally, I think the Royal Family are worth every penny (and more) that we spend on them. Long live the Queen. :clap:
 

TheMusicMan

tMP Founder
Staff member
Doesn't mean I am against the royals though... ;) There are certain royals who don't deserve their privileges, simple as that. There are others though who certainly do.
 

MartinT

Member
Apologies if the Civil List figure I gave was incorrect - it was arrived at on the basis of a quick Google search while eating breakfast, and I may have misread it :).
www.royal.gov.uk gives the figure as £37.4 million, as John states. I don't think this invalidates my point, though, which is that this is peanuts in the context of Government expenditure on Defence.
 

andywooler

Supporting Member
This is all academic as neither of the Princes is funded by the civil list anyway! From the telegraph:
The Duchy of Cornwall, one of the largest and oldest landed estates in Britain, was created in 1337 by Edward III for his son, Edward, the Black Prince. It has since been used to fund the heir to the throne. Neither Prince Charles, nor his two sons, receive allowances from the Civil List.

Plus Charles paid £3.3m in tax last year.
 

TheMusicMan

tMP Founder
Staff member
Apologies if the Civil List figure I gave was incorrect - it was arrived at on the basis of a quick Google search while eating breakfast, and I may have misread it :).
www.royal.gov.uk gives the figure as £37.4 million, as John states. I don't think this invalidates my point, though, which is that this is peanuts in the context of Government expenditure on Defence.
Absolutely Martin - it doesn't invalidate your point whatsoever. I just wanted to point out the true figure for those who may think that £7.8M is peanuts for the royal family.
 
Sad we got into this financial discussion. The real problem is that the MOD and the government underestimated Harry's determination to go with his regiment. Whilst I am all for a free media, the media have really not helped with the coverage they have given. Sure the terrorists do not have to read our newspapers, but they can watch TV (when the electric is on), I am sure they have their own informants living in this country and around the world who keep them posted. This situation Harry is going into is not like the Falklands, it is not a convential war where we line up on opposing sides, know each others strengths (weapons) then proceed to go at it. Our forces are dealing with fanatics who unlike 'normal' soldiers don't care whether they live or die as long as they get to Paradise. Also the media seems to have had a free hand in reporting most things unlike in previous conflicts affecting this country. I am sure if they reduced their coverage it would increase the military's capabilities to act and react, it would also reduce the terorists access to the world stage. Surely, if no one is listening/reading about their activites it might discourage them a bit. Either way, lets hope that Harry and all the troops out there do their tour and get back home safe.
 

PeterBale

Moderator
Staff member
It sounds to me as if the compromise arrived at - ie that he will go, but will mainly be acting as part of a larger force, rather than as an isolated patrol - is probably the best solution all round.
 

robcav

Member
Just how many British troops would you "properly equip" (and God knows they do need to be better equipped) by tearing down the constitutional arrangements of the nation?

Whilst I'm pleased you go along with the rest of my post, I have to ask what constitutional arrangements you think would be torn down by having no monarchy? The British constitution, unlike the American and European, is an unwritten one and there are only two guiding principles - the rule of law and the supremacy of Parliament. The irrelevant pomp of the Queen's role in her speech at the opening of Parliament (though she does enunciate well in her reading) and the outmoded notion of royal assent in the matter of law making are a merely symbolic doffing of the cap, and how many of us these days wear a cap with which to doff?
And to respond to the poster who mentioned the importance of the Duchy of Cornwall and the 3.3 million 'given' in tax by the Prince of Wales, whilst I accept that, even though as a crown body the Duchy is tax-exempt, the Prince voluntarily pays tax on its income, its income is still in excess of 16 million per year not to mention 2 million in grants from the government and yet, did you know, no elected politician is ever allowed to raise a question about any aspect of it at all, ever. So much for the doffing of Charles's cap towards openness and transparency.
 
Top