trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 President's family costs US 20 times what royal family costs UK U.K. newspapers are having a little chuckle about a new book reporting that Obama's family cost U.S. taxpayers $1.4 billion last year alone, whereas the royal family cost the U.K. a measly $57.8 million – more than 20 times less than the First Family. Obama's expenditures include the salaries of his staff and Secret Service, as well as the maintenance of Air Force One, which he's required to take (and has been using increasingly in this election year). The comparison is being emphasized to advertise "non-partisan" author Robert Gray's book "Presidential Perks Gone Royal." Still, before you get too hot under the collar, if you estimate the current number of taxpayers in the U.S. at around 216 million, that's roughly $6.48 per taxpayer. [Source] http://now.msn.com/president-obamas-family-costs-the-us-20-times-what-royal-family-costs-the-uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 That may well be the case, but then, Obama doesn't legally and personally own all of the US. Elizabeth not only owns everything bit of land in the UK, but also places like Australia and Canada. No private citizen can ever truly own a part of this country. Don't suppose that's factored into the value for money calcs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Not directly comparable really then given it takes into account all his staff and secret service. It would be massively surprising and absurd if running the world's biggest economy and being the most powerful man on the planet was less than that of a constituional monarch with only symbolic power. Does the cost include all the tax breaks and perks enjoyed by the Queen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php The 'Value for Money Monarchy' Myth report sets out the details of the true cost of the monarchy, estimated to be over £200m. Key Findings The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year). The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades. £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme. The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system. Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy. Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu0x Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Elizabeth not only owns everything bit of land in the UK, but also places like Australia and Canada. No private citizen can ever truly own a part of this country. This is a common myth based on partial or wilful misinterpretation of Land Law. It hasn't been true for the best part of 800 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This is a common myth based on partial or wilful misinterpretation of Land Law. It hasn't been true for the best part of 800 years. Business Insider thought this last year. http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1 Concept of land tenure still in place, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Business Insider thought this last year. http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1 Concept of land tenure still in place, isn't it? What does it matter? Any state can seize land it requires in a time of emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 What does it matter? Any state can seize land it requires in a time of emergency. It matters because people, particularly monarchists, are keen to point out that the Queen's role is ceremonial. All power still resides in the Crown, all land still belongs to the Crown. Big difference between land seizures for emergencies and the concept of someone owning something forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 It matters because people, particularly monarchists, are keen to point out that the Queen's role is ceremonial. All power still resides in the Crown, all land still belongs to the Crown. Big difference between land seizures for emergencies and the concept of someone owning something forever. Ok, the Queen owns it, what power does she have to claim it and push people out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu0x Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Concept of land tenure still in place, isn't it? But that's my point - 'ownership' of property is an incredibly complicated matter governed by hundreds of years of evolution of legal method. You can't selectively take some aspects of that method and abandon others to establish a theory. Land tenure is essentially a legal fiction made up out of thin air during the Norman Conquest - but even so, the modern concept and effect of land tenure bears little to no relation to William's big 'land grab'. All land in the UK is held 'of the Crown', but that's not the same thing as saying the Crown *owns* all the land - unless you want to elevate one aspect of the concept of 'ownership' artificially above others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 If it's all about money and value for money, why dont we just hive the head of state off to the highest bidder. If Alan Sugar bid more than her maj, then we'll get better value for money under King Al. Of course it wouldn't really be fair and create the feeling of "one nation", but the only difference that I can see it making is that King Al's first born would have to bid when old Sugar popped his clogs and so wouldn't be a shoe in for the top job. It would also cut down on the hangers on as I'm sure King Al's children would have proper jobs and not ponse about at tax payers expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 But that's my point - 'ownership' of property is an incredibly complicated matter governed by hundreds of years of evolution of legal method. You can't selectively take some aspects of that method and abandon others to establish a theory. Land tenure is essentially a legal fiction made up out of thin air during the Norman Conquest - but even so, the modern concept and effect of land tenure bears little to no relation to William's big 'land grab'. All land in the UK is held 'of the Crown', but that's not the same thing as saying the Crown *owns* all the land - unless you want to elevate one aspect of the concept of 'ownership' artificially above others. Surely there is a good reason for this, it keeps England England. If it wasn't held "of the crown" there's be nothing to stop anybody selling their house/land/estate/Cornwall etc to a foreign power who could eventually take over the country by stealth, one purchase at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 If it's all about money and value for money, why dont we just hive the head of state off to the highest bidder. If Alan Sugar bid more than her maj, then we'll get better value for money under King Al. Of course it wouldn't really be fair and create the feeling of "one nation", but the only difference that I can see it making is that King Al's first born would have to bid when old Sugar popped his clogs and so wouldn't be a shoe in for the top job. It would also cut down on the hangers on as I'm sure King Al's children would have proper jobs and not ponse about at tax payers expense. You're on to something. You could even extend the logic of Tory economic dogma and look to sell off the more marketable Royals to foreign countries or rich oligarchs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 That may well be the case, but then, Obama doesn't legally and personally own all of the US. Elizabeth not only owns everything bit of land in the UK, but also places like Australia and Canada. No private citizen can ever truly own a part of this country. Don't suppose that's factored into the value for money calcs It's a nominal thing but it all belongs to the Crown Estate which has nothing to do with the Queen. The Crown Estate generated £210.7m (2010) for HM Treasury. It goes back to 1760 and the accession of George III, and before. For example 'The Crown' owns all the land between low and high water marks but that doesn't mean HM. I have no problem with the central monarchy, it's all the hangers-on that I object to. In theory a private citizen owns his land and everything beneath from the centre of the earth and upwards to the edge of the atmosphere but he cannot do what he likes with it. All mineral rights belong to the state and all sorts of people can do things underneath or in the air over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 All mineral rights belong to the state I never knew that.TSW is an education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 I never knew that.TSW is an education. Well, when I say 'all' it's the ones that matter: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/planning/legislation/mineralOwnership.html Oil, gas, gold, coal, silver belong to the state. That's us :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 It's a nominal thing but it all belongs to the Crown Estate which has nothing to do with the Queen. The Crown Estate generated £210.7m (2010) for HM Treasury. It goes back to 1760 and the accession of George III, and before. For example 'The Crown' owns all the land between low and high water marks but that doesn't mean HM. I have no problem with the central monarchy, it's all the hangers-on that I object to. In theory a private citizen owns his land and everything beneath from the centre of the earth and upwards to the edge of the atmosphere but he cannot do what he likes with it. All mineral rights belong to the state and all sorts of people can do things underneath or in the air over it. Isn't one of the key principles of the monarchy that the monarch is the Crown personified? It's odd that these "nominal" rights and powers are so powerful Owns all the land. Law cannot pass without the monarch's assent. Parliament arranged and run at the Crown's invitation. Not bad for "nominal", eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 The monarchy is not democratic and hereditary rule is ridiculous. Pretty sure no one would dispute that? Any monarchist defence is therefore the defence of an absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 The monarchy is not democratic and hereditary rule is ridiculous. Pretty sure no one would dispute that? Any monarchist defence is therefore the defence of an absurdity. She does as she is told, by the people's representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 The monarchy is not democratic and hereditary rule is ridiculous. Pretty sure no one would dispute that? Any monarchist defence is therefore the defence of an absurdity. She doesn't 'rule' over us, she's a figurehead. I just don't see how things would be any better as a Republic. You stick to starting a revolution in Puerto Rica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 She doesn't 'rule' over us, she's a figurehead. I just don't see how things would be any better as a Republic. You stick to starting a revolution in Puerto Rica. Well if she's just a figurehead then we can get rid of her then surely? After all she doesn't really do much and the idea that she should get the lucrative figurehead position purely and simply because she inherited it is, well, stupid. Ironically Puerto Rica is actually a republic - it's head of state is the US president but unfortunately it's citizens don't get a vote in US presidential elections - the US can be a little disingenous about the democracy it promotes though. Anyway, bottom line is that if you think our head of state should be decided by birthright alone then you're a monarchist, if not then you're a republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsaint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 hereditary head of state? time this country grew up. no wonder the french despise us. the royals are a corrosive influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 hereditary head of state? time this country grew up. no wonder the french despise us. the royals are a corrosive influence. Agree Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 hereditary head of state? time this country grew up. no wonder the french despise us. the royals are a corrosive influence. in what way are they corrosive..? excuse me while I dont lose sleep about the french Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 hereditary head of state? time this country grew up. no wonder the french despise us. the royals are a corrosive influence. So if we become a republic the French will like us a bit more, well what are we waiting for? Bring on the revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsaint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 no , but seriously all you cap doffers, what is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO great about that lot being head of state, come what may, however stupid , degenerate, incompetent, arrogant, and exploitive they are? I mean, have you checked out their track record ? All their lackeys in the aristocracy who stole the land at the point of a sword hundreds of years ago. They are great too, aren't they? If you can't figure out the difference between caring what the french think, and the fact that we give them so much reason to think it....well just try. They have been taking the **** for generations. So if you like heads of state who take the ****, then you have what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 no , but seriously all you cap doffers, what is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO great about that lot being head of state, come what may, however stupid , degenerate, incompetent, arrogant, and exploitive they are? I mean, have you checked out their track record ? All their lackeys in the aristocracy who stole the land at the point of a sword hundreds of years ago. They are great too, aren't they? If you can't figure out the difference between caring what the french think, and the fact that we give them so much reason to think it....well just try. They have been taking the **** for generations. So if you like heads of state who take the ****, then you have what you want. And for an alternative... President Kinnock? President Prescott? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 no , but seriously all you cap doffers, what is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO great about that lot being head of state, come what may, however stupid , degenerate, incompetent, arrogant, and exploitive they are? I mean, have you checked out their track record ? All their lackeys in the aristocracy who stole the land at the point of a sword hundreds of years ago. They are great too, aren't they? If you can't figure out the difference between caring what the french think, and the fact that we give them so much reason to think it....well just try. They have been taking the **** for generations. So if you like heads of state who take the ****, then you have what you want. How many fanatical Royalists do you know? This is not the 17th century. Most people just like the tradition, the fact it gives us an identity an excuse for to join together every so often, we don't doff caps. Your comments just expose your chippiness. I am sorry you are so anxious about how the French feel about us. Why don't you read up on your history and ask yourself what we should be thinking about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 The French are weird... they think they won the battle of trafalgar...for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsaint Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 How many fanatical Royalists do you know? This is not the 17th century. Most people just like the tradition, the fact it gives us an identity an excuse for to join together every so often, we don't doff caps. Your comments just expose your chippiness. I am sorry you are so anxious about how the French feel about us. Why don't you read up on your history and ask yourself what we should be thinking about them? And you appear to be a mind reader. Well done. Most people I know don't like toe royals, the tradition or anything else to do with the whole nonsensical business. Chippiness? I think you mean.."ability to think for myself". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 And you appear to be a mind reader. Well done. Most people I know don't like toe royals, the tradition or anything else to do with the whole nonsensical business. Chippiness? I think you mean.."ability to think for myself". Is it mostly French people that you know? Is that you are so sensitive about how they think about us? No chippeness as in 'resentful or oversensitive about being perceived as inferior' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 15 January, 2013 Share Posted 15 January, 2013 so much for democracy eh http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21024828 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 15 January, 2013 so much for democracy eh http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21024828 Are you saying you trust politicians more than the monarchy...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 15 January, 2013 Share Posted 15 January, 2013 What continues to stagger me is just how much airtime a small niche pressure group can generate from what really is a non story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 15 January, 2013 Share Posted 15 January, 2013 Are you saying you trust politicians more than the monarchy...? Missing the point eh? Not like you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 15 January, 2013 Missing the point eh? Not like you I aim to please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 15 January, 2013 I'm more than happy that we have a monarchy keeping tabs on the daft ideas that career politicians come up with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 15 January, 2013 Share Posted 15 January, 2013 Yes, because those at the apex of the class system are far better placed to decide what's best for their subjects than a commoner, eh, trousers? Get rid; the f**king lot. They are "it is the way it is" institutionalised and made heads of state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 15 January, 2013 I disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 15 January, 2013 Share Posted 15 January, 2013 Anarchy would be cheaper than either. Plus we could cull the weirdos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 15 January, 2013 Share Posted 15 January, 2013 Anarchy would be cheaper than either. Plus we could cull the weirdos. The anarchists would have to organise to decide who the weirdos are. Sort of goes against their creed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 15 January, 2013 Share Posted 15 January, 2013 The anarchists would have to organise to decide who the weirdos are. Sort of goes against their creed I was planning on infiltrating them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 15 January, 2013 Share Posted 15 January, 2013 hereditary head of state? time this country grew up. no wonder the french despise us. the royals are a corrosive influence. What are you talking about? It's a bit of a sweeping statement to claim "the French despise us" - as if a whole nation could think alike - and any remaining animosity between the peoples of the UK and France surely stems from a historical/cultural root, with precious little to do with the House of Windsor - who seem quite popular in France as far as I'm aware. But if you want to go back to the time of Agincourt, Crecy, and Joan of Arc ... well then I must admit the monarchy was not quite so popular with our Gallic neighbours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPTCount Posted 16 January, 2013 Share Posted 16 January, 2013 the foreigners love them, and i don't think anyone could lead the commonwealth in the same capacity. sometimes hereditary rule makes sense, it would be impossible for the commonwealth to agree on a leader otherwise, and most likely just crumble away. they pay their way in tourism, disneyland can have all the plastic castles and fantasy prince & princess' when we have the real deal, the royal wedding was watched by silly numbers globally, and the jubilee weekend was probably the best, and messiest, i had last year thanks to a 4 day weekend courtesy oh her maj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitalsaint Posted 18 January, 2013 Share Posted 18 January, 2013 Much rather somebody born into a meaningless position than give carte blanche to the sort who have spent their life trying to grab power. When have we last had a truly altruistic politician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 January, 2013 Share Posted 18 January, 2013 Much rather somebody born into a meaningless position than give carte blanche to the sort who have spent their life trying to grab power. When have we last had a truly altruistic politician? Some were altruistic, but supported the wrong causes. Michael Foot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 18 January, 2013 Share Posted 18 January, 2013 And equally some monarchs were just plain crazy (all that inbreeding I guess). It's the unaccountability and the kick in the teeth for democracy that sticks in my craw. At least we can depose politicians (albeit we might have to wait a while). Without a bloody revolution we can't depose the monarch who could have the ability to act purely in his / her self-interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 18 January, 2013 Share Posted 18 January, 2013 Much rather somebody born into a meaningless position than give carte blanche to the sort who have spent their life trying to grab power. When have we last had a truly altruistic politician? Just before they introduced a Politics, Philosophy and economics degree at the Unis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 18 January, 2013 Share Posted 18 January, 2013 Just before they introduced a Politics, Philosophy and economics degree at the Unis. There have been PPE degrees at the major universities for decades. I think I would include the late John Smith in the 'altruistic' stable, although of course that could never have been proved to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 18 January, 2013 Share Posted 18 January, 2013 And equally some monarchs were just plain crazy (all that inbreeding I guess). It's the unaccountability and the kick in the teeth for democracy that sticks in my craw. At least we can depose politicians (albeit we might have to wait a while). Without a bloody revolution we can't depose the monarch who could have the ability to act purely in his / her self-interest. Ithink the current balance is right though. I cannot imagine King George 3 being allowed to continue in today's soceity. Today's moanchy has very little real power - parliament holds that. If we had an elected head of state, they would most definately want a say. The type of person who would put themselves forward wouldn't be able to help themselves. At least the primry driver for the Queen is a sense of duty, the primary driver for any politician is power. I would trust the queen a thousand times more than I would trust any politician, especially the current grasping bunch (all parties) and as such she is, has been and will always be a better head of state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now