Should we abolish the Royal family?

[Gandalf]

Yeah the Queen's life is pretty shit when you think about it.

She especially struggles in Royal Ascot and Cheltenham week, supping champange in her private box whilst cheering on her millions of pounds worth of horse flesh.

Fuck the Queen. And the horse she rode in on.

Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.

I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....

BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m

I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?

As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!

I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.

In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?

I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.

The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.

From your article :

The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.

So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.

[Kev]

Yeah the Queen's life is pretty shit when you think about it.

She especially struggles in Royal Ascot and Cheltenham week, supping champange in her private box whilst cheering on her millions of pounds worth of horse flesh.

Fuck the Queen. And the horse she rode in on.

Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.

I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....

BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m

I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?

As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!

I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.

In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?

I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.

The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.

From your article :

The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.

So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.

Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!

The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.

She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.

The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.

It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.

They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.

[Gandalf]

Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.



From your article :

The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.

So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.

Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!

The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.

She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.

The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.

It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.

They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.

I have plenty of historical perspective and am well aware of the history concerning the Royal family. These were the very same people that originally tried to justify their draconian grip on the nation by claiming to be the earthly representatives of god. And all this time later here we have people trying to claim that they provide stability to the nation.

I find your idea that the Royal family see themselves as some kind of guardians of the British people somewhat absurd, especially considering that their wealth and cronyism has always come at the expense of the rest of the population.

The government has commited a number of treasonous acts since it became elected. Where was the Queens voice concerning the illegality of the Iraq war? Where was her voice regarding the bankrupt banks and how they have ripped off her faithful subjects? For someone that cares so much and apparently has the power refuse signing off on government proposals, she is remarkably silent about a lot of important things that are affecting British people very badly.

I think she is irrelevant and voiceless, and thus no longer serves any significant purpose.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.

Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!

The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.

She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.

The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.

It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.

They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.

I have plenty of historical perspective and am well aware of the history concerning the Royal family. These were the very same people that originally tried to justify their draconian grip on the nation by claiming to be the earthly representatives of god. And all this time later here we have people trying to claim that they provide stability to the nation.

I find your idea that the Royal family see themselves as some kind of guardians of the British people somewhat absurd, especially considering that their wealth and cronyism has always come at the expense of the rest of the population.

The government has commited a number of treasonous acts since it became elected. Where was the Queens voice concerning the illegality of the Iraq war? Where was her voice regarding the bankrupt banks and how they have ripped off her faithful subjects? For someone that cares so much and apparently has the power refuse signing off on government proposals, she is remarkably silent about a lot of important things that are affecting British people very badly.

I think she is irrelevant and voiceless, and thus no longer serves any significant purpose.

Miles, console yourself with being right.

I think Bilbo is on more of a windup than HTH

[Gandalf]

Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!

The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.

She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.

The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.

It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.

They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.

I have plenty of historical perspective and am well aware of the history concerning the Royal family. These were the very same people that originally tried to justify their draconian grip on the nation by claiming to be the earthly representatives of god. And all this time later here we have people trying to claim that they provide stability to the nation.

I find your idea that the Royal family see themselves as some kind of guardians of the British people somewhat absurd, especially considering that their wealth and cronyism has always come at the expense of the rest of the population.

The government has commited a number of treasonous acts since it became elected. Where was the Queens voice concerning the illegality of the Iraq war? Where was her voice regarding the bankrupt banks and how they have ripped off her faithful subjects? For someone that cares so much and apparently has the power refuse signing off on government proposals, she is remarkably silent about a lot of important things that are affecting British people very badly.

I think she is irrelevant and voiceless, and thus no longer serves any significant purpose.

Miles, console yourself with being right.

I think Bilbo is on more of a windup than HTH

There are too many people out there practicing the fine art of sophistry for my liking! It makes things too cloudy.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I have plenty of historical perspective and am well aware of the history concerning the Royal family. These were the very same people that originally tried to justify their draconian grip on the nation by claiming to be the earthly representatives of god. And all this time later here we have people trying to claim that they provide stability to the nation.

I find your idea that the Royal family see themselves as some kind of guardians of the British people somewhat absurd, especially considering that their wealth and cronyism has always come at the expense of the rest of the population.

The government has commited a number of treasonous acts since it became elected. Where was the Queens voice concerning the illegality of the Iraq war? Where was her voice regarding the bankrupt banks and how they have ripped off her faithful subjects? For someone that cares so much and apparently has the power refuse signing off on government proposals, she is remarkably silent about a lot of important things that are affecting British people very badly.

I think she is irrelevant and voiceless, and thus no longer serves any significant purpose.

Miles, console yourself with being right.

I think Bilbo is on more of a windup than HTH

There are too many people out there practicing the fine art of sophistry for my liking! It makes things too cloudy.

well, I enjoy a bit of that myself but it's the piss-take in sheep's clothing you gotta watch out for.

[BIG H]

Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.



From your article :

The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.

So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.

Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!

The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.

She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.

The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.

It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.

They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.

That's sounds great Bilbo, but it's just a whole lot of words. Why do we need a symbolic head of state? People need to get a grip!

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Is it illegal to talk about this

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Is it illegal to talk about this

off with their heads!

[Kirkland Laing]

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.

It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.

And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.

Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.

[Gandalf]

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.

It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.

And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.

Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.

I will not discuss the monarchy in Sunderland pubs then!

My perspective is that the Queen is head of state in a symbolic form only. She passes through whatever the government demands no matter what her own views might be. Gordon Brown in this instance is the de facto President, it's just that we call him the Prime Minister. I don't see how taking away the Queen results in increased corruption in terms of the system we already have in the UK. When it comes to further integration into the European model, I can see your case but as it stands and looking at things as they are in the UK, I struggle to see it.

[Kirkland Laing]

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.

It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.

And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.

Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.

I will not discuss the monarchy in Sunderland pubs then!

My perspective is that the Queen is head of state in a symbolic form only. She passes through whatever the government demands no matter what her own views might be. Gordon Brown in this instance is the de facto President, it's just that we call him the Prime Minister. I don't see how taking away the Queen results in increased corruption in terms of the system we already have in the UK. When it comes to further integration into the European model, I can see your case but as it stands and looking at things as they are in the UK, I struggle to see it.

Let's say the government is deciding which firms to hand mobile phone contracts to. Right now a parliamentary committeee made up of members from all parties is where the action starts. They have a working knowledge of the runners and riders and how much they're bidding before the decision gets made at ministerial level. If the minister makes a bs decision or the resulting deal looks nothing like it did in committee he's going to get crucified by the people on the committee not in his party, and probably his own party as well. If a company has to go through all that but need presidential assent, like France or Germany, the process seems to work in reverse, with assent sought before it goes to a low level. The prez's office basically shepherds the new deal through the whole process and puts it together at the end, resulting in zero oversight by anybody remotely fair or impartial and maximum possibility to fiddle the figures.