• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Another heir to the throne

Status
Not open for further replies.

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,528
Location
Liskeard
Does anyone actually have any figures to support that they are expensive to the taxpayer - for example how much do they cost when the income from tourism that they generate is deducted, in comparison to say the presidents of the USA or France? I'm not super-keen on any of the royal family as people after the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh but I'd rather live under a monarchy than a republic: of course this also allows for some perpetual political neutrality in the country's governance (same with the HoL).

I've seen the figures previously about 2-3 years back, and the money from tourism and also business from abroad related to the royal family were generating more money than they were costing the UK.
They were a considerably profitable asset to UK PLC.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
Since the British monarchy was re-established in 1660, what logical reason is there for a British constitutional monarch to be Head of the Armed Forces ?

I am sure someone with full British monarchical knowledge on this forum will come up with the logical reason for this to be so.
It's common for the head of state to be the titular head of the armed forces, but with de facto control in the hands of the head(s) of government.

For example, the Queen is also head of the Canadian armed forces - which would leave her in a bit of a pickle if our two countries ever went to war!

I guess it means you have a neutral non-political head that the servicemen/women swear allegiance too. In the same way that police constables swear to uphold the "Queen's peace".
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,424
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
Why should a British constitutional monarch have any titular involvement with any Canadian military establishment, ceremonial or otherwise ? Is the Queen anything to do with military establishments in New Zealand, Australia...or any other Commonwealth nations ?

This sounds like something out of a comedy script from The Two Ronnies <(
 
Last edited:

ReverendFozz

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
484
Location
Murton, Co. Durham
Look at the people in government, almost anything would be better than them. Election is no magic wand after all the Germans elected a Mr A. Hitler and look how that turned out.

Leave well alone, any change will almost certainly be for the worse, would you want to lick a stamp with for example Tony Blairs picture on it?

If I saw a stamp with Tony Blairs head on, I would get confused as which side to spit on
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
Why should a British constitutional monarch have any titular involvement with any Canadian military establishment, ceremonial or otherwise ? Is the Queen anything to do with military establishments in New Zealand, Australia...or any other Commonwealth nations ?

This sounds like something out of a comedy script from The Two Ronnies <(
It, of course, depends on the Constitutions of those countries, as maintained by their democratically elected parliaments, as with the UK. It would, of course, be possible for any country to ask for ER to be head of their armed forces - bizarre, but possible.
If you read Bagehot on Constitutional Monarchy, IIRC he states that its chief importance lies not in what the Monarch is empowered to do (which is often tiddly-squit) but in the powers that having a Monarch denies to others. The Canadians have seen the wisdom of this; their ex-colonial neighbours have not.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,094
Location
Redcar
Why should a British constitutional monarch have any titular involvement with any Canadian military establishment, ceremonial or otherwise ? Is the Queen anything to do with military establishments in New Zealand, Australia...or any other Commonwealth nations ?

I would imagine for the same reason that she's head of the UK armed forces, because she's the head of state of Canada.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,424
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
I would imagine for the same reason that she's head of the UK armed forces, because she's the head of state of Canada.

What is classified as "titular" in Britain may well be an accepted fact of life there, but surely is now totally meaningless in a country such as Canada in the 21st century.

I still await the answer to my earlier posting of how the Queen is involved with the armed forces of New Zealand and Australia, remembering the ANZAC battalions.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
Why should a British constitutional monarch have any titular involvement with any Canadian military establishment, ceremonial or otherwise ?
Because as well as being Queen of the United Kingdom, she is also Queen of Canada - and the Canadian head of state.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What is classified as "titular" in Britain may well be an accepted fact of life there, but surely is now totally meaningless in a country such as Canada in the 21st century.
I guess the Canadians are happy with a constitutional monarchy.

I still await the answer to my earlier posting of how the Queen is involved with the armed forces of New Zealand and Australia, remembering the ANZAC battalions.
The Queen (as Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand) is the head of state of both nations. So the head of the armed forces will either be her, or the respective Governor-General - who is nominally the Queen's representative and the de facto head of state.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,094
Location
Redcar
What is classified as "titular" in Britain may well be an accepted fact of life there, but surely is now totally meaningless in a country such as Canada in the 21st century.

Because the people there are happy to have her as their head of state. There's been plenty of polling, discussion and debate and the result always seems to be in favour of maintaining the status quo. Indeed Australia, Tuvalu and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines have all had referendums in recent years and the result was in favour of keeping the Queen as head of state.

I still await the answer to my earlier posting of how the Queen is involved with the armed forces of New Zealand and Australia, remembering the ANZAC battalions.

She is the head of the armed forces (well I believe the Governor General is in her stead) in those countries just as she is the head of state.
 

transportphoto

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Quizmaster
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Messages
5,562
Last edited:

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,094
Location
Redcar
Prince George is the name they've gone for with the middle names of Alexander and Louis.
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
PrinceGeorge.jpg


That is all.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
Whilst we are on this theme, why do the BBC weather forecasters have to report from locations external to the broadcasting studio in all weathers. I really feel for those who have to make their reports in winter in bitterly cold conditions, whilst the other presenters are in climatically approved surroundings inside the studios.

If we're griping about the weather surely we must start with all reporters overtly passing off their opinion as fact. It will not be nice tomorrow - you think it will be! It will be 23 degrees. Imagine if the main news programming did that
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
So how long before the baby is replaced by a camp pink hippo... People with Photoshop skills get working!
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,094
Location
Redcar
And here I thought George was an English name what with St George and all!
 

IanD

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2011
Messages
2,783
Location
Newport Pagnell
St George wasn't English so why would his name be English?

Love the Blackadder reference.

Hope he marries a Princess Mildred.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,424
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
And here I thought George was an English name what with St George and all!

The story of St George and the Dragon was brought back to Europe by returning Crusaders. St George was born in Palestine and was a solder in the Roman army and was said to be an early Christian martyr.

He is especially venerated by the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria due to his birthplace and all the known Eastern Orthodox Churches also venerate him.

Georgia and Bulgaria are two European countries that make special note of him, but the Eastern Orthodox religion that prevailed for eons, despite persecution by invaders, will have surely been instrumental in this matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top