Today is the day in which Britain's great "unwritten" constitution is on display in all its glory. It is the day in which the Queen opens Parliament, amid all sorts of pomp and ceremony (many people assume today's ceremonies are ancient, but in fact many of them date back only to the 20th Century).
It is the day in which the Queen sits on her Throne in the House of Lords (since the Civil War, the Monarch is not allowed to enter the House of Commons), with her husband by her side on a slightly lower Throne (he can't sit higher than the monarch) to read this year's Queen's Speech, in which she announces what her Government has on the agenda for the coming months.
Yet today, a promising political career lies in ruins after speaking out against Monarchy - not a wise thing to do in a country which loves the institution of monarchy and hates its politicians more than at any time in living memory.
Left-Wing Labour activist Peter White is a prospective candidate for Havering Council in East London and a former chairman of London Young Labour.
White got his knickers in a twist after hearing a suggestion that there should be a public holiday during the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012.
On Facebook, White wrote: ‘What is the point of celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of someone who is born into a position of privilege? She is a parasite and milks this country for everything she can.’
Apart from the fact that a politician complaining that someone is a parasite who milks the country dry is like the kettle calling the pot black, his attack was against the most popular and respected figure in British public life.
In fact, the Queen, and the Monarchy as a whole, is anything but a "parasite" and it would actually cost the British taxpayer much MORE to fund a republic.
In fact, the Queen's costs as Head of State - the Civil List - has stayed exactly the SAME for twenty years. In 1990 it was fixed at £7.9 million. When it was reviewed by Gordon Brown, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a decade later in 2000, he decided that the Civil List would remain the same until 2010.
In fact, it was the Queen’s fault that the Civil List (most of which actually goes on staff salaries and not Elizabeth II herself) hasn't increased because she had been living within her means. In fact, she had underspent so effectively that she had built a SURPLUS of £35 million by 2000, which she is now having to dip into to.
Since 1990, though, the cost of politicians has increased. In 1990, then PM Mrs Thatcher earned £53,000. Today, the Prime Minister receives £195,000. Many MPs are demanding an increase of their pay to six figures.
Also, the costs of the Royal Family are NOT met by the taxpayer.
The Duchy of Cornwall funds the Prince of Wales and his family, while the Privy Purse covers the rest of the family, largely through the Queen’s Duchy of Lancaster income.
It's time that republicans realised that it's not the Royals who are parasites. In the politicians.
Meanwhile, the British people can think themselves lucky that we don't have a politician as Head of State.
The Queen a parasite? No, a penny-pinching paragon (and our rotten MPs should take note)
By Robert Hardman
18th November 2009
Dail Mail
Long live the monarchy: The Queen - the most popular and respected figure in British public life - is anything but a parasite, unlike our policians
This morning, we will see the great, unwritten British constitution on display in all its glory — the Sovereign in her Crown and on her Throne, opening her democratically -elected Parliament.
At the same time, a promising political career lies in ruins for mocking it.
Until yesterday, Peter White was a young Labour activist seeking the first rung on the political ladder.
A former chairman of London Young Labour and former aide to a Labour Minister, he is a prospective candidate for Havering Council in East London.
Royal duty: The Queen reads out the speech in the House of Lords today as Prince Philip sits alongside her
Today, though, at 26, he finds himself sitting somewhere between Sir Fred Goodwin and swine flu in the court of public opinion.
Over the weekend, Mr White launched a vituperative personal broadside at the most popular and respected figure in British public life.
The cause of Mr White’s foam-flecked fury was a suggestion that there should be a public holiday for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012.
‘What is the point of celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of someone who is born into a position of privilege?’ he wrote on the Facebook website. ‘She is a parasite and milks this country for everything she can.’
For good measure, he suggested that the Queen should ‘sell a couple of her properties’ and called for a different public holiday instead of ‘celebrating vermin’.
There is, of course, a perfectly respectable debate to be had about the Crown.
Calling the Queen ‘vermin’ has no place in it.
Royal duty: The Queen smiles from her carriage as she travels to the Houses of Parliament today
Now, the usual response to this sort of puerile internet banter is to accept that we have freedom of speech and ignore it. But Mr White is seeking public office.
While he certainly does not reflect official Labour policy, he is not without influence. Furthermore, by yesterday morning, his comments were the topic of radio phone-ins and online debates.
And I believe that they need addressing now because we are going to hear a lot more of this stuff over the coming year when the royal finances are due for review.
So let’s get a few things straight in advance. We can set aside the personal stuff as provocative bile. There will be quite enough voters in Havering to defend the Queen without the rest of us piling in.
Let’s focus on the nuts and bolts. Instead of attacking the royal finances, Mr White — and every other member of the political class — should be trying to copy them.
Because there is, simply, no other piece of the entire machinery of state which has operated on the same budget for nearly 20 years. Even the Taxpayers Alliance cannot find one.
Much as it may enrage class warriors and infuriate those clever-clogs Treasury boffins who have taken us to the edge of the abyss, the award for top-performing bean counter of our times belongs to the Keeper of the Privy Purse.
Short journey: The Royal carriage in all its finery as it travels down the Mall
While the rest of our bloated, chaotic, £620 billion-a-year public sector has swallowed our inheritance with its grandiose pay hikes and platinum pensions, the Civil List has stayed exactly the same since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and a chap called Gorbachev was dismantling the Soviet Union.
In 1990, this sum — which covers the Queen’s costs as head of state and Head of the Commonwealth — was fixed at £7.9 million. When it was reviewed by Gordon Brown a decade later in 2000, he decided that the Civil List would remain the same until 2010.
This, in a sense, was the Queen’s fault because she had been living within her means. In fact, she had underspent so effectively that she had built a surplus of £35 million by 2000.
So, the Civil List was fixed at £7.9million for another decade even though the costs were bound to rise well above this sum — as indeed they have.
Last year, for example, Civil List expenditure — from office staff to garden parties — reached £13 million. But the Queen was still allocated just the usual £7.9 million.
The remainder came out of her surplus.
Cavalry: The Queen's carriage makes its steady progress, escorted by the Horse Guards
But that surplus is running out and, plainly, Parliament has to approve an increase next year. How could any MP argue otherwise? If our politicians were still tied to 1990 budgets, MPs would currently receive £26,701.
In fact, they earn nearly triple that and many are demanding an increase to six figures.
In 1990, Mrs Thatcher earned £53,000. Today, the Prime Minister receives £195,000.
This is not the time or place to debate the merits of politicians’ pay. But since the vast majority of the Civil List goes on staff salaries — none of it goes to the Queen herself — the case for a rise would seem beyond dispute.
Ceremonial: The Queen and Prince Philip walk through the Royal Gallery in Westminster
Attentive: The House of Lords is packed with peers in ermine as the Queen delivers the address
And yet, those two decades of royal cost-cutting and prudent housekeeping will be tossed aside and ignored when the debate kicks off next year.
Out on the local and national election campaigns, the likes of Mr White — if he is still a candidate — will, doubtless, seek to make capital out of ‘royal snouts in the trough’. I remember following then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott for a day during the 1997 election campaign and his only recurring soundbite was a pledge to scrap the Royal Yacht.
With the recession dominating the election agenda, some on the Left will be sorely tempted to deflect flak towards the Palace.
Of course, the royal bill does not end with the Civil List. The total cost of the whole royal package to the taxpayer last year was £41.5million — including building maintenance and travel as well as the Civil List.
While few would accuse the Queen of reckless spending, some costs always attract criticisms.
Why does the Duke of York have to spend £6,000 on taking a helicopter when he could drive? Why does the Prince of Wales spend £20,000 taking the Royal Train to Chester?
Palace officials point out that public duties demand punctuality, security and multiple engagements in the optimum time. What’s more, the private costs of the Royal Family are not met by the taxpayer.
The Duchy of Cornwall funds the Prince of Wales and his family, while the Privy Purse covers the rest of the family, largely through the Queen’s Duchy of Lancaster income.
Neither polo ponies nor corgis — nor Balmoral or Highgrove — are funded by us.
No one pretends that the Monarchy is cheap. If it were, it would lose the allure which sets it apart and makes the Queen the most famous woman in the world.
The Palace accountants like to point out that the Monarchy costs us each 69p a year. The critics argue that the £41.5 million cost does not include a hefty security bill.
The anti-Monarchy campaign group, Republic, has called for the Queen to be replaced with a German-style non-executive president on £200,000 a year.
The current German incumbent is a banker called Horst Kohler — you may not have heard of him — and I dare say his security bill is less than the Monarchy’s.
But the republicans are overlooking an important point. I rang President Kohler’s office yesterday and was informed that his annual running costs are £16 million. That is DOUBLE the current Civil List payment.
Ritual: The Yeoman of the Guard march through Parliament ahead of the Queen's Speech
In fact, both the Palace and the tumbril-pushers are missing the point. The largest royal expense, after all, is £15.5 million on maintaining state property.
The French killed their last King two centuries back and yet they still spend millions propping up Versailles.
A British republic would do the same with Windsor Castle. In fact, a president might get even more money. Buckingham Palace has not been rewired since 1948 and yet the new Speaker of the Commons has already wangled a makeover of his official digs after a few weeks in the job.
And there is one other point worth remembering. Since George III, the Monarch has only received Government funds in exchange for the profits of the Crown Estate — and those were a whopping £211 million last year.
So, to establish the cost of the Monarchy in bald terms, we must weigh what we have against the alternatives.
A presidency would not just involve a salary, a pension, a £16 million office and the £15.5 million-a-year upkeep of national treasures.
It would probably involve a national election, too. According to the Ministry of Justice, the public cost of the last one in 2005 was £80 million.
Tot it all up and the Queen does not cost us anything like 69p each. In real terms, she might even be saving us a few pennies.
That is what we need to bear in mind next year when the likes of Mr White are urging us to scrap the Crown.
Don’t call him vermin. Call him wrong.
READERS' COMMENTS
considered my father a very intelligent man, whenever anyone questioned the Monarchy he could tell them how much they cost and how much revenue they bring in. A little respect is what is in order towards the Queen. She is no spendthrift and has lead a good life. I do however believe that all of the 'hangers on' with various titles should seek employment and become functioning members of society. To me personally, Britain would not be Britain without the Monarchy, again, I think some of the archaic forms of dress could be eliminated - without eliminating the monarchy itself.
- elizabeth A. Lovic, Monroeville PA USA,
*************************************
Excellent article! One other point: when you look at the freest, happiest, most prosperous, democratic and equal societies in the world, what do most of them have? Answer: a constitutional monarchy. (e.g. The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium.)
And in Spain, it was a monarchy that replaced decades of repressive dictatorship in a 'republic' to bring back democracy.
The word 'Republic' is not synonymous with democracy, or freedom. Russia is a republic, so is Zimbabwe.
- Mary Morton, Melbourne, Australia
****************************************
Lets contrast the Queen with the Prime Minister, shall we?
One was born into her position, whether she liked it or not, and has sworn an oath to devote her entire life to her country. The other has SOUGHT a position of power for his own benefit.
One has built up a lifetime of experience and does not need to worry about winning elections, the other seems to perform a u-turn of opinion or policy every week in order to make himsefl appear more attractive to potential voters.
Personally, I would MUCH rather have a Monarch born into the position than a President who has to win the position through convincing an electorate. Ask yourself which is more likely to be corrupt, HM The Queen, or a politician?
- A Mark, Birmingham
****************************************
Peter White typical of Labour's type, rough, wet behind the ears, thinks he is 'God' and will be a little dictator if voted for. Unfortunately, there are still die hard labourites out there that would vote for an ant if it had the word Labour above it.
Labour as it was 40+ years ago has gone, it isn't there for the people of Britain, it is leftwing socialists from Universities who seek to control because of their ideals - look at the mess Britain is in now, purely because of those ideals.
The Queen I wish had more authority and I was wishing that she would tell Labour where to stuff their speech (and I bet under breath she was). I would like to see Britain Great again, but with the scroungers, the liberalists and the luvvys in charge - no chance.
If you are a taxpaying hardworking person that wants a future get out now.
- Karen, ex pat USA
******************************************
Parliaments attempts to belittle the Monarchy will be met with scorn and derision. We've already shown them that the Monarchy is more liked than them with the party in the park.
Last time there was a fight between Parliament and the Monarchy Parliament had Oliver Cromwell. They don't have anyone of his calibre anymore, so bring it on goverment. We'll crush you this time.
- Mark Cullup, Witney
************************************
To find those virtues that give us human value and national vitality, we can always look up to the Queen.
When we look at our well-paid politicians, searching for political virtues - those which concern our democracy, autonomy and prosperity etc. - we cannot help noticing the growing deficit.
So, then, who is parasitizing on whom? The calculation should be simple.
- Chavet, London, UK,
*************************************
This particular monarch is an exemplary symbol of decency and an excellent custodian of the nations heritage. The politicians and civil servants who begrudge her sufficient funds to maintain the good order of the palaces, are blinkered fools devoid of appreciation of art, architecture, or history.
- A disgruntled elector, Blighted Blighty,
***********************************
Edmund Burke wrote an excellent book entitled Reflections on the Revolution in France as early as 1790-1791. He explained how this revolution would bring instability and disorder (remember the French Terreur, Napoleon, amongst others) and make the people lose its direction. Today, the French republis is rotten. Once you open the door to the destitution of your own very regime (multisecular) and transform Buckingham into a hotel (why not a luxury brothel?) as I read in some comments, this void will open the door to who knows what type of regime. Please try to consider things before talking. The Queen is an extremely honourable person and the cement of your country's identity. A Frenchman aware of his country's wrongs.
- Coll, London
****************************************
Several years ago the Prince of Wales mooted the possibility of doing away with the Civil List and keeping the income from the Crown Estates to fund the Monarchy on his succession, which I think would be an excellent idea and would silence all those who accuse the Royal Family of scrounging off the taxpayer. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle have been open to the public for some years now. In fact the revenue raised from visitors funded the restoration of Windsor Castle after the disastrous fire in 1992.
Finally, to slightly misquote Handel's Coronation Anthem "Zadok the priest"
God Save the Queen! Long Live the Queen! May the Queen Live Forever!
- LO, London England,
dailymail.co.uk
It is the day in which the Queen sits on her Throne in the House of Lords (since the Civil War, the Monarch is not allowed to enter the House of Commons), with her husband by her side on a slightly lower Throne (he can't sit higher than the monarch) to read this year's Queen's Speech, in which she announces what her Government has on the agenda for the coming months.
Yet today, a promising political career lies in ruins after speaking out against Monarchy - not a wise thing to do in a country which loves the institution of monarchy and hates its politicians more than at any time in living memory.
Left-Wing Labour activist Peter White is a prospective candidate for Havering Council in East London and a former chairman of London Young Labour.
White got his knickers in a twist after hearing a suggestion that there should be a public holiday during the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012.
On Facebook, White wrote: ‘What is the point of celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of someone who is born into a position of privilege? She is a parasite and milks this country for everything she can.’
Apart from the fact that a politician complaining that someone is a parasite who milks the country dry is like the kettle calling the pot black, his attack was against the most popular and respected figure in British public life.
In fact, the Queen, and the Monarchy as a whole, is anything but a "parasite" and it would actually cost the British taxpayer much MORE to fund a republic.
In fact, the Queen's costs as Head of State - the Civil List - has stayed exactly the SAME for twenty years. In 1990 it was fixed at £7.9 million. When it was reviewed by Gordon Brown, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a decade later in 2000, he decided that the Civil List would remain the same until 2010.
In fact, it was the Queen’s fault that the Civil List (most of which actually goes on staff salaries and not Elizabeth II herself) hasn't increased because she had been living within her means. In fact, she had underspent so effectively that she had built a SURPLUS of £35 million by 2000, which she is now having to dip into to.
Since 1990, though, the cost of politicians has increased. In 1990, then PM Mrs Thatcher earned £53,000. Today, the Prime Minister receives £195,000. Many MPs are demanding an increase of their pay to six figures.
Also, the costs of the Royal Family are NOT met by the taxpayer.
The Duchy of Cornwall funds the Prince of Wales and his family, while the Privy Purse covers the rest of the family, largely through the Queen’s Duchy of Lancaster income.
It's time that republicans realised that it's not the Royals who are parasites. In the politicians.
Meanwhile, the British people can think themselves lucky that we don't have a politician as Head of State.
The Queen a parasite? No, a penny-pinching paragon (and our rotten MPs should take note)
By Robert Hardman
18th November 2009
Dail Mail
Long live the monarchy: The Queen - the most popular and respected figure in British public life - is anything but a parasite, unlike our policians
This morning, we will see the great, unwritten British constitution on display in all its glory — the Sovereign in her Crown and on her Throne, opening her democratically -elected Parliament.
At the same time, a promising political career lies in ruins for mocking it.
Until yesterday, Peter White was a young Labour activist seeking the first rung on the political ladder.
A former chairman of London Young Labour and former aide to a Labour Minister, he is a prospective candidate for Havering Council in East London.
Royal duty: The Queen reads out the speech in the House of Lords today as Prince Philip sits alongside her
Today, though, at 26, he finds himself sitting somewhere between Sir Fred Goodwin and swine flu in the court of public opinion.
Over the weekend, Mr White launched a vituperative personal broadside at the most popular and respected figure in British public life.
The cause of Mr White’s foam-flecked fury was a suggestion that there should be a public holiday for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012.
‘What is the point of celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of someone who is born into a position of privilege?’ he wrote on the Facebook website. ‘She is a parasite and milks this country for everything she can.’
For good measure, he suggested that the Queen should ‘sell a couple of her properties’ and called for a different public holiday instead of ‘celebrating vermin’.
There is, of course, a perfectly respectable debate to be had about the Crown.
Calling the Queen ‘vermin’ has no place in it.
Royal duty: The Queen smiles from her carriage as she travels to the Houses of Parliament today
Now, the usual response to this sort of puerile internet banter is to accept that we have freedom of speech and ignore it. But Mr White is seeking public office.
While he certainly does not reflect official Labour policy, he is not without influence. Furthermore, by yesterday morning, his comments were the topic of radio phone-ins and online debates.
And I believe that they need addressing now because we are going to hear a lot more of this stuff over the coming year when the royal finances are due for review.
So let’s get a few things straight in advance. We can set aside the personal stuff as provocative bile. There will be quite enough voters in Havering to defend the Queen without the rest of us piling in.
Let’s focus on the nuts and bolts. Instead of attacking the royal finances, Mr White — and every other member of the political class — should be trying to copy them.
Because there is, simply, no other piece of the entire machinery of state which has operated on the same budget for nearly 20 years. Even the Taxpayers Alliance cannot find one.
Much as it may enrage class warriors and infuriate those clever-clogs Treasury boffins who have taken us to the edge of the abyss, the award for top-performing bean counter of our times belongs to the Keeper of the Privy Purse.
Short journey: The Royal carriage in all its finery as it travels down the Mall
While the rest of our bloated, chaotic, £620 billion-a-year public sector has swallowed our inheritance with its grandiose pay hikes and platinum pensions, the Civil List has stayed exactly the same since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and a chap called Gorbachev was dismantling the Soviet Union.
In 1990, this sum — which covers the Queen’s costs as head of state and Head of the Commonwealth — was fixed at £7.9 million. When it was reviewed by Gordon Brown a decade later in 2000, he decided that the Civil List would remain the same until 2010.
This, in a sense, was the Queen’s fault because she had been living within her means. In fact, she had underspent so effectively that she had built a surplus of £35 million by 2000.
So, the Civil List was fixed at £7.9million for another decade even though the costs were bound to rise well above this sum — as indeed they have.
Last year, for example, Civil List expenditure — from office staff to garden parties — reached £13 million. But the Queen was still allocated just the usual £7.9 million.
The remainder came out of her surplus.
Cavalry: The Queen's carriage makes its steady progress, escorted by the Horse Guards
But that surplus is running out and, plainly, Parliament has to approve an increase next year. How could any MP argue otherwise? If our politicians were still tied to 1990 budgets, MPs would currently receive £26,701.
In fact, they earn nearly triple that and many are demanding an increase to six figures.
In 1990, Mrs Thatcher earned £53,000. Today, the Prime Minister receives £195,000.
This is not the time or place to debate the merits of politicians’ pay. But since the vast majority of the Civil List goes on staff salaries — none of it goes to the Queen herself — the case for a rise would seem beyond dispute.
Ceremonial: The Queen and Prince Philip walk through the Royal Gallery in Westminster
Attentive: The House of Lords is packed with peers in ermine as the Queen delivers the address
And yet, those two decades of royal cost-cutting and prudent housekeeping will be tossed aside and ignored when the debate kicks off next year.
Out on the local and national election campaigns, the likes of Mr White — if he is still a candidate — will, doubtless, seek to make capital out of ‘royal snouts in the trough’. I remember following then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott for a day during the 1997 election campaign and his only recurring soundbite was a pledge to scrap the Royal Yacht.
With the recession dominating the election agenda, some on the Left will be sorely tempted to deflect flak towards the Palace.
Of course, the royal bill does not end with the Civil List. The total cost of the whole royal package to the taxpayer last year was £41.5million — including building maintenance and travel as well as the Civil List.
While few would accuse the Queen of reckless spending, some costs always attract criticisms.
Why does the Duke of York have to spend £6,000 on taking a helicopter when he could drive? Why does the Prince of Wales spend £20,000 taking the Royal Train to Chester?
Palace officials point out that public duties demand punctuality, security and multiple engagements in the optimum time. What’s more, the private costs of the Royal Family are not met by the taxpayer.
The Duchy of Cornwall funds the Prince of Wales and his family, while the Privy Purse covers the rest of the family, largely through the Queen’s Duchy of Lancaster income.
Neither polo ponies nor corgis — nor Balmoral or Highgrove — are funded by us.
No one pretends that the Monarchy is cheap. If it were, it would lose the allure which sets it apart and makes the Queen the most famous woman in the world.
The Palace accountants like to point out that the Monarchy costs us each 69p a year. The critics argue that the £41.5 million cost does not include a hefty security bill.
The anti-Monarchy campaign group, Republic, has called for the Queen to be replaced with a German-style non-executive president on £200,000 a year.
The current German incumbent is a banker called Horst Kohler — you may not have heard of him — and I dare say his security bill is less than the Monarchy’s.
But the republicans are overlooking an important point. I rang President Kohler’s office yesterday and was informed that his annual running costs are £16 million. That is DOUBLE the current Civil List payment.
Ritual: The Yeoman of the Guard march through Parliament ahead of the Queen's Speech
In fact, both the Palace and the tumbril-pushers are missing the point. The largest royal expense, after all, is £15.5 million on maintaining state property.
The French killed their last King two centuries back and yet they still spend millions propping up Versailles.
A British republic would do the same with Windsor Castle. In fact, a president might get even more money. Buckingham Palace has not been rewired since 1948 and yet the new Speaker of the Commons has already wangled a makeover of his official digs after a few weeks in the job.
And there is one other point worth remembering. Since George III, the Monarch has only received Government funds in exchange for the profits of the Crown Estate — and those were a whopping £211 million last year.
So, to establish the cost of the Monarchy in bald terms, we must weigh what we have against the alternatives.
A presidency would not just involve a salary, a pension, a £16 million office and the £15.5 million-a-year upkeep of national treasures.
It would probably involve a national election, too. According to the Ministry of Justice, the public cost of the last one in 2005 was £80 million.
Tot it all up and the Queen does not cost us anything like 69p each. In real terms, she might even be saving us a few pennies.
That is what we need to bear in mind next year when the likes of Mr White are urging us to scrap the Crown.
Don’t call him vermin. Call him wrong.
READERS' COMMENTS
considered my father a very intelligent man, whenever anyone questioned the Monarchy he could tell them how much they cost and how much revenue they bring in. A little respect is what is in order towards the Queen. She is no spendthrift and has lead a good life. I do however believe that all of the 'hangers on' with various titles should seek employment and become functioning members of society. To me personally, Britain would not be Britain without the Monarchy, again, I think some of the archaic forms of dress could be eliminated - without eliminating the monarchy itself.
- elizabeth A. Lovic, Monroeville PA USA,
*************************************
Excellent article! One other point: when you look at the freest, happiest, most prosperous, democratic and equal societies in the world, what do most of them have? Answer: a constitutional monarchy. (e.g. The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium.)
And in Spain, it was a monarchy that replaced decades of repressive dictatorship in a 'republic' to bring back democracy.
The word 'Republic' is not synonymous with democracy, or freedom. Russia is a republic, so is Zimbabwe.
- Mary Morton, Melbourne, Australia
****************************************
Lets contrast the Queen with the Prime Minister, shall we?
One was born into her position, whether she liked it or not, and has sworn an oath to devote her entire life to her country. The other has SOUGHT a position of power for his own benefit.
One has built up a lifetime of experience and does not need to worry about winning elections, the other seems to perform a u-turn of opinion or policy every week in order to make himsefl appear more attractive to potential voters.
Personally, I would MUCH rather have a Monarch born into the position than a President who has to win the position through convincing an electorate. Ask yourself which is more likely to be corrupt, HM The Queen, or a politician?
- A Mark, Birmingham
****************************************
Peter White typical of Labour's type, rough, wet behind the ears, thinks he is 'God' and will be a little dictator if voted for. Unfortunately, there are still die hard labourites out there that would vote for an ant if it had the word Labour above it.
Labour as it was 40+ years ago has gone, it isn't there for the people of Britain, it is leftwing socialists from Universities who seek to control because of their ideals - look at the mess Britain is in now, purely because of those ideals.
The Queen I wish had more authority and I was wishing that she would tell Labour where to stuff their speech (and I bet under breath she was). I would like to see Britain Great again, but with the scroungers, the liberalists and the luvvys in charge - no chance.
If you are a taxpaying hardworking person that wants a future get out now.
- Karen, ex pat USA
******************************************
Parliaments attempts to belittle the Monarchy will be met with scorn and derision. We've already shown them that the Monarchy is more liked than them with the party in the park.
Last time there was a fight between Parliament and the Monarchy Parliament had Oliver Cromwell. They don't have anyone of his calibre anymore, so bring it on goverment. We'll crush you this time.
- Mark Cullup, Witney
************************************
To find those virtues that give us human value and national vitality, we can always look up to the Queen.
When we look at our well-paid politicians, searching for political virtues - those which concern our democracy, autonomy and prosperity etc. - we cannot help noticing the growing deficit.
So, then, who is parasitizing on whom? The calculation should be simple.
- Chavet, London, UK,
*************************************
This particular monarch is an exemplary symbol of decency and an excellent custodian of the nations heritage. The politicians and civil servants who begrudge her sufficient funds to maintain the good order of the palaces, are blinkered fools devoid of appreciation of art, architecture, or history.
- A disgruntled elector, Blighted Blighty,
***********************************
Edmund Burke wrote an excellent book entitled Reflections on the Revolution in France as early as 1790-1791. He explained how this revolution would bring instability and disorder (remember the French Terreur, Napoleon, amongst others) and make the people lose its direction. Today, the French republis is rotten. Once you open the door to the destitution of your own very regime (multisecular) and transform Buckingham into a hotel (why not a luxury brothel?) as I read in some comments, this void will open the door to who knows what type of regime. Please try to consider things before talking. The Queen is an extremely honourable person and the cement of your country's identity. A Frenchman aware of his country's wrongs.
- Coll, London
****************************************
Several years ago the Prince of Wales mooted the possibility of doing away with the Civil List and keeping the income from the Crown Estates to fund the Monarchy on his succession, which I think would be an excellent idea and would silence all those who accuse the Royal Family of scrounging off the taxpayer. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle have been open to the public for some years now. In fact the revenue raised from visitors funded the restoration of Windsor Castle after the disastrous fire in 1992.
Finally, to slightly misquote Handel's Coronation Anthem "Zadok the priest"
God Save the Queen! Long Live the Queen! May the Queen Live Forever!
- LO, London England,
dailymail.co.uk
Last edited:
