UK get ready, we are being lined up.

a reply to: Phage
They are, but they still get around 30 to 40 million pounds every year from the UK government. It's called the Royal Grant.

a reply to: crayzeed

A queen has gotta live man, come on!

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Phage
They are, but they still get around 30 to 40 million pounds every year from the UK government. It's called the Royal Grant.

.....that's cherry picking.
Are you going to explain to Phage the difference between the private wealth of the Queen and her 'wealth' as Monarch (read CEO Phage) who is in receipt of your said millions...where it comes from, where it is spent....

a reply to: angelchemuel
Ah, well let me see. The queens private wealth is estimated (because she keeps it secret) at around £100 million. That's nice isn't it. The rest, ie Crown Estates and other crown holdings (including the crown jewels and other gifts and works of art) Belongs to the reigning monarch and held in perpetuity for the country. Ie. when she dies it's passed on to the next monarch. These holdings cannot be sold.
From all of these holdings the queen gets a certain percentage as agreed by the government. Although a lot of people world wide lump all these holdings into the queens wealth.
As for property ALL royal residencies upkeep are paid by the government through the Royal Familys Property Grant- In- Aid. Hence the government being asked to stump up £370 million to upgrade Buckingham Palace.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: crayzeed

How about get rid of kings and queens.

Corbyn as a president ? I prefer a monarchy, the glue that hold a nation together citing Germany and Russia after world war one.

a reply to: crayzeed

The calm before the storm, hang onto your hats.

a reply to: crayzeed
I can't see the Queen abdicating, because she remembers the family trauma of the 1936 abdication.
Yes, it's very likely that she will pass on huge amounts of the ceremonial work to Charles, but she can do that without giving up the title.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Beyond Creation
Of course. Is an invasion and possession of a nation not considered war? What else effected the British Empire ie The Commonwealth?

A decision was made. Power was displayed.

I was talking about preventing war and about today's queen, not about what happened decades before she was born, as things have changed since then.

Granted that was by the hands of her predecessors, however, how can you possibly question the utmost power in military force and deny their influence over combat?

I was talking about legal powers. If she has them then they must be written somewhere, as I suppose such important things are not just oral tradition.

The British Royals, in their time, have conquered nearly a quarter of the planet. If they can achieve such, surely they have the power to refrain.

In this discussion I'm not interested in the past.

If the UN and NATO wish to go to war, then the Monarchy is not the authority, however, the original comment was made with respect to her subjects, in which case, the Queen can prevent at least our involvement in such.

How?

Mate chill out! I'm giving you answers but you are not taking them in your stride. Read between the lines if you must.

When it comes to military prowess the Queen carries about as much meaning as Prince Phillip's medals, however, as the head, she logically carries influence. She may choose not to do so but the Queen has the ability to influence military involvement, which as far as the UK is concerned, could prevent a war.

Effectively, she says nothing; yet she could and we would hold far greater respect for her.

Perhaps one should ask why so? Who is really the authority?

originally posted by: Beyond Creation
Mate chill out! I'm giving you answers but you are not taking them in your stride. Read between the lines if you must.

I don't do that "read between the lines" thing, not even in my own language, as that's the best way of being wrong while thinking that I am right.

Effectively, she says nothing;

Publicly. Does she comment on other political issues against the government's actions?

Perhaps one should ask why so? Who is really the authority?

That's what really matters, if the queen doesn't have any effective authority then she isn't a real authority, only a figure head.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
I can't see the Queen abdicating,

Abdication is a complex legal process requiring new laws. If the Queen became incapacitated, the it is more likely Charles will become Regent.

There are quite a lot of myths that circulate the Queen. Probably because the monarchy has adapted to the political world and allowed (sometimes with reluctance) for Parliament to gain pre-eminence, we are not a Republic. Of the many forms of government, a Parliamentary and constitutional monarchy does actually work.

Anyhow. The of the most important role of the monarch is signing-in new laws and being the final buffer to autocracy. For example, the monarch could refuse to agree a law that abolished Parliament, or was so unpopular that it threatened national stability.

As to the cost of the monarchy. Well, it's small change when compared to other Heads of State and presidents.