Poland will have a queen again

So why is it unacceptable for the monarch to discuss things in private with her Government, but acceptable for her Government to discuss things in secret with terrorists?

I didn't say either thing was acceptable or unacceptable, I am opposed to unelected heads of state particularly those who meddle in political matters rather than acting in a dignified manner as a figurehead.

What is unacceptable is the unprovoked xenophobic attack on me for daring to agree with the not inconsiderable section of your country that is republican and believe that all children are born equal.

I have yet to hear the argument for some children being better than others

Ironically the British Nationalists are the only ones who claim they are not nationalist

All children are equal; some (the ones this thread pertains to) however end up with certain duties which they can choose to renounce or perform. In the UK and Belgium, the majority are very happy indeed that they carry out their task instead of sloping off for a better life elsewhere.


All nationalists are morons, regardless of the adjective with the capital letter.

Quite clearly they are not, some get state money lavished upon them and most don't.


Very poor Jon, I thought you were better than that but I was wrong

The royalty (in the UK, at any rate) don't get state money. They have plenty of their own and only get expenses.

Btw, nationalism is always wrong as a political philosophy. Much of a muchness, regardless of where the deluded person comes from.

I think you will find that they do get money from the state


At last you agree they do get state money.

So why are some children treated differently by the state if ,as I believe, all children are equal?

"I think you will find that they do get money from the state"
I know we'll find you're lying Barney, again.

You are claiming that the English queen doesnt take money from the British state?
That is as bizzare as you quoting scripture at me and is clearly not the case in the world the rest of us live in.

Chiselers the lot of them

Deriving from the income from the Crown Estates. The state keep most of it.


Would you do your job without claiming expenses?


It seems so.

Perhaps some find it a paradox, but some of the most stable and healthy democracies in the world (even most of them) have a monarch, whereas most of the worst places to live have a constitution and a president. You don't find many Canadians or Dutch dreaming of the democratic ideals in the republic of Russia.

Speaking from a Belgian perspective, here a king is the best solution.
I am a republican from heart, am voting for the moderate Flemish nationalists all my life (biggest party in Flanders), am all in favour of Flemish independence.

But at the moment there is no democratic majority in Belgium which supports the split-up of the country, so this has to be accepted.
So, as long as Belgium will keep existing as a country, a constitutional monarchy is the best option. A president would be highly decisive. He would be the president of the Flemish, or the Walloons, but neither of both. Each one of his decisions would be contested by the other part of the population.

And I am not certain a presidency would cost less.

The Belgian royal family costs the the taxpayer around 14,2 million Euro per year directly (paid out to them to enable to do their work properly) + 16,8 million Euro indirectly.

(Security alone costs 14,5 million Euro). Together 31 million Euro, which boils down to roughly 3 Euro per Belgian citizen per year. I doubt a president would cost less.

I cannot compare to the UK, because I do not know the situation there.

Anyone heard of the Polish monarchist movement? If a monarchy is a way to end or at least limit mindless feuding and bickering, then that might be something worth considering in Poland. Unfortunately, even the monrachist movement is deeply divided. Here is the link to one of them:

legitymizm.org/english

The English queen takes money from the state you admitted that above. The British gov publish some of the figures, the linked report also explains the full position. This family are a bunch of scroungers costing more than any other European royal family they also cost more than any European presidential system that is not value for money.

Royalists believe that all children are equal except certain royal children who are more equal that situation is hypocritical and undemocratic.


The English Queen and family cost £202.4 million
Queen's Civil List 14.2
Duke of Edinburgh 0.4
Property grant 15.4
Communications, media and public relations 0.4
Travel 3.9
Government departments and Crown Estate 3.9
Prince Charles and Camilla (additional costs) 0.5
Lost revenue from Duchy of Lancaster 13.2
Lost revenue from Duchy of Cornwall 24.5
Security 100
Cost to local councils for visits by Queen 26
Total 202.4

republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf

Not a penny. She makes over revenue from the Crown Estates and is entitled to expenses for the arduous schedule she carries out.


Who said that?

They are not her personal property.


Does she or any other members of her family work more hours than a bus driver or surgeon? Does she or any other members of her family work more hours or harder than a democratically elected person like the British PM? I don't think so yet her family are lavished with money from the state, her children are treated differently by the state and media c/f the recent phone hacking scandal and public corruption.

Please, stop with the "English" Queen stuff. As recognised by the Scottish Parliament, she's the Queen of Scots too - and she is also recognised as the Queen of other countries too.

She is called the English queen or the queen of England that is what people call her. It's not insulting in any way unlike the terms bottom feeders, dole scum etc which are often used to describe other welfare claimants.

Are you telling me that she is not the Queen of England?

Barney, seriously - they don't call her that. It might be an Irish Republican term, but it certainly isn't one in common usage. It's even quite offensive to say such a thing - Queen Elizabeth is a direct descendant of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, too. It's also worth pointing out that the Royal Family has a deep connection with Scotland in general.

As for her being "Queen of England" - she isn't. That's a particularly wrong statement to make, as her official title is -


She is not the "Queen of England", and has never been recognised as such. The Scottish Parliament chose to recognise her in a dual capacity, but the UK Parliament has never recognised her as the "Queen of England".

So there is no English Queen that is news to me and most of the world. Still whatever she is called she is still an unelected drain on the public purse.

nobody calls her the English Queen outside of Saoirse meetings.

How dare anyone call the Queen of England the English Queen what an outrage but its fine calling other benefit claimants dole scum and bottom feeders? They give themselves a whole series of official .titles carried with pride, it is frankly a dead heat between the Windsors and the ex politburo members as to who had the most ridiculous chest full of gongs.

Nothing to do with Ireland (yet again) and everything to do with democracy and financial probity.....In a time of austerity increasing their benefits is totally unjustifiable to all but the mesmerised the same who believe some are more equal than others.

Actually they are hers to use as she sees fit as long as she is monarch - and there is no will to end the monarchy except from cranks.


Probably yes.


They are not. She receives expenses from the civil list. Far outweighed by the economic benefit to the whole of the UK.


Indeed. Elizabeth the Second and First.


Yet they lined the streets when she visited.

Hahahahahahaha! Way to bungle, Belgian!


Hear Hear!


Barney it appears that the bitter British on this forum cannot forget that the Irish revolted and threw their monarchy out. Every time you post, Barney, they will read your posts as those of an Irish rebel. A rebel like the ones who humiliated their imperial monarchy. Poland and Ireland and the USA all know that the republican form of government is far superior to governments that maintain royal families at the public expense, and Britain's monarchy is most certainly maintained at the public expense despite the pathetic lies of Harry, jon357 and the rest.

Barney, when faced with an angry royalist gang you have acquitted yourself admirably by exposing their lies. PF would be a far worse place were it not for republicans like you.

Horsefaced Lizzy is the Queen of England and she, and her "regal" ilk elsewhere, are a stupid anachronism.

This post is nothing more than flaming.

It's strange how Poland's acknowledged glory days were all monarchies, isn't it?

As always you show impeccable manners. You wouldn't recognize a constitutional monarchy even when it would bite you.

Depends ^^

Monarchies should have been abolished long ago. I wouldn't kiss a royals ring but they can kiss my _ss.

I see you are as properly informed about European royals as about how to behave properly to a girl. FYI these days you give the monarch a hand.

Other piece of information. All constitutional monarchies in Europe are stable and prosperous countries.

Perhaps it's because so many European monarchies have a woman in charge ;-)

If you come to think of it, quite a few of them :)

No one is denying this irrelevant point just pointing out that its undemocratic and costly to each and every country that has this odd system the fact that the most successful countries all have presidential systems is also irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for a reasoned explanation for treating children as more equal than others. With regard to the Windsors the crown estate is not their personal property therefore they are funded lavishly by the state where the money would ordinarily go.