Re: Public of Oz.
About 14 years ago here in Oz we had a referendum. One of the proposed changes was - To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Sadly it didn't get passed and here we are in 2013 with the Governor General as the Queens representative still *technically* wielding more constitutional power than either the PM or the Senate.

It got me thinking. Now I'm sure there are a few die hard 'royalists' out there but I'm guessing that most of you who pay taxes in Old Blighty look at the Queen's annual "earnings" and splutter your tea-soaked digestive all over the screen.
Here is possibly one of the most inbred families on the planet (bar a couple of recent commoners) and to this day the loyal peasants are still funding their extravagant lifestyles thru tax and tithe. I mean these guys have a few spare castles and riches unbound - something many of us (apart from Albert Marshmallow) could only dream about.
You bet they have full social calendars where they are seen to be performing civic duties - if they were seen to be no-good-layabouts they'd be fucking lynched within the hour.
As an Aussie (albeit a naturalised one) I'm quite happy to say that I personally believe that we no longer need as a nation to be "governed" by an elderly lady half a world away (yes - I am generalising and I do realise that the Queen doesn't 'really' have any say-so in the Australian Government). Since their election the Abbott government has cut foreign aid spending (not such a bad thing in some ways) but I'm guessing that didn't include the amount of foreign aid we dole out to the monarchy each year just to be included as their subjects.
Hey, maybe we should start an independent coalition with The Gambia.
(s0ckpuppet logging out to reply to you if you're not careful, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 7:23, 29 replies)

So the thing you hate about Britain,
Is that they oversaw the creation of the Australian government; which in turn, gave Australians the democratic right to decide if they wanted to be a republic or not.
(Squidlipps Anyway, so how's your sex life on, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 8:47, closed)

I think he blames Britain for his existence.
In that respect it certainly has a lot to answer for
(AWESOMEB0T meddling prick, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 9:09, closed)

That's an interesting interpretation.
EDIT: Since Australia has had a federal government (independant of the Queen in all but name) since 1901. And fairly regular democratic elections for all an sundry (I'm not counting suffragettes and all the other pinko lefties that got the vote later) since then.
(s0ckpuppet logging out to reply to you if you're not careful, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 9:44, closed)

Sometime the Queen has her uses
m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/01/australia-had-a-government-shutdown-once-it-ended-with-the-queen-firing-everyone-in-parliament/
( wakeupandsmellthebacon, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 9:58, closed)

I don't think you'll find many Aussies
who say that as a good thing.

Double dissolutions aside, when there is a vote of no confidence in a government then we should go to the polls - not simply have the opposition transplanted as government because the reigning monarch thousands of miles away said so.
You might want to do a bit of (EDIT) balanced historical research - here's a start.
(s0ckpuppet logging out to reply to you if you're not careful, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 10:16, closed)

Bottom line
Having an active Royal Family who still live in big castles as in ye times of yore is attractive to tourists and brings money into the UK. I can't prove this but tourism organisations probably could give you some pretty interesting figures.

I was a passionate anti-royalist in my youth but I've come to view them as an 'attraction' rather than a symbol of unfairness, and to see the tax money we spend on them as investment in their upkeep / maintenance. Also they do realise that if they ever tried to wield their theoretical absolute constitutional power, they would be dethroned in double-quick time.
(slowly play it cool, Trig, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 9:34, closed)

Its the buildings the tourists come for - as evinced by Versailles.
There's absolutely no need for us to have a royal family.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 13:23, closed)

The Royal Family serves
as a living refutation of Social Darwinism.
(the other guy not the one that gave you coochie warts, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 14:54, closed)

Also, legoland windsor is more popular than the nearby castle. I propose we appoint a new, plastic head of state
(cs1ca, Sun 6 Oct 2013, 15:05, closed)

Hey,
maybe you should fuck off?
(immadme, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 10:40, closed)

Most thought out response in the thread so far.

(s0ckpuppet logging out to reply to you if you're not careful, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 10:42, closed)

Best response possible.
(Bum Bag Fashion Boy Burned a home made pizza on, Sun 6 Oct 2013, 0:44, closed)

Your nation voted Abbott in
About time we took the place back
( A Rory Borealis here under duress, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 11:20, closed)

FYI my aussie friend. The Monarchy is fully paid by the UK. THE QUEEN COSTS AU NOTHING. this was brought in at the creation of the commonwealth (from the previous empire).

The Governor General is a merely symbolic position, which holds the same amount as the Queen does. in the Australian and British governments there are constitutional conventions which makes whatever the executive decide will be given the Royal ascent.
(TIMBIonline available for any passing drunk sailor, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 13:59, closed)

According to our local news.
Harry just cost us 15.5 Million, for two days! Nothing, my arse.
(M61A1 CUPID- STUNTS, Mon 7 Oct 2013, 2:38, closed)

Abbott's spoken for all of you.
"But today everyone feels like a monarchist today."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24410125
(ringofyre, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 17:43, closed)

Haven't seen that much arse kissing
since I accidentally walked in on Dr Ska and quinch.
(s0ckpuppet logging out to reply to you if you're not careful, Sun 6 Oct 2013, 0:04, closed)

The Queen doesn't cost money.
Her family owns the titles to most of the West End and large amounts of other places. What do you think the ground rents are like around Piccadilly Circus?

This money is given to the country in return for the Civil List. I don't know the amounts involved, but I'd say we were quids in.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 20:38, closed)

It seems the Civil list ended early last year (so last years tax year)
and under the sovereign grant the Royals do face a 'more strict' fiscal management policy but ....
The Queen received £7,900,000 a year from public funds to support the exercise of her duties as head of state of the United Kingdom.
For AU$13.5 mill. even I'd be prepared to be married to Prince Phillip!
(s0ckpuppet logging out to reply to you if you're not careful, Sun 6 Oct 2013, 0:12, closed)

If the monarchy was abolished, we'd still have to pay for someone politically important to go and shake hands, or whatever it is heads of state actually do. We can't just hire some spotty minimum-wage tween and send him there by bus. The other heads of state would take it as a slur.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sun 6 Oct 2013, 0:39, closed)

No need for the tween, we can just send [current royal laughingstock], instead.

( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Sun 6 Oct 2013, 1:09, closed)

What, like the "Harry & The Fleet Show"?

(s0ckpuppet logging out to reply to you if you're not careful, Sun 6 Oct 2013, 2:45, closed)

May I be the third or fourth person to point out that the Royal Family more than likely bring in more money than they cost the taxpayer,
and also point out that the Queen is constitutionally quite useful?
I'm no flag waving monarchist (their births/marriages/deaths are uninteresting to me), but, although I'm sure we would agree that democracy probably is the lesser of all the political evils, republicans can still suck it.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Sat 5 Oct 2013, 20:56, closed)

"We australians like the queen of australia so much we voted to keep her, something something something Britain"
(cs1ca, Sun 6 Oct 2013, 15:06, closed)

^Ladies & Gentlemen - The British Education System.^

(s0ckpuppet logging out to reply to you if you're not careful, Sun 6 Oct 2013, 21:38, closed)

It's not my fault that you lot like the queen so much you voted to keep her. We've never liked them THAT much - last time we had that choice we beheaded them.
(cs1ca, Mon 7 Oct 2013, 1:02, closed)

The only reason
That we remained a monarchy, is because we were given a choice of - stay the same, or, John Howard's very specific, very shit version of a republic.
(M61A1 CUPID- STUNTS, Mon 7 Oct 2013, 2:31, closed)

This is sadly very, very true.
Maybe someone can convince Malcolm Turnbull to have another tip at leader of the Coalition - chuck a Julia. So to speak!
(s0ckpuppet logging out to reply to you if you're not careful, Mon 7 Oct 2013, 2:51, closed)

Most brits I know basically agree that Australia should be a republic - in fact many of them think it already is.

As for the Monarchy, most are what I call Passive Republicans - we basically care so little about the royal soap-opera that even protesting about them is too much effort.

The other reason we keep them is that we've seen the kinds of presidents that other countries elect...
(moon monkey is busy making memories worth repressing, Mon 7 Oct 2013, 11:45, closed)