Didn't the Queen, at over 80, attend something over 380+ events last year - that sounds like work to me.
Chat Forum
Royal family civil list to be capped at £26k...
-
Posted 4 months ago #
-
That's an argument for putting Posh and Becks on the Civil List.
No it isn't.
Posted 4 months ago # -
if the Queen was doing her job properly, she would be chopping the heads off of all you anti-royalists and using the meat to feed to the poor in Africa, thereby eradicating world poverty and solving the benefit/ pensions crisises.
Useless.Posted 4 months ago # -
No it isn't.
Yes, it is. If entertainment value is the metric for measuring effectiveness of Civil List recipients, there are far better performers than the Royal Family.Posted 4 months ago # -
TurnerGuy - Member
Didn't the Queen, at over 80, attend something over 380+ events last yearYou tell me.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Yes, it is. If entertainment value is the metric for measuring effectiveness of Civil List recipients, there are far better performers than the Royal Family
No it isn't....
How many people would line the streets for Posh's marriage? Or death? People across all areas of life care about them to an incredible degree. I find it crazy but am happy for them.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Of course, Jade wasn't in showbiz for as long as the Royals have been.Is it the role of the state to provide light entertainment for its citizens?
Posted 4 months ago # -
Now your just being silly. I don't know much about her though she died from cancer so is that why her death was so popular? We don't need to pay celebs directly which is kind of the point. Having a Royal Family means certain things including paying them for their efforts. I daresay they'd be happy to disappear from public life and enjoy their wealth privately but they understand the role they play and see their obligations. Not entirely sure about some of the minor ones but still.
Posted 4 months ago # -
How many people would line the streets for Posh's marriage? Or death?
I'd get out my dancing shoes - oh hang on, that's a different thread isn't it?
Posted 4 months ago # -
We don't need to pay celebs directly which is kind of the point.
Oh, well in that case, that's great news. If celeb entertainment is free and Royal entertainment is costly, and if entertainment value is the best argument, then we can just abolish the hereditary monarchy and appoint celebs as monarchs as required.
Too bad we didn't think of this twenty years ago - we could have had the Two Ronnies as joint monarch and they were practically on the Civil List during their Beeb years - after all, it was obvious
how much happiness they brought to so many people
Posted 4 months ago # -
There's definately a case to be made for keeping a core of royals and royal activity (whether it makes financial sense or not I don't know, but it seems reasonable that it might)
But to be frank, the cost of the royal family to us as taxpayers is surprisingly small, stopping that funding wouldn't make any significant difference to public finances. For that you'd need a land grab and asset strip and that's not an easy sell.
Posted 4 months ago # -
and enjoy their wealth privately
How exactly have they made their wealth?
Posted 4 months ago # -
IIRC only a couple of generations ago the royal family were skint - exemptions from tax allowed them to amass a fortune.
Most of what is sometimes consider their wealth they cannot actually sell or realise tho
Posted 4 months ago # -
the cost of the royal family to us as taxpayers is surprisingly small, stopping that funding wouldn't make any significant difference to public finances
In that case, we can have Posh & Becks on the Civil List as well. It's no significant difference, after all.
Posted 4 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
