[Closed] Makes you proud to be British (German?)

She rakes in 240 Million a year and we give her just 34 million of it back? sounds like a bargain to me 😀 i think you need extra Maths lessons peasant!

I wonder what would happen if she appealed to the European courts about the compulsory grab of her income...

Worth every penny imo.

If only for the wonderful smile it put on Her Majesty's face.

Here's how she looked when she was struggling on £31million a year :

[img] [/img]

And this is how her face [Gawd bless 'er] lit up when she heard that she was getting another £5million :

[img] [/img]

It warms the cockles of your heart it does.

And to be fair it's all her money anyway, that's why there's a picture of her face on all them banknotes
- that's a fact.

She's not my queen, so IDGAS!

Get over it. She's the queen, she generates shed loads of cash for the UK, she's our head of state and the royals are here to stay.

Remember we had a go at getting rid of the royals a while back? Didn't go so well so we brought them back.

Have you not got anything worthwhile to whinge about?

[i]She rakes in 240 Million a year and we give her just 34 million of it back? sounds like a bargain to me [b]i think you need extra Maths lessons peasant! [/b][/i]

😆

[i]Have you not got anything worthwhile to whinge about[/i]

Well if they haven't, the STW forum is full of people who do.

Popocatapetl - Member
She rakes in 240 Million a year and we give her just 34 million of it back? sounds like a bargain to me i think you need extra Maths lessons peasant!

The Queen ? The Queens Estate

That property would still be making money without her.

That property would still be making money without her.

But even if that's true, is still not a reason to get rid of her, is it?

It's not a reason to keep her.

I feel its time for Charles though.

JoeG - Member

She's not my queen, so IDGAS!

There's no need to take such a disagreeable attitude just because you're a foreigner. A little respect wouldn't go amiss.

zippykona - Member
I feel its time for Charles though.
POSTED 20 MINUTES AGO #

It's time for a meritocracy not aristocracy.

Get over it. She's the queen, she generates shed loads of cash for the UK, she's our head of state and the royals are here to stay.

She generates shedloads of cash? Strange, because she's never done a day's work in her life.

Head of state? So, we are ultimately 'ruled' by an unelected individual who apparently has 'divine right' to do so? Wouldn't we be better off with an actual democracy?

But even if that's true, is still not a reason to get rid of her, is it?

It is true, and it's a very good reason to get rid of the monarchy; we'd be £35 million better off if they didn't exist.

Bloody benefit scroungers.

and it's a very good reason to get rid of the monarchy

No it's not. I disagree. I'm a Royalist, if there was another civil war I wouldn't be fighting for Parliament, put it that way.
But that's not the trendy point of view, is it?

I'm a Royalist, if there was another civil war I wouldn't be fighting for Parliament, put it that way.

So you don't believe in democracy then?

So you don't believe in democracy then?

Stop twisting the argument.

I'm not. I asked you a simple question.

❓

Perfectly valid question for someone choosing to fight for a monarch over an elected assembly.

[quote=MrSmith ]It's time for a meritocracy not aristocracy.

So replace the queen with a president? I'm willing to bet that wouldn't be that much cheaper in the long run what with elections to be held. Rough costs to run the election are 80-100M pounds plus campaigning etc and then there's wages, staff etc. Not sure what the point is to remove something for something that's not really saving much in the grand scheme of things.

I've been flirting with Republic-thoughts for quite a while. What does it mean to be British? I think it goes alot deeper than simply saying 'Queen and God'.

I think we are an Island-people who are opportunistic pure and simple with the mentality that wheres the muck theres brass (globally).

We've been led down the killing fields path in part by royal involvement in the past.

I think its time the Royals simply became a rich family and Britain was rebranded.

Strange, because she's never done a day's work in her life.

she normally attends over 300 engagements a year, even at her age - here's an old yahoo answer on the subject:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100407150926AA2B5RY

she normally attends over 300 engagements a year

I went to the cinema, theatre and the V+A this weekend. It was a hectic few days.

And your point was?

How much money does the Royal Family bring in in tourism? They do also add some commercial clout to international ventures too.

I know they're not elected and in theory have ultimate power, but they do seem to be sensible about it. Charles won't be on the thrown for long, William looks like a sound chap and at least Harry won't get there now!

Can you even begin to imagine the cost and disruption to the nation, and in fact the world, if Royalty was disbanded? The only way to do it would be a military coup, and that just won't happen.

I think its time the Royals simply became a rich family and Britain was rebranded.

And you think the queen buggering off will somehow loop around in time and retrospectively fix the things our ancestors did? History is done and I doubt if we'd had a non-royal figurehead we'd have behaved that much differently. The French empire didn't vanish in 1793 when they shortened the king; it carried on regardless and they ended up with an Emperor shortly afterwards.

How much money does the Royal Family bring in in tourism?

she normally attends over 300 engagements a year,

How much money does the Royal Family bring in in tourism?

Go on; how much?

I was never aware that they were employed by the British Tourist Board.

Not sure what the point is to remove something for something that's not really saving much in the grand scheme of things.

The ruling classes, the class system and ultimately the aristocracy led to many many young men being slaughtered 'for King and country' in world war one.

Britain WONT collapse. It will carry on as we have past. Alot of countries don't. We'll evolve. Thats the thing, we've always evolved as a people.

Forget about the Queen, Vettel is a KNOB.

I know they're not elected and in theory have ultimate power, but they do seem to be sensible about it. Charles won't be on the thrown for long, William looks like a sound chap and at least Harry won't get there now!

The royal veto on legislation actually gets used fairly regularly, including I believe to stop a debate on the Iraq war. In the 21st century this is bloody ridiculous.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

Can you even begin to imagine the cost and disruption to the nation, and in fact the world, if Royalty was disbanded? The only way to do it would be a military coup, and that just won't happen.

Go on; how much?

You are really overstating the complexity of abolition of the monarchy.

12 million people come here just because we have a monarchy?

12 million people come here just because we have a monarchy?

Maybe. Who knows. Certainly lots do.
My point is simply that getting rid of the Monarchy and replacing with a President doesn't strike me as being beneficial enough to have to deal with the hassle of getting rid of the Royals, unless they do it themselves of course.

Imagine who'd be lining up to be President, and their "expenses", then lets stick with Royalty as a much more logical and less embarrassing option.

The deeper you dig the less obvious the costs are. The costs do not include security and some hangers on to the title etc. It could be much clearer than it is, usual political tactics.

I really don't see the point of royals in this day and age. I don't mean to say get rid of them just not financially support them! They have plenty of money and estates. They will still pull in massive revenue for the country. The Netherlands royals would be a good template.

I mean the scrap Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Wettin/Windsor have always been loyal ha ha!

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/01/Royal_Nazis.html

My problem with the monarchy is that it sends a very clear signal that we still think some people are better than others, by dint of who their parents were. The lauding of extreme wealth and privilege. Very poor message to be sending out in the modern world.

Quick Google brought up this statistic (may/may not be true): " 12 million tourists visit every year spending 7,000 million pounds"

And if we didn't have a royal family why would we need a president? We have a prime minister!

we still think some people are better than others, by dint of who their parents were

Edit, just seen this:

I think you need to think that through a bit

Having the Royal Family in place keeps the 2 in their place (by way of promoting the "old rich").