[Closed] The Smiths' Morrissey: 'Royals are benefit scroungers'

arch old queen in not liking competition shocka ?

He is right though.

'Divine Right To Rule'? Really? Sez who? Not me.

Sooner we get rid, the better.

That may well be a valid point, but at least they haven't bailed out of three concerts that I purchased tickets to in a row!

🙄

Although I don't particularly care for the royal family, those views are a bit dim-witted really. About one rung up the ladder from 'I don't like you because you smell of poo and your mum is a prossie'.

He's got an album out soon so he needs to gob off a bit to shift some units ?

An ageing controversial (in his time) entertainer says something controversial about a large public event. Not really news is it?

Not at all, Winegums. The Royal Family serve no dolphin whatsoever in a democracy. They aren't elected, they're just in a position of incredible wealth and privilege because their ancestors where nasty buggers, mainly.
Having a monarchy is what's holding Britain back, in terms of democratic progression. Perpetuates the socially divisive class system and 'divide and rule'.

Get rid. Soon as.

Elfin - you may have a point and you put it across much better than Morrisey and that is my problem - he is just gobbing off trying to be controversial so he can make more wealth for Morrisey it appears.

If he had something constructive to say then all is good but I am disappointed at this half-arsed attempt at being controversial. As I say - I don't really care for them myself.

Elfinsafety - Member
The Royal Family serve no dolphin whatsoever in a democracy

So, you're saying they're not fit for porpoise?

😀

'Divine Right To Rule'? Really? Sez who? Not me.

I think that particular point was disproved by us snicking off Charlie's head some time back.

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, we let them back in.

So, you're saying they're not fit for porpoise?

TBH, I wish more prominent figures in all areas of life would come forward and speak the truth about the royals. Too scared of missing out on a knighthood I spose.

Often-controversial pop star sez owt, and people are 'oh look he's only doing it for attention/sell a new album etc'. What we need is for all sorts of bods to say 'we don't need an unfair and anachronistic system of rule which only serves to prevent true democracy, any longer'.

Nah. Get rid.

Cod knows, these fish-related puns are terrible. Giving me a bad haddock, it is. Is there an op-perch-tuna-ty to stop?

I quite like Queen Elizabeth. I am in favour of a non-political head-of-state so accept the hereditary principle on the basis that it provides [u]continuity[/u] and is clearly separate from the policy-making part of the political system. I even support the idea that parliament and the armed forces report to the head-of-state, and of the privy council.

However, I think we totally overindulge our "royalty" - all that dreadful bowing and scraping like they are our betters, and spending our tax money on maintaining the vast royal estate and their security when they can afford it themselves or scale back.

I hope Wills takes a good, hard look at the "Royalty" scene when he becomes King and reforms the whole institution.

Often-controversial pop star sez owt, and people are 'oh look he's only doing it for attention/sell a new album etc'

The metro reckons it costs each of us 62p a year to keep the royal family - I think these extra bank holidays will be compensation enough for several years of contributions!

Didn't the royal family give up loads of land in exchange for being on the civil list?

Idiots can sometimes be right.

I quite like Queen Elizabeth. I am in favour of a non-political head-of-state so accept the hereditary principle on the basis that it provides continuity and is clearly separate from the policy-making part of the political system. I even support the idea that parliament and the armed forces report to the head-of-state, and of the privy council

I hope Wills takes a good, hard look at the "Royalty" scene when he becomes King and reforms the whole institution

Didn't the royal family give up loads of land in exchange for being on the civil list?

And that land came from where, exactly?

And that land came from where, exactly?

Once God had been proven to be a myth we needed someones else to believe in a be steared by, hence the royals oh and they used big sticks to beat up the poor and berate the rich into a truncated view of society..
Still the same thing going on now "cept" the Gov't have taken to thinking they're the new royals... which they're not.
The royals do bring in £'s in tourism though, shame we have to pump in 14 times more into them to provide the service they provide.. loss leader IMHO.
Lets take on the Spanish Model where there contribution is self fullfilling and self funded.
Won't happen tho' Political Types enjoy being knighted.

The metro reckons it costs each of us 62p a year to keep the royal family

Didn't the royal family give [s]up[/s] [b]back[/b] loads of land in exchange for being on the civil list?

'we don't need an unfair and anachronistic system of rule which only serves to prevent true democracy, any longer'.

I'm hardly a raving royalist, but I do take issue with this point. What real influence do they have on how the country is run apart from procedural pomp? Now theoretically they [i]could[/i] veto a governmental policy, but unless it really deserved vetoing (invading Iraq, anyone?), they know they'd be out of the door double-quick.

I know unofficially people like Charlie have been implicated in influencing planning decisions, but how is this any different to any large company's [s]lobbying[/s] bribing our democratically elected politicians? At least the royals can be held to some recourse for this.

You seem to have forgotten Charley. I'd like to as well mind.

I don't think King Henry will be a reformist. I think King William might be.

His understanding of economics is as great as his appreciation of charcuterie...

he is right though isnt he??? i mean dont get me wrong they generate money, but what else do they do other than that???

the life and lifestyle is all paid for by the taxpayer, they have made hundreds of millions through the name of being 'royal' and for what?? we havent had a war since the 50's, and what exactly do they contribute to the country other than income for 'being royal'?? all the family members and assocaited families are worth an absolute fortune....

basically everything they do/have is paid for by the country at somepoint....

at the end of the day they are just people like you or me..if we had a need for a royal family and a royal family that dictated how the country is run then id be all for it...but they dont, they live in a bubble of what people think england is...and its really not!

needles to say (partridge reference) i will not be watching that big pile of shite tomorrow....

I like Mozzers music, but this sounds tired and a bit pathetic

He lives in L.A. ffs

And while I'm not a Royalist, I can't see why so many people have a problem with them

They don't rule anything, but I think they definitely add something to this country of ours, even if it's just something for the tourists to point their cameras at

we havent had a war since the 50's

Maybe they could be sold to English Heritage or The National Trust to look after? It'd keep them in their palaces, but we could all go along and have a nosey and if they became really unpopular we could just leave them to crumble in a 5000 acre country park before the BBC came along to make a new series of Restoration.

5thElefant - Member

we havent had a war since the 50's

sorry i meant world war....not interested in the littles one since 😆

Lets imagine there is no royal family and they attempted to sell the case for one to the public....

so we will take a family, let them live like royalty in castles and palaces, jetting all over the world etc. This will be paid for by the state out of tax revenue and the right to live like this will be heriditary

right

Having a monarchy is what's holding Britain back, in terms of democratic progression. Perpetuates the socially divisive class system and 'divide and rule'.

If they had any influence, maybe. But they don't. They've done even less for their fame than Big Brother contestants and have the clout to match, imo.

And I'm really not convinced about the stats for how much they cost us. I think it's too comlpicated to tot properly, isn't it?

Same place that all land came from. It was taken by force.

From whom? Other people who'd taken it by force? Every square inch of this country has been taken by force four or five times probably on the larger scale and countless times on a small scale.

royalty is shite, absolutly shite, it means nothing other than the rich get richer, whether it be our royal family, the netherlands etc etc etc....they are all a bunch of robbing barstewards in my eyes....

i bet they dont pay a single penny for anything in life and thats morrisseys point, they are as bad as the scrotes who claim endless beniefits and the same as politicians in my eyes

i bet they dont pay a single penny for anything in life

Lets imagine there is no royal family and they attempted to sell the case for one to the public....

so we will take a family, let them live like royalty in castles and palaces, jetting all over the world etc. This will be paid for by the state out of tax revenue and the right to live like this will be heriditary

right

Interesting thought experiment. The problem is that it doesn't take into account the value of the "Royal" brand. Though how you put a value on that is a bit more difficult. That's where the arguments really start!

What does the tax payer actually pay for then with regards royalty?

I don't see how they can be compared to benefit scroungers

They don't sit around watching Jeremy Kyle and eating at the chippy every night

Being a Royal isn't the charmed life that some people think it is. Of course they are never going to be struggling for cash, but I wouldn't want to do what they do thanks very much

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen....

35 million of the taxpayers money....

regardless of what the royal family generate tourist wise, why on earth should WE everyday working people fund that?!?!?!?!?

she has 100's of millions sat there, and the same with all the royal family.....

i hope it goes tits up tomorrow really do

I can't see why so many people have a problem with them

There is resentment about the god-like elevated status and public wealth they are entitled to; a feeling that the entitlement is archaic and unjust.

at least the royals are the 'classy' side of celebrity - otherwise we would just have Katie Price in all the papers...

Without the tax earned as a byproduct of having a world famous royal family and the associated income the taxpayer would be worse off, not better.

If every 'benefit scrounger' was as productive we'd be living in some kind of utopia!

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen..

On what, exactly?

TurnerGuy +1 and they'd only replace them with some dumb president Katie Price for President anyone or perhaps you'd prefer Kerry Katona?

Plus, theoretically, the military are loyal to the royals and not the politicians which is supposed to separate the powers. The same with the judiciary.

molgrips - Member

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen..

ive no idea, keeping her safe (police etc) will be a massive cost, the upkeep of buckingham palace and all the staff etc? keeping her in general i have no idea, but thats what i read....she can generate as much as she wants, but it shouldnt cost the taxpayer money to do it....

being royalty is like winning the lottery (every week)