Elizabeth Windsor,upset about piccies being taken

Also better known as the Queen,(no not the ones from Brighton)is a bit upset that naughty camera persons are takeing her picture.

This despite the fact she lives in a council house,is going on holiday for christmas to another publicly funded house,she gets a considerable amount of benefits off the government,and us the tax payer.

Isnt it about time she was forced to live in a working class councill estate,for a few years,or get a job.

I thought it was Elizabeth Sachs-Coburg…

interesting troll there project. Are you telling me that everyone in a council house on income support should be prepared to be filmed 24 hrs a day? Even her existence brings more tourism cash to this country than most anyone. Are you supporting your local businesses as well?

Buckingham, windsor and all the other palaces are paid for by us the tax payer,and she has the audacity to compalin when she gets millions each year as well as free security etc.

she does bring in more than she costs. but i still can't help but feel she deserves the paparazzi. i'd happily take her cash and art collection in exchange for being photographed.

The buildings you mention belong to the nation, not the Queen. Go back a ways, and a previous monarch agreed to hand over the profits from the royal estates and in return was given money to run the royal households, called the civil list. That amount is around £2.7 million, the same amount it's been for nearly two decades. The money from the royal estates amounts to something like thirty million. If the Queen decided to pay taxes instead of giving profits to the government she'd be much better off. All this crap about costing the taxpayer money is rubbish, the government makes a huge profit from the royal family. Do you, mr class warfare, imagine that a republic would be cheaper? Would it hell, the cost to the French, German, and American states far exceeds what goes to the royal family; you only have to look at our mp's and their expenses to see how a republic would be. The Queen is notoriously tight with money; unlike President Blair. Oh I forgot, he's not president, is he. If you want a republic, go move to one. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Well lets count all the free security, travel, heating, maintance, Royal train,hangers on etc etc.

Part of British culture isn't it?

If you don't like it move. (I'm already packing)

My, my, we do seem to have rather a lot of forelock-tuggers on tonight!
I suppose, without a royal family, no-one visits the former royal palaces and estates in France and Russia?
Actually, One of the main reasons I'm a republican is I think its unfair, in a democracy, to expect one family to be under the constant gaze, and expectation of the public, to have their whole lives mapped out- who they speak to, who they marry etc…

Oh, and the fact that I f**kin' hate toffs, of course! 🙂

Presidency dearer?

The key figure is £150m, the estimated total cost for the maintenance and lifestyles of one family: 100 times the cost of the Irish presidency, 17 times the cost (per person) of members of parliament and without any return on our 'investment'.

Tourism would dwindle?

There is not a single shred of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family. …..there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue.

I see no need for this antiquated outmoded act of deference to our so called betters. They are no longer required in a 21st Century democracy.

Part of British culture isn't it?

If you don't like it move. (I'm already packing)

It used to be part of British culture that we kept slaves and women didn't have the vote. Just as well William Wilberforce and Emily Pankhurst didn't pack their bags.

How do all you Royalists like being subjects and not citizens? Yes I know it says you are a British citizen on your passport but there is nothing written down in any constitution saying you are anything other than a subject of her Maj. Nationality laws only introduced the concept of British citizen when the Empire was being broken up as a convenient way to differentiate UK residents from Johnny Foreigner. In theory there is still nothing to stop Elizabeth II requesting you hand over your first born child to her.

In theory there is still nothing to stop Elizabeth II requesting you hand over your first born child to her.

Of course there isn't. Nothing has changed since King Herod. We're all oppressed and downtrodden. SMASH THE SYSTEM!

"I see no need for this antiquated outmoded act of deference to our so called betters. They are no longer required in a 21st Century democracy."

What democracy? Constant minority goverments of whichever party.
I'd sooner be a subject of QEII than a citizen of a Thatcher,Blair or Brown republic.

The Queen is the perfect symbol for Britain. Old, stodgy, spiteful, conflictual, selfish, uncaring, tasteless, mean, scornful… . Blair was quite good too: lying, war mongering, crusading, murdering, squandering, bullying… . 😐

What makes you think that the royals bring in tourism? I don't notice Brits flocking to the palaces of other monarchies such as Belgium or Denmark. We hear about our royals because they are ours, other countries don't care.

When you consider the alternatives: e.g. Bush, Rudd, Sarkozy, Berlesconi, Amin, Hussien for example; the Queen seems remarkable good value…

We hear about our royals because they are ours, other countries don't care.

Not so sure about that, plenty of the foreigners I've met have gone to London to see the palace specifically (as well as a few other sites). You could say it's not the queen but the royal estates that are of interest, but they do rather go hand in hand.

How do all you Royalists like being subjects and not citizens?

I'm in a daily struggle, my life is hell. Pass me the cheerios will you?

When you consider the alternatives: e.g. Bush, Rudd, Sarkozy, Berlesconi, Amin, Hussien for example; the Queen seems remarkable good value…

meh. at one point we had the queen AND th*tcher. Beat that.
re: tourism. Lenin's tomb draws squillions of tourists.There's your answer. Stuff the lot of them, put them in a big perspex box for Mr and Mrs ObeseYank to take photos of.

MT What democracy?

the one we vote for ..glad you prefer accidents of birth over electoral systems. Yopu would have loved the olden days before voting …commoners/peasants were so well treated by monarchs prior to voting …go read a history book and get nostalgic for how it used to be.

I do love seeing the left of centre getting all wound up over the monarchy. Bumping your gums has achieved, erm, nowt?

Bless your woven hemp socks and pass me another copy of Socialist Worker. Love you all.

What does "bumping your gums" mean?

Presumably talking, Moses

she did`nt apply for the job

Tourism would dwindle?

There is not a single shred of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family. …..there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue.

How exactly do they compile those figures? I've been to see Buck House and watch the changing of the guards, but there's no headcount, you don't go through turnstiles like you would at Legoland. I'm not taking sides here, I just don't think that's a reliable stat.

I've been to see Buck House and watch the changing of the guards, but there's no headcount, you don't go through turnstiles

The lists includes things you pay for not free things .. If you mean free things I would plump for Motorways- seen how many people go there 😉
Without a monarchy we would still have the palace – but open to go in- and changing of guard so presumably tourists would still go then possibly even more ..was the Queen even in when you went? Did you see her? Did you even check this before going? Does the average tourist?

google top 20 list

You could say it's not the queen but the royal estates that are of interest, but they do rather go hand in hand.

Why is that?
The Great Tamples at Karnak, Luxor and Abu Simbel in Egypt attract tourists in their thousands but the pharonic era ended millenia ago.
I love visiting old churches and will go well uout of my way to see an interesting cathedral, but don't give a monkeys about the organized superstion that goes on in them.

Monarchy is linked with 'Divine Intervention' (so instantly loses a fair degree of credibility) or, going further back, the gang who had the biggest weapons at some point.

Monarchy is based on the assumption that the monarch and 'the royals' are superior to us. The system is a little flawed in the sense that the current queen is only on the throne because her uncle married a divorced woman and her dad then inherited the job. God moves in mysterious ways.

are any of these folks superior to you or I?

It must be great to be able to play around at various 'jobs' at the expense of the taxpayer.
Why can't I do that?

Young Henry/Harry wanted to fight in Afghanistan and wasn't allowed to when word got out. There should be no difference between him and other soldier.

What entitles them to large sums of YOUR tax money?

Maybe there should be an opt-out on our tax returns?

Dissolve the constitutional monarchy and stop the state funding of the royal family, they have no place in society that even attempts any pretence of equal opportunity.

Junkyard – Member

was the Queen even in when you went? Did you see her? Did you even check this before going? Does the average tourist?

As I said, I wasn't making an argument for either side, I just think that list is somewhat irrelevant when many of the 'royal-related' attractions would not count their visitors. And that list doesn't account for where those visitors come from – I'd bet the majority of Legoland's visitors are Brits.

I thought the timing of the 'photography statement' was interesting.

The police officers have just been told that harassing people taking photos in public areas under the blanket of terrorism legislation should not continue and is not acceptable as its being applied to people stood on public ground and who are perfectly legally able to take photos from there, even if with a telephoto lens.

Within days, we have the government/Queen saying that any photographers on the public roads around her estates will be harassed, despite being on public roads and therefore, not doing anything illegal at all.

Mmmm. So much for not misusing the terrorism bills and for encouraging public trust in the police, integrity and justice.

I can't recall any of the folks pictured above ever claiming to be better than you or I…..

HOWEVER… I think tht Harry probably is better than me in some respects…

I've never volunteered to go off to Iragistan, he did… and as far as recall the only reason he had to come home early was cos some Pap blew it for his mates…. Harry safety was not the reason he came home it was for his mates safety, if Harry had stayed it would have put his mates at greater risk…

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As it makes not one jot of difference to my day to day life, I'm more than happy to be a 'subject' rather than a citizen.

I don't see the royal family as 'better' than me, they are purely the ceremonial representatives of our country to name ships and impress Johnny Foreigner.

We ALL know that the royal family couldn't suddenly turn round and demand our children or whatever, our unwritten constitution wouldn't allow it, it was all sorted out a few hundred years ago, just no one felt the need to write it down…

I'm happy because they CAN'T affect my day to day life like an elected idiot, sorry, president would be able to.

And therefore being allowed a bit of privacy seems fair enough to me.

I can't recall any of the folks pictured above ever claiming to be better than you or I…..

So, why is it that we fund them exactly?

Harry safety was not the reason he came home it was for his mates safety, if Harry had stayed it would have put his mates at greater risk…
-and if we'd abolished the monarchy years ago he could have joined the army quietly and gone to fight as he wished to.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-And what does that mean exactly?

A mythical, omnipotent creator should 'save' Elizabeth Windsor, rather than anybody else?

I've nothing against the royal family as people, but I am not in favour of their un-elected, privileged position.

I've nothing against the royal family as people, but I am not in favour of their un-elected, privileged position.

We know – you keep telling us. It is a shame that you can't have your way isn't it? That must be such a burden.

It is an enormous burden -and when the BBC Royal correspondents become all deferential I am forced to switch my radio over to Key103, it's that bad.

To think that some people even believe that the continuing existence of royalty is important!

I can't believe that in this global, messed up world there are not other things to be concerned about.

I prefer to have a head of state who is an accident of birth. For me the heredetary monarchy represents national continuity. As long as the monarch makes no every-day political decisions, I'm OK with it. Can't stand the presidential system. Christ, the yanks the elected GW Bush jnr as head of state!

But I resent what they take in tax monies – other rich people stay rich by their own enterprise. The crown estates are the nation's and their upkeep should be accounted quite separately IMO. Although I'm happy for royalty to lodge in the palace for a reasonable rent. I also very much dislike the formal deference. They need to modernise or they will be overthrown by nasty republicans.

God save the Queen.