THIRTY EIGHT ( Point ) TWO...MILLION, English Pounds!!!!!

13

Comments

  • bagpusscp
    bagpusscp Posts: 2,907
    Sell them to the USA .They love em.Part payment for the mess BP have made in the gulf.
    bagpuss
  • Ollieda
    Ollieda Posts: 1,010
    snailracer wrote:
    Ollieda wrote:
    snailracer wrote:
    The short answer is, the royals are paid by Parliament because they actually own a lot of land and property that Parliament collects taxes on.

    Isn't that land technically owned by "The Crown", through The Crown Estates, not "The Royals"?........very subtle difference, but I suppose it is only a technicality

    The Crown is a "corporation sole". In English law, a corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single ('sole') incorporated office, occupied by a single ('sole') man or woman. And guess who that is...

    despite what you've posted from wikipedia, there is still a very subtle difference between the two. It only really becomes apparent when The Crown has penalties or bonuses attached to it but these are not transefered onto the Royals.......basically a pointless technicality but still one non the less.

    but yes in the general scheme of things the Royals own parts of the land, i'm just being pedantic
  • el_presidente
    el_presidente Posts: 1,963
    F*CK The lot of them

    it's not about the money.

    it's the fact they sit there in their palaces lording it over us as if they are better than us just through some accident of birth. It's a horrible piece of anachronistic rubbish that is just one of the things that mean the UK is still basically living in the 1800s.

    What we need, like most civilised nations in the world ,is a written constitution, with directly electable, impeachable, answerable to the electorate leaders like a mature nation.

    I for one would like every person in the country to have a chance - just a chance - to one day be leader. Not handing over responsibility to a bunch of greedy, moronic inbred freaks. the fact that my taxes subsidise them to get shit-faced in Boujis or massacre wildlife is just the icing on the cake.
    <a>road</a>
  • socrates
    socrates Posts: 453
    I'm not a royalist by any manner of means but remember that this nothing compared to what they pay out in taxes to the Inland Revenue so there is more comes back.
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    el_presidente wrote:
    F
    I for one would like every person in the country to have a chance - just a chance - to one day be leader.

    Prime Minister?
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    cee wrote:
    el_presidente wrote:
    F
    I for one would like every person in the country to have a chance - just a chance - to one day be leader.

    Prime Minister?

    That's what I was thinking! :?
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • el_presidente
    el_presidente Posts: 1,963
    The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch - by convention it's the leader of the the party that wins the election, but this is just convention, it's not written down anywhere.

    Hence why Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister for days after the election and had to tender his resignation to the queen before the next guy could get on with running the country.
    <a>road</a>
  • passout
    passout Posts: 4,425
    Bring back President Blair!
    'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    el_presidente wrote:
    The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch - by convention it's the leader of the the party that wins the election, but this is just convention, it's not written down anywhere.

    Hence why Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister for days after the election and had to tender his resignation to the queen before the next guy could get on with running the country.

    so you are saying that the queen is benevolent in her royal dictatorship?

    Question....has a monarch of the UK ever overridden a general election result?
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • el_presidente
    el_presidente Posts: 1,963
    cee wrote:
    el_presidente wrote:
    The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch - by convention it's the leader of the the party that wins the election, but this is just convention, it's not written down anywhere.

    Hence why Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister for days after the election and had to tender his resignation to the queen before the next guy could get on with running the country.

    so you are saying that the queen is benevolent in her royal dictatorship?

    Question....has a monarch of the UK ever overridden a general election result?

    The point is not whether she's benevolent or not, the fact is she has the power without democratic accountability. She (through her representative the Governor General) has forced an Australian PM to resign.
    <a>road</a>
  • m00nd0g
    m00nd0g Posts: 176
    Think I would prefer to see a Royal Family rather than another another Dictator like Blair trying to muscle in on the action.
    My pet hate is the EU.
    We give em a load of money. Brussels gives us some of it back then we are told how much good they do.
  • symo
    symo Posts: 1,743
    Listen don't mess with the Royals because they got there through kicking ass in the past. You think those genes have gone eh?
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    we are the proud, the few, Descendents.

    Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    symo wrote:
    Listen don't mess with the Royals because they got there through kicking ass in the past. You think those genes have gone eh?

    Yeah, Queen got out of wrong side of bed one day and look what she did....ordered the killing of her daughter in law... She's Rambo in a crown.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • snailracer
    snailracer Posts: 968
    el_presidente wrote:
    F*CK The lot of them

    it's not about the money.

    it's the fact they sit there in their palaces lording it over us as if they are better than us just through some accident of birth. It's a horrible piece of anachronistic rubbish that is just one of the things that mean the UK is still basically living in the 1800s.

    What we need, like most civilised nations in the world ,is a written constitution, with directly electable, impeachable, answerable to the electorate leaders like a mature nation.

    I for one would like every person in the country to have a chance - just a chance - to one day be leader. Not handing over responsibility to a bunch of greedy, moronic inbred freaks. the fact that my taxes subsidise them to get shoot-faced in Boujis or massacre wildlife is just the icing on the cake.
    Do you believe in the ownership of property? Do you think it is legitimate to pass ownership onto your descendents?
  • el_presidente
    el_presidente Posts: 1,963
    snailracer wrote:
    el_presidente wrote:
    F*CK The lot of them

    it's not about the money.

    it's the fact they sit there in their palaces lording it over us as if they are better than us just through some accident of birth. It's a horrible piece of anachronistic rubbish that is just one of the things that mean the UK is still basically living in the 1800s.

    What we need, like most civilised nations in the world ,is a written constitution, with directly electable, impeachable, answerable to the electorate leaders like a mature nation.

    I for one would like every person in the country to have a chance - just a chance - to one day be leader. Not handing over responsibility to a bunch of greedy, moronic inbred freaks. the fact that my taxes subsidise them to get shoot-faced in Boujis or massacre wildlife is just the icing on the cake.
    Do you believe in the ownership of property? Do you think it is legitimate to pass ownership onto your descendents?

    If they wish to be a normal private family then obviously they can do what they want with their property. They can then also pay inheritance tax like everyone else, would make a change.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1993665.stm
    <a>road</a>
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    symo wrote:
    Listen don't mess with the Royals because they got there through kicking ass in the past. You think those genes have gone eh?

    Yeah, Queen got out of wrong side of bed one day and look what she did....ordered the killing of her daughter in law... She's Rambo in a crown.

    sure its not Rimbaud? The french minimal pair can be confusing to us englsih speakers!

    :D:D
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • Bunneh
    Bunneh Posts: 1,329
    Out of interest, any idea how much the Royals bring in in the way of tourism?
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Eurobunneh - My Youtube channel.
  • el_presidente
    el_presidente Posts: 1,963
    Bunneh wrote:
    Out of interest, any idea how much the Royals bring in in the way of tourism?

    None - they actively discourage tourism by shutting large parts of Buck Palace & Windsor Castle.
    <a>road</a>
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    cee wrote:
    el_presidente wrote:
    The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch - by convention it's the leader of the the party that wins the election, but this is just convention, it's not written down anywhere.

    Hence why Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister for days after the election and had to tender his resignation to the queen before the next guy could get on with running the country.

    so you are saying that the queen is benevolent in her royal dictatorship?

    Question....has a monarch of the UK ever overridden a general election result?

    But this is the point. If a government is holding on to power illegitimately, if it refuses to abide by the democratic will of the people or is acting in a way which is causing severe danger to the state of Great Britain the Head of State has the authority to disband Parliament with force from the Services who answer to her. She has the ultimate monopoly on violence.

    This keeps power from politicians, its a check on the power of the executive and the legislature. Imagine a situation with a government of one party with a President of the same party. What acts as a check on that power? Whats to stop them ignoring term limits etc etc?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Couldn't this whole issue just be resolved by occasional referenda?

    If the people vote for a monarchy then it is legitimate, if the people vote for an elected head of state then that too is legitimate.

    Not that I'd expect anything remotely resembling an intelligent debate on the subject with this country's media. :roll:
  • mroli
    mroli Posts: 3,622
    el_presidente wrote:
    I for one would like every person in the country to have a chance - just a chance - to one day be leader.

    And what happens when the nation has a chance to vote for our leader. Yes, we chose an old etonion. And that was after we chose an old etonion to be mayor of our capital city.

    People are crazy....
    http://www.georgesfoundation.org
    http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
    http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    johnfinch wrote:
    Couldn't this whole issue just be resolved by occasional referenda?

    Nothing should ever be decided by a referendum. By and large the general public are idiots.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • el_presidente
    el_presidente Posts: 1,963
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    cee wrote:
    el_presidente wrote:
    The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch - by convention it's the leader of the the party that wins the election, but this is just convention, it's not written down anywhere.

    Hence why Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister for days after the election and had to tender his resignation to the queen before the next guy could get on with running the country.

    so you are saying that the queen is benevolent in her royal dictatorship?

    Question....has a monarch of the UK ever overridden a general election result?

    But this is the point. If a government is holding on to power illegitimately, if it refuses to abide by the democratic will of the people or is acting in a way which is causing severe danger to the state of Great Britain the Head of State has the authority to disband Parliament with force from the Services who answer to her. She has the ultimate monopoly on violence.

    This keeps power from politicians, its a check on the power of the executive and the legislature. Imagine a situation with a government of one party with a President of the same party. What acts as a check on that power? Whats to stop them ignoring term limits etc etc?


    Hmm, good question. Seems to work OK in the USA.
    <a>road</a>
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    mroli wrote:
    el_presidente wrote:
    I for one would like every person in the country to have a chance - just a chance - to one day be leader.

    And what happens when the nation has a chance to vote for our leader. Yes, we chose an old etonion. And that was after we chose an old etonion to be mayor of our capital city.

    People are crazy....

    Presumably the word "everyone" doesn't include old etonions in your book then?
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • snailracer
    snailracer Posts: 968
    johnfinch wrote:
    Couldn't this whole issue just be resolved by occasional referenda?

    If the people vote for a monarchy then it is legitimate, if the people vote for an elected head of state then that too is legitimate.

    Not that I'd expect anything remotely resembling an intelligent debate on the subject with this country's media. :roll:
    So if the tenants in a block of flats voted to abolish the landlord, would that be legitimate?

    I would say it would be legitimate only if the landlord agreed to abolition.
  • snailracer
    snailracer Posts: 968
    el_presidente wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    cee wrote:
    el_presidente wrote:
    The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch - by convention it's the leader of the the party that wins the election, but this is just convention, it's not written down anywhere.

    Hence why Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister for days after the election and had to tender his resignation to the queen before the next guy could get on with running the country.

    so you are saying that the queen is benevolent in her royal dictatorship?

    Question....has a monarch of the UK ever overridden a general election result?

    But this is the point. If a government is holding on to power illegitimately, if it refuses to abide by the democratic will of the people or is acting in a way which is causing severe danger to the state of Great Britain the Head of State has the authority to disband Parliament with force from the Services who answer to her. She has the ultimate monopoly on violence.

    This keeps power from politicians, its a check on the power of the executive and the legislature. Imagine a situation with a government of one party with a President of the same party. What acts as a check on that power? Whats to stop them ignoring term limits etc etc?


    Hmm, good question. Seems to work OK in the USA.
    Not between 1861-65: 1 million casualties in the American Civil War.
  • el_presidente
    el_presidente Posts: 1,963
    snailracer wrote:
    el_presidente wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    cee wrote:
    el_presidente wrote:
    The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch - by convention it's the leader of the the party that wins the election, but this is just convention, it's not written down anywhere.

    Hence why Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister for days after the election and had to tender his resignation to the queen before the next guy could get on with running the country.

    so you are saying that the queen is benevolent in her royal dictatorship?

    Question....has a monarch of the UK ever overridden a general election result?

    But this is the point. If a government is holding on to power illegitimately, if it refuses to abide by the democratic will of the people or is acting in a way which is causing severe danger to the state of Great Britain the Head of State has the authority to disband Parliament with force from the Services who answer to her. She has the ultimate monopoly on violence.

    This keeps power from politicians, its a check on the power of the executive and the legislature. Imagine a situation with a government of one party with a President of the same party. What acts as a check on that power? Whats to stop them ignoring term limits etc etc?


    Hmm, good question. Seems to work OK in the USA.
    Not between 1861-65: 1 million casualties in the American Civil War.

    yeah well they'd already got rid of the monarch, that was just phase 2
    <a>road</a>
  • nwallace
    nwallace Posts: 1,465
    RichN95 wrote:
    38 million is a drop in the ocean when it comes to national funding. It's enough to keep the NHS going for eight hours.

    Not even, I think the daily costs for Ninewells in Dundee alone is around the million a day mark.
    Do Nellyphants count?

    Commuter: FCN 9
    Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
    Off Road: FCN 11

    +1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    The amount doesn't matter overly much. The principle does though.

    Anyone that says the royals draw in lots of tourism, simply reply that there would be even more toursim if they didn't exist anymore and the places they have are opened for public viewing. For instance, Palais de Versailles in France is always busy and it is not cheap to enter. Also, have you ever met a tourist who said they came to the UK because of the royals....

    For all those against the monarchy, I would suggest this website:

    http://www.republic.org.uk/index.php
    Contador is the Greatest
  • rake
    rake Posts: 3,204
    thats a rather rose tinted view. there is a large body of people who havent achieved their status by intelligence or hard work so where does that leave the accident of birth argument. life is never going to be fair. sour grapes, youd only be ok with it if you had a shot at being a royal waste of time. does culture mean nothing to you? What would you put in its place thats very cheap and fair.

Categories