The JubiFeckinLee
Comments
-
if the royals are so good for tourism how come we're 6th or 7th in the list of most visted countries - at number 1 is that bastion of royal privilege France, haha.
and you just got to love the dutch "schatje mag ik je foto"
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
also whats annoying me more are the road closures due to the olympic flame :evil:The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
I like Private Eye take...
"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
apparently:daviesee wrote:
I agree but I'll bite anyway.bianchimoon wrote:...my reason is simple, i don't believe one humans value is worth more than another humans, providing we all behave appropriately
Who said who is worth more?
you swear allegiance to the queen
You fight for queen and country
We give her a generous housing allowance
Her children get more social security than any others
her family are given land/titles/rent
They call us 'commoners'
They are given private education
etc etc...All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
bianchimoon wrote:
apparently:daviesee wrote:
I agree but I'll bite anyway.bianchimoon wrote:...my reason is simple, i don't believe one humans value is worth more than another humans, providing we all behave appropriately
Who said who is worth more?
you swear allegiance to the queen
You fight for queen and country
We give her a generous housing allowance
Her children get more social security than any others
her family are given land/titles/rent
They call us 'commoners'
They are given private education
etc etc...
you're not allowed to touch her
you have to exit a room she's in backwards (can't turn your back on madge)
she's immune from laws we scum have to live our lives by
oh
and any emails asking for a pic of her sitting on dildo are never answered.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
This is a tredious old argumernt but it is worth pointing out tha the "cost" of the Monarchy to us isn't as horerendous as some would have us believe.
From the Wikipedia entry on the Civil List -The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010).[1] This income is received by the Crown (i.e. the state) as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign.
In late 2000, a £35.3 million reserve was established. The reserve was created from surpluses in the 1991-2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient. For the period of 2001 to 2010, the Civil List continued to be fixed at £7,900,000 annually, the same amount since 1991.
Only the Queen officially receives direct funding from the Civil List. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year. The Queen, as head of state, receives £7,900,000 from the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.
In the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that from 2013 the Civil List would be abolished. In its place, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate." On 18 October 2011 the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received Royal Assent. Under this act, the Sovereign Grant will fund all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure currently borne by the Civil List.
The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family (but not the Prince of Wales, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, or Prince Harry) are funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which is fully refunded by the Queen to the treasury. The Queen is permitted to claim this amount as a deduction against her gross income from personal investments and other sources - the net amount, after deductions, is subject to normal income tax.
If anyone thinks that running the office of an elected President would be much cheaper or that these costs would somehow disappear then you're mistaken. Security, transport, buildings and estate maintenance, salary, pensions, staff costs etc etc would all be there. Plus you have to add in the cost of running the Presidential election every 4 or 5 years. Plus the security bill continues after the guy leaves office (who's funding Tony Blair's bodyguards these days?) so the more Presidents you have the more coppers you end up with looking after them all after they've stepped down.
I wonder what the costs of such regular elections would be compared to, say, the cost to the state of all the major Royal occasions that received state funding over the last 15 years (i.e. Diana' funeral, Queen Mum's funeral and William and Kate's wedding?). If we're averaging 3 big Royal events every 15 years compared to 3 elections I'd say we're about even. Add to that the fact that elections create NO additional spending whereas Royal events tend to get at least some of us forking out on souvenirs etc.
I'm not convinced by the Republican financial arguments. And as for showing wanting to avoid showing deference etc to another human being - have a look at how France and the US treat their Presidents in and out of office. Hardly just one of the people are they?0 -
I don't necessarily want a republic. I want a referendum, preceded by an informed debate. If, following that referendum, the people chose a monarchy, I would respect that.
Repeat maybe once every couple of general elections (to keep the costs down).0 -
johnfinch wrote:I don't necessarily want a republic. I want a referendum, preceded by an informed debate. If, following that referendum, the people chose a monarchy, I would respect that.
Repeat maybe once every couple of general elections (to keep the costs down).
A rational approach - i agreeAll lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Wirral_Paul wrote:Its all subjective, and where do you draw the line at income to the country.
You're right, it's difficult.Wirral_Paul wrote:I've little doubt that you could probably add multiple millions in trade brought in to the country due to the prestige that the monarchy brings.
All the foreigners that I've met tend to view our monarchy as being mildly interesting in a gossipy way, slightly anachronistic. I really can't see it influencing how many tractors we export.Wirral_Paul wrote:How many jobs does the monarchy bring to the UK (directly and indirectly) - from stall holders outside Buckingham Palace to those employed in factories making souvenir mugs?
Don't know. If tourists weren't buying those they'd just buy some other tat though. Like some Isaac Newton underpants ( :idea: Idea for a tourist stall).Wirral_Paul wrote:Its just an impossible figure to calculate accurately. Overall I just dont see how we'd be better off without the monarchy as it stands now.
I imagine that financially it wouldn't make much difference at all.0 -
bianchimoon wrote:johnfinch wrote:I don't necessarily want a republic. I want a referendum, preceded by an informed debate. If, following that referendum, the people chose a monarchy, I would respect that.
Repeat maybe once every couple of general elections (to keep the costs down).
A rational approach - i agree
That does happen occasionally.0 -
johnfinch wrote:I don't necessarily want a republic. I want a referendum, preceded by an informed debate. If, following that referendum, the people chose a monarchy, I would respect that.
Repeat maybe once every couple of general elections (to keep the costs down).
Citizen, or subject. Tick the box to reflect your choice.Purveyor of "up"
0 -
johnfinch wrote:
Like some Isaac Newton underpants ( :idea: Idea for a tourist stall).
hehe falling plums instead of falling apples.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0
-
pottssteve wrote:
He's going to work as normal, as a form of protest against the Jubilee celebrations!! 0 -
bianchimoon wrote:apparently:
you swear allegiance to the queen - I haven't.
You fight for queen and country - I haven't.
We give her a generous housing allowance - I give a lot of people housing allowance.
Her children get more social security than any others - Not stictly true. They do official duties which are supposed to be beneficial for the Country.
her family are given land/titles/rent - I think in days gone by, the land was theirs (rightly or wrongly). By law the Queen "owns" all the land.
They call us 'commoners' - Do they now? What names have you called them by the way?
They are given private education - If I was being mischevious I could argue that anyone claiming child benefits while sending their children to private schools is receiving the same.etc etc...
PS:- I'd have a go at shaking her hand and walking out the room. And as for breaking the laws - Wrong and Diplomats shouldn't get off with it either.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
I find the whole monarchy thing a bit strange.
Just how was it decided that this family were somehow better than everybody else?
Which leads me to the question:
If the concept of royalty didn't already exist, could we invent it? Who would we give the title to and under what criteria would we choose them?
Correct, I wont be having a Jubilee party but I will get a bit of double time that day!If suffer we must, let's suffer on the heights. (Victor Hugo).0 -
People with more money and power paying other people with some money and power to keep everyone else in check and keep the money flowing upwards.zippypablo wrote:I find the whole monarchy thing a bit strange.
Just how was it decided that this family were somehow better than everybody else?
Do away with Royalty and you will just get someone else fulfilling the role.
Look anywhere in the world. It happens there too.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:and any emails asking for a pic of her sitting on a dildo are never answered.
you didn't get yours????
Mine came by return of post, The look on Prince Charles's face whilst she's sitting on him is priceless
0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930
All these people fleeing that fantastic republic to come and live under our horrible tyrannical monarchy...what are they thinking eh?0 -
Much of the culture, history and the buildings people come to see have a rich and enduring association with royaltybianchimoon wrote:its a bargain when compared to the £500m+ that is brought in to the country through tourism.
Who came to this figure and how did they calculate it?
The Royal family marketing department, yeah it's bollocks, visitors come to the country for it's culture, and history and buildings not to see a bunch of inbred, half soaked, privileged layabouts. If the royalspongers plc were disbanded the same amount of tourists would still come and have even better access to 'our' national monuments/castles/palaces. I often wonder if people had to tick a box on their tax returns saying they would like to contribute some of their tax to to the upkeep of this very wealthy family, how many would tick it?0 -
verylonglegs wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930
All these people fleeing that fantastic republic to come and live under our horrible tyrannical monarchy...what are they thinking eh?
Yeah, they all came to London to see the Queen. :P 0 -
It's our wedding anniversary on Tuesday. 19 years - they should be holding street parties in my honour!0
-
RoyPSB wrote:It's our wedding anniversary on Tuesday. 19 years - they should be holding street parties in my honour!
Why don't you just make out they are celebrating you Anniversary. Tell your wife you've organised a flotilla on the Thames and a party outside the Palace. She'll never know.0 -
GiantMike wrote:RoyPSB wrote:It's our wedding anniversary on Tuesday. 19 years - they should be holding street parties in my honour!
Why don't you just make out they are celebrating you Anniversary. Tell your wife you've organised a flotilla on the Thames and a party outside the Palace. She'll never know.
Nice one! 0 -
I'm very happy to have the powers of calling and dissolving parliament, decalring war and supreme command of the armed forces resting out of the hands of politicians. Government may not always be benign."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'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:I'm very happy to have the powers of calling and dissolving parliament, decalring war and supreme command of the armed forces resting out of the hands of politicians. Government may not always be benign.
Last sentence is correct. Not quite sure what you're happy about? do you think unelected power more likely to be benign than elected power?0 -
At least with the Jubilee it's a day off in the Summer as opposed to when we "celebrate" some bloke in the middle of Winter and Spring. 0
-
I'm sick of it all already - it's like North Korea but with more cake."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0
-
I don't think you know very much about North KoreaMaxwellBygraves wrote:I'm sick of it all already - it's like North Korea but with more cake.0
