FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Sovereign Grant
The Sovereign Grant
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
To increase by 8% in the next financial year but nurses still effectively on a pay cut. The Royals are truly value for money...................increase in the grant of £32m in 2012 to £82m mainly to attend to building repairs!
Beyond belief given the cladding scandal and children sleeping in sports centres. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To increase by 8% in the next financial year but nurses still effectively on a pay cut. The Royals are truly value for money...................increase in the grant of £32m in 2012 to £82m mainly to attend to building repairs!
Beyond belief given the cladding scandal and children sleeping in sports centres."
Ridiculous. They should have been done away with years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money. "
For once something I agree with you on. The Royal family bring in tons of money through tourism each year. Good value for money and well worth keeping. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
For once something I agree with you on. The Royal family bring in tons of money through tourism each year. Good value for money and well worth keeping. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
How do they bring money into the country do u think ppl come to London just to see the royal family it's not as if they are out shopping in Harrods other major capitols don't AV a royal family and still get tourists |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do they bring money into the country do u think ppl come to London just to see the royal family it's not as if they are out shopping in Harrods other major capitols don't AV a royal family and still get tourists "
There are Royal residencies all over the country, not just in London which tourists visit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
For once something I agree with you on. The Royal family bring in tons of money through tourism each year. Good value for money and well worth keeping. "
Blimey, me too. I thought I was seeng things and on the news they said it was 65p each. Savings could be made but on the whole good value. What's the alternative? A dodgy president? Or be French?   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"How do they bring money into the country do u think ppl come to London just to see the royal family it's not as if they are out shopping in Harrods other major capitols don't AV a royal family and still get tourists
There are Royal residencies all over the country, not just in London which tourists visit. "
Precisely they visit the place not the occupants! Cannot ever remember Phil coming out with tea and biscuits for those outside Buckingham palace? The queen has a personal fortune of over £400m surely she repair the roof? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
For once something I agree with you on. The Royal family bring in tons of money through tourism each year. Good value for money and well worth keeping.
Blimey, me too. I thought I was seeng things and on the news they said it was 65p each. Savings could be made but on the whole good value. What's the alternative? A dodgy president? Or be French? "
At least the people had a say in who is the head of state!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
For once something I agree with you on. The Royal family bring in tons of money through tourism each year. Good value for money and well worth keeping.
Blimey, me too. I thought I was seeng things and on the news they said it was 65p each. Savings could be made but on the whole good value. What's the alternative? A dodgy president? Or be French? At least the people had a say in who is the head of state!
"
True and Trump's doing ok I suppose |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
For once something I agree with you on. The Royal family bring in tons of money through tourism each year. Good value for money and well worth keeping. "
agree..
best i sit down now.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do they bring money into the country do u think ppl come to London just to see the royal family it's not as if they are out shopping in Harrods other major capitols don't AV a royal family and still get tourists "
'they' are a big draw for tourist's who know they stand little chance of bumping into one on the tube..
Buck house, Kensington palace, Tower of London etc are all places that a lot of tourists head to.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"They are so out dated and old fashioned not to mention ugliest bunch of munters Iv ever seen £400 million and taxpayers paying for the roof wtf how do they pull that of "
If you lived in a council house and had 100,000 in the bank who would repair the roof ? The royal family dont own buck palace, we do and as landlord we have to pay fot its upkeep just as any landlord. The royal family are a huge draw to tourists |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
For once something I agree with you on. The Royal family bring in tons of money through tourism each year. Good value for money and well worth keeping.
Blimey, me too. I thought I was seeng things and on the news they said it was 65p each. Savings could be made but on the whole good value. What's the alternative? A dodgy president? Or be French? At least the people had a say in who is the head of state!
True and Trump's doing ok I suppose"
The people have spoken as did we on Brexit! Its called democracy not hereditary privilege. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"They are so out dated and old fashioned not to mention ugliest bunch of munters Iv ever seen £400 million and taxpayers paying for the roof wtf how do they pull that of
If you lived in a council house and had 100,000 in the bank who would repair the roof ? The royal family dont own buck palace, we do and as landlord we have to pay fot its upkeep just as any landlord. The royal family are a huge draw to tourists "
If I lived in a council house I wouldn't expect my landlord to pay me £80m per annum just for living there! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Biggest bunch of scroungers ever ,id put everyone of them out to do a decent days work
Remind me again how many hours a year the queen works and how old she is ? "
I would hazard a guess and say that when Phil the greek was admitted to hospital recently he didn't spend 4 hours waiting to see a doctor! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Biggest bunch of scroungers ever ,id put everyone of them out to do a decent days work "
Prince Harry did a tour of Duty with the British army in Afghanistan. Fought on the front lines and killed Taliban in combat. What was it you were saying about a decent days work again? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Biggest bunch of scroungers ever ,id put everyone of them out to do a decent days work
Prince Harry did a tour of Duty with the British army in Afghanistan. Fought on the front lines and killed Taliban in combat. What was it you were saying about a decent days work again? "
Prince William also worked as an RAF helicopter pilot and then as an air ambulance helicopter pilot. A highly trained a very important job so I'm not sure how you could call it scrounging?
Apart from the good work they have done in their day jobs the Royals also do a lot of charity work, have promoted and raised awareness of charities and have raised millions for various charities over the years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Apart from the good work they have done in their day jobs the Royals also do a lot of charity work, have promoted and raised awareness of charities and have raised millions for various charities over the years. "
So has Elton John, Eric Clapton and Bob Geldof.
Should we divvy out some palaces to them too and several million a year? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Biggest bunch of scroungers ever ,id put everyone of them out to do a decent days work
Prince Harry did a tour of Duty with the British army in Afghanistan. Fought on the front lines and killed Taliban in combat. What was it you were saying about a decent days work again?
Prince William also worked as an RAF helicopter pilot and then as an air ambulance helicopter pilot. A highly trained a very important job so I'm not sure how you could call it scrounging?
Apart from the good work they have done in their day jobs the Royals also do a lot of charity work, have promoted and raised awareness of charities and have raised millions for various charities over the years. "
Yes of course but so did thousands of others but they are not kept in the lap of luxury get a grip!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Biggest bunch of scroungers ever ,id put everyone of them out to do a decent days work "
I'd challenge you to so a single day of the Queen's work. She's on her feet for hours.
I don't think they should have been given an 8% increase when other jobs have been restricted to 1% and the work on the Palace was supposed to be accounted for in other agreements. I do think they are worth the investment from the public purse, generally.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Biggest bunch of scroungers ever ,id put everyone of them out to do a decent days work
I'd challenge you to so a single day of the Queen's work. She's on her feet for hours.
I don't think they should have been given an 8% increase when other jobs have been restricted to 1% and the work on the Palace was supposed to be accounted for in other agreements. I do think they are worth the investment from the public purse, generally.
"
I applaud the health and well being of a mum and grandmother and wish her a long continuation of same but my 79 year old bro in law has contributed to the exchequer all his life but recently spent 8 hours on a trolley in A&E waiting for urgent treatment this is just wrong.
I am not a royalist as my posts would suggest but today's announcement in an 8% increase on what is non essential spending is, frankly, obtuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money. "
Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
if tourism is the main factor for keeping the royals, it would be far more lucrative to downsize their property portfolio and make hotels out of the palaces etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president."
What this guy says!
The monarchy is old hat with colonial overtones that need reform! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago
Warminster |
Wow people are miserable here.... Personally I like the Royals, the pageantry and pomp and the sheer history behind them. Given the crown estates income and the percentage granted back to them, I'm fine with costs too. I spend more on stamps for the 2 birthday cards I send every year.
Buckingham palace is the Queens office not her home and is owned by the country, can you imagine any other worker being happy when being told they had to pay to repair the roof of their workplace? Thought not.
This pathetic hatred of anyone who happens to be well off is spreading throughout the nation and is making miseries out of people. Try being happy once in a while, it's so much better! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wow people are miserable here.... Personally I like the Royals, the pageantry and pomp and the sheer history behind them. Given the crown estates income and the percentage granted back to them, I'm fine with costs too. I spend more on stamps for the 2 birthday cards I send every year.
Buckingham palace is the Queens office not her home and is owned by the country, can you imagine any other worker being happy when being told they had to pay to repair the roof of their workplace? Thought not.
This pathetic hatred of anyone who happens to be well off is spreading throughout the nation and is making miseries out of people. Try being happy once in a while, it's so much better! "
Yes, egalitarianism, fairness and democratic principles - so terribly boring. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president."
You want to abolish the Un-elected House of Lords too then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president.
You want to abolish the Un-elected House of Lords too then? "
Sounds like a plan.
When I was a much younger man, a friend of mine and a Tory supporter suggested that we should replace the lords with elected reps from the Trades Unions.
Although I really liked that idea, I did find it more than slightly  coming from a supposed Tory.....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president."
Yeah? When was the last royal wedding at Versailles?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president."
You do not like the Crown, I get that. You refuse to see that they are a benefit to the nation, that I don't get.
You claim that it is impossible to prove that they are a net contributor to the nation, that is totally wrong and shows you either have no idea why there is a Crown Settlement or refuse to acknowledge the fact that it is a deal where we the British people are by far the winners. Unless of course you are suggesting that all the property belonging to the Crown that was signed over to the Crown Estate (the income from which should be used by the Treasury for the good of the nation) in return for an income in the form of an annual Crown Settlement to provide for the Privy Purse should not be returned to its rightful owners with the suspension of the Crown Settlement and abolition of the Crown. If of course this is what you think should happen should everyone else lose their inherited wealth? Or is impoverishment and destitution only for those you do not approve of? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president.
You want to abolish the Un-elected House of Lords too then? "
In the interests of democracy, most definitely.
It should not be beyond the wit of man to have a second, revising chamber populated by wise and knowledgeable people, while excluding the clergy, political stooges and the descendants of recipients of the monarch's favour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royal family is fantastic value for money. It is a huge tourist draw, as well as being an important part of our culture and for just over a pound a year each, well worth the money.
Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president.
Yeah? When was the last royal wedding at Versailles? "
Royal weddings may be good for sellers of royal tat, but they are a considerable financial imposition on the taxpayer.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How long before someone on this thread calls for a referendum on the issue?! "
That would be far too democratic for this feudal throwback of a country. Parliament is not even allowed to debate it.
MP's are obliged to swear an oath of loyalty to the crown, rather than to the people of their constituency and their country.
Why would you wish to deny or limit democracy?
Royal Stockholm Syndrome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president.
You do not like the Crown, I get that. You refuse to see that they are a benefit to the nation, that I don't get.
You claim that it is impossible to prove that they are a net contributor to the nation, that is totally wrong and shows you either have no idea why there is a Crown Settlement or refuse to acknowledge the fact that it is a deal where we the British people are by far the winners. Unless of course you are suggesting that all the property belonging to the Crown that was signed over to the Crown Estate (the income from which should be used by the Treasury for the good of the nation) in return for an income in the form of an annual Crown Settlement to provide for the Privy Purse should not be returned to its rightful owners with the suspension of the Crown Settlement and abolition of the Crown. If of course this is what you think should happen should everyone else lose their inherited wealth? Or is impoverishment and destitution only for those you do not approve of?"
Your argument is based on the validity of the concept of the crown estate.... all land stolen by the crown from the people.
It's your right to support such unethical feudalism, but I and many others reject that sorry state of affairs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If of course this is what you think should happen should everyone else lose their inherited wealth? Or is impoverishment and destitution only for those you do not approve of?"
Absolutely nobody has made such a suggestion or raised that possibility, apart from yourself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your argument is based on the validity of the concept of the crown estate.... all land stolen by the crown from the people.
It's your right to support such unethical feudalism, but I and many others reject that sorry state of affairs."
Fair enough...
I'll accept what you say for now, but the same is true for all the land snatched by the powerful with the enclosures act, and the wealth made by the virtual enslavement of mill workers by the wool and cotton barons, or the wealth stolen from the people of Britain by the robber Barons.
So again I as are you advocating the confiscation of all inherited wealth or just that of the Royal family (and anyone else you do not approve of)?
After all as the French anarchist Proudhon said "all property is theft", if this is the view you subscribe to stand up and own it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Ludicrous claim and one which can never be proven.
The royals are not on display, are they? The buildings, not the occupants, are the draw. Versailles is no less an attraction for being without residents for the last few centuries.
As for the royal flunkies framing the financial argument in terms of so much per person per year - well, that is a disgraceful massaging of the figures (which in any case do not reflect the total cost to the taxpayer, as so much is left out).
No country can claim to be a proper democracy if the citizen is not allowed to elect the head of state and parliamentarians are not allowed to debate the option of updating from monarchy to republic.
As for a replacement, Ireland shows us the way, with a non-political, accessible and modest president.
You do not like the Crown, I get that. You refuse to see that they are a benefit to the nation, that I don't get.
You claim that it is impossible to prove that they are a net contributor to the nation, that is totally wrong and shows you either have no idea why there is a Crown Settlement or refuse to acknowledge the fact that it is a deal where we the British people are by far the winners. Unless of course you are suggesting that all the property belonging to the Crown that was signed over to the Crown Estate (the income from which should be used by the Treasury for the good of the nation) in return for an income in the form of an annual Crown Settlement to provide for the Privy Purse should not be returned to its rightful owners with the suspension of the Crown Settlement and abolition of the Crown. If of course this is what you think should happen should everyone else lose their inherited wealth? Or is impoverishment and destitution only for those you do not approve of?
Your argument is based on the validity of the concept of the crown estate.... all land stolen by the crown from the people.
It's your right to support such unethical feudalism, but I and many others reject that sorry state of affairs."
All land was stolen by the crown in 1085 when William ordered the compilation of the Doomsday Book so he could sequestrate assets as he saw fit. Additional Henry 8 acquired a fair bit of land during the reformation and gave it to the CoE of which he became the head. So between the crown and the church there is a lot of "acquired land and property" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your argument is based on the validity of the concept of the crown estate.... all land stolen by the crown from the people.
It's your right to support such unethical feudalism, but I and many others reject that sorry state of affairs.
Fair enough...
I'll accept what you say for now, but the same is true for all the land snatched by the powerful with the enclosures act, and the wealth made by the virtual enslavement of mill workers by the wool and cotton barons, or the wealth stolen from the people of Britain by the robber Barons.
So again I as are you advocating the confiscation of all inherited wealth or just that of the Royal family (and anyone else you do not approve of)?
After all as the French anarchist Proudhon said "all property is theft", if this is the view you subscribe to stand up and own it. "
When are you going to get off imputing to me opinions which have been neither expressed nor suggested?
So, to be clear, I have not suggested attempting to unravel all the injustices of land theft over the centuries. That would, of course, be impossible.
On the other hand, there has for quite some time been a destinction between the personal assets of the royal family, such as Balmoral, and the national assets which are administered on behalf of the state by the crown estate, which remits its revenue to the treasury.
Parliament agrees to pass on a percentage of these revenues to cover royal expenses, but with a single president and spouse, much more of that amount could be spent on hospitals etc, rather than the huge expenditure wasted on an extended family of several generations, all living a life of luxury off the backs of the taxpayer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They are so out dated and old fashioned not to mention ugliest bunch of munters Iv ever seen £400 million and taxpayers paying for the roof wtf how do they pull that of "
You obviously missed history at school, the majority of "royal" residences actually belong to the country and as for 400m thats a phalacy again the majority is in assets she could not sell as long as she is monarcg and i for one am far happier paying 65p a year for them than i am however much a year i pay to be at war |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They would still b able to visit them if we got rid of the Royal family tho "
But without the money spent on repairs and maintenance (read the OP....that's what the money is for). Then we wouldn't have them.
The money is being spent on heritage....not on the royals personally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They are so out dated and old fashioned not to mention ugliest bunch of munters Iv ever seen £400 million and taxpayers paying for the roof wtf how do they pull that of
You obviously missed history at school, the majority of "royal" residences actually belong to the country and as for 400m thats a phalacy again the majority is in assets she could not sell as long as she is monarcg and i for one am far happier paying 65p a year for them than i am however much a year i pay to be at war"
Given a choice, I'd rather my 65p (along with everyone else's) went to the NHS. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I wouldn't replace them with anybody, I don't see why we have to have a representative and if we really really have to have someone to meet trump, make it some dinner lady from Scunthorpe I say |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When are you going to get off imputing to me opinions which have been neither expressed nor suggested?
So, to be clear, I have not suggested attempting to unravel all the injustices of land theft over the centuries. That would, of course, be impossible.
On the other hand, there has for quite some time been a destinction between the personal assets of the royal family, such as Balmoral, and the national assets which are administered on behalf of the state by the crown estate, which remits its revenue to the treasury.
Parliament agrees to pass on a percentage of these revenues to cover royal expenses, but with a single president and spouse, much more of that amount could be spent on hospitals etc, rather than the huge expenditure wasted on an extended family of several generations, all living a life of luxury off the backs of the taxpayer."
I have not misrepresented anything you have said. I have asked would you apply the same rules regarding confiscation of inherited wealth to all. Clearly from your replies you would not, therefore what you propose is nothing more than the theft of one families property because you do not approve of them. Are there any others you don't approve of? Maybe groups of people...
How about a religious group? Maybe a political group? Or some social group?
Possibly you find people of a particular ethnic background or with certain medical or physical conditions to be an affront to you...
And no I am not accusing you of being a NAZI, I am using hyperbole to point out that the only difference between what you (and many others) have just proposed and what the NAZIs did is one of scale.
Laws (rules) have to apply equally to all or they are nothing but tyranny. And I think you are fully aware of exactly how tyrannous your suggestion is and that is why you are being so defensive in your replies. and again I am not putting words in your mouth I am making observations based on your replies.
Further I would point out that I even gave you an out when I quoted Proudhon but you failed to even notice it because you are or were so determined to defend a position you knew was indefensible. When you said 'So, to be clear, I have not suggested attempting to unravel all the injustices of land theft over the centuries. That would, of course, be impossible.', you effectively admitted that you would only target the Royal Family.
Why not come straight out and say it? Are you that ashamed of your own anti monarchy and revolutionary views? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the next few years, we will lose both the Duke of Edinburgh, and the Queen.
Then you'll see how much they are respected, not only in this country, but also throughout the world."
Yep...
We owe so much to the institution of the Monarchy. It's influence permeates our country and its absolute nonpolitical impartiality can not be overestimated when it comes to our reputation across the world. Of course it also helps with domestic politics too as there is nothing quite like having a system where the most powerful in the country are required to attend when called and ask permission of a higher authority before doing anything. It does seem to me to be an institution we would be foolish to remove. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They are respected around the world but only for pomp and a sort of novelty no one actually thinks they AV any real power tho "
On the contrary they are respected because they are politically non partisan and are a constant. They can bridge gaps that no politician could even be seen to approach, and that gives them great power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in Switzerland, the people are sovereign and they seem to do ok.
Do they sell cheap vino though Joey?"
they sell enough cheap crap vino to keep you happy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"They are respected around the world but only for pomp and a sort of novelty no one actually thinks they AV any real power tho
On the contrary they are respected because they are politically non partisan and are a constant. They can bridge gaps that no politician could even be seen to approach, and that gives them great power."
Are you seriously suggesting the next in line to the throne is not politically motivated? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The money tree can find an additional £8m this year when Child Mental Health Services will have £20m cut from its budget over the next two years. Its all about priorities and In my view the Royal coffers are the last thing that should be bolstered at the current time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in Switzerland, the people are sovereign and they seem to do ok.
Do they sell cheap vino though Joey?
they sell enough cheap crap vino to keep you happy "
.
Oh oh grumpy Joe Joe... Have you considered dunking your dum dum in some vino |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you seriously suggesting the next in line to the throne is not politically motivated?"
No...
I would say they are the most skilled political operators in this country if not the world (it goes with the territory). they would not have survived so long if they were not such good political operators.
However they are non partizan. Rather than representing and promoting a single political faction in the UK they represent all of the UK regardless of political affiliations, and they do the same for every country where they are head of state. They also act in a similar role for all members of The Commonwealth. And they seem to do it out of duty rather than for personal gain.
That is no mean political feat to pull off! No wonder so many that aspire to unfettered power go out of their way to undermine and subvert the institution they are the current incarnation of. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Are you seriously suggesting the next in line to the throne is not politically motivated?
No...
I would say they are the most skilled political operators in this country if not the world (it goes with the territory). they would not have survived so long if they were not such good political operators.
However they are non partizan. Rather than representing and promoting a single political faction in the UK they represent all of the UK regardless of political affiliations, and they do the same for every country where they are head of state. They also act in a similar role for all members of The Commonwealth. And they seem to do it out of duty rather than for personal gain.
That is no mean political feat to pull off! No wonder so many that aspire to unfettered power go out of their way to undermine and subvert the institution they are the current incarnation of."
I think you need to read a little bit of history! I don't think the Duke Of Windsor was neutral when it came to Nazi Germany and the Queen mother also had very conservative views on life! The heir to the throne has written to various governments trying to influence policy. Miles off the mark my friend.
The monarchy and all its trappings have no place in a modern democratic society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in Switzerland, the people are sovereign and they seem to do ok.
Do they sell cheap vino though Joey?
they sell enough cheap crap vino to keep you happy .
Oh oh grumpy Joe Joe... Have you considered dunking your dum dum in some vino "
sorry Doors ... i just thought you were concerned that your 3 bottles a night was about to be taken from you so i offered some reassurance |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in Switzerland, the people are sovereign and they seem to do ok.
Do they sell cheap vino though Joey?
they sell enough cheap crap vino to keep you happy .
Oh oh grumpy Joe Joe... Have you considered dunking your dum dum in some vino
sorry Doors ... i just thought you were concerned that your 3 bottles a night was about to be taken from you so i offered some reassurance"
.
Au contraire Joe Joe, I'll have you know I took lickerty splits online test(dontbottleitup) and it turns out I only need "mild attention"  ..
So pleased I think I'll go for a pint as it's gone 12 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Air miles Andy served in the Falklands War, or should I say took part serving from a distance so as he was all safe and sound.
The Royals joining the armed forces is just a PR stunt to give them a purpose. All they do is put their comrades in greater danger. They are a pathetic distraction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Air miles Andy served in the Falklands War, or should I say took part serving from a distance so as he was all safe and sound."
Yep...
Safe and sound lifting sailors off HMS Sheffield as she burned, lifting sailors off HMS Argent and out of the water as she went down, lifting sailors off the Atlantic Conveyor as it went down, flying special forces infiltration and exfiltration sorties including the on to South Georgia...
Yep, safe and sound from a distance PR exercise that!
And by the way of all the Royals I have met he and his sister Ann are beyond doubt the most disliked by any forces who have met them because of how up their own arses they are. Now I accept that that may well be down to how the royal line of succession used to work, but fact is I for one have little time for andy, but I will not hear him so badly misrepresented when it comes to his role in the Falklands war. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'll have you know I took lickerty splits online test(dontbottleitup) and it turns out I only need "mild attention" ..
So pleased I think I'll go for a pint as it's gone 12 "
so you're off for a pint of vodka then Doors ... standard |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'll have you know I took lickerty splits online test(dontbottleitup) and it turns out I only need "mild attention" ..
So pleased I think I'll go for a pint as it's gone 12
so you're off for a pint of vodka then Doors ... standard"
.
It's raining and there's not much call for farm work in this weather so one pint turned into three or four and a long dog walk up past the pen .. Turning for home with a tail wind
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'll have you know I took lickerty splits online test(dontbottleitup) and it turns out I only need "mild attention" ..
So pleased I think I'll go for a pint as it's gone 12
so you're off for a pint of vodka then Doors ... standard.
It's raining and there's not much call for farm work in this weather so one pint turned into three or four and a long dog walk up past the pen .. Turning for home with a tail wind
"
yeah ... like you've even set foot on a farm let alone work on one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"yeah ... like you've even set foot on a farm let alone work on one
He owns one idiot!
He owns about a 100 actually!"
The crown estate (Stolen land) is one of the largest property portfolios in the UK.Technically owned by Queenie .The revenues go to the treasury though and then the treasury gets a bill from Queenie saying she and her leachers spent 30 million this year galavanting around in bullet proof bentleys and eating swans and they like.We pay up like good little peasants and they laugh their tits off swilling champers.Happy fucking days.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"yeah ... like you've even set foot on a farm let alone work on one
He owns one idiot!
He owns about a 100 actually! The crown estate (Stolen land) is one of the largest property portfolios in the UK.Technically owned by Queenie .The revenues go to the treasury though and then the treasury gets a bill from Queenie saying she and her leachers spent 30 million this year galavanting around in bullet proof bentleys and eating swans and they like.We pay up like good little peasants and they laugh their tits off swilling champers.Happy fucking days.
"
So if the crown lands are stolen why isnt anything you own ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"yeah ... like you've even set foot on a farm let alone work on one
He owns one idiot!
He owns about a 100 actually! The crown estate (Stolen land) is one of the largest property portfolios in the UK.Technically owned by Queenie .The revenues go to the treasury though and then the treasury gets a bill from Queenie saying she and her leachers spent 30 million this year galavanting around in bullet proof bentleys and eating swans and they like.We pay up like good little peasants and they laugh their tits off swilling champers.Happy fucking days.
So if the crown lands are stolen why isnt anything you own ?"
Because my ancestors didnt leave me any stolen land when they died.
Queenie inherited it. They are nothing more than descendants of the most ruthless bastards this country has ever seen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can u tell me which gaps they bridge then anything that they have done lately ?
the gap between God and the aristocracy?"
Maybe you could ask them to bridge the very large empty gap between your ears. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"yeah ... like you've even set foot on a farm let alone work on one
He owns one idiot!
He owns about a 100 actually! The crown estate (Stolen land) is one of the largest property portfolios in the UK.Technically owned by Queenie .The revenues go to the treasury though and then the treasury gets a bill from Queenie saying she and her leachers spent 30 million this year galavanting around in bullet proof bentleys and eating swans and they like.We pay up like good little peasants and they laugh their tits off swilling champers.Happy fucking days.
So if the crown lands are stolen why isnt anything you own ? Because my ancestors didnt leave me any stolen land when they died.
Queenie inherited it. They are nothing more than descendants of the most ruthless bastards this country has ever seen. "
SO because you bought it from someone who bought it etc etc from someone who stole it thats ok |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can u tell me which gaps they bridge then anything that they have done lately ?
the gap between God and the aristocracy?
Maybe you could ask them to bridge the very large empty gap between your ears. "
you talk big talk for a small man don't you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'll have you know I took lickerty splits online test(dontbottleitup) and it turns out I only need "mild attention" ..
So pleased I think I'll go for a pint as it's gone 12
so you're off for a pint of vodka then Doors ... standard.
It's raining and there's not much call for farm work in this weather so one pint turned into three or four and a long dog walk up past the pen .. Turning for home with a tail wind
yeah ... like you've even set foot on a farm let alone work on one "
.
That porta loo incident has dragged you down man, your more like bojo than JoJo.
Maybe you wanna think about doing less puff |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'll have you know I took lickerty splits online test(dontbottleitup) and it turns out I only need "mild attention" ..
So pleased I think I'll go for a pint as it's gone 12
so you're off for a pint of vodka then Doors ... standard.
It's raining and there's not much call for farm work in this weather so one pint turned into three or four and a long dog walk up past the pen .. Turning for home with a tail wind
yeah ... like you've even set foot on a farm let alone work on one .
That porta loo incident has dragged you down man, your more like bojo than JoJo.
Maybe you wanna think about doing less puff"
i don't smoke and who the fuck is joe .... you seriously need to stop your boozing Doors |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
