[the_stillness]

I can't stand the Royal Family at all. In fact, they make me sick I don't see the need for them or the point of them being there and having any kind of influence over the way the country is run. I don't spend too much of my time worrying about politics and government and definitely NO time on the Royal's who IMO need flushing down the Toilet - some what? [I am only joking - of course!!] I certainly don't wish them no harm - all I wish for, is for them to exists as the Royal Family, but not treated as well as they do get treated. They get paid soooooooooooo much money and have a life of luxury and own property and land and jewels and paintings and sooooooooo much more, I almost feel sick with disgust I am not jealous, I am just disgusted that they do nothing and acheive nothing. They put their name behind charities and the like - but many people do that. Rich people who can afford it! If a woman in her 70's gives a £1000 to charity and she only has £5000 in her bank, then that is more than generous. If Prince Charles gave £10,000 away, then is that better or worse or the same? I hate this tripe, I hate these Royals and what they represent. American's come into England and are fascinated with the Royal family and rush to Buckingham Palace and buy these stupid orniments and material things - just to go home and say -

"Oh look what I bought? A Diana mug - probably made in China??"

What a farce!!! What a load of ****!!!

The Royal family shouldn't receive the money they do and they shouldn't get the support they do either. I know that gullable people exist and they do love to spend their lives worshiping these Ordinary people, that somehow are like gods and goddesses OMG!! I can't be alone on thinking this, surely??

Here is an old article -
The Queen and her Household has four sources of funding - the Civil List, Grant-in-Aid, the Privy Purse and private income.

The first two, which cover official expenditure, are not taxed, the Privy Purse is fully taxable subject to a deduction for official expenditure, and the Queen pays tax on her personal income and capital gains.

The Civil List is the sum provided by Parliament to meet the official expenses of the Queen as Head of State. About 70% of Civil List expenditure goes to pay the salaries of staff working directly for the Queen. Their duties include dealing with State papers, and organising the Queen's public engagements, meetings, receptions and official entertainment, including Royal Garden Parties. In other words, the whole range of activities expected of a Head of State, whether president or monarch.

The Civil List as it currently exists was created on the accession of King George III in 1760, when it was decided that the cost of government should be provided by Parliament. In return, and in a move described by John Brooke in his biography of the King as "from the point of view of the Crown ... the most disastrous step that could have been taken", he surrendered the hereditary royal revenue. This included income from the customs and post office and the net surplus of the Crown Estate. The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for year ending March 31st 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy. The Queen's Civil List has been fixed at £7.9 million per annum until 2011. Full details of Royal Household expenditure are published.

The Queen Mother and Prince Philip are the only other members of the Royal Family to receive annuities from the Civil List, of £643,000 and £359,000 respectively. The annuities of other members of the Royal Family who carry out engagements on Her Majesty's behalf are provided by the Queen from the Privy Purse. The revenue for this is obtained from the Duchy of Lancaster, an independent possession of the Sovereign since 1399. It is not included in the National Asset Register of Government holdings published by HM Treasury. The Prince of Wales derives his income, on which he pays tax, from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Occupied Royal Palaces, principally Buckingham Palace, St.James's Palace, Clarence House, parts of Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle are funded by Grants-in-Aid. Obviously, they would be maintained by the State whether Britain were a monarchy or not.

The Unoccupied Palaces, such as the Tower of London and Hampton Court, are maintained from visitor admissions.

Royal transport, required to enable the Royal Family to carry out almost 3000 engagements a year, is also funded by Grant-in-Aid. Of course, official travel would also have to be paid for, if Britain were a republic.

Privately, the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham and some smaller properties. Estimates of the Queen's wealth have often been wildly exaggerated, as they mistakenly include items which are held by the Queen as Sovereign on behalf of the nation and are not her private property. These include the Royal Palaces, Art Collection, Crown Jewels and so on. Far from being Britain's wealthiest person, the Queen is 105th on The Sunday Times 2001 Rich List.

The annual cost of the monarchy is approximately £37 million. For details see http://www.royal.gov.uk

In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for, and official and historic residences maintained.

And there is the added expense of periodic elections. Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of their heads of state, but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/featur...es/royfin.html

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page223.asp

That website above has loads of information about the **** Royals.

[x_mel_x]

I didnt read all of your thread but i really dont like the royals either especially the Queen.

[the_stillness]

Originally posted by x_mel_x
I didnt read all of your thread but i really dont like the royals either especially the Queen.

I watched a bit of the film on ITV called - The Queen and that made me start this debate today - Stupid Royals. I hate the way they act and what they stand for - The Queen thinks she knows how British people feel? Yeah right!!! [I say sarcastically] - Her other half is a ****

[spacebandit]

I have no objection to The Queen herself, but think the Monarchy should end with her. She understands and respects the position and respects her place in our country and the all the people in it.

There are too many spongers and freeloaders, and the rise of the "cult of celebrity" royals in the 80's who acted like they were above the law and everyone else - and forgot exactly who is supposed to be serving who in the grand sheme of british public life, sealed the deal for the end of the monarchy as far as I am concerned.

[Wiglet]

I watched the film last night and I have no idea ho much was based on fact (obviously the death of Diana was factual), but as for the relationship of the Queen and Blair and what was said at Blamarol and the royals watching the news, who knows what is reality?
I admit I laughed hysterically when Tracy Ullman spoke of Blair being this amazing new Prime Minister who would modernize our country. That certainly was not reality.

Back to the royals though. I believe we should have a royal family but only certain members should be on the civil list and that list should be strictly monitored. Our money should not be used for pathetic uses such as Prince Andrew in general. I can't stand that moron; what on earth does he do?

I wonder also if while the Queen is alive, if changes are being kept to a minimum? The film last night made me realise that she is of the old school and that she believes we are 'her subjects' and that she finds it very difficult to believe that any of us would want a republic. Personally that is not what I would like. I quite like the fact that we are different to other countries. We have a uniqueness which sells us to tourists and brings in revenue and as repeatative governments are screwing our industries, we need to bring in money from somewhere! As long as we are not paying out too much of that revenue into the civil list I am fine with that.

When William becomes King, I suspect many changes will steam roll and hope his very priviledged background will not stop him being able to have empathy with those not as priviledged. I sound like a right royalist but I'm not. Just accept that many tourists do not come to the UK for the weather!

[Scarlett.]

I wouldnt flush them down any

[Captain.Remy]

I'm just asking, why is she here ? She does nothing at all, that's what some countries don't understand (except France lol)

[Scarlett.]

Originally posted by sunshine30
I'm just asking, why is she here ? She does nothing at all, that's what some countries don't understand (expect France lol)

Tourism

[bananarama]

I suppose you could say the value of the Royal family is somewhst abstract.. The history of Royality and their properties and all the pomp does help yield tourism.

I don't know if the books balance or not. What Royalty cost versus what tourism they help create.

The Royal family only have theoretical control over us. It' is our Governments that mess this country up not Royalty.

Having said that I agree the Royal family may well be well past it's sell by date and perhaps should be phased out.......

I certainly don't want the likes of Charles/Camilla ever becoming King and Queen.....The present queen should be the last.

[the_stillness]

Originally posted by bananarama
I suppose you could say the value of the Royal family is somewhst abstract.. The history of Royality and their properties and all the pomp does help yield tourism.

I don't know if the books balance or not. What Royalty cost versus what tourism they help create.

The Royal family only have theoretical control over us. It' is our Governments that mess this country up not Royalty.

Having said that I agree the Royal family may well be well past it's sell by date and perhaps should be phased out.......

I certainly don't want the likes of Charles/Camilla ever becoming King and Queen.....The present queen should be the last.

The Royal family have been taking the p*ss for too long IMO. The value of the Royal family financialwise is enormous and the proof of that is overwealming. Every year they get a fantastic wage packet for just visiting various places and countries and the Queen says a useless speech at Xmas which I get the real pleasure of trying to miss. But I do get to know of it's content from a friend who is devoted to these **** That is her choice naturally - whatever, whatever, whatever!!!

They do bring in tourism and this debate was started by me, as it is my opinion that these people are just not worth it all - like I said [My opinion], which many share, I am sure. If they bring in tourists? then sooooooo be it. Let them stay and take our tax-payers money and let them live the life riley, okay!!!!!!! I think that it's not just the Royal family that brings in the tourists. It is all those other things in London, like established buildings and the like. There is loads there and if the Royals get knocked down a peg or two, then soooooooooo what? I don't care!!!

The Queen does have a say in the way the country is run. She does leave things to the lovely Labour party - fronted by Gordon Brown, [who we just about stand] But if she does find something bad in Government and a political decision, she does have a say in things and can sway Gordon's decision - more than anyone else - not connected to the Government, politicians and the rest of that **** - I also agree that the Government mess up the country!! Giving the Royals all that money and power doesn't help either. I should rephrase that and say - [Continuing - giving the Royals power] They don't fight in battles anymore, ha!

I think also that phasing them out would be a good thing. Charles wants to be King - but he wants to be called William?? I think?? he has a few names. Naturally due to superstition over the beheading of one of the past Charles's? Oh dear, he's worried over a name?? I think he should be more worried about NOT being King and Camilla - [duchess of cornwall] won't be a Queen either - What a load of **** I know that Prince William is more to be likely of becoming King than his dad is. But if the Queen abdicates or dies or gets too ill, I am sure that Prince Charles will jump in

The present Queen is just a face we have got used to. The only thing I like about the Queen is her face on English Bank Notes. If the horrid Euro comes our way - Postage stamps next and if we are lucky - the end

[bananarama]

Originally posted by the_stillness

The Royal family have been taking the p*ss for too long IMO. The value of the Royal family financialwise is enormous and the proof of that is overwealming. Every year they get a fantastic wage packet for just visiting various places and countries and the Queen says a useless speech at Xmas which I get the real pleasure of trying to miss. But I do get to know of it's content from a friend who is devoted to these **** That is her choice naturally - whatever, whatever, whatever!!!

They do bring in tourism and this debate was started by me, as it is my opinion that these people are just not worth it all - like I said [My opinion], which many share, I am sure. If they bring in tourists? then sooooooo be it. Let them stay and take our tax-payers money and let them live the life riley, okay!!!!!!! I think that it's not just the Royal family that brings in the tourists. It is all those other things in London, like established buildings and the like. There is loads there and if the Royals get knocked down a peg or two, then soooooooooo what? I don't care!!!

The Queen does have a say in the way the country is run. She does leave things to the lovely Labour party - fronted by Gordon Brown, [who we just about stand] But if she does find something bad in Government and a political decision, she does have a say in things and can sway Gordon's decision - more than anyone else - not connected to the Government, politicians and the rest of that **** - I also agree that the Government mess up the country!! Giving the Royals all that money and power doesn't help either. I should rephrase that and say - [Continuing - giving the Royals power] They don't fight in battles anymore, ha!

I think also that phasing them out would be a good thing. Charles wants to be King - but he wants to be called William?? I think?? he has a few names. Naturally due to superstition over the beheading of one of the past Charles's? Oh dear, he's worried over a name?? I think he should be more worried about NOT being King and Camilla - [duchess of cornwall] won't be a Queen either - What a load of **** I know that Prince William is more to be likely of becoming King than his dad is. But if the Queen abdicates or dies or gets too ill, I am sure that Prince Charles will jump in

The present Queen is just a face we have got used to. The only thing I like about the Queen is her face on English Bank Notes. If the horrid Euro comes our way - Postage stamps next and if we are lucky - the end

I guess you wouldn't like to be related to them then!!!

[spitfire]

The British Royal Family cost the taxpayer £36.7m last year.
Equivalent to 61p per taxpayer.

Long live The Queen.

[the_stillness]

Originally posted by bananarama



I guess you wouldn't like to be related to them then!!!

No thanks!! I'll take the money though and then be just like yourself and most others here - just normal and happy

[the_stillness]

Originally posted by spitfire
The British Royal Family cost the taxpayer £36.7m last year.
Equivalent to 61p per taxpayer.

Long live The Queen.

From your banner spitfire - I can see you love our Elizabeth II

Just out of interest, did you like the film - The Queen?

[spitfire]

If its the film with Helen Miren,then no.Im guessing its detrimental so ive given it a miss.

[KKBL]

"Which Toilet would you like to flush the Royal Family down?"


ammm............. a public toilet in........mc donalds!

[bananarama]

Originally posted by the_stillness

No thanks!! I'll take the money though and then be just like yourself and most others here - just normal and happy

WOW..Somebody thinks I am normal . I must be doing something right. If only I knew what!!!!!

[the_stillness]

Originally posted by bananarama

WOW..Somebody thinks I am normal . I must be doing something right. If only I knew what!!!!!

Glad you liked my response Most of us claim to be normal, but we want that extra special bit which makes us that much more than normal or even better - Special - But I'll do without the Royal title quite well - thank god!!

[Scarlett.]

Originally posted by spitfire
The British Royal Family cost the taxpayer £36.7m last year.
Equivalent to 61p per taxpayer.

Long live The Queen.

I agree
Long live the Queen

[Scarlett.]

Originally posted by bananarama
I suppose you could say the value of the Royal family is somewhst abstract.. The history of Royality and their properties and all the pomp does help yield tourism.

I don't know if the books balance or not. What Royalty cost versus what tourism they help create.

The Royal family only have theoretical control over us. It' is our Governments that mess this country up not Royalty.

Having said that I agree the Royal family may well be well past it's sell by date and perhaps should be phased out.......

I certainly don't want the likes of Charles/Camilla ever becoming King and Queen.....The present queen should be the last.

The Queen does control the Government, she can turn away a prime minister
also she can block a decison
and The Royalty own Britain

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by Chewy

The Queen does control the Government, she can turn away a prime minister
also she can block a decison
and The Royalty own Britain

You are wrong, on a technicality.

Firstly no Monarch has refused the Royal Ascent since 1707

More importantly, the Prime Minister has "Royal Perogative"

Technically the Queen can dissolve Parliament, however if she did it would cause a constitutional crisis as the PM has Royal Perogative - the real power to call elections, raise taxes and wage war, the end result would be a snap General Election.

What, you may ask would happen should the Queen refuse to accept the result of a General Election ?

Well, Charles II can answer that question

We have a Constitutional Monarchy, our Monarchs position as Head Of State is ceremonial - and its actual "power" , theough technically real, would and could never actually be used in a democracy.

As for saying the Royalty owns Britain.... no, corporations and banks own Britain, and if certain elements within the Labour and Conservative and Liberal Parties get their way, the European Commission will oversee Britain and we will pledge allegiance to an unelected commission

[Scarlett.]

Originally posted by spacebandit

You are wrong, on a technicality.

Firstly no Monarch has refused the Royal Ascent since 1707

More importantly, the Prime Minister has "Royal Perogative"

Technically the Queen can dissolve Parliament, however if she did it would cause a constitutional crisis as the PM has Royal Perogative - the real power to call elections, raise taxes and wage war, the end result would be a snap General Election.

What, you may ask would happen should the Queen refuse to accept the result of a General Election ?

Well, Charles II can answer that question

We have a Constitutional Monarchy, our Monarchs position as Head Of State is ceremonial - and its actual "power" , theough technically real, would and could never actually be used in a democracy.

As for saying the Royalty owns Britain.... no, corporations and banks own Britain, and if certain elements within the Labour and Conservative and Liberal Parties get their way, the European Commission will oversee Britain and we will pledge allegiance to an unelected commission

Yeah but the Queen has this power, she just chooses not to use it

[Matt08]

The United Kingdom would never get rid of the Royal Family for a few reasons. The Royal Family do attract a fair amount of tourism to London believe it or not. Also The Queen has some power over the Government so I guess they want to keep her for that reason.

[Scarlett.]

I suppose its impossible to get rid of the queen, she could over-rule the decision (now that I think about it the UK is Semi-communist)

[spitfire]

Originally posted by Chewy
I suppose its impossible to get rid of the queen, she could over-rule the decision (now that I think about it the UK is Semi-communist)

Thats the goverment not the Queen.