Royals

This is about the Uk royals only so bare with my first topic here :shifty:

I think that the royal family is milking us tax payers out of money, i mean what do they do? Last time i heard nothing. The royals use to do things in the dark ages (like before teh interweb) by controlling the country, trying to kill teh scots and beheading their wives. Now they have no purpose (thats to the PM and parliment). The queen does nothing but dosses about.

Infact when her mother (teh queen mumage) died she owe'd the state and tax payers hundreds of millions of pounds, becuase she gave all her land away and didnt pay her debts and such off untill she dieed, at which time becuase she was dead she never did. Meaning bare royals got free estates and such, queen mum didnt pay a penny, taz payers + state got owned.

What does Prince harry do thats so important we can send him round the world with his find looking lady friend so he can party away, nothing i say.

Once, they use to do things and kinda earner there money now they don't do shit. Sure they go to other countries and say hi to peeps but is that worth all the money we give them.

Anyway thats what i think, im prob gonna be proved wrong in a few mins so make me look like teh cawkage.

Your views?


Edit: Was only one smilie in this post so :D :blink: :whistling :sick:

Off with his head, the perfect hangover cure. :rolleyes:

We make a profit on them, so i cant see how they're milking us :P

They started making a "Profit" in 2001..

Quote:

---

Annual revenue from the Crown Estate has increased by £42m in real terms since 1991-92, to £133m last year.

The Queen surrenders this money to the Exchequer, in return for Parliament agreeing to fund the Civil List and other head of state expenditure.

Only the Queen, Queen Mother and Duke of Edinburgh are paid directly from the Civil List. Payments to other Royal Family members are reimbursed by the Queen from her personal funds.

The Keeper of the Privy Purse, Sir Michael Peat, said the monarchy effectively costs taxpayers nothing, and is even in credit.

---

Source

That excludes the money they pay in Taxes (Income, Investments and Business') in their personal capacities...which is quite substantial on its own.

It also excludes the invisible benefits from Tourism and selling British Industry abroad, something they're pretty good at by all accounts... despite Phillip :dry:

Most of the money in the Civil List goes to pay Staff Wages, upkeep of the Palaces and Travel... these things would still need to be paid for with a President.

....Except there wouldnt be any idiots willing to work for peanuts just to "Serve" a President, which they do to be a "Royal" servant.

So that paybill would go through the roof... :whistling

source


http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/images...ersgraphic.gif

Quote:

---

Under the Civil List Acts, The Duke of Edinburgh receives an annual parliamentary allowance to enable him to carry out public duties. Since 1993, The Queen has repaid to the Treasury the annual parliamentary allowances received by other members of the Royal Family.

In 2000 the annual amounts payable to members of the Royal Family (which are set every ten years) were reset at their 1990 levels for the next ten years, until December 2010. Apart from an increase of £45,000 on the occasion of The Earl of Wessex's marriage, these amounts remain as follows:

Parliamentary annuity (not repaid by The Queen)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh £359,000

Parliamentary annuities (repaid by The Queen)
HRH The Duke of York £249,000
HRH The Earl of Wessex £141,000
HRH The Princess Royal £228,000
TRH The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, TRH The Duke
and Duchess of Kent and HRH Princess Alexandra
*£636,000

* Of the £636,000, £175,000 is provided by The Queen to The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, £236,000 to The Duke and Duchess of Kent and £225,000 to Princess Alexandra.

As with the Civil List itself, most of these sums are spent on staff who support public engagements and correspondence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

2 points.

1, We already own the Crown Estate so any profit belongs to us already.

2, Even if losing them was a net cash loss I would be willing to do that in order to get rid of the Monarch / Subject mindset.

---

Point one - no we don't.

Point two, and the real point - you just don't like them do you? You have no real gripe, so you ignore the facts.

The Royal Family (God Bless them all) are one of the top money earners for this country. Tourism alone is worth billions. Every time the Queen (God Bless her) travels overseas a contingent from the department of trade and industry travels with her. The amount of business she generates is huge.

Of course, she isn't head of the Catholic Church, and Scottish Catholics have a problem with that don't they? Never mind that the Queen (God Bless her) is half Scottish.

l'd like to know what advantage a president would bring us, and how it would be cheaper. In my opinion it would cost us more, and we'd end up with less.

So come on JPaul, say ten 'Hail Mary's' and repeat after me ..

God save our gracious Queen,
long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
happy and glorious,
long to reign over us,
God save the Queen!

Thy choicest gifts in store
on her be pleased to pour,
long may she reign:
may she defend our laws,
and ever give us cause
to sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen!

Nor on this land alone,
but be God's mercies known
from shore to shore:
Lord, make the nations see
that men should brothers be,
and form one family
the wide world o'er.

(God Bless her cotton socks)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

We make a profit on them, so i cant see how they're milking us :P

---

How so? I don't think so.....

I said we make a profit of them, meaning the UK...

I dont know about Canada or the other Commonwealth Realms. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You really are an arse and the most obvious troll I have ever seen.

---

God bless him. :lol:


:huh: Half Scottish? That eedjit Starkey threw his toys out the cot when it was suggested that the Queen Mumage was Scottish. But then he does like to stir it. :)

Quote:

---

The Crown Estate is a landed estate including over 120,000 hectares of agricultural land in England, Scotland and Wales, substantial blocks of urban property and almost half the foreshore, together with the seabed out to the 12 mile territorial limit. Its origins date back to the reign of King Edward the Confessor.

The Crown Estate is part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown", managed under the provisions of the Crown Estate Act 1961 by the Crown Estate Commissioners who have a duty to maintain and enhance the capital value of the Estate and the income obtained from it, with due regard to the requirements of good management.

---

Just admit it JPaul, you don't like them because they aren't Scottish, as you think they should be. Well you had your chance and James 11 fucked it up, now it's the German's turn, and the Greeks of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Who was James 11.

---

Are you serious? There can't be many Scottish Catholics who don't know James II. He was James VII of Scotland, James II of England, the second son of Charles I who was executed following the English Civil War.

Charles II, Charles I eldest son, who was handed back the throne, was protestant, and England had laws prohibiting Catholicism, some of which still stand today. Before his death, his brother James converted to Catholicism. The government of the day, still largely controlled by the monarch, tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Charles II not to allow James to secede to the throne. It caused so much trouble that Charles II ruled the last four years of his life without parliament.

When James II took over the crown on the death of Charles II he set about repealing the anti-Catholic laws. This had a marked effect in Ireland where Catholics replaced Protestants in the Government, Law, Army etc.. But it caused a lot of bitterness, and members of the English parliament approached William of Orange, who was married to James' daughter Mary to come to England and claim the throne, this was despite the fact that James had a younger son, born a Catholic, who was the rightful heir.

When William arrived, the king's army and navy refused to oppose him and James fled. He was caught pretty quickly and exiled to France. His last action was to lead a joint Irish \ French assault on Williams forces in Ireland, but they were defeated at the famous Battle of the Boyne, which led to the formation of the "Orangemen".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

So not James 11 as you originally posted.

---

No, and not James II either, but l have one of those new fangled keyboards that doesn't have Roman numerals any more.

Quote:

---

Basically William had forces in Ireland because the "English parliament" was adamant they did not want a Catholic as king.

---

When l say William's forces in Ireland, l meant England's, or William's as he was the Monarch. James II had handed control of the English forces in Ireland over to Catholic Generals. It was never the intention of James II that Ireland was to be independant of the rest of Britain. However, after he went into exile to France, he teamed up with Louis XIV with that idea in mind. James landed in Ireland with French troops in 1689 and quickly controlled most of the country with the collusion of the high deputy of Ireland, the Earl of Tyrconnell, who was a Catholic. He set about repealing the laws that allowed Protestant settlers to acquire land.

Laws against protestants had started whilst James was still king, they were discriminated againt in every way. In 1688 the Apprentice boys in Londonderry closed the city gates to keep out the Catholic army under Lord Antrim. In 1689, a year later, James and the French troops laid siege to the city, after several skirmishes and many defeats James withdrew from the North. This led William to act, for fear of losing Ireland.

The main battle was near the river Boyne where the Jacobite army was defeated. Next stop was Dublin, with one more battle at Newry. James once again fled back to France, never to be seen again.

William was the grandson of Charles I, his mother was Charles' daughter Mary. His wife Mary was the granddaughter of Charles I, and was therefore William's first cousin, something not unusual in those days, and said to be responsible for the madness in the British monarchs to this day, so Charlie really isn't responsible for his condition, it's hereditory.

This thread has turned into the History Channel. Kewl.

I'm completely non-fussed about the Royals. They can all live forever or they can all crash into the Andes with a Uruguayan football team for all I care.