Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
So you agree then he did have a bit of a flounce. See, there is hope for you? Not a lot, but hope is hope.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Bumper Payrise for Her Majesty
- Thread starter crodonilson
- Start date
So you agree then he did have a bit of a flounce. See, there is hope for you? Not a lot, but hope is hope.
I know. 38,000 posts and we are still waiting for your to do it.
Viva la revolution Comrade
Take the theme and reverse it....are you a teenager?
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
I see left people.
Walking around like regular people.
THEY ONLY SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE....... They don't know they're left!!!
Doc Lynam
I hate the Daily Mail
- Jun 19, 2011
- 7,201
Actually you're both right :
"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch."
It's easily found if you look for it
You are of course right, the Monarchy doesn't own the Crown Estates legally, but the Treasury pays them a grant depending on the revenue from the estate (I think it would be seen as bad PR if Liz and Charles went knocking on the door for rent) and who gives the Treasury money? Yep you guessed it, the people up and down the country!
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
Ask Comrade Thumper.
He obviously saw the flounce too!! He gave me a whole mark for it.
It's made me feel all warm and googey inside that Thumpie gave me a mark for it!!
RexCathedra
Aurea Mediocritas
For a major player in the heritage industry, and in a country that relies heavily upon tourism, it seems defensible.
Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Agreed. Plus as many have said before like it or not The Royal Household brings in far more revenue than it costs to run,but then Maths has never been a strong point for some in the Labour Party or on the Left you only have to look at Gordon Golden Bars Brown for that.
Personally I rather leave the 'Head of State' to be selected from a fate of birth. Just imagine, we could have had Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Farage, Corbyn, Mandelson, IDS, Howard etc etc etc as Head of State during the last few years. Instead we got Queen Elizabeth II who has kept a level head away from politics. Hopefully William will reign as brilliantly and for as long.
What sometimes amuses me is the people who support the idea of the hereditary monarchy who suddenly wish to debar the next in line. I have seen many published opinions that Charles should be side lined and the present Queen's successor should be William. Can they really have it both ways?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
King Charles III is next surely? If he gets it around 70, he could reign for a good decade or 2, by which time William will be about 50. Not sure he is going to reign as long as Gran!
She looked a right state at Ascot. 8th time she's wore that outfit.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
King George VII. He has already said he would be George in honour of his grandfather. He is 70 next year.
What do you base that on. All the foreigners who visit Buckingham Palace to get a glimpse of her putting the clean nets up at the window or maybe visiting Windsor Castle to see her scoffing cucumber sandwhiches on the lawn.
drew
Drew
Well I'm left of centre, politically, but I'm all for the Royal Family.
To suggest they are an affront to true democracy is moronic nonsense. It is purely a token role with no influence over the government. If we had an elected head of state as in the US then that would truly be an affront as it is just a money pit for the contenders and nothing to do with qualities of the candidates. I pity anyone who would want a system that can leave you with someone like Trump as you head of state.
To suggest they are an affront to true democracy is moronic nonsense. It is purely a token role with no influence over the government. If we had an elected head of state as in the US then that would truly be an affront as it is just a money pit for the contenders and nothing to do with qualities of the candidates. I pity anyone who would want a system that can leave you with someone like Trump as you head of state.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Not really sure why everyone believes the only alternative is the US democratic model. Other parliamentary democracies have heads of state with no executive power and are figure heads for the country.
http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?353400-Bumper-Payrise-for-Her-Majesty&p=7997982&viewfull=1#post7997982
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,338
I've yet to see that quantified. France has more visitors to it's ex palaces than we do.
If the only argument for a hereditary head of state is that's good for tourism in London that's ****ing lame.
Have you ever had a conversation with a tourist who claimed that the major reason they came to Englans for a holiday was because of the Queen ?
Gotta do better than that...
Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk
sir albion
New member
You will always get a magic money tree for numerous things...
1 billion extra for Syrian refugees on top of the rest
2 billion fine from the EU for doing well
Personally I'd rather see where all the foreign aid budget goes as we all know a good half disappears into the black hole and that's billions.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 3,742
How's it nonsense? You clearly have no basic understanding of why the Queen and the royal family are given the money they are. If you did, you wouldn't have written the drivel you wrote. Ultimately, the royals get the money they get because it brings in tourists and because they give their lives over in service to our country. You only have to look at the tourist figures to realise that they more than justify the money they're given just in revenue produced.
FYI, the two situations are totally separate and you're mixing them, which shows your naivety and ignorance. The government can give money to the Queen AND sort out the tower blocks. And anyone with common sense can see that it shouldn't be an either/or situation.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 3,742
Errrm... yes, yes I have. You've clearly never been to London and seen the Asian and American tourists taking 100 pictures a minute at the changing of the guard etc etc.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I've been to a Buckingham Palace garden party. We had to go in at the Hyde Park gate, where the invitations were checked. As we were waiting for the gate to open at 3pm, the open top buses were passing full of Japanese tourists, who were clicking away taking photo of us all dressed up.