Bazdavies79 Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I'd imagine the French presidents salary and expenses are more open to the public than the royal families expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancsVillan Posted December 23, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 23, 2011 I quite like the Royals. I dont think they oppress us, do they? We can afford them, and I think London is one of the greatest and most architecturally interesting cities in the world because of the Royal touch. I like the history and tradition, and as long as it remains a constitutional monarchy then I am fine with it. Ditto This x2 Or whatever it is you pesky kids say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 23, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 23, 2011 Kate Middleton will be wearing 5 designer outfits on Christmas day, all paid for by us tax payers. She visited a homeless charity during the week. There was me thinking she'd wear one and give the money from the other 4 to people that are dying on the streets hungry in this day and age. You know that if we had a president all of his or her outfits would be paid by the tax payers? Have a look at France to see how presidents can and do waste money. Whatever the system they are all pretty unaccountable.But the president = the Queen, yes? Is the president's grandson's wife supported by the state, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 23, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 23, 2011 ...have Cameron as president, people will be demanding the royalty back, or imagine Blair as president :shock:Don't like 'em, vote 'em out. So when do we get to do this with the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha inbreds? I suspect a vote wouldn’t get rid of the royal family. I think a sizeable part of the country prefer the ‘non-political’ nature of royalty. I personally think the Queen is a better stateswoman than Cameron, Brown or Blair. Not saying that about the rest of her family (Charles and his f•••ing Oysters), but I think the Queen is pretty good at the job.I'm not denying that a vote taken tomorrow would find the royals with considerable popular support. But the fact remains we don't get that option. And I don't quite understand this "stateswoman" argument. In the same breath, you said she's "non-political". So what does a "stateswoman" do, then? Open fetes, go to expensive dinners, shake peoples' hands? Anybody could do that. I suggest an annual appointment of "somebody nice" - Paula Radcliffe, Matt Baker, someone like that. Pay them (not their extended family) - say - a hundred grand or so for their one-year appointment, and let them go around being an "ambassador for Britain". But emphatically NOT based upon the hereditary accident of birth principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 And I don't quite understand this "stateswoman" argument. In the same breath, you said she's "non-political". So what does a "stateswoman" do, then? HM represents the country in a non politcal manner, rather than as the leader of a given political party that happens to be the current government. The depth of the links between our Royal Family and, for example, the various rulers of the Middle East are deep and extremely beneficial to UK PLC. There is, in this region at least, a profound respect for the continuity and history of the UK that the person of the Monarch embodies and represents. Paula Radcliffe (who is probably a "nice" lady) et al are really not going to have the same impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 And I don't quite understand this "stateswoman" argument. In the same breath, you said she's "non-political". So what does a "stateswoman" do, then? Open fetes, go to expensive dinners, shake peoples' hands? Anybody could do that. I suggest an annual appointment of "somebody nice" - Paula Radcliffe, Matt Baker, someone like that. Pay them (not their extended family) - say - a hundred grand or so for their one-year appointment, and let them go around being an "ambassador for Britain". But emphatically NOT based upon the hereditary accident of birth principle. Does a states person have to be political? Anyone could do it??? If you were the president of say the USA or Russia, who would you prefer the Queen or that guy who used to be on Blue Peter???!!??!? (oh and much as I admire Paula Radcliffe as an athlete, Kelly Holmes would be much better) Its the fact that she is the Queen and has spent her life being the Queen that makes her a someone. As I ve said before lots of the Royals are rubbish, but a few of them are pretty good at what they do (Duchess of Kent for example strikes me as a pretty decent person). Is it right that someone should have all the priviledges the royal family do because they are born into it? I would say no. If we wanted to invent something now we would probably say no to a royal family, but its different if they have existed for hundreds of years. I would guess that many people are conservative and quite like them... Should we get rid of? Lets have a vote and let the people decide. Or better lets have a series of questions and let people decide if say Prince Charles should be more accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I think the queen is shit at her job, but it doesn't matter what any of us think really, does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambles Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I think the queen is shit at her job, but it doesn't matter what any of us think really, does it. Therein lies the problem. We have no choice, and for me, that is unacceptable. Individuals like Tara Palmer-Tomkinson, Prince Andrew and his whole family and all the rest of the hangers-on having their lives of leisure funded by the taxpayer makes me sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I think the queen is shit at her job, but it doesn't matter what any of us think really, does it. What is her job? I thought it was a job without description? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I think the queen is shit at her job, but it doesn't matter what any of us think really, does it. What is her job? I thought it was a job without description?I really can't see what the feck her job actually is, but that's by the by, my point was about the hereditary nature of monarchy being unfair and immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Kate Middleton will be wearing 5 designer outfits on Christmas day, all paid for by us tax payers. She visited a homeless charity during the week. There was me thinking she'd wear one and give the money from the other 4 to people that are dying on the streets hungry in this day and age. I'll think you will find any outfit she wears will be provided free by the British designer. The pictures will be shown all over the world. Many wealthy customers will decide if they like the outfit and ask for ones similar. This will in turn create more employment in the fashion industry here, which is quite big already. Whatever people think of Diana she was the biggest advertising the uk fashion industry had. It boomed whilst she was alive. In blokes terms it would have been the same as Messi, Tom Cruise and David Beckham all driving british cars, saying how good they are and doing it free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Whole idea of royal family is stupid and ridiculous we still have one. But its there ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If we wanted to invent something now we would probably say no to a royal family, but its different if they have existed for hundreds of years. I don't see why necessarily. I can see why royalists count it as a positive but I can also see why republicans may find it an aggravating factor in their dislike of the institution (let alone whichever house has stitched up the gig for the time being). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 23, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 23, 2011 And I don't quite understand this "stateswoman" argument. In the same breath, you said she's "non-political". So what does a "stateswoman" do, then? HM represents the country in a non politcal manner, rather than as the leader of a given political party that happens to be the current government. The depth of the links between our Royal Family and, for example, the various rulers of the Middle East are deep and extremely beneficial to UK PLC. There is, in this region at least, a profound respect for the continuity and history of the UK that the person of the Monarch embodies and represents. Paula Radcliffe (who is probably a "nice" lady) et al are really not going to have the same impact.**** me, we have to keep her because the Saudis like her? They're even worse! :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 23, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 23, 2011 Anyone could do it??? If you were the president of say the USA or Russia, who would you prefer the Queen or that guy who used to be on Blue Peter???!!??!? Well, I was being slightly jokey, but if you really want my opinion, I'd a million times rather have that guy off Blue Peter. As for the presidents of the USA or Russia, they absolutely could not give a flying **** about the Queen. They deal with Cameron, the bloke who has the power (actually, as as been pointed out in other thread, it's the money brokers who really have the power, but the point is that the Queen is just a bit of tiresome ritual. Which we pay for). By contrast the Saudi royals (parasitic scum of the higherst order) really DO have absolute power, so they probably regard our royals as a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 As for the presidents of the USA or Russia, they absolutely could not give a flying **** about the Queen. They deal with Cameron, the bloke who has the power (actually, as as been pointed out in other thread, it's the money brokers who really have the power, but the point is that the Queen is just a bit of tiresome ritual. Which we pay for). I would guess that most foreign leaders would be more bowled over meeting the Queen than Cameron or Prince Philip Until we have a vote on it, I guess we won’t know what the people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 23, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 23, 2011 As for the presidents of the USA or Russia, they absolutely could not give a flying **** about the Queen. They deal with Cameron, the bloke who has the power (actually, as as been pointed out in other thread, it's the money brokers who really have the power, but the point is that the Queen is just a bit of tiresome ritual. Which we pay for). I would guess that most foreign leaders would be more bowled over meeting the Queen than Cameron or Prince Philip And that has what relevance, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancsVillan Posted December 24, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 24, 2011 No relevance in harsh daylight of political decision making, but I agree with pb in the overall scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I bet Europe would have listened to the queen more than Cameron Also how much does the royal family cost us compared with the group of society who's apathy towards social input means we fund their lives of relative obscurity? Also how much did the riots cost the British taxpayer? I bet when you take into account all the court fees it's a hell of a lot. Much rathe pay 69p to have the monarch than however much to fund a minority of underclass hell bent on avoiding any kind of personal or social achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyjsg Posted December 26, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 26, 2011 I bet Europe would have listened to the queen more than Cameron Also how much does the royal family cost us compared with the group of society who's apathy towards social input means we fund their lives of relative obscurity? Also how much did the riots cost the British taxpayer? I bet when you take into account all the court fees it's a hell of a lot. Much rathe pay 69p to have the monarch than however much to fund a minority of underclass hell bent on avoiding any kind of personal or social achievement. This times a million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts