Bumper Payrise for Her Majesty

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

1/10. The one is for the animated stuff at the bottom.

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.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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]

Brilliant contribution there. And in what way have I flounced? Or as that just you being a fckwitt again?

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]

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]

Brilliant contribution there. And in what way have I flounced? Or as that just you being a fckwitt again?

Ask Comrade Thumper.

1/10. The one is for the animated stuff at the bottom.

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]

For a major player in the heritage industry, and in a country that relies heavily upon tourism, it seems defensible.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

So, we get rid of the monarchy and get what in its place. An elected President to represent us worldwide. And who do we elect Corbyn, May, Blair,? Would you seriously want someone of that ilk as our head of State.? God forbid. We only need to look at the USA to see what happens - Nixon, Clinton, Dubya Bush, Trump.

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.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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.

 

[Boys 9d]

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]

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.

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!

 

[Questions]

I read the other day that she's only worth about £250 million. I was shocked. That's not even super-rich, is it? Anyone who's anyone is a Billionaire these days. She's virtually a peasant in comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She looked a right state at Ascot. 8th time she's wore that outfit.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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!

King George VII. He has already said he would be George in honour of his grandfather. He is 70 next year.

 

[Questions]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Bold Seagull]

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.

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.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?353400-Bumper-Payrise-for-Her-Majesty&p=7997982&viewfull=1#post7997982

 

[clapham_gull]

The Royal family Plc brings more into this country than most businesses so republicans go fucxxxx yourself. I would not want the job.

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]

Anyone sane can see it beggars belief. At a time when we are going to have an enormous Brexit bill and we're all wondering about the supposed value of lives in people in tower blocks, along comes an enormous pay rise for the wealthiest woman in the world, paid for by the state. It is a disgrace.

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]

That's absolute nonsense from start to finish really isn't it? I mean, what is the point of any of what you wrote?

You accuse me of faux outrage because I am unhappy that people were burnt to death in a tower block because cheap but pretty looking cladding was used all the while we are increasing the Queen's pay by £6m a year?

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]

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

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]

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.

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.