FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Harry n Megan
Harry n Megan
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Two and a half million to renovate their house all funded by the taxpayer Oh how we love the royals....Makes your blood boil"
Yeah but they inspire us cos they’re so perfect and beautiful (need the puking emoji- how do I get it?) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Two and a half million to renovate their house all funded by the taxpayer Oh how we love the royals....Makes your blood boil
Yeah but they inspire us cos they’re so perfect and beautiful (need the puking emoji- how do I get it?)"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Two and a half million to renovate their house all funded by the taxpayer Oh how we love the royals....Makes your blood boil
Yeah but they inspire us cos they’re so perfect and beautiful (need the puking emoji- how do I get it?)
"
Oooh how do you do that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The news report I saw said the Royals received £86M of taxpayer's money each year.
But they more much more back into the pot. I didn't catch that figure or how they went about it. But according to BBC radio there is more to this headline. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The news report I saw said the Royals received £86M of taxpayer's money each year.
But they more much more back into the pot. I didn't catch that figure or how they went about it. But according to BBC radio there is more to this headline."
BBC Bollocks. They so pro royal it's sickening. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Two and a half million to renovate their house all funded by the taxpayer Oh how we love the royals....Makes your blood boil
Yeah but they inspire us cos they’re so perfect and beautiful (need the puking emoji- how do I get it?)
Oooh how do you do that?"
Sent you a pm x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Get the royal family to f**k, quite frankly. I’m sure they’re very lovely people in their own right but it’s 2019 and they serve zero purpose. Time to leave this antiquated nonsense behind.
Then we can start on religion... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Then we can start on religion..."
Oh goodie! I (Luke) can go on about religion all day! 
Let's not forget the monarch (an outdated institution) is the Head of the Church of England (another outdated organisation). What a wheeze. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of. "
Yes but don’t underestimate the amount of money they bring in through tourism. I’ve worked in Japan, the US and Germany and the majority of high earners there love our royals and want to come to the UK to see them. That’s a lot of money as they don’t do Travelodge and McDonalds when they’re over here... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Two and a half million to renovate their house all funded by the taxpayer Oh how we love the royals....Makes your blood boil"
Would you turn it down if you were them?
P |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more. "
Perhaps this was what I'd heard but not listened to earlier |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of. "
Due to various reports each one of us pays per year between 85p - £1.50 in tax that helps the royal family
The amount the royal family brings in works out at approximately £1.8 billion a year to our economy.
Not a particular fan of the royal family, but are they worth having ? Fucking hell yes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of.
Due to various reports each one of us pays per year between 85p - £1.50 in tax that helps the royal family
The amount the royal family brings in works out at approximately £1.8 billion a year to our economy.
Not a particular fan of the royal family, but are they worth having ? Fucking hell yes"
Have to agree with you old chap... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Two and a half million to renovate their house all funded by the taxpayer Oh how we love the royals....Makes your blood boil
Yeah but they inspire us cos they’re so perfect and beautiful (need the puking emoji- how do I get it?)"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?"
Totally parliamentary expenses claimed by MPs 2018 £115.3m ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Perhaps this was what I'd heard but not listened to earlier"
Quite possibly. It amazes me that the royals are still portrayed as costing us money. They have surrendered their income in return for a maintsinance grant, putting the country in charge of what they receive to enable them to fulfil the duties expected of them.
If normal people at work are expected to dress a certain way at work or travel to do their job then their employer pays for it. Same for the royals, it's their job and the money they make goes to their employers. Should we expect the royals to pay towards doing the duties we expect of them?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So, the Cambridges spend a fortune doing up several homes - this is Harry and Meghan's only residence - nothing said.
The Royal train cost £22,000 a trip: nothing said.
The Royal family racked up over £4.6m in travel last year: £416,000 on Charles and Camilla's trip to Cuba alone: nothing said.
Money spent on Harry's pad - which was due for renovation anyway and extra costs outside the agreed budget was paid for by the couple themselves gets headline news and vitriolic nasty comments.
Now why is that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The news report I saw said the Royals received £86M of taxpayer's money each year.
But they more much more back into the pot. I didn't catch that figure or how they went about it. But according to BBC radio there is more to this headline."
I assume they generate a shit ton of tourism related £££, although it’s presumably hugely skewed towards London. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I’ve no time for religion BUT don’t think you can compare the two here. Churches (ministers, volunteers etc) provide much needed pastoral and counselling care - relieving some pressure on the NHS and Docs and the value to the recipient is, in many case, life saving.
Their venues (in the most part though they could still do more to help the homeless issue) are free and open most days to all.
Re tourism. I worked in tourism for many years and have to say got very little interest in the royals at all (taking trips to Deeside) and anytime we did try to stop for a picture of Balmoral it was made prohibitive by plain clothes officers and security that any perceived tourism benefit was wasted. ‘Come see the UK’s royals and where they live - just don’t get your camera out, or stop, or walk near where they are...’ Tourists are more interested in tv and film locations that are relevant to their daily lives. In my experience anyhoo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if a member of the royal family misses an engagement, do thhey get sanctioned?...thats what i wanna know  "
If the queen, at 93 years of age can work full time with only two days a year off, why shouldn't someone be sanctioned because they can be bothered to make an appointment?
(Yes, I know people are sanctioned for things out of their control but that doesn't detract from the stupidity of your argument.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Slow news day, or a piece of non-news to deflect attention away from the Conservative bunfight/looming Brexit distaster...."
Meghan and Harry seem to be the smoke screen these days. People seem to get wound up about them than what is going on in the country that will affect them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’ve no time for religion BUT don’t think you can compare the two here. Churches (ministers, volunteers etc) provide much needed pastoral and counselling care - relieving some pressure on the NHS and Docs and the value to the recipient is, in many case, life saving.
Their venues (in the most part though they could still do more to help the homeless issue) are free and open most days to all.
Re tourism. I worked in tourism for many years and have to say got very little interest in the royals at all (taking trips to Deeside) and anytime we did try to stop for a picture of Balmoral it was made prohibitive by plain clothes officers and security that any perceived tourism benefit was wasted. ‘Come see the UK’s royals and where they live - just don’t get your camera out, or stop, or walk near where they are...’ Tourists are more interested in tv and film locations that are relevant to their daily lives. In my experience anyhoo. "
A good point, however the flip side of that is that religion is responsible for the deaths of millions due to religious wars and dogma. (Their condemnation of birth control is just one example that leads to children that will die from malnourishment or be born with aids.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’ve no time for religion BUT don’t think you can compare the two here. Churches (ministers, volunteers etc) provide much needed pastoral and counselling care - relieving some pressure on the NHS and Docs and the value to the recipient is, in many case, life saving.
Their venues (in the most part though they could still do more to help the homeless issue) are free and open most days to all.
Re tourism. I worked in tourism for many years and have to say got very little interest in the royals at all (taking trips to Deeside) and anytime we did try to stop for a picture of Balmoral it was made prohibitive by plain clothes officers and security that any perceived tourism benefit was wasted. ‘Come see the UK’s royals and where they live - just don’t get your camera out, or stop, or walk near where they are...’ Tourists are more interested in tv and film locations that are relevant to their daily lives. In my experience anyhoo. "
Without churches and religion you don’t think good people would still help others? Don’t need to be religious to help |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The news report I saw said the Royals received £86M of taxpayer's money each year.
But they more much more back into the pot. I didn't catch that figure or how they went about it. But according to BBC radio there is more to this headline.
I assume they generate a shit ton of tourism related £££, although it’s presumably hugely skewed towards London."
Biggest tourist attractions in uk are nothing to do with royals. Only Tower of London in top ten attractions and not one of them lives there! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So, the Cambridges spend a fortune doing up several homes - this is Harry and Meghan's only residence - nothing said.
The Royal train cost £22,000 a trip: nothing said.
The Royal family racked up over £4.6m in travel last year: £416,000 on Charles and Camilla's trip to Cuba alone: nothing said.
Money spent on Harry's pad - which was due for renovation anyway and extra costs outside the agreed budget was paid for by the couple themselves gets headline news and vitriolic nasty comments.
Now why is that?"
Andrew got hammered too though for 6 mill roof.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?"
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates??? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of.
Due to various reports each one of us pays per year between 85p - £1.50 in tax that helps the royal family
The amount the royal family brings in works out at approximately £1.8 billion a year to our economy.
Not a particular fan of the royal family, but are they worth having ? Fucking hell yes
Have to agree with you old chap..."
Where do those figures come from when only Tower of London in top ten uk attractions? In fact, get rid of them and charge to visit empty castles like Edinburgh and we would generate more. People stop visiting France? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates???"
Do you own property?
What gives you the right to that property?
Estates passed stern through generations.. or shall we take it all back because William the conqueror nicked it in 1066??? 
Incidentally yes I know it's not the same family ... just making a point |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates???"
Really? If your parents left you a house in their will would you class it as 'yours', I doubt you would give it up for the greater good. Which coincidentally the royals have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Without churches and religion you don’t think good people would still help others? Don’t need to be religious to help "
Didn’t even imply that far less say it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Without churches and religion you don’t think good people would still help others? Don’t need to be religious to help
Didn’t even imply that far less say it. "
Churches and ministers provide....? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Same could be said about people who live in council houses and get new kitchens bathrooms new central heating systems etc etc yes I know they pay rent but some don’t the benefits pay for it so in a way we are paying for the millions of council tenants who get free repairs and upgrades just a thought |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Same could be said about people who live in council houses and get new kitchens bathrooms new central heating systems etc etc yes I know they pay rent but some don’t the benefits pay for it so in a way we are paying for the millions of council tenants who get free repairs and upgrades just a thought "
yeah these mansions they have.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"no bloodline is greater than another.Royals should only be seen as celebrities and able to fund themselves."
They do fund themselves, and make profit. Profit which they have given to the country instead of keeping it for themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more. "
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Definitely not a royalist, and the royals don’t represent me or who I am, however as they bring in £1.8 billion to our economy each year, and me you and everyone employed pays approximately ( depending on various reports ) £1.50 of my hard earned tax per year. Then yeah if they fancy a new kitchen, big screen tv costing £2.5 million I’m ok with that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Same could be said about people who live in council houses and get new kitchens bathrooms new central heating systems etc etc yes I know they pay rent but some don’t the benefits pay for it so in a way we are paying for the millions of council tenants who get free repairs and upgrades just a thought
yeah these mansions they have.."
still costs the tax payer regardless if it’s a mansion or a council flat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They take so much less than they produce for our economy. They also voluntarily pay taxes that they dont have to. People really need to stop whinging about them any time they do anything that costs a little bit of money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Same could be said about people who live in council houses and get new kitchens bathrooms new central heating systems etc etc yes I know they pay rent but some don’t the benefits pay for it so in a way we are paying for the millions of council tenants who get free repairs and upgrades just a thought "
Absolutely, the difference being that the royals put back into the coffers, benefit dossers just take take take. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea"
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe..."
I think that was the point of their post when considering forums |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe..."
Pretty certain they was agreeing with you and saying that there are people here that just want a rant even if your providing them with facts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"no bloodline is greater than another.Royals should only be seen as celebrities and able to fund themselves.
They do fund themselves, and make profit. Profit which they have given to the country instead of keeping it for themselves."
well they can pay the 2.5million.
regardless of what they cost etc, lets just use some science,are any royals anywhere better than another human being?
It's entirely a religious premise that their birthline denotes automatic revere.
their will be millions of babies born that will make changes to the world in stark contrast to those born with entitlement through hereditary means.
So from a scientific view, why are these people held in better regard than anyone else? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Without churches and religion you don’t think good people would still help others? Don’t need to be religious to help
Didn’t even imply that far less say it.
Churches and ministers provide....? "
That was by no way a ‘limited to’ comment. Given the context and subjects (the royals and churches) that was pretty obvious. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"no bloodline is greater than another.Royals should only be seen as celebrities and able to fund themselves.
They do fund themselves, and make profit. Profit which they have given to the country instead of keeping it for themselves.
well they can pay the 2.5million.
regardless of what they cost etc, lets just use some science,are any royals anywhere better than another human being?
It's entirely a religious premise that their birthline denotes automatic revere.
their will be millions of babies born that will make changes to the world in stark contrast to those born with entitlement through hereditary means.
So from a scientific view, why are these people held in better regard than anyone else? "
*there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If we're going to be discussing taxes and how they're spent vs what it costs us then should we also be discussing how much big business costs us in taxes too?
Starbucks, Google, etc, don't pay taxes here, yet I don't see people complaining or boycotting their morning coffee or their search engines. Even though they cost far far more economically than the Royal family ever would, even if they didn't pay for themselves.
Yes the idea of a royal family may be an outmoded concept but let's not fool ourselves that economically they don't do good, unlike the real 'leeches'.
Tea |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe...
I think that was the point of their post when considering forums "
Oops! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"no bloodline is greater than another.Royals should only be seen as celebrities and able to fund themselves.
They do fund themselves, and make profit. Profit which they have given to the country instead of keeping it for themselves.
well they can pay the 2.5million.
regardless of what they cost etc, lets just use some science,are any royals anywhere better than another human being?
It's entirely a religious premise that their birthline denotes automatic revere.
their will be millions of babies born that will make changes to the world in stark contrast to those born with entitlement through hereditary means.
So from a scientific view, why are these people held in better regard than anyone else? "
.you realise they spend most of the year travelling around the world keeping us on good terms with other countries? You couldn't just pop Dave from down the pub on a flight and have him do the same thing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we're going to be discussing taxes and how they're spent vs what it costs us then should we also be discussing how much big business costs us in taxes too?
Starbucks, Google, etc, don't pay taxes here, yet I don't see people complaining or boycotting their morning coffee or their search engines. Even though they cost far far more economically than the Royal family ever would, even if they didn't pay for themselves.
Yes the idea of a royal family may be an outmoded concept but let's not fool ourselves that economically they don't do good, unlike the real 'leeches'.
Tea"
And don't forget parliamentary and ministerial salaries and expenses |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think it is interesting that we read a media headline and take it as gospel. We then extrapolate that out to the nth degree.
Our money paying for someone else’s house repairs - how atrocious. Then we look a bit deeper and learn about The Crown Estates and how in 1760 the Royal family gave control of the revenue of the estates to treasury in return for a yearly allowance (sovereign grant).
The Crown Estate property evaluation is £12 billion - the revenue is circa £343 millions per annum and the sovereign grant is £82 million.
Obviously you don’t want your taxes to pay for the royals property renovations, don’t worry your taxes are not paying for it. The revenue from the Crown Estates are paying for it.
Your taxes are paying for MP’s expenses and pay rises, for the cluster fuck that is Brexit, for the shambles that is the national debt and show we got into it.
But let’s blame the Royals anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe..."
Apologies if I have misunderstood what you where saying and taken it the wrong way. I thought you where saying my point was untrue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe...
I think that was the point of their post when considering forums
Oops! "
Humble pie? Cream?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe..."
OK, back up there fella. I was agreeing with you, hence the repost.
What I reposted was the truth of the matter, not that people check or look for it before jumping on the soundbite bandwagon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
On another note just think of the money that’s filtered down to other businesses whilst the job was carried out the main contractor the sub contractors the suppliers some people just don’t see the bigger picture |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe...
Apologies if I have misunderstood what you where saying and taken it the wrong way. I thought you where saying my point was untrue."
Queen is head of the church....so same thing. And it’s only their land as taken off us so it’s ours that they are earning on, stolen, get money back for to give back to give back to themselves which was ours!! Phew |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe...
Apologies if I have misunderstood what you where saying and taken it the wrong way. I thought you where saying my point was untrue."
Haha! No problem |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'd really like to see how these moaners would react if instead of taxing our taxes. The royal family decided that instead, they will keep all the money they generate, anything with any of their faces on become copyrighted, the queen takes all the money that the crown estate makes, not just 15%, the government no longer gets the huge percentage they take of any of the earnings and the royal family keep it for themselves. They also decide to take a percentage of the nearly £2 billion they produce in tourism each year.
Now, they get all this, and you get to keep the 69 pence it costs you each year to support them.
Sixty nine fucking pence
Get over yourselves |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"no bloodline is greater than another.Royals should only be seen as celebrities and able to fund themselves.
They do fund themselves, and make profit. Profit which they have given to the country instead of keeping it for themselves.
well they can pay the 2.5million.
regardless of what they cost etc, lets just use some science,are any royals anywhere better than another human being?
It's entirely a religious premise that their birthline denotes automatic revere.
their will be millions of babies born that will make changes to the world in stark contrast to those born with entitlement through hereditary means.
So from a scientific view, why are these people held in better regard than anyone else? .you realise they spend most of the year travelling around the world keeping us on good terms with other countries? You couldn't just pop Dave from down the pub on a flight and have him do the same thing"
Millions of others do that,at much less expense and pomposity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Get the royal family to f**k, quite frankly. I’m sure they’re very lovely people in their own right but it’s 2019 and they serve zero purpose. Time to leave this antiquated nonsense behind.
Then we can start on religion..."
Yes, yes abs yes again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we're going to be discussing taxes and how they're spent vs what it costs us then should we also be discussing how much big business costs us in taxes too?
Starbucks, Google, etc, don't pay taxes here, yet I don't see people complaining or boycotting their morning coffee or their search engines. Even though they cost far far more economically than the Royal family ever would, even if they didn't pay for themselves.
Yes the idea of a royal family may be an outmoded concept but let's not fool ourselves that economically they don't do good, unlike the real 'leeches'.
Tea
And don't forget parliamentary and ministerial salaries and expenses"
Exactly! And that does come directly from the taxpayer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe...
Apologies if I have misunderstood what you where saying and taken it the wrong way. I thought you where saying my point was untrue.
Queen is head of the church....so same thing. And it’s only their land as taken off us so it’s ours that they are earning on, stolen, get money back for to give back to give back to themselves which was ours!! Phew "
You never answered the previous question re property .. do you own any? What gives you that right to it? Did the people you bought it off rightly own it in order ri sell it on .. etc etc ... in the same analogy ... it was "stolen" at some point so give it back now!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think the thing that makes people cross is the privilege afforded to some when for the last decade the country has been penalised under the Tory dogma of austerity
Hard to see people being awarded such extravagant privileges when families and children, often hard-working, are making routine visits to foodbanks just so they can eat and routinely going homeless or living in appalling accommodation. Childhood poverty has soared under the Tories. Not acceptable in this day and age that children go to school hungry.
It's the inequality that is the issue. I imagine they will lose a lot of public sentiment with this story so the next few stories will spin how "frugal" the Royals are being because someone wore the same frock twice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You never answered the previous question re property .. do you own any? What gives you that right to it? Did the people you bought it off rightly own it in order ri sell it on .. etc etc ... in the same analogy ... it was "stolen" at some point so give it back now!!! "
By that rational - anything that has ever been stolen must be returned to the original owner?
So we need to give back our houses to ancient Celts? We are a country built on invasion after invasion - how do you work out who owned it originally.
Also what do you do about America, Australia, Africa etc etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You never answered the previous question re property .. do you own any? What gives you that right to it? Did the people you bought it off rightly own it in order ri sell it on .. etc etc ... in the same analogy ... it was "stolen" at some point so give it back now!!!
By that rational - anything that has ever been stolen must be returned to the original owner?
So we need to give back our houses to ancient Celts? We are a country built on invasion after invasion - how do you work out who owned it originally.
Also what do you do about America, Australia, Africa etc etc. "
Exactly my point |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the thing that makes people cross is the privilege afforded to some when for the last decade the country has been penalised under the Tory dogma of austerity
Hard to see people being awarded such extravagant privileges when families and children, often hard-working, are making routine visits to foodbanks just so they can eat and routinely going homeless or living in appalling accommodation. Childhood poverty has soared under the Tories. Not acceptable in this day and age that children go to school hungry.
It's the inequality that is the issue. I imagine they will lose a lot of public sentiment with this story so the next few stories will spin how "frugal" the Royals are being because someone wore the same frock twice."
I would then blame the people responsible for the state of the economy - the government ... and the people who voted them in - us.
By privilege of wealth I assume you are including those who have made their own fortunes and anyone who has inherited wealth? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The royal family bring in something like 22.4x more than they take. Also let’s not forget the royal yacht has had more business deals done than any office in the uk. That’s money that no one talks about as it can’t be proved. What can be proved is British business use it to get deals signed
But let’s all jump on the top headline, about 2.5 million. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the thing that makes people cross is the privilege afforded to some when for the last decade the country has been penalised under the Tory dogma of austerity
Hard to see people being awarded such extravagant privileges when families and children, often hard-working, are making routine visits to foodbanks just so they can eat and routinely going homeless or living in appalling accommodation. Childhood poverty has soared under the Tories. Not acceptable in this day and age that children go to school hungry.
It's the inequality that is the issue. I imagine they will lose a lot of public sentiment with this story so the next few stories will spin how "frugal" the Royals are being because someone wore the same frock twice."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of.
Yes but don’t underestimate the amount of money they bring in through tourism. I’ve worked in Japan, the US and Germany and the majority of high earners there love our royals and want to come to the UK to see them. That’s a lot of money as they don’t do Travelodge and McDonalds when they’re over here... "
They would still visit all the palaces etc. I agree the tax payer should not fund the house renovations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the thing that makes people cross is the privilege afforded to some when for the last decade the country has been penalised under the Tory dogma of austerity
Hard to see people being awarded such extravagant privileges when families and children, often hard-working, are making routine visits to foodbanks just so they can eat and routinely going homeless or living in appalling accommodation. Childhood poverty has soared under the Tories. Not acceptable in this day and age that children go to school hungry.
It's the inequality that is the issue. I imagine they will lose a lot of public sentiment with this story so the next few stories will spin how "frugal" the Royals are being because someone wore the same frock twice."
So basically it's jealously. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think the thing that makes people cross is the privilege afforded to some when for the last decade the country has been penalised under the Tory dogma of austerity
Hard to see people being awarded such extravagant privileges when families and children, often hard-working, are making routine visits to foodbanks just so they can eat and routinely going homeless or living in appalling accommodation. Childhood poverty has soared under the Tories. Not acceptable in this day and age that children go to school hungry.
It's the inequality that is the issue. I imagine they will lose a lot of public sentiment with this story so the next few stories will spin how "frugal" the Royals are being because someone wore the same frock twice.
So basically it's jealously."
It seems to be that primal instinct of "why should they have more than me... it's not fair" yes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If we look at it in the perspective of say employed and employer.
Say I earn X amount for my employer, and in return I receive say 25% of that from my employer as a wage. All good that’s how it works.
So say the royals work for the uk ( stay with me here ) and earn X amount for the uk, in return they get a wage ( yeah I know ) of again 25% ( made up I know ) dosent that seem fair ???
Let’s be happy the royals arnt self employed lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe...
Apologies if I have misunderstood what you where saying and taken it the wrong way. I thought you where saying my point was untrue.
Haha! No problem "
Thanks. I was just getting in the spirit of the forum by going off on a half cocked rant with a smidgeon of information.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe...
Apologies if I have misunderstood what you where saying and taken it the wrong way. I thought you where saying my point was untrue.
Haha! No problem
Thanks. I was just getting in the spirit of the forum by going off on a half cocked rant with a smidgeon of information. "
Stuff the half cocked bollox .. let them have it with both barrels and the side arm!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant!
Going off half clocked with a smidgeon of information and an axe to grind us what the forums are built on...
Tea
So what isn't true in what I have said? I notice you haven't posted any truths to get in the way of asserting your 'opinion', or grinding your axe...
Apologies if I have misunderstood what you where saying and taken it the wrong way. I thought you where saying my point was untrue.
Haha! No problem
Thanks. I was just getting in the spirit of the forum by going off on a half cocked rant with a smidgeon of information.
Stuff the half cocked bollox .. let them have it with both barrels and the side arm!!"
Jeeves, bring me my gun and release the hounds... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Same could be said about people who live in council houses and get new kitchens bathrooms new central heating systems etc etc yes I know they pay rent but some don’t the benefits pay for it so in a way we are paying for the millions of council tenants who get free repairs and upgrades just a thought
Absolutely, the difference being that the royals put back into the coffers, benefit dossers just take take take. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thanks. I was just getting in the spirit of the forum by going off on a half cocked rant with a smidgeon of information.
Stuff the half cocked bollox .. let them have it with both barrels and the side arm!!
Jeeves, bring me my gun and release the hounds... "
Tally-Ho old chaps - I have the artillery ready to give them a damn good pasting - fully cocked style! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the thing that makes people cross is the privilege afforded to some when for the last decade the country has been penalised under the Tory dogma of austerity
Hard to see people being awarded such extravagant privileges when families and children, often hard-working, are making routine visits to foodbanks just so they can eat and routinely going homeless or living in appalling accommodation. Childhood poverty has soared under the Tories. Not acceptable in this day and age that children go to school hungry.
It's the inequality that is the issue. I imagine they will lose a lot of public sentiment with this story so the next few stories will spin how "frugal" the Royals are being because someone wore the same frock twice.
So basically it's jealously.
It seems to be that primal instinct of "why should they have more than me... it's not fair" yes"
Sure does |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thanks. I was just getting in the spirit of the forum by going off on a half cocked rant with a smidgeon of information.
Stuff the half cocked bollox .. let them have it with both barrels and the side arm!!
Jeeves, bring me my gun and release the hounds...
Tally-Ho old chaps - I have the artillery ready to give them a damn good pasting - fully cocked style!"
Dammit ... where's my bag man!! I need a G&T to steady my aim |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates???
Do you own property?
What gives you the right to that property?
Estates passed stern through generations.. or shall we take it all back because William the conqueror nicked it in 1066???
Incidentally yes I know it's not the same family ... just making a point "
Although tongue-in-cheek, your post has a ring of possibility to it. In a time where various cultures are receiving reparations for historic wrongs - Native American, Aboriginal, Maori etc is there not a valid case for Anglo-Saxons? Historically, the Normans enslaved the indigenous peoples of Britain, stole their land and wealth etc and eventually Britain ended up with the incumbent Royal Family inheriting all that stolen wealth.
I have many friends who visit Britain but they come for the history, the buildings, the culture and the museums. They count themselves lucky if they see a Royal person, but as their schedules usually aren't advertised, they rarely see them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of.
Due to various reports each one of us pays per year between 85p - £1.50 in tax that helps the royal family
The amount the royal family brings in works out at approximately £1.8 billion a year to our economy.
Not a particular fan of the royal family, but are they worth having ? Fucking hell yes"
Well done that man |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of.
Due to various reports each one of us pays per year between 85p - £1.50 in tax that helps the royal family
The amount the royal family brings in works out at approximately £1.8 billion a year to our economy.
Not a particular fan of the royal family, but are they worth having ? Fucking hell yes
Well done that man "
I agree. And I am a fan of the royal family. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates???
Do you own property?
What gives you the right to that property?
Estates passed stern through generations.. or shall we take it all back because William the conqueror nicked it in 1066???
Incidentally yes I know it's not the same family ... just making a point
Although tongue-in-cheek, your post has a ring of possibility to it. In a time where various cultures are receiving reparations for historic wrongs - Native American, Aboriginal, Maori etc is there not a valid case for Anglo-Saxons? Historically, the Normans enslaved the indigenous peoples of Britain, stole their land and wealth etc and eventually Britain ended up with the incumbent Royal Family inheriting all that stolen wealth.
I have many friends who visit Britain but they come for the history, the buildings, the culture and the museums. They count themselves lucky if they see a Royal person, but as their schedules usually aren't advertised, they rarely see them."
How would you identify an “indigenous” person from Britain? Pre-Norman, pre-Saxon, pre-roman? How about pre-historic when the first homo-sapiens crossed over when we were still attached to the continent?
The premise of returning seized land has merit but the practicality is fundamentally flawed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *_RiderMan
over a year ago
Shrewsbury |
To add to what's already mentioned, the Royals don't own any of their buildings. They are allowed to live in them. Technically the state owns them. Remember the fire at Windsor Castle in 1992 that cost the taxpayer 36.5 million? The reason the taxpayer paid it is because it belongs to us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To add to what's already mentioned, the Royals don't own any of their buildings. They are allowed to live in them. Technically the state owns them. Remember the fire at Windsor Castle in 1992 that cost the taxpayer 36.5 million? The reason the taxpayer paid it is because it belongs to us."
Not entirely true ... the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham for a start ... Charles owns Highgrove... etc etc etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
"
Have you actually read back that shite?
Do you really think the royal family have created their wealth from a long history of doing an extra paper round or grafing on a building site- or could it actually be from centuries of taxing the population on anything its been possible to get away with at the time- including the luxury of windows to keep the cold out.
Not to mention the many wars undertaken, where the 'lower classes' were sent off to war without any choice to be maimed and killed, yet any spoils immediately went to the head of state/tresury (if you were really luck you got a piece of shiny metal on a ribbon and 'well done!' from someone who fought from behind a desk as he went to the right school). Lets not mention that the Queen didn't pay tax on her massive weatlth until sometime in the 80's
The royals didn't exactly 'donate' their estates either, most of them seem to have been in a sorry ass state of repair, so the public were given the pleasure of owning them,fixing them, not being able to actually go to them and they family get a nice rent free gaff in prime real estate...i'm guessing they don't shop at Argos & Carpetright when it needs a tart up either?
The joys of having a state funded press office and very powerful friends is you can trumpet how great you are quite easily and hide those little indescretions (That story of Prince Andrew being close pals with a suspected paedophile seemd to disappear a lot quicker than the Julian Asange/Edward Snowden stories ) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Oaps loose their free tv license and we have to pay the richest family in the country to do their house up. Good to see we have our priorities right ???????? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am not a fan of the Royals and i do know that Mountain Rescue callouts more than trebled when William was SAR as people hoped he would be sent out in to “rescue” them.
Also with all the costs of security etc they could of trained and had three pilots for the price of William.
I could go on about many things which seem to take the proverbial piss.
I will say at least a lot of Royals serve in our armed forces and i doubt many PM’s or frontbenchers would be keen to see their children do the same.
I will say the money raised for charities they are patrons of and the money raised by tourists wanting to see them etc does far outweigh what is given by the taxpayer.
LJ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oaps loose their free tv license and we have to pay the richest family in the country to do their house up. Good to see we have our priorities right ???????? "
We pay Jim Ratcliffe's (Ineos chemicals) TV license???
I'm outraged!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates???
Do you own property?
What gives you the right to that property?
Estates passed stern through generations.. or shall we take it all back because William the conqueror nicked it in 1066???
Incidentally yes I know it's not the same family ... just making a point
Although tongue-in-cheek, your post has a ring of possibility to it. In a time where various cultures are receiving reparations for historic wrongs - Native American, Aboriginal, Maori etc is there not a valid case for Anglo-Saxons? Historically, the Normans enslaved the indigenous peoples of Britain, stole their land and wealth etc and eventually Britain ended up with the incumbent Royal Family inheriting all that stolen wealth.
I have many friends who visit Britain but they come for the history, the buildings, the culture and the museums. They count themselves lucky if they see a Royal person, but as their schedules usually aren't advertised, they rarely see them.
How would you identify an “indigenous” person from Britain? Pre-Norman, pre-Saxon, pre-roman? How about pre-historic when the first homo-sapiens crossed over when we were still attached to the continent?
The premise of returning seized land has merit but the practicality is fundamentally flawed."
It's quite easy - markers from mitochondrial DNA found in Anglo-Saxon burials. Matching up on sites like Ancestry is as easy as spitting in a jar Just because Anglo-Saxon skins weren't black, doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates???
Do you own property?
What gives you the right to that property?
Estates passed stern through generations.. or shall we take it all back because William the conqueror nicked it in 1066???
Incidentally yes I know it's not the same family ... just making a point
Although tongue-in-cheek, your post has a ring of possibility to it. In a time where various cultures are receiving reparations for historic wrongs - Native American, Aboriginal, Maori etc is there not a valid case for Anglo-Saxons? Historically, the Normans enslaved the indigenous peoples of Britain, stole their land and wealth etc and eventually Britain ended up with the incumbent Royal Family inheriting all that stolen wealth.
I have many friends who visit Britain but they come for the history, the buildings, the culture and the museums. They count themselves lucky if they see a Royal person, but as their schedules usually aren't advertised, they rarely see them.
How would you identify an “indigenous” person from Britain? Pre-Norman, pre-Saxon, pre-roman? How about pre-historic when the first homo-sapiens crossed over when we were still attached to the continent?
The premise of returning seized land has merit but the practicality is fundamentally flawed.
It's quite easy - markers from mitochondrial DNA found in Anglo-Saxon burials. Matching up on sites like Ancestry is as easy as spitting in a jar Just because Anglo-Saxon skins weren't black, doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made."
But Anglo Saxon aren't necessarily "indigenous" ... clue is Saxon ... saxony ... southern Germany
But we're splitting heirs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates???
Do you own property?
What gives you the right to that property?
Estates passed stern through generations.. or shall we take it all back because William the conqueror nicked it in 1066???
Incidentally yes I know it's not the same family ... just making a point
Although tongue-in-cheek, your post has a ring of possibility to it. In a time where various cultures are receiving reparations for historic wrongs - Native American, Aboriginal, Maori etc is there not a valid case for Anglo-Saxons? Historically, the Normans enslaved the indigenous peoples of Britain, stole their land and wealth etc and eventually Britain ended up with the incumbent Royal Family inheriting all that stolen wealth.
I have many friends who visit Britain but they come for the history, the buildings, the culture and the museums. They count themselves lucky if they see a Royal person, but as their schedules usually aren't advertised, they rarely see them.
How would you identify an “indigenous” person from Britain? Pre-Norman, pre-Saxon, pre-roman? How about pre-historic when the first homo-sapiens crossed over when we were still attached to the continent?
The premise of returning seized land has merit but the practicality is fundamentally flawed.
It's quite easy - markers from mitochondrial DNA found in Anglo-Saxon burials. Matching up on sites like Ancestry is as easy as spitting in a jar Just because Anglo-Saxon skins weren't black, doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made.
But Anglo Saxon aren't necessarily "indigenous" ... clue is Saxon ... saxony ... southern Germany
But we're splitting heirs "
Splitting heirs!! Love that.
But....let’s have a meritocratic society and do away with this privilege eh? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates???
Do you own property?
What gives you the right to that property?
Estates passed stern through generations.. or shall we take it all back because William the conqueror nicked it in 1066???
Incidentally yes I know it's not the same family ... just making a point
Although tongue-in-cheek, your post has a ring of possibility to it. In a time where various cultures are receiving reparations for historic wrongs - Native American, Aboriginal, Maori etc is there not a valid case for Anglo-Saxons? Historically, the Normans enslaved the indigenous peoples of Britain, stole their land and wealth etc and eventually Britain ended up with the incumbent Royal Family inheriting all that stolen wealth.
I have many friends who visit Britain but they come for the history, the buildings, the culture and the museums. They count themselves lucky if they see a Royal person, but as their schedules usually aren't advertised, they rarely see them.
How would you identify an “indigenous” person from Britain? Pre-Norman, pre-Saxon, pre-roman? How about pre-historic when the first homo-sapiens crossed over when we were still attached to the continent?
The premise of returning seized land has merit but the practicality is fundamentally flawed.
It's quite easy - markers from mitochondrial DNA found in Anglo-Saxon burials. Matching up on sites like Ancestry is as easy as spitting in a jar Just because Anglo-Saxon skins weren't black, doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made.
But Anglo Saxon aren't necessarily "indigenous" ... clue is Saxon ... saxony ... southern Germany
But we're splitting heirs
Splitting heirs!! Love that.
But....let’s have a meritocratic society and do away with this privilege eh?"
If I move up the hierarchy with my humour ... the why not I'm in Haha |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Have you actually read back that shite?
Do you really think the royal family have created their wealth from a long history of doing an extra paper round or grafing on a building site- or could it actually be from centuries of taxing the population on anything its been possible to get away with at the time- including the luxury of windows to keep the cold out.
Not to mention the many wars undertaken, where the 'lower classes' were sent off to war without any choice to be maimed and killed, yet any spoils immediately went to the head of state/tresury (if you were really luck you got a piece of shiny metal on a ribbon and 'well done!' from someone who fought from behind a desk as he went to the right school). Lets not mention that the Queen didn't pay tax on her massive weatlth until sometime in the 80's
The royals didn't exactly 'donate' their estates either, most of them seem to have been in a sorry ass state of repair, so the public were given the pleasure of owning them,fixing them, not being able to actually go to them and they family get a nice rent free gaff in prime real estate...i'm guessing they don't shop at Argos & Carpetright when it needs a tart up either?
The joys of having a state funded press office and very powerful friends is you can trumpet how great you are quite easily and hide those little indescretions (That story of Prince Andrew being close pals with a suspected paedophile seemd to disappear a lot quicker than the Julian Asange/Edward Snowden stories )"
I have, have you read your's back? Windows to keep out the cold? Have a think about what you are saying and you may realise how stupid it is.
I'll bet if your(or anyones) family history was investigated there would be some horrible actions taken. Does that make you a cunt who should be stripped of all assets and respect?
Do you pay more tax than you have to?
Do you have proof of your allegations, or are you just repeating what some press office/website/bloke down the pub thinks? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Fuck them all and as they keep knocking out chavies...the bills just get bigger and bigger....wankers all of them ...great to see there carbon emissions only went up by almost 100% and then they preach about climate change ...again wankers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the thing that makes people cross is the privilege afforded to some when for the last decade the country has been penalised under the Tory dogma of austerity
Hard to see people being awarded such extravagant privileges when families and children, often hard-working, are making routine visits to foodbanks just so they can eat and routinely going homeless or living in appalling accommodation. Childhood poverty has soared under the Tories. Not acceptable in this day and age that children go to school hungry.
It's the inequality that is the issue. I imagine they will lose a lot of public sentiment with this story so the next few stories will spin how "frugal" the Royals are being because someone wore the same frock twice.
So basically it's jealously.
It seems to be that primal instinct of "why should they have more than me... it's not fair" yes"
Not exactly- more how we try to create a more fair and equal society that takes care of everyone.
Gandhi said a society should be judged on how it takes care of those least able to care for themselves- that sounds like a noble ideal to me.
The Royals should reflect the society they purportedly serve or stop with the faux ‘we are just normal people making do’ - they are hugely privileged, what is shown in public is a tiny fraction of their advantages. Fairness and equality, that’s all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Why is it theirs though? It’s ours!! What gives them the right to those estates???
Do you own property?
What gives you the right to that property?
Estates passed stern through generations.. or shall we take it all back because William the conqueror nicked it in 1066???
Incidentally yes I know it's not the same family ... just making a point
Although tongue-in-cheek, your post has a ring of possibility to it. In a time where various cultures are receiving reparations for historic wrongs - Native American, Aboriginal, Maori etc is there not a valid case for Anglo-Saxons? Historically, the Normans enslaved the indigenous peoples of Britain, stole their land and wealth etc and eventually Britain ended up with the incumbent Royal Family inheriting all that stolen wealth.
I have many friends who visit Britain but they come for the history, the buildings, the culture and the museums. They count themselves lucky if they see a Royal person, but as their schedules usually aren't advertised, they rarely see them.
How would you identify an “indigenous” person from Britain? Pre-Norman, pre-Saxon, pre-roman? How about pre-historic when the first homo-sapiens crossed over when we were still attached to the continent?
The premise of returning seized land has merit but the practicality is fundamentally flawed.
It's quite easy - markers from mitochondrial DNA found in Anglo-Saxon burials. Matching up on sites like Ancestry is as easy as spitting in a jar Just because Anglo-Saxon skins weren't black, doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made.
But Anglo Saxon aren't necessarily "indigenous" ... clue is Saxon ... saxony ... southern Germany
But we're splitting heirs "
Should that not be splitting herrs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the thing that makes people cross is the privilege afforded to some when for the last decade the country has been penalised under the Tory dogma of austerity
Hard to see people being awarded such extravagant privileges when families and children, often hard-working, are making routine visits to foodbanks just so they can eat and routinely going homeless or living in appalling accommodation. Childhood poverty has soared under the Tories. Not acceptable in this day and age that children go to school hungry.
It's the inequality that is the issue. I imagine they will lose a lot of public sentiment with this story so the next few stories will spin how "frugal" the Royals are being because someone wore the same frock twice.
So basically it's jealously.
It seems to be that primal instinct of "why should they have more than me... it's not fair" yes
Not exactly- more how we try to create a more fair and equal society that takes care of everyone.
Gandhi said a society should be judged on how it takes care of those least able to care for themselves- that sounds like a noble ideal to me.
The Royals should reflect the society they purportedly serve or stop with the faux ‘we are just normal people making do’ - they are hugely privileged, what is shown in public is a tiny fraction of their advantages. Fairness and equality, that’s all."
I would love to know how many of the anti royal contingency would find it fair to be treated equally to how they would treat the royals.
Parents leave you a house? Sorry you don't need it, we are taking it off you to give to a homeless person.
Boiler broke in your rented house? Sorry, you can afford a new TV so you can pay for the boiler.
Your grandma didn't pay more tax than she had to. Sorry, you are out on your arse and labeled scum to boot.
You served your country in the army. Sorry, nobody gives a shit.
Etc, etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ocbigMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of.
Yes but don’t underestimate the amount of money they bring in through tourism. I’ve worked in Japan, the US and Germany and the majority of high earners there love our royals and want to come to the UK to see them. That’s a lot of money as they don’t do Travelodge and McDonalds when they’re over here... "
..but sir...honestly? These tourists pay money to see the queen? Do they get to? Unlikely isn't it? They pay to see the palaces, castles & pageantry etc all of which would happen if we abolished the monarchy or let them self finance...more so if they self financed probably, the Royal Family PLC.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of.
Yes but don’t underestimate the amount of money they bring in through tourism. I’ve worked in Japan, the US and Germany and the majority of high earners there love our royals and want to come to the UK to see them. That’s a lot of money as they don’t do Travelodge and McDonalds when they’re over here... ..but sir...honestly? These tourists pay money to see the queen? Do they get to? Unlikely isn't it? They pay to see the palaces, castles & pageantry etc all of which would happen if we abolished the monarchy or let them self finance...more so if they self financed probably, the Royal Family PLC.."
But they do self finance as has been explained above. The surplus is put back into the treasury. The tax payer is in profit by hundreds of millions as a result. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'd really like to see how these moaners would react if instead of taxing our taxes. The royal family decided that instead, they will keep all the money they generate, anything with any of their faces on become copyrighted, the queen takes all the money that the crown estate makes, not just 15%, the government no longer gets the huge percentage they take of any of the earnings and the royal family keep it for themselves. They also decide to take a percentage of the nearly £2 billion they produce in tourism each year.
Now, they get all this, and you get to keep the 69 pence it costs you each year to support them.
Sixty nine fucking pence
Get over yourselves"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'd really like to see how these moaners would react if instead of taxing our taxes. The royal family decided that instead, they will keep all the money they generate, anything with any of their faces on become copyrighted, the queen takes all the money that the crown estate makes, not just 15%, the government no longer gets the huge percentage they take of any of the earnings and the royal family keep it for themselves. They also decide to take a percentage of the nearly £2 billion they produce in tourism each year.
Now, they get all this, and you get to keep the 69 pence it costs you each year to support them.
Sixty nine fucking pence
Get over yourselves
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is a bit odd that we pay for it don't you think? I don't think you'll find any of our names on the title deeds, and I can imagine what would happen if we popped round for a cup of tea.
I (Luke) find interest in the royals totally baffling. I think they are good for tourism but the idea of privileging them and putting them on a pedestal seems totally outdated to me - a relic of the past.
It used to be that royals stuck together and married between each other across Europe and created these dynasties that were thought of as somehow "other". In reality they are no more special than anybody else. What with marrying commoners and foreigners they are not even pretending to be any more.
What's the point of them? Tourism is the only thing I can think of.
Yes but don’t underestimate the amount of money they bring in through tourism. I’ve worked in Japan, the US and Germany and the majority of high earners there love our royals and want to come to the UK to see them. That’s a lot of money as they don’t do Travelodge and McDonalds when they’re over here... ..but sir...honestly? These tourists pay money to see the queen? Do they get to? Unlikely isn't it? They pay to see the palaces, castles & pageantry etc all of which would happen if we abolished the monarchy or let them self finance...more so if they self financed probably, the Royal Family PLC..
But they do self finance as has been explained above. The surplus is put back into the treasury. The tax payer is in profit by hundreds of millions as a result. "
This |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I didnt know about the sovereign grant and their profits put back into the crown. I bet the 'heirs' of the generation that signed that contract were delighted
I dont mind the whole tradition of them and if they self fund anyway, carry on.
No-one ever actually likes to digest facts and loves to be aghast that someone somewhere is sponging off them.
Except politicians of course, they really are scroungers  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I didnt know about the sovereign grant and their profits put back into the crown. I bet the 'heirs' of the generation that signed that contract were delighted
I dont mind the whole tradition of them and if they self fund anyway, carry on.
No-one ever actually likes to digest facts and loves to be aghast that someone somewhere is sponging off them.
Except politicians of course, they really are scroungers "
Every monarch on their coronation agrees to carry on the The Crown Estate and their contribution to the Treasury.
In a very similar way that every politician gets to vote on their own pay rise every year!  lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *upremexMan
over a year ago
liverpool. huyton. near yewtree |
I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals. "
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Two and a half million to renovate their house all funded by the taxpayer Oh how we love the royals....Makes your blood boil"
i have heard that they only live in a cottage so it couldnt have cost that much to do it up
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The royals may cost us,but what about Brexit!
3 years of f...ing about has cost the country Billions!
Everyone must agree the royals are better for us than parliament!"
I tried to read that but got sidetracked by those boobs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So, the Cambridges spend a fortune doing up several homes - this is Harry and Meghan's only residence - nothing said.
The Royal train cost £22,000 a trip: nothing said.
The Royal family racked up over £4.6m in travel last year: £416,000 on Charles and Camilla's trip to Cuba alone: nothing said.
Money spent on Harry's pad - which was due for renovation anyway and extra costs outside the agreed budget was paid for by the couple themselves gets headline news and vitriolic nasty comments.
Now why is that?"
Is it because he's ginger? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals.
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end. "
Hear hear, Prince William attended when an in law of ours was in an RTA it was so bad, he went and helped the injured, thank goodness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals.
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals.
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end.
"
Great profile |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals. "
If the other royals are sponging off each other, what’s the problem? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals.
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end.
Great profile "
Who, me?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals.
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end.
Great profile
Who, me? "
No steelheels |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
Liz and Phil must have had to tighten their belts when the bedroom tax was introduced ( have you seen how big Buck House is ??? ) and then last week they find out they are going to have to buy a TV licence  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"Liz and Phil must have had to tighten their belts when the bedroom tax was introduced ( have you seen how big Buck House is ??? ) and then last week they find out they are going to have to buy a TV licence "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals.
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end.
Great profile
Who, me?
No steelheels "
You’ve lost me  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals.
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end.
Great profile
Who, me?
No steelheels
You’ve lost me "
I was responding to 'Steelheels' telling them they have a great profile |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals.
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end.
Great profile
Who, me?
No steelheels
You’ve lost me
I was responding to 'Steelheels' telling them they have a great profile "
Oh bloody hell, I’m a muppet, soz |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
"So, the Cambridges spend a fortune doing up several homes - this is Harry and Meghan's only residence - nothing said.
The Royal train cost £22,000 a trip: nothing said.
The Royal family racked up over £4.6m in travel last year: £416,000 on Charles and Camilla's trip to Cuba alone: nothing said.
Money spent on Harry's pad - which was due for renovation anyway and extra costs outside the agreed budget was paid for by the couple themselves gets headline news and vitriolic nasty comments.
Now why is that?"
The Royals have been battered a lot on here over the years, I have seen them being battered on other social media too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So, the Cambridges spend a fortune doing up several homes - this is Harry and Meghan's only residence - nothing said.
The Royal train cost £22,000 a trip: nothing said.
The Royal family racked up over £4.6m in travel last year: £416,000 on Charles and Camilla's trip to Cuba alone: nothing said.
Money spent on Harry's pad - which was due for renovation anyway and extra costs outside the agreed budget was paid for by the couple themselves gets headline news and vitriolic nasty comments.
Now why is that?
The Royals have been battered a lot on here over the years, I have seen them being battered on other social media too. "
Ruggers, the stick these two get doesn't compare. Nothing written about Camilla and Charles come close. The Royal Knockout, Margaret and Roddy, Charles wanting to come back as Camilla's tampon, Diana and her lovers, the airing of the Wales's dirty laundry is survivable, but Harry marrying a mixed race woman is going to end the monarchy allegedly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Two and a half million to renovate their house all funded by the taxpayer Oh how we love the royals....Makes your blood boil"
If I let my feelings been known on that bunch of freeloading b@!#$%^ds I'd probably be barred from here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By * Plus ECouple
over a year ago
The South |
"The royals are funded from the sovereign grant. This is taken from the crown estate income.
The royal family have donated the profit from their estate, land holdings and investments to the UK and receives a percentage back as the sovereign grant. In effect the money we give them was theirs in the first place and far less than the money they give us.
Compare that with the church who are the biggest land/asset owner's, they give nothing back and always have their hand out for more. "
Let's not let the facts get in the way of anything.
M |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"I think we should pay for a queen or king" but not the rest of them. Let the rest get proper jobs and no tax payers money.They are just sponging of the state and the other royals.
You mean proper jobs like front line soldiering or flying apache helicopters in a war zone? Or flying RAF helicopters in various theatres or Air Ambulances maybe? The salary from the latter was donated to charity by the way. William and Harry have earned their keep in my book and only gave their careers up to concentrate on royal duties which benefit the country no end.
Great profile
Who, me?
No steelheels
You’ve lost me
I was responding to 'Steelheels' telling them they have a great profile
Oh bloody hell, I’m a muppet, soz"
But yours is good too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If I was the Queen’s PR person I’d be pointing out very publicly how much of that 82 million was spent on things like the Trump state visit.
It must be annoying as sin to get lambasted for how expensive you are when you just get told “oh btw you’re hosting USA/Spain/China for a state visit”
Same with the outrage over the cost of repairing Buckingham Palace and the Houses if Parliament - novel ideal, someone somewhere could have funded repairs little and often instead of letting it get to the point that plaster is falling from ceilings and the electrics are dangerous.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Boils my wee it does! Country is on its knees and we're paying all that for their home. Rant over "
We are not on our knees, do you live on Berwick estate? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
"So, the Cambridges spend a fortune doing up several homes - this is Harry and Meghan's only residence - nothing said.
The Royal train cost £22,000 a trip: nothing said.
The Royal family racked up over £4.6m in travel last year: £416,000 on Charles and Camilla's trip to Cuba alone: nothing said.
Money spent on Harry's pad - which was due for renovation anyway and extra costs outside the agreed budget was paid for by the couple themselves gets headline news and vitriolic nasty comments.
Now why is that?
The Royals have been battered a lot on here over the years, I have seen them being battered on other social media too.
Ruggers, the stick these two get doesn't compare. Nothing written about Camilla and Charles come close. The Royal Knockout, Margaret and Roddy, Charles wanting to come back as Camilla's tampon, Diana and her lovers, the airing of the Wales's dirty laundry is survivable, but Harry marrying a mixed race woman is going to end the monarchy allegedly.
"
I think the Royals have been battered enough by a lot of people, even before Meghan came along. I don't think it has anything to do with race, some people just hate the royals for whatever reason....and some people are just nasty to anyone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I love the Royal family and yes they get tax payers money but I think the instition is worth it.
I love them too "
I don't they can go fuck themselves. A good chance they already do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By * Plus ECouple
over a year ago
The South |
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?"
Don't come in here with your actual facts and common sense.
There's a lack of understanding, common sense and envy outrage to be had.
Orf wiv your cavalier head. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Don't come in here with your actual facts and common sense.
There's a lack of understanding, common sense and envy outrage to be had.
Orf wiv your cavalier head."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By * Plus ECouple
over a year ago
The South |
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Don't come in here with your actual facts and common sense.
There's a lack of understanding, common sense and envy outrage to be had.
Orf wiv your cavalier head.
"
Just checked to see if the thread was started on a Thursday.
It wasn't. 
M |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ocbigMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Don't come in here with your actual facts and common sense.
There's a lack of understanding, common sense and envy outrage to be had.
Orf wiv your cavalier head."
Great take down, if it is accurate & I haven't checked..just thinking critically, also one (see what I did there?) has to look at the property they 'own'..that is actually 'ours' not theirs, effectively Buck House is a council house, do they rent? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By * Plus ECouple
over a year ago
The South |
"Sovereign grant £82m
Crown estate profits paid to the treasury ... £343.5m
I make that just over £250m net to the treasury coffers
So ... they cost the taxpayer how?
Don't come in here with your actual facts and common sense.
There's a lack of understanding, common sense and envy outrage to be had.
Orf wiv your cavalier head.
Great take down, if it is accurate & I haven't checked..just thinking critically, also one (see what I did there?) has to look at the property they 'own'..that is actually 'ours' not theirs, effectively Buck House is a council house, do they rent?"
As another poster said "the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham, Charles owns Highgrove"
I'd hazard a guess and say the homes of other royals are either owned by them or are the property of the state.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Boils my wee it does! Country is on its knees and we're paying all that for their home. Rant over "
We’re not on our knees, it’s just that most of the cash doesn’t make it very far down the pyramid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is a distinction between The Queen (The person) and The Queen (The role). Queen Elizabeth privately owns Sandringham and Balmoral - and she pays for there upkeep personally.
The Crown Estate (A private corporation) manages Buckingham palace and various other royal residences. These properties are not owned by the royal family privately nor are they government properties, they are owned by the Monarchy. The revenue from them are given to the Treasury, after a percentage has been taken for their upkeep and mid ten events. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
