Is it time Get riddat' royal family

They finance themselves fully and then some

 

Not you though is it sweaty do us a favour and piss off along with that waste jimmy krankie

 

Those who want em can keep paying taxes towards em.. those who don't can pay less taxes ...
Seems fair ..

 

Alternatively, get rid of them and those that want rid can pick up the £36 billion hole left behind from the tourism.

I doubt there will be the same levels of tourism if Buckingham Palace becomes a giant Lidl.

(numbers from here: http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-q...-family-contribution-to-the-uk-economy-2015-9 )

 

Indeed. Tourists pay for it and then some.

 

So what is the difference in principle to the royals and union officials getting paid when us poor buggers were out on strike getting bugger all !!

 

Didn't we all?

 

I'm not particularly a Royalist but I don't think the system has served us badly from a political point of view...I'd rather have HM Queen than President Thatcher, Blair, Cameron et
al.

 

The monarchy is paid for out of the crown estate, not taxes. I'm sure some people are for seizing people's private property, but that's because they didn't do well at school. Personally I like the Royals, good ambassadors for the country who can provide patronage for causes that may otherwise go overlooked. Prince Harry and his invictus games for example. A life of luxury in exchange for the public service they provide. I'm fine with the trade.

 

Damn right.

Those that want them gone are the ones that don't understand how the royal family works and operates.

 

Buckingham Palace would make for a cracking Wetherspoons.

 

That revenue wouldn't disappear, in fact it might increase as you could open up the entirety of Buckingham Palace etc. to visitors. 6 million people visit Versailles every year compared to 400-500k for Buckingham Palace.

 

No, some of us want them gone on an ideological basis. I feel that a modern democratic society should, in general, promote a meritocratic attitude towards life. Having someone be the head of state simply due to accident of birth cuts right across that.

 

Of course it is. A daft anachronism fed by the gutter press. Novocaine for the soul. No money for nurses but enough to do Buck House up. Time to reassess our priorities.

 

I agree. But can I extend this to most other benefit scroungers, all foreign aid and projects I don't agree with.
I'll be rich I tells ya. Well, not as skint anyway.

 

IN addition the modern royals are less aloof. I could have sworn Harry and William served in the forces and William has worked as an air sea rescue pilot Harry doing tours in Afghanistan more than some of the t*ssers on here berating them have ever done.
It is an unfair world -get over it. Whilst some of the family on the periphery are apparently a waste of space or arrogant and 'entitled' (Andrew? people like the Queen who worked until recently age 90 ) and Anne who still does a lot of unpublicised work (patronage of charities etc is essential as most will tell you) have lived lived that are not their own. Personally I would not have swapped with either of them genuinely. They have a life of privilege but huge responsibility

Ah! the usual bitter left wing clique on here showing their true colours , lack on knowledge how the royals are funded, the revenue they generate, the work most of them do ,the jealousy and bitterness , stupidity and ignorance oozing from each negative left wing post a la Citizen Smith. Too many on here talk about rights and not responsibilities. They seem to believe the world owes them a living and like true Socialists its not fair.

PS They need not bother responding to this as I can't be ars*d responding to such a bunch of wasters

 

This is a good watch if you have the time....

 

I think Harvey Barnes is doing OK, but I must admit I miss seeing Adam Hammill beating a couple of players, doing 274 step overs, cutting infield and curling one into the top corner.

 

If you think Harry was ever anywhere near combat then you're having a laugh. It was one big PR exercise. In any event, he'd still be free to enter the RAF if he wasn't royalty - the fact he was supposedly a pilot isn't really an argument for the continuation of the monarchy.

Huge responsibility? Aye, it must be awful having to visit foreign countries in complete luxury and occasionally wave. My heart bleeds.

The rest of your post is quite bizarre. I don't think the world owes me a living - I don't understand why anyone who is left wing or dislikes the royals must be necessarily be poor, jealous and bitter. Some people just have genuine compassion for those less fortunate than themselves and think that society should promote the ideals of equality and fairness. Having a monarch as our head of state upholds the ridiculous and anachronistic view that some people are born better than others.

 

Actually it wouldn't. A parallel to the Queen and tourism, which, in some posters views on this thread is 'parasitic ' relationship is the Pope and the Vatican. (I am not Catholic by the way) The latest Pope dislikes ostentatious living and refuses to use the Summer Palace situated a few miles outside Rome and a short hop by private helicopter. The small town where it is located used to be crammed full in summer with tourists from all over the world hoping to catch a view of the Pope. When he stopped going, the revenue and livelihoods for many restaurants cafe's and shops collapsed. He Therefore turned it into a museum and opened it to the public. It has been successful but the town, I am told still does not have the revenue it used to have when the palace was occupied in the summer months.

Buck Palace (which is crumbling behind the facade) needs huge amounts of cash to renovate and then maintain as do all the all the Heritage sites like Windsor Palace, Sandringham Balmoral and their working Estates (The crown Estates which is a business, employs many people). Unless people want to sweep away centuries of history and like some muppet on here (unless it was a joke) turn Buck House into an apartment block then removal of the Monarchy would not generate any income for the country. Indeed, as soemone pointed out it would actually lose income as tourism would suffer. The British monarchy, rightly or wrongly is held in high esteem by many countries in the world

Apparently, the official figure is around 62 pence per person per year to maintain the Monarchy. Not exactly an excuse for revolution is it?.