hippo girl 1,995 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Bently, Gary Harry ,Cambridge, prince of no one born to a woman from nowhere...... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
mudgie49 401 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 If the Royals were not around, the tourists would still visit England.They visit the country to see the history,not to have afternoon tea with 'Liz and her gang'. If the monarchy was abolished,the likes of the Tower of London,Buck house, Windsor castle,etc',would still bring in the visitors and their money. Link to post Share on other sites
Beefsteak 305 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 I don't want to fall out with any one, but my Mum always told me , "If you can't say something nice about someone, keep quiet" All you Oliver Cromwells out there, start your own thread to slag the wonderful royals off if you want, I promise I won't visit it and slag you or your beliefs off. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Beefsteak 305 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 If the Royals were not around, the tourists would still visit England.They visit the country to see the history,not to have afternoon tea with 'Liz and her gang'. If the monarchy was abolished,the likes of the Tower of London,Buck house, Windsor castle,etc',would still bring in the visitors and their money. And where, pray tell, would any of these items you mention be without the Royal family that built them in the first place ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Limey 242 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 To all the anti-royals who bitch about how much they cost - have you ever bothered to check? No, I thought not! The answer is: "In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid. For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas reported parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period. From 1 April 2012, the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid were replaced by a single Sovereign Grant. This will be £31 million for 2012/13, and 15% of the surplus generated by the Crown Estate for 2013/14 onwards. The changes were introduced by the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. The annual percentage-based amount will be calculated using the Crown Estate revenue from two years previously, and the arrangements will be reviewed by 2016 (subsection 7(5) of the Act)." So, as you can see, the Monarchy actually GENERATES money, and does not use any taxpayer funding at all! Now look at all the hotel rooms, food, transportation, etc. needed by tourists and it becomes obvious how beneficial the Royal Family is! Without them, England would be a poor country that NOBODY would visit - because all the news from there would certainly not help to generate any kind of interest in the place! I congratulate Will and Kate on their son - and hope he goes on to generate as much interest in Britain as his parents do! 4 Link to post Share on other sites
LizzieM 9,507 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Good post Limey and for all you lot who'd prefer a President to Royalty, put that in your pipe and smoke it !! Link to post Share on other sites
hippo girl 1,995 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Most of my generation, and all of the next couldn't care less about the royal family, it is in decline and only there for those who years ago would have gone to church .... Link to post Share on other sites
bamber 128 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Well, the way London has changed since Great-Granny Windsor ascended to the throne you have to wonder if, in sixty-or-so years time, there will be anyone in the city bothered enough to line the streets at his coronation. Even today the crowds don't reflect the reality of London. Link to post Share on other sites
NewBasfordlad 3,599 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Nothing like a good sweeping statement with no actual facts to back it up. To say the royal family is only for people of a certain age and churchgoers to boot shows a complete lack of mental capacity . If they are so irrelevant why are all the worlds media camped in London right now. Answer because the media knows beyond a doubt that most of the world are interested. Colin 2 Link to post Share on other sites
poohbear 1,360 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Without them, England would be a poor country that NOBODY would visit - because all the news from there would certainly not help to generate any kind of interest in the place! Rubbish...France gets millions of tourists every year without a bunch of leeches screwing the peasants for a bloody good living.And yes I know the alternatives are another load of jumped up arses living like Kings off the backs of the man in the street. Get the Queen to flog her stamp collection and give the proceeds to Cancer Research and I might look on them in a different light...but it's not gonna happen is it? They get born and they die just like the rest of us...but thanks to their privilege they get to do it a damn site easier and longer. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NewBasfordlad 3,599 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 What stamp collection the only one I know like most other treasure's aligned with royalty already belong to the state. They are the Queens in name only, just like the royal art collection she has no control over them what so ever. Like I said before big sweeping statements bugger all facts. Link to post Share on other sites
mudgie49 401 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Ian in answer to your posts,the tower of London and Windsor castle were built by a Frenchman,'William of Normandy',Buck house was built by a German.They were 'inherited'by the gang that followed. The building of all the'Norman' strongholds/castles, was carried out by the conquered English/Anglo Saxons, they were beaten, starved and worked to death.The dead were thrown into the trenches, that were dug for the 'footings' of the walls. The only thing the royals have built is a fortune. Add a few paintings with the stamp collection pooh,she has plenty. Link to post Share on other sites
StephenFord 866 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 I'm no great royalty-lover, and get a bit fed up with the hysterical hype of the Beeb about it all. Actually, I think Oliver Cromwell was an excellent head of state, and the next two monarchs, Charles II and James II were opinionated tyrants (in the case of Charles it is just possible that it was the Parliament who pulled his strings that were the opinionated tyrants). But those of you who are banging on about HM selling here stamp collection etc. don't appear to be engaging with the facts that Limey posted here a while back. Link to post Share on other sites
NewBasfordlad 3,599 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 The Queen actually owns two private house's Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House they are not publically funded. All the other residence's including Buckingham Palace (built by the Duke of Buckingham in 1705) are under the control of the Crown Estate an independent body answerable to the government of the day. This property portfolio is effectively leased to the Crown estate by the monarch on their ascension to the throne. Should say Charles decide not to renew the contract he will lose his civil list payments but would gain control of the Crown Estate portfolio valued at some 7 billion pounds. The Royal Art Collections are held in trust for the nation, effectively we own them. These are facts, you may not like them as they do not suit your twisted views but facts they remain. Link to post Share on other sites
poohbear 1,360 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 But those of you who are banging on about HM selling here stamp collection etc. don't appear to be engaging with the facts that Limey posted here a while back. 'Those of you'...meaning me.Who's banging on?...I'm stating my opinion. No matter what 'statistics' are stated on here...I'll bet I can find another set saying exactly the opposite.My opinions are mine ...not quoted from other sources. You don't agree?...fine...they are my opinions nobody elses. Kings and Queens and Gods and devils should be consigned to history...along with burning witches,heaven and hell and all the other mediaeval clap trap that was invented by the rich and powerful to keep the poor peasant poor and compliant. Link to post Share on other sites
mick2me 3,033 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 In a few years there will be only five kings in the world the King of England and the four kings in a pack of cards. King Farouk Link to post Share on other sites
NewBasfordlad 3,599 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Pooh as far as I am concerned you are welcome to have your opinions. They may not be factually correct and there is surely some green eyed envy in there. But they are your opinions and you are welcome to air them. Link to post Share on other sites
Beefsteak 305 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Anyway Cromwellians, thanks for staring your own thread to do your moaning in . And Mudgie............. precisely what I meant, they were built by the royal family, whether they were French , German , gingerpink with blue bloody spots on them , they were still OUR royal family who built them , and it is mostly their history that people come to see.! I mean have you ever seen a Japanese tourist at Cheddar Gorge for example, I haven't and I've been there loads of times. But I've seen thousands of them outside Buck house for 'changing the guard' or in Windsor Castle waving their union flags etc. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
catfan 14,793 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Another royal freeloader, in times of severe austerity where people are struggling to make ends meet, food banks springing up all over the place also the imposition of the so called bedroom tax crippling the poorest people in society, is obscene. The Queen, reputed to be the richest woman in the world should pay for the royal hangers on out of her vast wealth. Not sour grapes from me but enough is enough. Link to post Share on other sites
hippo girl 1,995 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Hero worship should be confined to the football pitch or one hit wonder boy band..... Link to post Share on other sites
poohbear 1,360 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Pooh as far as I am concerned you are welcome to have your opinions. They may not be factually correct and there is surely some green eyed envy in there. But they are your opinions and you are welcome to air them. Envy isn't the word...but the vast wealth and privilege should be distributed more fairly.Unfortunately history has proved, no matter under what system, there would always be a hierarchy looking after number one. Animal farm would just be under new management. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Beefsteak 305 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 OK , to put this into perspective, all I hear from the republicans is , 'I want them to give me some of their wealth, but I'm not jealous of them !' What a load of bollocks rubbish, I've never heard such a bunch of pathetic whingers as you lot . They were born into that position, they didn't steal it from anybody, and the last generations have done their best (Prince William is a good example here) of holding down two jobs, a real one and their public duties too.I can't hear any of you saying , "He should give up that dangerous job as a search and rescue pilot and do something a lot simpler , like being a social worker." or "That Prince Harry, should he really be a front line Apache pilot ?, on his third tour of duty in Afganistan, don't you think he'd be better off working in a shop?"Prince Charles has turned "The Dutchy of Cornwall Estate" into a multi million pound 'industry' (For want of a better word) paying millions in tax back into the economy, and it's very rare you hear a bad word said against him from the Cornish farmers. Believe me , I've spoken to quite a few of his tenants, and 95% of them are happy with 'their lot' It's time you lot of Cromwells got off of your arses and made your worlds better instead of sitting there grousing about how unfortunate you are with your lot in life. As many of you already know, I've been dealt more than my fair share of s41t in the past few years, but I've kept my chin up , shoulders back, nose to the grind stone, etc etc etc and got on with it, 'cause no matter how hard you moan , nobody gives a damn at the end of the day. 7 Link to post Share on other sites
LizzieM 9,507 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Well said Beefy. Link to post Share on other sites
mudgie49 401 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 I have never complained about my lot in life,like you Ian, I have had my share of health issues,keeping my 'chin up'and having a positive attitude,has helped in defeating the cancer I had. I am entitled to my opinion, and don't see why there should be a separate thread for us Cromwellians. It is obvious you have never read an in depth history of England and the usurpers who claimed the English throne in 1066.But then again the 'Normans' didn't have any military aircraft:) Link to post Share on other sites
jackson 301 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Beefy, absolutely Brilliant - a powerful piece of rhetoric @ #47 and what's more it made me laugh out loud too. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts