Royal family

[Mad Cyril]

That's the equivalent of 61p per taxpayer.

I could have bought a cheap can of lager for that and received much better value for money.

Get rid of these parasites.

Now!

 

[C C Csiders]

Can I have my money back please.

 

[overseas shrimper]

I still can't work out whether you are pro - or anti - Royal.

 

[rabbloke]

I am not sure how it can be equated that The Royal family costs us anything. Firstly they produce more than 37m in tourism etc and the work many of them do on behalf of the nation and industry is exceptional. Of course they have one or two members of the family that are less than necessary but then don't we all? They are living tradition and history, something I value and appreciate and I know that if they were buildings they would be listed but as people they can be knocked down. Anyhow, does anyone really believe a President would be any cheaper to run or do anything like as much for the country? God save the Queen!

 

[Guest]

It's only 61p - not that I pay tax anyway

Certainly a more interesting setup than a republic with a president, the Royals give our country a continuing tradition, and are a big attraction to tourists - in my travels around the globe so far a lot of native people I meet speak about them. I wouldn't get rid of them.

 

[Firestorm]

I question the tourist revenue bit...

Do the tourists go to see Buckingham palace to see the queen ? if so how come they go all year round when she is hardly there ?

The building would still be there without the royals and vistors would still want to see it.

When the taxpayer normally pays for a thicko to get help with his painting,his uncle to spend all year playing golf, another one gets a flash wedding to a distant relative paid by the state, there is uproar about how these people (normally incorrectly called illegal immigrants) are fleecing the country.

And they are Part German, Part Greek.

Line em up I say....

 

[sufcintheprem]

One pint of Nasty at the Union probably pays my 61p's worth of tax.

I can guarantee that the royal family have done more good for both myself and society as a whole than any pint of nasty I've bought all year*


*Excluding pints of nasty I have bought for others which sometimes result positively.

 

[perth shrimper]

As soon as Australia becomes a republic the better.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

So how much do incarcerating rapists or muderers cost us per year?? If we want to save money we should bring back the death sentence. Then the Queen could earn her living by deciding whether to kill them or send them to that convict colony down under.

 

[rabbloke]

Quote[/b] (perth shrimper @ June 23 2005,06:44)]As soon as Australia becomes a republic the better.

That comment smacks of the Americans Independence day. They celebrate getting free from us but have yet to realise we celebrate getting shot of them. Both America and Australia owe the UK a huge debt of gratitude and though they are not obliged to recognise OUR Queen at least she only has one face to remember unlike Bush or the short memoried bushmen.

 

[RobM.]

Of course royalty do a lot for charity. So would I if I didn't have to work, cook, iron, hoover etc. Bloody parasites the lot of them.:angry:

 

[chaco27saf]

Why do we owe Britain anything? The way I see it a lot of English moved to the new world, set up some colonies, got angry becuase of taxation without representation, rebelled, won, and then well over a hundred years later helped you win both World Wars.

If anything you owe us something.

 

[sufcintheprem]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ June 23 2005,10:55)]well over a hundred years later helped you win both World Wars.

Just highlighted a couple of words there.

Somehow I don't think Messrs Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini would have been content to sit on their large empires with a considerable US thorn in their sides. Perhaps if there was American support from the beginning, many lives could have been saved...

 

[Guest]

Quote[/b] (perth shrimper @ June 23 2005,06:44)]As soon as Australia becomes a republic the better.

Well, Australians did vote against it last time they had a referendum on the matter...!

 

[chaco27saf]

Quote[/b] (sufcintheprem @ June 23 2005,11:01)]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ June 23 2005,10:55)]well over a hundred years later helped you win both World Wars.

Just highlighted a couple of words there.

Somehow I don't think Messrs Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini would have been content to sit on their large empires with a considerable US thorn in their sides.  Perhaps if there was American support from the beginning, many lives could have been saved...

I actually wasn't trying to start an argument here. Several months ago we actually had this debate about why the USA didn't enter either World War at their beginnings. So here are a few quick points hopefully so we can avoid a long debate on this (but if anyone wants to start arguing about this go ahead and start a new thread so he don't hijack this one, I'm bored and could use something to do.

)

-WWI was a European conflict that only started becuase of the network of alliances that had devolped throughout Europe. American justification for entering this war was always a bit sketchy. The only reason we entered the war was because our oldest ally (France) and one of our newest allies (Britain) needed our help to break the deadlock of the war.

-WWII was a very different situation from WWI, since this time there was definitely a good vs. evil situation. However, this was not known immediately in the states, and since WWI was still fresh in the memories of Americans, they wanted to avoid entering what was seen as another European conflict. Once the pure evil of Hitler became more apparent FDR did everything he could to support the allies, but the American population was still against entering another war. However, Pearl Harbor changed all of that.

 

[sufcintheprem]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ June 23 2005,11:23)]-WWII was a very different situation from WWI, since this time there was definitely a good vs. evil situation. However, this was not known immediately in the states, and since WWI was still fresh in the memories of Americans, they wanted to avoid entering what was seen as another European conflict. Once the pure evil of Hitler became more apparent FDR did everything he could to support the allies, but the American population was still against entering another war. However, Pearl Harbor changed all of that.

I should have pointed out that I was referring exclusively to II. Quite how the US wasn't aware of the situation that was arising in the early stages is quite astounding as I considered us to be very slow to react to the growing and fairly ostentatious German threat. It's funny, in a way, how the American population always seem to hold an anti-war stance and yet they have still allowed their country to be involved in, if not a main protagonist in, almost all of the major conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries.

In stark contrast, a nation like France would never be able to sustain a war for any amount of time if the population were against it.

But, like you say, we're getting off the point of the royal family a bit.

In some respects, I quite like having a royal family in place but for no reason other than sentimentality. The ridiculous Sun 'scoop' about smuggling a fake bomb in to Sandhurst seemed to bring home the significance of the royal family in much the same way as Diana's death. Granted, it's a sad day when they die but why do they deserve so much more attention than anyone else who may have died much more tragically?

Perhaps to draw a comparison, I also couldn't help but get annoyed by some of the coverage (notably Radio 1) gave when Kylie got cancer. Yes, it is a good chance to make young people aware of the perils of cancer but why treat it like a national disaster when other women are being diagnosed with cancer every day?

 

[Firestorm]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ June 23 2005,10:55)]Why do we owe Britain anything?  The way I see it a lot of English moved to the new world, set up some colonies, got angry becuase of taxation without representation, rebelled, won, and then well over a hundred years later helped you win both World Wars.

If anything you owe us something.

Don't forget the bits where you annihilated an indigenous population,, dropped the worlds most powerful weapon of Mass destruction on a defenceless city (then did it again a few weeks later). Then gave the rest of the world MacDonalds and Mccauley Caulkin

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ June 23 2005,14:31)]... Then gave the rest of the world...

... Mccauley Caulkin  

Seth, he's got you there. Surely there's no excuse the USA can draw on for this crime against humanity?

 

[chaco27saf]

Surely Macauly Culkin is better than what Canada gave the world, a certain Celine Dion

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ June 23 2005,11:23)]The only reason we entered the war was because our oldest ally (France) needed our help...

I always thought you lot kept questionable company...