The True Cost of the Royal Family

[giblets]

Guess we're turning over all land in the US to the American Indians.

Yes, because we're all paid ludicrous amounts of money for doing nothing like the queen.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes, because we're all paid ludicrous amounts of money for doing nothing like the queen.

But our individual holdings aren't generating annual profits of 230 million pounds to the US Treasury.

[giblets]

But our individual holdings aren't generating annual profits of 230 million pounds to the US Treasury.

We pay a lot more than that in taxes. Most Americans are useful, although I think you, like the Queen, don't have a job.

[Dinner]

I believe the Queen has a government job.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, because we're all paid ludicrous amounts of money for doing nothing like the queen.

Well, the Native Americans definitely are.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh look. I wonder why that video completely fails to mention every single one of the financial benefits given to the Royal Family purely because of their birth?

Pop quiz of the day (multiple choice).

Q- Could the Royal Family have afforded to pay the Inheritance Tax liabilities on the death of the Queen Mother in 2002 had they been treated as ordinary UK citizens? Bear in mind that this would have taken into account all the Royal Estates and other possessions?

1- No.
2- Hell, no.
3- **** no. Are you kidding?
4- Ahahahahahahahahahahaahaa. No.

Next question will focus on why the Prince of Wales enjoys such extraordinary exemptions on his business ventures, why the Duchy of Cornwall pays no business taxes, why he only pays income tax at the lower rate, and why the Royal Art Collection is treated as a public asset when only the Queen has access to them.

[Provost Harrison]

People always give the tourism argument but, let us be honest, no one comes over to catch up with Lizzie do they...it's about the culture and the sights. I don't think abolishing the monarchy would have any effect on our tourism. As a head of state, I will say Elizabeth II has been very effectiveand is experienced, but after her, do we really want to continue this media circus?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

As a head of state, I will say Elizabeth II has been very effective and

Has she? She came to the throne at the very peak of public affection for the Royals in the 20th century, but has spent a lot of time since being much less popular. I think we've just seen far too many state visits featuring Lizzie scowling grumpily.

[Dinner]

Without the royals the tabloids, which make up the backbone of the British economy along with Subway franchises, would go bust.

[Uncle Sparky]

But our individual holdings aren't generating annual profits of 230 million pounds to the US Treasury.

It would take under a million Americans to equal 230 million pounds.

[Barnabas]

If the inhabitants of that land did not consider the dickhead to be stealing any land, and agreed that the descendants of the dickhead should continue having control of those lands, then the Crown stole nothing. Centuries ago the regular person was not against monarchy.

[Dr Strangelove]

Doesn't the monarchy own a big tract of land in London which they still manage themselves? I recall watching a documentary on the royals years ago in which Prince Andrew was shown managing the rentals on the property. IIRC the area is one of the most expensive residential districts in London (Whitehall? Kensington?) I assumed that the profits from those rentals went directly to the royal family.

[PLATO]

I think that anyone who doesn't recognize the value of the monarchy to the UK is just daft. All I have to say on the matter...

[C0ckney]

we still have a monarchy because by and large the british people support the institution, much to the annoyance of republicans.

from the guardian

More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying.

here's also a strong shared national belief that the monarchy is something that improves Britain's image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way.

.....

More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy's place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite.

There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana's death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than now. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static.

67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month's poll.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If the inhabitants of that land did not consider the dickhead to be stealing any land, and agreed that the descendants of the dickhead should continue having control of those lands, then the Crown stole nothing. Centuries ago the regular person was not against monarchy.

That's a charming notion. Have you ever read an English history book?

This is William the Bastard we're talking about. If the "regular person" voiced any opposition, the "regular person" would soon have his head on a spike.