Should we abolish the Royal family?

[Master]

Isn't that basically the same thing?

Queue HMH

get rid of the royals
abolish the class divide
=
shariah law throughout the country within 50years!!

You dip stick nothing to do with Shariah law but about having a republic.

[Kev]

Queue HMH

get rid of the royals
abolish the class divide
=
shariah law throughout the country within 50years!!

You dip stick nothing to do with Shariah law but about having a republic.

Because of course republics have a much better reputation.....

It's not often me and Kirklaind Laing agree but I'm 100 percent with him, in that the Queen is the best head of state we can possibly have.

@ Miles

I just don't understand your logic really. First off, yes the queen gets money to upkeep her homes, but come on these stately buildings are part of the nation's heritage a bit different from your gran's house.

Think of all the fantastic royal buildings we have, Buckingham Palace, The Tower of London, Westminster, they are amazing, some of the finest and most famous buildings on earth with hundreds, even thousands of years of history.

They are the Queen's property but in a sense belong to the whole nation. They are all open to the public, we can all go and visit most days of the year so what is the problem with public funds going towards their upkeep?

If you abolished the Royal Family it would still be public funds paying for the repairs and upkeep anyway.

And your gran probably can get help with essential repairs anyway, there are plenty of benefits out there for those in need.

As for your, 'inherited wealth should be taxed to death', well firstly it already is, we have inheritance tax after all, which I personally think sucks, but you seem to want to go even further and forceably take money from the rich to give to the government.

So are you a communist?

It's a fucking horrible philosophy and just ends up with nobody having anything.

Anybody who has worked for something is entitled to it. When they pass on their children are entitled to it. If they still have their wealth into the next generation they are entitled to it, and so forth.

Wanting to force them to hand over their money for some egalitarian plan is just theft imo. What would be the incentive to work hard and be succesful if all of your reward is taken from you in taxes and given to others?

It's a ridiculous, evil idea imo.

As for the queen, she does a tremendous job for this country as a faithful and loyal ambassador.

You never responded to this before but I put it to you again, has her life been one of a rich socialite living the highlife, indulging in excess and aristocratic vices? I really don't think it has, her life has been one of tireless service to this country. Think of all the diplomatic functions and visits she has to carry out, all the engagements, the rituals etc.

It's not a role I'd want in a million years, her wealth is nothing like that of a rock star, a footballer or an actor. Her wealth comes with immense responsibility and she has had to live a life of service and devotion to her country.

I am proud to say I love my queen and country and would oppose to the fullest any attempts at turning this nation into a republic with a Brown or Blairesque figure looming large as out head of state.

[Fenster]

Yeah the Queen's life is pretty shit when you think about it.

She especially struggles in Royal Ascot and Cheltenham week, supping champange in her private box whilst cheering on her millions of pounds worth of horse flesh.

Fuck the Queen. And the horse she rode in on.

[HattonTheHammer]

get rid of the royals
abolish the class divide
=
shariah law throughout the country within 50years!!

You dip stick nothing to do with Shariah law but about having a republic.

Because of course republics have a much better reputation.....

It's not often me and Kirklaind Laing agree but I'm 100 percent with him, in that the Queen is the best head of state we can possibly have.

@ Miles

I just don't understand your logic really. First off, yes the queen gets money to upkeep her homes, but come on these stately buildings are part of the nation's heritage a bit different from your gran's house.

Think of all the fantastic royal buildings we have, Buckingham Palace, The Tower of London, Westminster, they are amazing, some of the finest and most famous buildings on earth with hundreds, even thousands of years of history.

They are the Queen's property but in a sense belong to the whole nation. They are all open to the public, we can all go and visit most days of the year so what is the problem with public funds going towards their upkeep?

If you abolished the Royal Family it would still be public funds paying for the repairs and upkeep anyway.

And your gran probably can get help with essential repairs anyway, there are plenty of benefits out there for those in need.

As for your, 'inherited wealth should be taxed to death', well firstly it already is, we have inheritance tax after all, which I personally think sucks, but you seem to want to go even further and forceably take money from the rich to give to the government.

So are you a communist?

It's a fucking horrible philosophy and just ends up with nobody having anything.

Anybody who has worked for something is entitled to it. When they pass on their children are entitled to it. If they still have their wealth into the next generation they are entitled to it, and so forth.

Wanting to force them to hand over their money for some egalitarian plan is just theft imo. What would be the incentive to work hard and be succesful if all of your reward is taken from you in taxes and given to others?

It's a ridiculous, evil idea imo.

As for the queen, she does a tremendous job for this country as a faithful and loyal ambassador.

You never responded to this before but I put it to you again, has her life been one of a rich socialite living the highlife, indulging in excess and aristocratic vices? I really don't think it has, her life has been one of tireless service to this country. Think of all the diplomatic functions and visits she has to carry out, all the engagements, the rituals etc.

It's not a role I'd want in a million years, her wealth is nothing like that of a rock star, a footballer or an actor. Her wealth comes with immense responsibility and she has had to live a life of service and devotion to her country.

I am proud to say I love my queen and country and would oppose to the fullest any attempts at turning this nation into a republic with a Brown or Blairesque figure looming large as out head of state.

Once again completely bang on the mark

[Gandalf]

I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....

BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises £1.5m

I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?

As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!

I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.

In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?

I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.

The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.

[HattonTheHammer]

I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....

BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m

I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?

As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!

I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.

In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?

I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.

The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.

worth every penny!!

[Kev]

I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....

BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m

I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?

As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!

I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.

In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?

I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.

The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.

Out of interest Miles how far does your desire to see the 'have nots' empowered extend?

You seem to have no problem with the Royal family and other rich families having their inherited wealth taken from them but what about yours?

Are you not, purely by virtue of birth a beneficiary of being born into glorious first world country, which in comparison with most of the most is fabulously wealthy beyond compare?

As you, I and all the rest of us inherited this land purely by birthright is it really fair that we get to enjoy it rather than those in struggling third world countries?

I presume you support not only uncontrolled immigration but also a compulsary repatriation process whereby British citizens are selected to trade places with those from Africa, Indian and the Arab countries so as to redisperse the wealth in as fair a way as possible?

Do you feel this way? Does our great wealth as a first world country also rightly belong to our cousins in the second and third worlds?

Or do you think Britain's wealth, in which we partake soley as a result of heredity birthright is for the people of Britain only?

[amat]

lol fucken crazies

[amat]

lol fucken crazies

I stand by this. Hey other Americans, look at the Brits going crazy

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Out of interest Miles how far does your desire to see the 'have nots' empowered extend?

You seem to have no problem with the Royal family and other rich families having their inherited wealth taken from them but what about yours?

Are you not, purely by virtue of birth a beneficiary of being born into glorious first world country, which in comparison with most of the most is fabulously wealthy beyond compare?

As you, I and all the rest of us inherited this land purely by birthright is it really fair that we get to enjoy it rather than those in struggling third world countries?

I presume you support not only uncontrolled immigration but also a compulsary repatriation process whereby British citizens are selected to trade places with those from Africa, Indian and the Arab countries so as to redisperse the wealth in as fair a way as possible?

Do you feel this way? Does our great wealth as a first world country also rightly belong to our cousins in the second and third worlds?

Or do you think Britain's wealth, in which we partake soley as a result of heredity birthright is for the people of Britain only?

Typically changing the subject going on about compulsary repatriation. In which case sod Philip off to Corfu and Liz to sausage land.

Bilbo both you and the Queen take from the system so I can see why you'd support her robbing me of my money, I won't get a pension but if I want one it means paying twice, once for a private pension and what I'm paying now for all the people claiming pension and for the next 30/40 years. I get nothing. So why should the Queen - and if we're talking about heritage - they got where there positions by actively raping and pillaging the people of this country and round the world. We as subjects don't get a look in.

Their 'heritage' is OUR heritage and as such why don't we have free access to it if it's ours and we're paying for it twice, in taxes to that go to the Queen and to view them.

Eat the rich.

CEWAP
CEWAP - Conditionally Exempt Works Appreciation Party

I'm not a communist - I'm politically anarchist.

[Gandalf]

I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....

BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m

I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?

As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!

I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.

In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?

I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.

The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.

Out of interest Miles how far does your desire to see the 'have nots' empowered extend?

You seem to have no problem with the Royal family and other rich families having their inherited wealth taken from them but what about yours?

Are you not, purely by virtue of birth a beneficiary of being born into glorious first world country, which in comparison with most of the most is fabulously wealthy beyond compare?

As you, I and all the rest of us inherited this land purely by birthright is it really fair that we get to enjoy it rather than those in struggling third world countries?

I presume you support not only uncontrolled immigration but also a compulsary repatriation process whereby British citizens are selected to trade places with those from Africa, Indian and the Arab countries so as to redisperse the wealth in as fair a way as possible?

Do you feel this way? Does our great wealth as a first world country also rightly belong to our cousins in the second and third worlds?

Or do you think Britain's wealth, in which we partake soley as a result of heredity birthright is for the people of Britain only?

Let's not forget that when we talk about inherited wealth I am talking about extremely wealthy families. I am not talking about taking away everything they have either. Taken at an individual level and in terms of my own possible future, I don't really have a lot of wealth to give away. I have lived away from home too long to ever think about claiming a pension there and the pension here covers nothing. My entire working life is simply to try and support me when I am too old to work. It won't be a life of luxury, but I hope it will be in comfort. I also hope I don't live too long just in case there isn't enough! It would be awful to get to 82 and the pot runs dry...I might be from a wealthy country, but I really won't ever see any of that wealth myself. When it comes to inherited wealth, I don't imagine there will be all that much left over when I die. Hopefully, I will have paid for the education of my kids and given them a decent sense of right and wrong and that will have been my job done. And of course, I would help out when I can but thats pretty much it.

As to how far my support of the 'have nots' goes, well we have been talking about Britain and I have no qualms with this being about the wealth of the rich being filtered down to support the poor. I'm not talking about just handing over cash to lazy bums, but investing it in education, creating jobs and other things like improving rough estates. Governments of all developed nations should contribute to supporting the least well off internationally too. I would have loved it if we had spent a fraction of the money we spent in Iraq on building water supplies for those in parts of Africa that most need it. We could have actually helped people rather than invading illegally, killing thousands.

I don't believe in unrestricted imigration though. I think it is unhealthy and with opportunities being as meagre as they are, it is unfair on those already looking for jobs. You could say, "well that isn't so considerate of the poor who are wanting to come to the UK to escape poverty". And I would understand that, but you are extending the question somewhat by asking me that and getting beyond the position of the monarchy and inherited wealth. But as I said before, I do believe it is the responsibility of our governments and our taxes to try and improve the lot of others overseas as well. It doesn't help things to have the rich getting richer and then having mass immigration allowing standards of living to fall for the vast majority of the population....and for the rich to continue to be unnaffected. That's not particularly fair.

[Kirkland Laing]

Yeah the Queen's life is pretty shit when you think about it.

She especially struggles in Royal Ascot and Cheltenham week, supping champange in her private box whilst cheering on her millions of pounds worth of horse flesh.

Fuck the Queen. And the horse she rode in on.

Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.

I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....

BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m

I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?

As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!

I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.

In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?

I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.

The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.

From your article :

The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.

So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.

[amat]

Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years?

Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'

[Fenster]

Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years?

Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'

Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.

Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.

Kirk, my point was about the ridiculous notion that the Queen has an unenviable lifestyle.

[Gandalf]

Yeah the Queen's life is pretty shit when you think about it.

She especially struggles in Royal Ascot and Cheltenham week, supping champange in her private box whilst cheering on her millions of pounds worth of horse flesh.

Fuck the Queen. And the horse she rode in on.

Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.

I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....

BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m

I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?

As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!

I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.

In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?

I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.

The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.

From your article :

The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.

So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.

I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.