SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (18) down (11)
The true cost of the Royal Family

The true cost of the Royal Family

£40 million goes to the Royal Family every year, courtesy of you and me via our taxes. In times of financial hardship and uncertainty, shouldn't we be spending that money elsewhere? C.P.G. Grey does the sums.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AngryRepublican (3399 days ago)
Mass lunacy is all it is, in this day and age they cant claim that their bloodline and "god" entitles them to so much at the expense of so many. Also completely agree with the point that any land claims they have are completely illegitimate, the narrator is talking nonsense.
ReplyVote up (207)down (169)
Original comment
Mass lunacy is all it is, in this day and age they cant claim that their bloodline and "god" entitles them to so much at the expense of so many. Also completely agree with the point that any land claims they have are completely illegitimate, the narrator is talking nonsense.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: De-retardernator (3357 days ago)
The Royal Family pays more in taxes every year than what the government gives them to live...go be a troll somewhere else, please.
ReplyVote up (191)down (165)
Original comment
The Royal Family pays more in taxes every year than what the government gives them to live...go be a troll somewhere else, please.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Ilovetheroyals (3378 days ago)
I like all the comments about the royal assets being sold. If you look at all the assets the government were responsible for are now owned by foreign investors... At least the royal family retain the assets and are not selling them off. Also in the entire scheme of things, the royal family costs each person about 20p a year in taxes, peanuts! It's the rest of the money that is blown on non workers that annoys me. Time to focus on the real tax wasters!
ReplyVote up (176)down (163)
Original comment
I like all the comments about the royal assets being sold. If you look at all the assets the government were responsible for are now owned by foreign investors... At least the royal family retain the assets and are not selling them off. Also in the entire scheme of things, the royal family costs each person about 20p a year in taxes, peanuts! It's the rest of the money that is blown on non workers that annoys me. Time to focus on the real tax wasters!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3402 days ago)
Money well spent.
ReplyVote up (186)down (166)
Original comment
Money well spent.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3402 days ago)
And I am sure they took that land unfairly to begin with...Screw the royals...screw the whole system of monarchy. In this day and age the whole idea that one family is somehow superior to everyone else just because of their bloodline is disgusting.
ReplyVote up (186)down (167)
Original comment
And I am sure they took that land unfairly to begin with...Screw the royals...screw the whole system of monarchy. In this day and age the whole idea that one family is somehow superior to everyone else just because of their bloodline is disgusting.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3402 days ago)
"And I am sure they took that land unfairly to begin with" Exactly my thoughts. So it's not a £160 million profit, it's still a £40 million loss. Just a fancy way of looking at it. If the monarchy didn't exist, nor would their claims to land.
ReplyVote up (139)down (163)
Original comment
"And I am sure they took that land unfairly to begin with" Exactly my thoughts. So it's not a £160 million profit, it's still a £40 million loss. Just a fancy way of looking at it. If the monarchy didn't exist, nor would their claims to land.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3397 days ago)
the land WOULDNT be state owned, it would be sold to the highest bidder and then the profits of that would be theirs and not go directly to the 'state'. Ok this would be taxed but as tax is not yet 100% on profit it would be less than we currently recieve. It IS their land, they ARE the monarchy - deal with it!
ReplyVote up (152)down (134)
Original comment
the land WOULDNT be state owned, it would be sold to the highest bidder and then the profits of that would be theirs and not go directly to the 'state'. Ok this would be taxed but as tax is not yet 100% on profit it would be less than we currently recieve. It IS their land, they ARE the monarchy - deal with it!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3401 days ago)
What a lot of things that word 'fair' can mean. One thinks it unfair someone has a million times more than him another thinks it begins at a hundred, yet another a penny more, some think it unfair some are smarter, handsomer, or more charming. 'Fair' ends in utter mediocrity, if fairness ruled we'd all still be living like chimpanzees.
ReplyVote up (152)down (179)
Original comment
What a lot of things that word 'fair' can mean. One thinks it unfair someone has a million times more than him another thinks it begins at a hundred, yet another a penny more, some think it unfair some are smarter, handsomer, or more charming. 'Fair' ends in utter mediocrity, if fairness ruled we'd all still be living like chimpanzees.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3399 days ago)
haha, that's a strange take on fair. Our judicial system is pretty mediocre i would concur.
ReplyVote up (183)down (163)
Original comment
haha, that's a strange take on fair. Our judicial system is pretty mediocre i would concur.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3397 days ago)
Fair!?...I think you have missed the point. People having more money or having a better life or being better looking is life and I think any sane person would accept that...the point of it being unfair is that I don't have to pay them any of my OWN money to help fund their lavish lifestyle.
ReplyVote up (157)down (180)
Original comment
Fair!?...I think you have missed the point. People having more money or having a better life or being better looking is life and I think any sane person would accept that...the point of it being unfair is that I don't have to pay them any of my OWN money to help fund their lavish lifestyle.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3395 days ago)
So what is your own money and how did it become yours? What are you for that matter and do other people owe you something simply because you exist? If you have to be insane to believe someone owes you something simply because they have a lot and you don't then there are a hell of a lot of crazy people.
ReplyVote up (161)down (164)
Original comment
So what is your own money and how did it become yours? What are you for that matter and do other people owe you something simply because you exist? If you have to be insane to believe someone owes you something simply because they have a lot and you don't then there are a hell of a lot of crazy people.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3395 days ago)
Your statement not only doesn't make sense, but AGAIN has missed my point completely. I earn my money and any money owed to me is in exchange for labour and expertise. The Royals have no right to take my money as they have done nothing to earn the privilege. I pay other people for a service out of choice, if I choose to have that service. I don't have that option with the royals, I have to give them my money, and for what benefit?...meaningless statistics about increased tourism? absolute nonsense! Tourists would come here Royals or not. If they really wanted to experience Royalty, then they could, in a museum, where it belongs!!
ReplyVote up (158)down (158)
Original comment
Your statement not only doesn't make sense, but AGAIN has missed my point completely. I earn my money and any money owed to me is in exchange for labour and expertise. The Royals have no right to take my money as they have done nothing to earn the privilege. I pay other people for a service out of choice, if I choose to have that service. I don't have that option with the royals, I have to give them my money, and for what benefit?...meaningless statistics about increased tourism? absolute nonsense! Tourists would come here Royals or not. If they really wanted to experience Royalty, then they could, in a museum, where it belongs!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3395 days ago)
So what do you say to someone who says "your labour is only valuable because of the resources you have access to and I do not?" Or that "you are only in a position to have valuable labour because your ancestors oppressed/robbed my ancestors? The office you work in, the machines you use were bought with capital plundered from my people and without them your work would only be worth a fraction of what you get for it."
ReplyVote up (156)down (177)
Original comment
So what do you say to someone who says "your labour is only valuable because of the resources you have access to and I do not?" Or that "you are only in a position to have valuable labour because your ancestors oppressed/robbed my ancestors? The office you work in, the machines you use were bought with capital plundered from my people and without them your work would only be worth a fraction of what you get for it."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3394 days ago)
You are constructing a strawman pal....I am not debating about the value of goods and the imbalance of western culture's wealth in comparison to the rest of the world. I am making a point about choice and my inability to choose - or not to choose - to give money to support the Monarchy. Its a relic of a system and deserves to be consigned to history.
ReplyVote up (151)down (175)
Original comment
You are constructing a strawman pal....I am not debating about the value of goods and the imbalance of western culture's wealth in comparison to the rest of the world. I am making a point about choice and my inability to choose - or not to choose - to give money to support the Monarchy. Its a relic of a system and deserves to be consigned to history.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3394 days ago)
The argument hinges on whether the land is their legitimate property. If it is, you are supporting nothing, in fact you are in the position of an insurer giving, for him, a very lucrative annuity. If their property is not legitimately held what inherited property is? You benefit and have benefited from inherited wealth, if not your own that of the investors who made your expertise so valuable by training it and providing it with the tools it needs to produce value. How much would your labour be worth gleaning turnips? The royals got their property by transaction as legitimate as any, if you deny it them you are essentially abrogating the rule of law because you just think they have too much. See my first post "what a lot of things that word fair..."
ReplyVote up (144)down (164)
Original comment
The argument hinges on whether the land is their legitimate property. If it is, you are supporting nothing, in fact you are in the position of an insurer giving, for him, a very lucrative annuity. If their property is not legitimately held what inherited property is? You benefit and have benefited from inherited wealth, if not your own that of the investors who made your expertise so valuable by training it and providing it with the tools it needs to produce value. How much would your labour be worth gleaning turnips? The royals got their property by transaction as legitimate as any, if you deny it them you are essentially abrogating the rule of law because you just think they have too much. See my first post "what a lot of things that word fair..."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3394 days ago)
My argument hinges on the outdated system of Monarchy. Its not necessary in this day and age to give any money, respect or time to a family that has done nothing to earn the privilege...therefore your entire point falls flat on its face...Sure, I did mention that they most probably took ownership of that land unfairly, or rather illegally to begin with but the main thrust of my argument is that in this day and age the system of monarchy is tired, outdated and unnecessary.
ReplyVote up (96)down (171)
Original comment
My argument hinges on the outdated system of Monarchy. Its not necessary in this day and age to give any money, respect or time to a family that has done nothing to earn the privilege...therefore your entire point falls flat on its face...Sure, I did mention that they most probably took ownership of that land unfairly, or rather illegally to begin with but the main thrust of my argument is that in this day and age the system of monarchy is tired, outdated and unnecessary.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3394 days ago)
Labeling something 'outdated' is not an argument. The notion that political power should be hereditary has been rejected, well and good but that does not end private property. The British government undertook to pay an annuity to the heirs of the house of Windsor in exchange for their surrender of title to lands acquired legally. If the annuity is stopped the land should be returned otherwise it amounts to confiscation. If you do just a little research on how the system of feudal rights came about you would discover the land passed into the hands of lords by conquest, which is, interestingly enough, the same basis under which it is now held by whoever has it, otherwise the government would be obliged to try and find the descendants of the last Picts or Dalradians and give Great Britain back to them. Also, who gets to decide when someone has earned what they have? You are very quick to say the Royals don't deserve their annuity but I'd wager there are a couple billion people in the world who would say you don't deserve what you have. In the end you have rule of law or rule by mob, the same laws and principles of property rights you rely on to protect you protect the Royals. If you choose to abridge those laws and principles in their case expect no quarter when the people who think private property is 'outdated' and that you have done nothing valuable enough to earn what you have come for you.
ReplyVote up (108)down (155)
Original comment
Labeling something 'outdated' is not an argument. The notion that political power should be hereditary has been rejected, well and good but that does not end private property. The British government undertook to pay an annuity to the heirs of the house of Windsor in exchange for their surrender of title to lands acquired legally. If the annuity is stopped the land should be returned otherwise it amounts to confiscation. If you do just a little research on how the system of feudal rights came about you would discover the land passed into the hands of lords by conquest, which is, interestingly enough, the same basis under which it is now held by whoever has it, otherwise the government would be obliged to try and find the descendants of the last Picts or Dalradians and give Great Britain back to them. Also, who gets to decide when someone has earned what they have? You are very quick to say the Royals don't deserve their annuity but I'd wager there are a couple billion people in the world who would say you don't deserve what you have. In the end you have rule of law or rule by mob, the same laws and principles of property rights you rely on to protect you protect the Royals. If you choose to abridge those laws and principles in their case expect no quarter when the people who think private property is 'outdated' and that you have done nothing valuable enough to earn what you have come for you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3394 days ago)
I am arguing about the morality of the monarch system. From a social perspective its just wrong, they don't deserve any respect or my money for doing nothing. The French had a revolution and gave the lands back to the state and we can too. I don't care if that is illegal, take the lands back from them. The royals can be free to earn what they like, I have no problem with that, just not using my money or anyone else's. They can earn their own money through free market and capitalism.
ReplyVote up (214)down (161)
Original comment
I am arguing about the morality of the monarch system. From a social perspective its just wrong, they don't deserve any respect or my money for doing nothing. The French had a revolution and gave the lands back to the state and we can too. I don't care if that is illegal, take the lands back from them. The royals can be free to earn what they like, I have no problem with that, just not using my money or anyone else's. They can earn their own money through free market and capitalism.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3393 days ago)
This must be some new definition of morality I'm not familiar with because it seems to be if you have a lot more than me it's OK to take it from you. That would be one rule for you and another for me, sounds rather like immorality. And you wouldn't be taking anything back from them because you and your ancestors never had it, most of us are descended from serfs and serfs generally got that way by asking for the job since it was that or starve. The nobility agreed to protect your ancestors and they agreed to work. The nobility obviously kept their end of the bargain as evinced by your existence, now that they have been stripped of political power you want to renege and rob them. The French did indeed have a revolution in which they confiscated the property of the nobility then tried to institute property rights with post-confiscation as the status quo. The result was a series of republics and empires as the new disgruntled classes decided if it could be done once it can be done again.
ReplyVote up (171)down (163)
Original comment
This must be some new definition of morality I'm not familiar with because it seems to be if you have a lot more than me it's OK to take it from you. That would be one rule for you and another for me, sounds rather like immorality. And you wouldn't be taking anything back from them because you and your ancestors never had it, most of us are descended from serfs and serfs generally got that way by asking for the job since it was that or starve. The nobility agreed to protect your ancestors and they agreed to work. The nobility obviously kept their end of the bargain as evinced by your existence, now that they have been stripped of political power you want to renege and rob them. The French did indeed have a revolution in which they confiscated the property of the nobility then tried to institute property rights with post-confiscation as the status quo. The result was a series of republics and empires as the new disgruntled classes decided if it could be done once it can be done again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3393 days ago)
Whether the people had never owned the land makes no difference. Sure the immorality of a revolution is hypocritical of me to say so, but I have no problem with compartmentalizing my morals on this issue for social change. Giving so much respect and adoration to one family for no obvious reason makes no sense to me!
ReplyVote up (112)down (207)
Original comment
Whether the people had never owned the land makes no difference. Sure the immorality of a revolution is hypocritical of me to say so, but I have no problem with compartmentalizing my morals on this issue for social change. Giving so much respect and adoration to one family for no obvious reason makes no sense to me!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3393 days ago)
I have no respect or admiration for the royals and I'm not against revolution as long as the new rules apply to everyone the same way. I am just annoyed by people saying the royals don't deserve their property when all of us hold what we have by the same rule they hold what they have. Advocating using democracy to rob people doesn't annoy me as much as people blaming the people you are about to rob, claiming they somehow deserve to be despoiled. The sheer hypocritical delusion, the untruth of it is what sticks in my gullet.
ReplyVote up (153)down (166)
Original comment
I have no respect or admiration for the royals and I'm not against revolution as long as the new rules apply to everyone the same way. I am just annoyed by people saying the royals don't deserve their property when all of us hold what we have by the same rule they hold what they have. Advocating using democracy to rob people doesn't annoy me as much as people blaming the people you are about to rob, claiming they somehow deserve to be despoiled. The sheer hypocritical delusion, the untruth of it is what sticks in my gullet.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Tizzylew Tizzylew (3318 days ago)
I think you maybe a couple of decades behind everyone else. I live in England, which is a member state of The Republic of the European Union and I am a european citizen. So I have my republic and you yanks can have the Queen.
ReplyVote up (173)down (176)
Original comment
I think you maybe a couple of decades behind everyone else. I live in England, which is a member state of The Republic of the European Union and I am a european citizen. So I have my republic and you yanks can have the Queen.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jimbo Chester (3401 days ago)
In Norway all lands belong to the people via the state. How many ordinary people see actual members of royalty..Tourism is about people seeing relics in all countries with or without Royalty. Royalty is the top head of a system of grace and favour where 1% rule ove the rest.. This is perpepuated by the house of lords,peerages,knight hoods and other medival methods.
ReplyVote up (156)down (134)
Original comment
In Norway all lands belong to the people via the state. How many ordinary people see actual members of royalty..Tourism is about people seeing relics in all countries with or without Royalty. Royalty is the top head of a system of grace and favour where 1% rule ove the rest.. This is perpepuated by the house of lords,peerages,knight hoods and other medival methods.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3401 days ago)
All government is patronage because a government which dispenses patronage will always win out over one which does not. The difference between the medieval system and a modern republic is just who gets favor. The advantage of the modern way is more efficiency, because it's a mad scramble where the most resourceful get their snout deepest in the trough. The problem is it's not more efficient at making people happy or well-adjusted only at creating and using resources. A side effect is materially we are all better off but there hasn't been much improvement otherwise and we may end up choking to death in our own garbage.
ReplyVote up (141)down (172)
Original comment
All government is patronage because a government which dispenses patronage will always win out over one which does not. The difference between the medieval system and a modern republic is just who gets favor. The advantage of the modern way is more efficiency, because it's a mad scramble where the most resourceful get their snout deepest in the trough. The problem is it's not more efficient at making people happy or well-adjusted only at creating and using resources. A side effect is materially we are all better off but there hasn't been much improvement otherwise and we may end up choking to death in our own garbage.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3396 days ago)
Why does the douche bag american care about the UK's system; try f**king off and fixing your own system. Although I do agree with much that he says. Stupid anti-monarchists, there are far bigger waists of money. Council housing for 1.
ReplyVote up (157)down (169)
Original comment
Why does the douche bag american care about the UK's system; try f**king off and fixing your own system. Although I do agree with much that he says. Stupid anti-monarchists, there are far bigger waists of money. Council housing for 1.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: aye (1623 days ago)
Latest comment:

Just worry about tax break that politicians give to the rich who support the political party more.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Just worry about tax break that politicians give to the rich who support the political party more.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3402 days ago)
UK is really backward place it's still monarchy and theocracy. :)
ReplyVote up (171)down (183)
Original comment
UK is really backward place it's still monarchy and theocracy. :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3401 days ago)
Do you even know what a theocracy is? Please explain how the UK is a theocracy im assuming your a yank, if anything your far more of a theocracy, wasnt it Bush who said he heard God speaking to him?
ReplyVote up (164)down (116)
Original comment
Do you even know what a theocracy is? Please explain how the UK is a theocracy im assuming your a yank, if anything your far more of a theocracy, wasnt it Bush who said he heard God speaking to him?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3400 days ago)
Queen is head of state and head of church, isn't she? :)
ReplyVote up (176)down (160)
Original comment
Queen is head of state and head of church, isn't she? :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3399 days ago)
Correct but she isnt involved in the process of legislation for the nation. Its a constitutional monarchy, she isnt involved in running the country instead shes just a figure head. Even if she was running the country it wouldnt make it a theocracy unless she claimed to be ruling for God
ReplyVote up (144)down (161)
Original comment
Correct but she isnt involved in the process of legislation for the nation. Its a constitutional monarchy, she isnt involved in running the country instead shes just a figure head. Even if she was running the country it wouldnt make it a theocracy unless she claimed to be ruling for God
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3399 days ago)
The canon law of the Church of England states, "We acknowledge that the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil."
ReplyVote up (161)down (137)
Original comment
The canon law of the Church of England states, "We acknowledge that the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (3400 days ago)
Excuse me, why is an American narrating this, what would he know about living in blighty and who is he trying to persuade? Anyone in the UK who has any common sense would know that any money spent on the Royal Family is worth every penny!!
ReplyVote up (154)down (162)
Original comment
Excuse me, why is an American narrating this, what would he know about living in blighty and who is he trying to persuade? Anyone in the UK who has any common sense would know that any money spent on the Royal Family is worth every penny!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PG (3399 days ago)
Exactly right, and anyway, he's just another average american with verbal diarrhoea.
ReplyVote up (149)down (153)
Original comment
Exactly right, and anyway, he's just another average american with verbal diarrhoea.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Wile E. Coyote - Desert SW USA (3398 days ago)
It required an American to narrate as he had a brain, unlike the sorry lot responding to this comment thread.
ReplyVote up (154)down (148)
Original comment
It required an American to narrate as he had a brain, unlike the sorry lot responding to this comment thread.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (3397 days ago)
Wile E. - I'm not quite sure if you understand what I'm saying. How would you like it if a British narrator compiled a video, detailing the pros and cons of your legislature or Presidency, and then arguing that such is necessary? Most US citizens already understand the necessity of it, so why would a 'limey' try and persuade them or anyone else. You must admit, from a British person's point of view, the context is really strange and somewhat insulting. As if we needed to be taught by an American why the Royal Family is so important to our culture and GDP. We already know!
ReplyVote up (201)down (124)
Original comment
Wile E. - I'm not quite sure if you understand what I'm saying. How would you like it if a British narrator compiled a video, detailing the pros and cons of your legislature or Presidency, and then arguing that such is necessary? Most US citizens already understand the necessity of it, so why would a 'limey' try and persuade them or anyone else. You must admit, from a British person's point of view, the context is really strange and somewhat insulting. As if we needed to be taught by an American why the Royal Family is so important to our culture and GDP. We already know!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3397 days ago)
'As if we needed to be taught by an American why the Royal Family is so important to our culture and GDP. We already know!' .....Well by looks of this thread apparently we don't!! At least there are a few sane people around to realise how idiotic a system of Monarchy really is...anyone who believes otherwise is no better than a religious fanatic that has managed to compartmentalise logic.
ReplyVote up (133)down (158)
Original comment
'As if we needed to be taught by an American why the Royal Family is so important to our culture and GDP. We already know!' .....Well by looks of this thread apparently we don't!! At least there are a few sane people around to realise how idiotic a system of Monarchy really is...anyone who believes otherwise is no better than a religious fanatic that has managed to compartmentalise logic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (3394 days ago)
A typical reply from a person who must bring up religion and sanity into a non-religious and non-mental health debate as an argument; I would like to know how you would replace the GDP lost by its abolition and all its tourist locations related to Royalty of £500 million. They are very useful to diplomacy alone, especially when it only costs the taxpayer 62p per person. Your views are obviously spurious, at the least, especially bearing in mind the millions watching the Royal Wedding and those visiting London today. The proof was in the pudding today and boy did it taste good! Over time, William and Catherine’s wedding will encourage more tourists to visit our fair country and spend their hard earned cash. ££££££
ReplyVote up (134)down (132)
Original comment
A typical reply from a person who must bring up religion and sanity into a non-religious and non-mental health debate as an argument; I would like to know how you would replace the GDP lost by its abolition and all its tourist locations related to Royalty of £500 million. They are very useful to diplomacy alone, especially when it only costs the taxpayer 62p per person. Your views are obviously spurious, at the least, especially bearing in mind the millions watching the Royal Wedding and those visiting London today. The proof was in the pudding today and boy did it taste good! Over time, William and Catherine’s wedding will encourage more tourists to visit our fair country and spend their hard earned cash. ££££££
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: A disapointed American. (3384 days ago)
I don't know about Monarchy being so bad. Our country has been going downhill for awhile now. The President in office hasn't done anything worth being reelected, but sure enough, Osama being killed will get him in office again. Most of the US are retards. It's an entirely different US then what my grandpa fought for back in WWII. A pathetic one...
ReplyVote up (136)down (95)
Original comment
I don't know about Monarchy being so bad. Our country has been going downhill for awhile now. The President in office hasn't done anything worth being reelected, but sure enough, Osama being killed will get him in office again. Most of the US are retards. It's an entirely different US then what my grandpa fought for back in WWII. A pathetic one...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (3383 days ago)
Frankly, I think the same goes for the whole world. Life has become much more complicated since the halcyon days directly after WW2 in the US, but I'm sure the generations born prior to WW1 would have said the same. The world our ancestors grew up in was much safer, but then again the population was markedly lower.
ReplyVote up (135)down (139)
Original comment
Frankly, I think the same goes for the whole world. Life has become much more complicated since the halcyon days directly after WW2 in the US, but I'm sure the generations born prior to WW1 would have said the same. The world our ancestors grew up in was much safer, but then again the population was markedly lower.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (3402 days ago)
God bless their majesties
ReplyVote up (142)down (164)
Original comment
God bless their majesties
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: queeny (3366 days ago)
Fekin Reptiles
ReplyVote up (125)down (157)
Original comment
Fekin Reptiles
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: spadger (3216 days ago)
£47 mil a day on being in the euro!
ReplyVote up (179)down (200)
Original comment
£47 mil a day on being in the euro!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Rodney the Royalist (3362 days ago)
God save the Queen, death to all those who speak against her, gowd luv her. Monarchists = right, upstanding patriots. Republicans = wrong, lefty, benefit scroungers
ReplyVote up (152)down (222)
Original comment
God save the Queen, death to all those who speak against her, gowd luv her. Monarchists = right, upstanding patriots. Republicans = wrong, lefty, benefit scroungers
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
slicksps slicksps (3402 days ago)
Did the person captioning this video not bother actually watching it?
ReplyVote up (161)down (255)
Original comment
Did the person captioning this video not bother actually watching it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Republican (3401 days ago)
"The royals would be forced to take back their land..." Ridiculous quote from the narrator there! 'Their' land!? If we ever do rid ourselves of the Windsors, 'their' land would be rightfully returned to the state. And so dear narrator, our taxes would not go up. Just ask Czar Nicholas and his family...
ReplyVote up (143)down (191)
Original comment
"The royals would be forced to take back their land..." Ridiculous quote from the narrator there! 'Their' land!? If we ever do rid ourselves of the Windsors, 'their' land would be rightfully returned to the state. And so dear narrator, our taxes would not go up. Just ask Czar Nicholas and his family...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Switzerland - Winter spot "Clocks"
Switzerland - Winter spot "Clocks"
Telia Sonera Broadband
Telia Sonera Broadband
An electrifying victory - Die 24 Stunden von Le Mans
An electrifying victory - Die 24 Stunden von Le Mans
New Kids on the Block and Backstreet Boys backstage chat at The O2
New Kids on the Block and Backstreet Boys backstage chat at The O2
Ultra-Ever Dry Video | Hydrophobic coating repels almost any liquid
Ultra-Ever Dry Video | Hydrophobic coating repels almost any liquid