Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

It's The Queens Birthday Day.

Options
1…68101112

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    mansize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,521 ✭✭✭✭mansize


    Prince really stole her thunder didn't he?


  • Options
    #213
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Lurkio wrote: »
    Fascinating. Do you have some source of figures I might look at?
    Strazdas wrote: »
    He / appears to be correct in fact. It's impossible to put a precise figure on how much income the Royal family generate but it appears to outstrip the money spent on them :

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/
    In addition to this the Royal family are financed by the Queen's own hereditary wealth. If she were to become a private citizen, Mrs. Windsor, her wealth would be her own and the government would have to finance an entirely new office of President. From wikipedia:
    The British Royal Family is financed mainly by the hereditary revenues of the Crown.[1] The British Parliament uses a percentage of the Crown Estate, a part of the Crown's hereditary revenues belonging to the sovereign that is placed at the disposal of the House of Commons, to meet the costs of the sovereign's official expenditures.[1][2] This includes the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment.[3]


  • Options
    #214
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    In addition to this the Royal family are financed by the Queen's own hereditary wealth. If she were to become a private citizen, Mrs. Windsor, her wealth would be her own and the government would have to finance an entirely new office of President. From wikipedia:


    I'm not sure that's exactly true.

    Some King centuries ago went bankrupt and was effectively bailed out by Parliament. The deal struck was that parliament took over the Crown estates and took all the revenue and returned a percentage to the monarch as a living allowance.

    It's one of the intricacies of the British constitution that makes becoming a republic a very complex matter. One that is, in my opinion, not worth the hassle.

    There are far far more pressing matters to worry about.


  • Options
    #215
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,180 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Strazdas wrote: »
    He / appears to be correct in fact. It's impossible to put a precise figure on how much income the Royal family generate but it appears to outstrip the money spent on them :

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

    Visits to the likes of the Tower of London and Windsor Castle would happen with or without a Royal family. The palace at Versailles gets twice as many visitors as the Tower of London per year yet the French haven't had a monarchy since 1870. The "Royal family brings visitors" line is a bit of a red herring.


  • Options
    #216
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    +1. I wonder how much our President and ex Presidents and hangers on cost us here per year? A lot mor that 53p ( 64 cents ) a year I bet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Beefy78
    Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Visits to the likes of the Tower of London and Windsor Castle would happen with or without a Royal family. The palace at Versailles gets twice as many visitors as the Tower of London per year yet the French haven't had a monarchy since 1870. The "Royal family brings visitors" line is a bit of a red herring.

    This is true. What isn't a red herring though is the cost of the bureaucracy that would replace a monarchy, which I struggle to believe can be done for less than the monarchy costs.


  • Options
    #218
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Visits to the likes of the Tower of London and Windsor Castle would happen with or without a Royal family.
    A lot of tourists and people like to see them; you just have to remember the visit to this country and even here thousands lined the roads / streets, for a glimpse of a live royal. In the UK, they get visitors from all over the world. Well worth the 53 pence a year the monarchy costs each British person.


  • Options
    #219
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,036 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    maryishere wrote: »
    A lot of tourists and people like to see them; you just have to remember the visit to this country and even here thousands lined the roads / streets, for a glimpse of a live royal. In the UK, they get visitors from all over the world. Well worth the 53 pence a year the monarchy costs each British person.
    not well worth the 53 pence a year they cost each british person at all, that money could be better spent on actual important things.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #220
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    end of the road wrote: »
    not well worth the 53 pence a year they cost each british person at all, that money could be better spent on actual important things.

    better spent on what?

    As someone else says:
    Strazdas wrote: »
    . It's impossible to put a precise figure on how much income the Royal family generate but it appears to outstrip the money spent on them :

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/


  • Options
    #221
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    end of the road wrote: »
    not well worth the 53 pence a year they cost each british person at all, that money could be better spent on actual important things.

    The Queen's 90th Birthday was yesterday . . .

    I wonder will she carry on after Prince Philip dies?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    53p a year! most people spend (unknowingly) far more than that each and every day for the cost of advertising the products they purchase as it is loaded into the sale price.


  • Options
    #223
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LordSutch wrote: »
    The Queen's 90th Birthday was yesterday . . .

    I wonder will she carry on after Prince Philip dies?
    She will, she's the queen, he's the number 2, Charlie will have to wait!


  • Options
    #224
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,384 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Visits to the likes of the Tower of London and Windsor Castle would happen with or without a Royal family. The palace at Versailles gets twice as many visitors as the Tower of London per year yet the French haven't had a monarchy since 1870. The "Royal family brings visitors" line is a bit of a red herring.

    Those points are discussed in the article above. While it's probably true that castles and the like would still receive visitors, to say that the British royal family has no impact whatsoever on tourism would surely be wide off the mark. It wouldn't take too much for them to generate more income than their actual cost.


  • Options
    #225
    YerMasYerDa
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭YerMasYerDa


    I don't know much about down South but upon joining here I'm not surprised this is a thread. Was on a British rag website earlier and it was full of Dubliners wishing this coffin-dodger all the best.


  • Options
    #226
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    53p a year! most people spend (unknowingly) far more than that each and every day for the cost of advertising the products they purchase as it is loaded into the sale price.

    That's hardly the point though is it? It's my f**king 53p and I don;t really want to give someone who is a millionaire already, many times over a single damn penny of mine. Why should I?

    That's what makes it so nauseating when the most 'libertarian' 'free market' shillers spout nonsense like 'it's only 53p!' It's the fúcking principle.

    And as for the argument about them bringing in more revenue, it's a moot point, for the security figures have never been made public.


  • Options
    #227
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    karma_ wrote: »
    That's hardly the point though is it? It's my f**king 53p and I don;t really want to give someone who is a millionaire already, many times over a single damn penny of mine. Why should I?

    That's what makes it so nauseating when the most 'libertarian' 'free market' shillers spout nonsense like 'it's only 53p!' It's the fúcking principle.

    And as for the argument about them bringing in more revenue, it's a moot point, for the security figures have never been made public.

    Well, as I have had it said to me gazillion times here, if you don't like it, GTFO.


  • Options
    #228
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Well, as I have heard a gazillion times here, if you don't like it, GTFO.

    Clever girl. I'm from the north.


  • Options
    #229
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    karma_ wrote: »
    Clever girl. I'm from the north.

    Come over here! No such worries. :D
    Here we only pay thousands per year in extra taxes to bail out rich bankers, prop up a dysfunctional government that protects a bloated legal sector that is currently destroying the insurance market with fantasy payouts to the tune where it does real, actual damage to the country.
    I'd swap that for 53p any day.


  • Options
    #230
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    karma_ wrote: »
    That's hardly the point though is it? It's my f**king 53p and I don;t really want to give someone who is a millionaire already, many times over a single damn penny of mine. Why should I?

    You talking about the cost of paying for our President and ex-presidents and family and hangers on and staff and big house in the Park and expenses? That costs a lot more than 53p per person per year here. And no, our Presidents are worth *** all in comparison in terms of attracting tourism. In a country of so few taxpayers we spend too much on too many td's senators, councillors, presidents etc, most of whom do **** all most of the time..


  • Options
    #231
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Come over here! No such worries. :D
    Here we only pay thousands per year in extra taxes to bail out rich bankers, prop up a dysfunctional government that protects a bloated legal sector that is currently destroying the insurance market with fantasy payouts to the tune where it does real, actual damage to the country.
    I'd swap that for 53p any day.

    Still not the point though, is it? I don't think you should have to give Michael O'Leary 53p a year. The sheer lunacy of having a privileged class funded by the tax payer is insane, what century is this?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    maryishere wrote: »
    You talking about the cost of paying for our President and ex-presidents and family and hangers on and staff and big house in the Park and expenses? That costs a lot more than 53p per person per year here. And no, our Presidents are worth *** all in comparison in terms of attracting tourism. In a country of so few taxpayers we spend too much on too many td's senators, councillors, presidents etc, most of whom do **** all most of the time..

    That's an argument for cleaning up a bad system, not for giving a rich person an annual subsidy.


  • Options
    #233
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    karma_ wrote: »
    Still not the point though, is it? I don't think you should have to give Michael O'Leary 53p a year. The sheer lunacy of having a privileged class funded by the tax payer is insane, what century is this?

    Sorry, where did he come in? Did I just turn over 2 pages at once?
    Now if it really galls you so much, you will have to either found a legitimate political movement that will one day be able to abolish the monarchy, seize all their assets and move the entire Royal Family onto a council estate or maybe start a revolutionary army with the aim of overthrowing her by force.
    Otherwise you're just pissing and moaning. I could piss and moan about my fcuking bank robbing me blind to the tune of fcuking thousands with extortionate interest rates, now there's something to cry about. But throwing a major wobbler over 53p is just looney territory.


  • Options
    #234
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    karma_ wrote: »
    That's hardly the point though is it? It's my f**king 53p and I don;t really want to give someone who is a millionaire already, many times over a single damn penny of mine. Why should I?

    That's what makes it so nauseating when the most 'libertarian' 'free market' shillers spout nonsense like 'it's only 53p!' It's the fúcking principle.

    And as for the argument about them bringing in more revenue, it's a moot point, for the security figures have never been made public.
    But you are quite happy to willingly give it to corporate organisations every time you buy something, who then in turn pass a portion of that money over to wealthy (some wealthier than the queen) shareholders.


  • Options
    #235
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    karma_ wrote: »
    The sheer lunacy of having a privileged class funded by the tax payer is insane,
    Even in that great social experiment to abolish privileged classes, the USSR, there was still a privileged class. As there is in North Korea. You may not realise it but you are lucky you live in such a jurisdiction.


  • Options
    #236
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    maryishere wrote: »
    Even in that great social experiment to abolish privileged classes, the USSR, there was still a privileged class. As there is in North Korea. You may not realise it but you are lucky you live in such a jurisdiction.
    Equality! but some people are more equal than others.
    So true and has been proven so many times, at least the UK royalty are open to the fact that they are privileged in their position.


  • Options
    #237
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But you are quite happy to willingly give it to corporate organisations every time you buy something, who then in turn pass a portion of that money over to wealthy (some wealthier than the queen) shareholders.

    Even if I spend my money on my expensive coffee under extreme duress, it's (still) hardly the fúcking point though.

    You still haven't answered why I should be forced to pay this dividend yearly to a millionaire, multiple castle & estate owner?


  • Options
    #238
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Equality! but some people are more equal than others.
    So true and has been proven so many times, at least the UK royalty are open to the fact that they are privileged in their position.

    Required reading: Animal Farm


  • Options
    #239
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    maryishere wrote: »
    Even in that great social experiment to abolish privileged classes, the USSR, there was still a privileged class. As there is in North Korea. You may not realise it but you are lucky you live in such a jurisdiction.

    You know, I'm just old enough to have been born into a State which deemed me a second class citizen for most of my childhood because of the religion was born into, so spare me your sanctimonious horse****.


  • Options
    #240
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    karma_ wrote: »
    Even if I spend my money on my expensive coffee under extreme duress, it's (still) hardly the fúcking point though.

    You still haven't answered why I should be forced to pay this dividend yearly to a millionaire, multiple castle & estate owner?

    You live in a democracy, so you don't have to! You could write a letter of protest to your local MP, petition the government, go to the media, try to set up a political movement to gain a majority in parliament to abolish the monarchy. The power to change is within you! It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Chinese proverb.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Required reading: Animal Farm

    Penned by a socialist, how does that even help your point of view?


Advertisement