to show this link to everyone who complains about the cost of the Royal Family?

[Tuggy]

Well... great YouTube link (also like his other videos)

So Happy 85th Birthday for today Queen Liz if you're reading this... I found it pretty interesting as someone who always gets pissed off at the people who go "oh blah blah the royals sit on their arses all day costing us money and give nothing back - my taxes pay for their life"

Have watched the link and it all hinges on whether you believe they have a right to own all that they do or whether you think they (well, their ancestors) stole it from the people in the first place.

I do not see how it is just, in a modern democracy, for a select few to own bloody great big chunks of the country, for no other reason than an accident of birth.

That said, I have no issue with the Queen as an individual. Princes Andrew and Edward (and all their hangers on), serve no useful purpose so far as I can make out. They have been given the best of everything and are still useless fuck ups. Worse, they are public embarrassments to the UK.

For those who don't envy their lives, I wouldn't mind living in luxury for the rest of my life, for my DC to have access to the best education that money can buy, to travel and never have to worry about healthcare or paying the mortgage. Yes, they are in the public eye, but they are not seen by us 24/7 - they have plenty of opportunity for privacy on their our private estates.

UnfitMother, I don't understand your post at 19:03. As far as I know, Abr1de is perfectly correct in saying that the Act of Settlement specifically bars CATHOLICS from becoming or marrying a king or queen of this country. So, as long as that Act is still in force, it IS the case that any future British monarch could be (or could marry) a Muslim, Methodist, Buddhist, Sikh or Jewish (etc.) person. Because the Act of Settlement does not bar such people from the throne.

It only bars Catholics. Because at the time the Act was passed (1701), it was Catholics who were seen as a threat to the peace of the realm. I imagine that, at the time, no one envisaged the possibility that a putative monarch might be, or marry, a Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh or Jewish (etc.) person. (Methodism had yet to be founded.)

well, if you want to start a hunting debate...feel free to open another thread.

for pia

If they're so profitable, why don't we privatise them? Surely it would be totally in keeping with the current economic climate and trends in the public sector? Sink or swim, my dear Saxe-Coberg-Goethes!

Ab1de states "I think it will be amended at the same time as the inheritance part"
They are mistaken, whilst primogeniture is being discussed by Nick Clegg (who is responsible for contitutional reform), the 'Catholic thing' i.e. the 1701 Act of Settlement is not.
The 1701 Act of Settlement bars any Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic from ascending to the throne, while Common Law gives precedence to male heirs in the succession of the throne.

Lets be fair then and extend the Act of Settlement to bar all religions then :)

'Not that most Catholics give a monkeys. I certainly don't.'

That makes legal discrimination of a particular religion okay, then.

I am struggling to be polite here.

How can anyone think that that short clip is at all unbiased? Yep, I know that I am biased in the other (anti-monarchist) direction, but at least I admit there is another point of view.

I cannot believe that just because some unknown voiceover person tells me that the monarchy is value for money/earns this country money/is graciously paying taxes on 'their' land, that I am supposed to be grateful for that?

FACT. They cost us a good deal more than that video suggests (and yes you do have to factor in the cost of security). You might be interested in this, for example.

FACT. So no one goes on holiday to republics such as France (I know that was mentioned - dismissively - in the video), Italy, Spain or the USA? How many of you have holidayed there without worrying that these places are not monarchies? Here are some figures on earnings from tourism - funnily enough, the UK is not top of the list.

FACT. Please read karmabeliever's post at 19.35 re: the idea that the so-called 'crown' lands might actually belong to we, the people, rather than a bunch of descendants of robber barons.

Have just read a bit about the enclosure acts. Disgraceful.

UnfitMother, sorry I misread your post earlier, and of course you are right that barring Catholics from the throne/succession through the first-born male child are not covered by the same piece of legislation.

But I do think that Abr1de is right in saying that if one of those issues is dealt with, the other one probably will be dealt with at the same time.

If we have to get rid of HM Queen (Happy Birthday Ma'am) can we also get rid of the scrounges on benifits who cost us millions fattys alkys etc and give nothing back to the country and to save money can we stop our overseas aid budget

Not quite getting your parallel between a family of publicly-funded multimillionaires and weak, poor & damaged people, Mike? Do you somehow feel the rich ones need our money more than the others?

MikeOxstiff, no need to get sulky just because we don't agree with you.

Yes, Mike - and while we're at it, why don't we abolish child benefit and tax credits as well?

Come to think of it, scrapping the NHS might save us a bob or two.

The French chopped their heads off and still manage to have tourism.

onagar
I am not getting sulky. You have your opinion I have mine
How about this for a waste of money

PrincessFiorimonde
Yes, Mike - and while we're at it, why don't we abolish child benefit and tax credits as well?

Come to think of it, scrapping the NHS might save us a bob or two.
Dont be silly I have not work for 6 years and leave the NHS alone. When I go out on the beer sat nights I want to get pissed up get into a fight and know that I will be looked after and taken to hospital and kept safe untill I sober up

Princess F has a point Let's scrap everything - armed services, highways agency, sewage maintenance, police, legal system, council services, free education, civil list, the lot! And take back the people's land. At least nobody'll be able to moan about their taxes, eh, Mike?

One of my previous clients was The Crown Estate, the organisation set up to manage the land belonging to the Crown, and yes, the Royal Family DO bring in way more money than they 'cost'.

They are NOT actually publicly funded, they are self funded and the remainder they donate BACK into the country.

HerHissyness, I think the point is: does 'the land belonging to the Crown' actually belong to the Windsors, or does it really belong to us (the population as a whole)?

Mike, in your case I think we can manage a plaster or two if you will insist on drunken scrapping.

Princess you are wrong the two issues are quite separate and will not be dealt with together!
Please do some research, primogeniture is currently under discussion, the Act of Settlement is not. They will will require completely different legal processes. Both you and Abr1de say "I think" it's being dealt with but neither of you know. Look it up - you're mistaken!

Just for good measure - "Off with their heads!"

MikeOxStiff, Petitepeach

The Royal Family help the economy. I for one know this as I am happily rubbing my hands together after making a few bob on the run up to the Royal Wedding. It is a difficult time for retail at the moment so this has been a great boost for us.

I also appreciate the work the Royals do for charity.

I do however agree with a few points made in the thread but at the end of the day money talks and as long as the Royal Family are earning us money I image they will be kept around for a while longer.