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"

In truth, I would trust the Queen and Prince Charles to be better custodians of the land than I would our government, who'd likely sell it to Tesco at the first opportunity! However, that doesn't mean I feel they are entitled to it, because the fact remains that the wealthiest landowners have acquired 'their' land through some questionable methods.

As people, they are neither better or worse than any one else, so I struggle with this idea that we should look up to them, or be happy that one of them is getting married (I feel no more strongly about it than I do towards any other couple getting hitched) or that they deserve the level of privilege they enjoy.

I do have a great deal of respect for the Queen as an individual. Princes Andrew and Edward otoh, leave a lot to be desired

Niceguy I don't hate everyone who has more money than me. given the state of my bank balance, that would leave me with very few people to talk to .

Failing to see what's wrong with being a socialist btw.

Kungfupannda (have you always had 2 Ns in the 'pan(n)da' bit of your name? I've only just noticed), you make eminently reasonable points about the contentious nature of land ownership. If I wasn't so hungover, I'd like to debate with you the history of enclosures, dissolution of the monasteries, a thousand or so years of monarchy and aristocracy, and the rest. I fully acknowledge that my 'give the land back to the people' comment yesterday was a bit, errm, dramatic. And I believe I did upset someone last night, so I'm very sorry about that.

However, I think that Onagar and KarmaBeliever have also made interesting posts this morning.

Sauvignon, yes I am going to have to bleach my brain for having quoted the DM last night. Disestablishment (the word does look weird, but am pretty confident it's the correct spelling) is another interesting point, and I am sure it will come one day - but, at the risk of upsetting anyone even further, I think we're more likely to see changes to the Act of Settlement and primogeniture rules than we are to see the disestablishment of the church any time soon.

And picking up on a point that both Onagar and Sue52 made - even more than the money involved in the upkeep of the royals (I accept there are wildly different figures that are quoted in all these debates), I truly think the most pernicious aspect of the whole thing is this: 'If we believe in democracy and equality we can't also believe that one family is superior by right of birth.' (Thanks, Karma.)

Am now going to shut up on this subject for a long time. (I was going to add a smile emoticon there, but I know that some people think it's a passive-aggressive piece of shit.)

I see I took too long to post (as usual). Niceguy, did you see my earlier link showing that the UK is not the world's number 1 tourist destination? And I'm quite happy to put my hand up as one of 'the left wing socialist idiots'.

Enjoy your day off, though.

I really can't believe the anger on this thread and made an account to say so.

The Queen is a great representative of the United Kingdom and the embodiment of so much of our history. To get rid of her would be a great tragedy.

And for all of you complaining about how the royal family 'stole' the land, you do realize that this Queen didn't personally take it, right? It was taken by force hundreds or thousands of years ago and passed down. If you discovered that your grandfather had stolen the house you live in, would you really give it up if both you and your father hand inherited it legally? I doubt you would and you shouldn't have to.

Queeny, you can't leave something to someone if it isn't yours to give in the first place. If you steal something, however long ago, it doesn't make it yours, just because you've been in possession of it for a number of years.

The Queen didn't personally take our land. That doesn't make it hers though.

Your post made me think of the Jewish families whose wealth was taken by the Nazis. A lot of it is still stored in Swiss banks and the descendants of those families cannot get it back in all cases. Would you argue that it now belongs to the descendants of the people who stole it?

Anyone remember how Windsor Castle was her private possession, and not owned by the citizens of the country? Until it had a big fire and the rebuilding cost was split 60 million ways.

karmabeliever that's impractical. Should all of the video maker's country, America, be given back to the Native Americans? Are you willing to give up your house to the decedents of the Druids?

Queeny, it might be impractical to take it back, but that doesn't mean they really own it or that we should grateful to the royal family for their 'contribution' or take the view that they are better than us and more worthy of their position.

Where it is possible to trace true ownership, then property should be restored to the rightful owner. Obviously there comes a time when that is not possible any more.

There is a difference between acquiring something in good faith that turns out to belong to someone else and deliberately keeping what you know not to be yours.

She's not rewarded with houses, is she? They're hers! It's not as though the tax payer is letting her use them. She was just born into it.

I heart the queen

karmabeliever, I don't think that video, nor I, have said that the royal family are superior people. The only people I know who complain they are are Republicans.

As for the property, most (all) of the royal land was taken back in the Norman invasion of 1066 and has been handed down in the royal families since then. Surely one thousand years is long enough for you to make it impractical to hand the land back to the druids.

The Enclosures act benefitted the ruling classes in this country at the expense of the ordinary people, who lost their land. The dissolution of the monasteries further increased the wealth of the ruling classes. Whilst it may well be too late to take it away, that doesn't alter the fact that they acquired wealth which wasn't really theirs. We are talking about events which occurred way after the Normans defeated the Anglo-Saxons, and are recorded as historical fact.

I'm not sure how you could argue that anyone has a legitimate right to own Cornwall for example.

If no one is saying that the royal family are superior, then why do people curtsey? Why does the public have to fund security. What is the point of maintaining their position if they are just the same as us?

The Royals cost us £38m per year. We pay £170 BILLION to the EU. And for what?? I know what I think is better value!!!!!

For me the financial balance sheet is irrelevent, as Sue52 said: "We live in a democracy yet we have an unelected head of state. The monarchy has outlived it's purpose"

I agree with you about the EU CocktailQueen. If I had to choose, I'd keep the royals over the EU!

karmabeliever, people curtsey because it's a polite thing to do. As for funding security, the UK government does that for all sorts of people: foreign leaders, diplomats, etc.

Queeny - people curtesy to show deference. We don't generally go around curtseying to everyone we want to be polite to.

Since, IMO, the 'royals' are our equals I see no reason why we should show them deference.