To think that the planned Diamond Jubilee celebrations are ridiculously extravagent and a kick in the teeth for those of us facing difficult times?

[LifeHope11]

I am not saying that we shouldn't mark the occasion but seriously:

A decorated barge plus flotilla of 1000 boats?
500 horses to be shipped into the UK from around the world?
A 'Jubilee' concert and a thanksgiving service?
A vast jolly of free holidays - sorry, 'official visits to the four corners of the globe' of dozens of 'royals' with their attendand flunkeys?

I don't know how even the most dedicated royalist can justify all this ridiculous extravagenceat a time of looming recession, austerity measures and squeezed households, cuts on the vulnerable and disabled etc, rising unemployment, homelessness and poverty. I think this could backfire on them very badly indeed as they are showing themselves up as being completely out of sympathy with people's concerns and fears

That would be admit, not *android".

This is one of the many reasons why I will never be wealthy

Well I shall thoroughly enjoy each and every minute. I will enjoy the flotilla, the umpteen programmes on all channels, the street party, bunting and extra holiday.

I think the Queen is bloody lovely.

Driftwood: I don't want to go too much off topic and start a debate about the Crown Estates. Suffice it to say that I would take issue with your claim that the CE ensure that the Monarchy is self funding and I would not rely on the Crown Estate's website in determining the relationship between the CE and the Monarchy. Briefly:

You stated that the CE dates back to the Norman Conquest, ie the Conqueror appropriated (ie stole) the Crown Lands for his own purpose.

The CE revenues were always used for the running of the state, their administration was taken over by the Government, as another arm of the state, with the decline of absolute monarchy; it became more practical & convenient to run the country this way. The CE belong to the Crown ie the State ie all of us. If they were not spent on the monarchy they could be spent on something else relating to the running of the state?

Again as you pointed out they are not the personal property of the monarch; that being the case how can it be said that the Monarchy is ' self funding' the money being ours not theirs to start with? Sorry but i just don't see it: the CE is often trotted out as 'proof' of the monarchy being self funding but I and I suspect many others are just as confused.

"Longevity isn't in his male line"

are you suggesting Prince Phillip isn't his father?

I have to android that I don't know what a billion actually is. Is it ten million or one hundred million? Who fucking cares? It is an obscene amount of money for one family to have.

Why? they areno where near the top of the rich-list league in comparison to some - do you think all wealthy peopel should live in 3 bed semis and give their money (inherited or earned) away? perhaps the law should be changed so you cant get your mitts on your parents or partners assets if you feel that strongly about inherited wealth.

Lets have a pop at the Grosvenors or the Church of England or the rail companies - who are indeed super rich entities - the top of Britains Rich List doesnt even have a British national in it. Richard Breanson enters the list at 19 - and the Queen still isnt appearing on it.

LifeHope - Think of it as a Trust Fund. It works.

We should get the whole lot of them onto the Jeremy Kyle programme and make them accountable for their life choices.

And those all-important DNA results and lie-detector tests will clear many things up.

'If the 'royals' want to mark the occasion they should show solidarity with people suffering hardship - but as usual they can be relied upon not to pass up an opportunity to spend taxpayers money.'

I'm pretty sure that the Royals didn't decide to do all of this and spend all this money. I think they would be perfectly happy to stay at home enjoying their damn comfortable life. The Queen is 80 - she'd deffo prefer to be relaxing with corgis and jigsaws.

The reason they are doing it is that they aren't really people, they're an institution. Not an institution that I'm especially interested in personally, but one that contributes a large amount to our economy, sense of identity and national pride. There plenty of republicans about, but they're outnumber by the people that love processions and carriages and shit.

And politically, it's important in terms of global profile. We may be quite a small country but we have the No.1 Royal family, etc, etc.

Once again, it will be like being fucked up the arse whilst being shown a picture of some kittens.

I suppose we do at that. I wouldn't be too sad if they were shot moved to a council estate in Hounslow but other people might be.

Menopausal: I think this is something real to be offended by. Whatever your personal views on this, I do believe that many people will be offended by conspicuous consumption. There is a lot of anger about the fact that a minority appear to be getting richer at a time when many are getting poorer...recall the St Pauls protests?

In the end it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, I a lot of people are going to be offended by an extravagant display however mistaken you may think they are. Read the anger from many of the posters here.

And no I don't want to ban Christmas, where did you get that idea? I am looking forward to a happy family Xmas if leaner than previous years...but then I have the freedom to choose how much I spend, I don't have that choice when paying taxes.

YABU it will bring in tourism and create jobs

lucky24: explain exactly how it will do either.

Driftwood: if they are really self funding where do those figures and claims 'they only cost us 67p a year' (that's every man woman & child not every taxpayer, and excl security costs - just to confuse us - and no other expenditure would be justified in this way) - come from? So they DO cost us something. Frankly I think that any expense is thrown away on the 'royals' and that a billionaire family like this should not be costing us anything.

at creating tourism and jobs.

I wonder if Her Majesty would be happy to have indentured slaves working for their JSA at around £1 an hour as part of workfare guarding her person during these celebrations?

I would guess not. I'd not be too happy about that. What with my seven billion quid and all.

The royal family seem to be way more important to the English. In Scotland, we have haggis and bagpipes playing the same role in terms of national identity.

At least you can eat a haggis

Just to respond to a few of the points here:

No it is not like a Trust Fund and they are not self financing. As the Crown Estate belongs to us it is as if we had a trust fund which was being used to keep another person's child in luxury while our own went without. Even Buckingham Palace admits that the Monarchy represents a cost to the public.

No the Monarchy does not boost tourism - unless you think that people come to Britain to catch a glimpse of the royals and not for everything else the country has to offer. If you ever went to Spain, did you go there just to see the Spanish royals?

No I've nothing against rich people per se,especially those who have become rich through their talent & hard work. The Monarchy on the other hand are a drain on the public and have acquired (or stolen) the money from the public. They are a a drain on us.

I don't mind it all as long as they are paying and not us

YANBU. It's not just all the expenditure here, they are going on a round the world holiday as well, done in sumptuous style.

When all the cuts are starting to bite and this government is even cutting basic services and essential help for disabled people, I think that a huge expensive celebration on this monumental scale is incredibly insenitive. "we're all in this together". Riiiight.

We have a day of strikes where people who are going to be made significantly worse off in their old age protest and we are told that the country can't afford the day off. However we can afford it for a jolly like this?

A billion is a thousand million.

In the past there were two kinds of billion - an American billion was a thousand million, and a British billion was a million million. Nowadays everyone uses the short billion (1,000 million)

The argument that we should keep the royals because of tourist revenue is a false one. Versailles makes more money than our royal attractions and where is the French royal family? The palaces etc would make money and attract visitors regardless of whether we have a reigning monarch or not.

That example is evidence based from a debate my DS engaged in in which he headed off that argument by supplying the revenues/tourist visitor numbers which also accounted for opening times etc.

Ultimate argument for a republic? Prince Andrew, paedophile apologist-so sue me.

Thank you for that explanation Trills I knew that there were conflicting values to a billion but the last time I looked it up it wasn't clear.

What Tethers said. Really gets my claw that a group of people, due to nothing but birth, get to spend OUR money (or a government spends it on their behalf) on celebrating an antiquated and out moded system that, in its essence, is about keeping the little people down.

And why doesn't anyone ever have a go at the Queen for having four children when she doesn't support them herself?

Yes Ifancy, exactly. Monarchy has had its day....of course there will always be inequality and that is not altogether a bad thing (some become rich/privileged through hard work and talent, some through sheer luck) but a system that underpins and celebrates inequality and privilege for the few is something different entirely. I actually see it as immoral.

I also think tourism would in fact be boosted if monarchy were abolished....palaces & royal sites could be visited freely by the public who would also have access to art treasures etc much of which belong to US (though we rarely get to see them).