Page 10 | To not want to pay for another scrounger?

weatherall · 2014-09-08T09:38:21+00:00

Poor Kate's with child again. When will these scroungers stop pumping out sprogs they expect all the rest of us to pay for?

MehsMum · 08/09/2014 16:30

Maisy, I said MOST people.
Obviously I excluded SOME people.

And The Original I take the point that we'd not have a president till he or she croaked, and then his/her son etc etc.

But as things stand, and having heard more than enough from the political class on the radio over the past decade or so, I would (speaking for myself) rather stick with the monarch as head of state.

writtenguarantee · 08/09/2014 16:32

out of curiosity, if the monarch is preferable to a president, why is the monarch not preferable to a prime minister? I mean, if it's such a good deal...

writtenguarantee · 08/09/2014 16:35

.if you like to have your facts right you should know that the duchy isn't his now, he is allowed to have a percentage of the profits. If for instance the country decided to do away with the monarchy he would never again get a single penny from the duchy? Surely if it was his this wouldn't be so?

actually, the good man charles isn't obligated to pay tax on the duchy, but he does so voluntarily.

What a swell guy!

Bogeyface · 08/09/2014 16:50

YANBU, my first thought on hearing the news was "Oh great, more taxes being given to those who dont need it from those who cant afford it".

ajandjjmum · 08/09/2014 16:54

Presumably written because someone has to take responsibility for leading the country and for the decisions made by Govt. The monarchy is really just a figurehead now - which is good in that she/they can't get involved in the politics of a situation.

Apparently the Crown Estates gave £230 million to the Treasury in 2011 and the Queen took £32 million. I didn't know, but apparently some of the Crown Estates (eg. Windsor) used to be the private property of the Monarch, but were handed over in exchange for the civil list. Live and learn!

writtenguarantee · 08/09/2014 17:02

Presumably written because someone has to take responsibility for leading the country and for the decisions made by Govt. The monarchy is really just a figurehead now - which is good in that she/they can't get involved in the politics of a situation.

but then why are we paying for a figurehead?

Specifically, from someone pro monarchy, what justification for the monarch as head of state doesn't apply to the monarch as head of government?

commsgirl · 08/09/2014 17:16

ajandjjmum · 08/09/2014 17:20

Because it's a great figurehead - it makes lots of us proud to be British - in the case of the Queen, there's a hell of a lots of experience and wisdom to be tapped by any sharp PM. Clearly does nothing for you - fair enough - but lots of us are supporters of the Monarchy, as can be seen at any event involving the Royals. It's part of our history and culture.

And tourists from all countries love them, thus bringing in the precious foreign spend.

56/57p a year it costs each of us - I give far more than that to different charities, and have no problem with making my contribution to the Monarchy.

As Head of Government, the Monarch would have to be political, as Head of State, they are not - surely? In addition, the continuity gives us an element of stability.

In my opinion - and we're all entitled to one of those!

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 08/09/2014 17:23

I wasn't proud when she sat picking her finger nails with a face like a smacked arse at the Olympics. If the only function of her is to be a figurehead and make us proud, there ought at least to be some minimum standard for her!

I've seen the queen show two emotions apart from boredom: she smiled when her horse won a race, and cried when she wasn't allowed her yacht any more. What a lovely lady.

TheBloodManCometh · 08/09/2014 17:25

I'm with you OP, to a certain extent. I can't bring myself to get worked up about it but I'm not looking forward to the inevitable fawning and dewy eyed behaviour that accompanies any kind of royal event.
Bleh.

Uptheairymountain · 08/09/2014 17:36

YANBU, OP - and this piece of total non-news is plastered over every news channel and website .

I wish the monarchy did cost 52p each per year. Doesn't security cost 6 + per person on top of this?

(Ps yes, President Blair would have been fine, because that's who people chose to democratically elect. Now it'd be President Cameron, and that would be fine too (or it would be if he'd been properly elected, ha ha). A Republican UK would be infinitely more likely to follow the current German model than the silly despotic examples usually trotted out.)

Uptheairymountain · 08/09/2014 17:44

AJ - it doesn't make me proud to be British. I also doubt that the queen has that much wisdom (the Windsors not being renowned for their intelligence) and, even if she did, wouldn't she be constitutionally unable to use it to advise the PM anyway?

Bogeyface · 08/09/2014 17:46

it makes lots of us proud to be British

Not all of us it doesnt, dont speak for me.

TheBloodManCometh · 08/09/2014 17:47

Only 52p you say?

Well then, I'm sure nobody would have an issue if I took 26p off every single person in the UK each year. It's only half, I'm not greedy.

I've got some good reasons why too:

I wasn't born in royalty, but my surname was that of a God of War - that makes me a God, right?
I'm really good at waving. I mean, really good
I'm also good at smiling
Admittedly I attended a state school, but they did teach me how to tie a tie. Which is basic ettiquette
And I could definitely support myself, I'm happy to pay for my own phone bill. I just want the £16 million to spend on holidays flights to wave at people who adore me

TheBloodManCometh · 08/09/2014 17:48

If someone can give me a good reason why I can't recieve 26p off every taxpayer each year, I'd like to hear it.

I mean other than the fact that I was born into a different family, what is the difference?

itsbetterthanabox · 08/09/2014 17:53

Agree op. Although the way you've worded the op is cringey.
It's irrelevant that he has a job that's not what will be paying for this baby.

motherinferior · 08/09/2014 18:00

It makes me quite embarrassed to hold a British passport, actually, this deranged sycophancy about the Windsors.

EarthWindFire · 08/09/2014 18:09

Not all of us it doesnt, dont speak for me.

They said lots not all

voluptuagoodshag · 08/09/2014 18:13

Hmm, married couple in their 30s who are quite wealthy decide to have another child. No reason to be quite so negative OP

emotionsecho · 08/09/2014 18:14

TheBloodMan, as someone upthread said, what are you prepared to do for the money?

Also, do people who wish to abolish the Royal Family really believe that any money from that abolition would miraculously end up shared out amongst the populace?

ajandjjmum · 08/09/2014 18:24

Thank you EarthWindFire - I also said we were all entitled to our opinion.

babbas · 08/09/2014 18:28

Happy for her and will although I can't stand them. I hope her sickness subsides and she's able to enjoy her pregnancy. But I don't want to hear every fucking detail for the next 9 months and it should not be the main news headline. No way. And I'm sure last time they clarified she had severe morning sickness not HG. There is a world of difference. And at least she has her (fourth) new kitchen and 17 staff to help her.

soverylucky · 08/09/2014 18:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dapplegrey · 08/09/2014 18:32

Nit how do you know the Queen cried when Britannia was given up? Did you witness her crying?

motherinferior · 08/09/2014 18:32

Well, resignation is always an option. She's only got herself to blame if she's convinced she's got some kind of divine obligation to keep going.