Rule Britannia! The Queen owns the seabed.

[grannieonabike]

Heard this on the news. She'll get all the profits from offshore wind farms, I believe. Made me wonder what else she owns.

March on the Palace anyone?

And she still wants 63p from everyone in the country?

Greedy cow

I want my 63p to go to complimentary to fund her first novel.

I'm sure if the queen thought about it, she'd want that too.

THE. A bit mean of you, I'm worth at least 70p!

frakkinstein, as ladyblahblah puts it they are not just in the public eye they are funded by us! So that makes it my business, your business and everyone else's business.

The comparison with Rooney and his pals is completely pointless - my taxes don't go to pay his wages as far as I'm aware.

If they can't cope with the stress of their busy lives they are more than welcome to abdicate.

But the point is they're only funded for the public stuff they do therefore we should only have the right to see where that money comes from and goes! As has been pointed out by others they have large amounts of personal wealth as well which we have no right to pry into. Therefore the fact Queen pays income tax on her private income should be enough and how much is none if our business. She shouldn't paying tax on the public funding which is compensation for her role as Head of State otherwise we'd have to pay more tax so she could pay tax

You can access her annual expenses if you want to. They show that last year she did cut some costs at least. Additionally, if I remember correctly from the announcements, Roayal expenses will be audited independently, the Civil List is being modernised and it got frozen again this year.

Fascinating information misuc, but
does she claim her free TV licence bet she does

"As has been pointed out by others they have large amounts of personal wealth as well which we have no right to pry into."

That is your opinion. In my opinion these large amounts of personal wealth are hers by dubious means and thus we do have a right to pry.

Do you believe in democracy?

If so, I will say it again...No one who claims to value democracy can also value an institution based on elitism, exclusive privilege and hereditary public office. There can no be 'apart from the Queen' after that sentence.

Makes interesting reading.

Don't believe everything the royals tell you via their PR machine - they're not exactly a family that has a glittering history of behaving honourably are they?

Here are the costs of comparable European heads of state:

Country Cost

UK £183m (£40m officially)

Ireland £1.8m

Austria £3.5m

Finland £7.9m

Germany £26m

Because I don't believe that democracy and having a figurative head of state are mutually exclusive concepts. You want to take it up with the Queen how the Royal Family acquired their wealth then go ahead, but really there are easier targets to go after for the dubious acquisition of wealth.

I support the independing auditing of public funding but I don't support witch-hunts against people who are in a unique position, where we can't quantify what it is that they do and what it's worth but who, when all is said and done, play a huge role in the way the country IS. I know I'm a pragmatist rather than an idealist but the way things are means that the Queen has less power than a President would have whilst fulfilling a lot of very useful functions - one of which is to be politically neutral, so we can wheel her out whenever we need to make a state visit but don't want to comment. The Parliamentary system gives us a representative democracy and reigns in the power of the PM, carrying out the effective governing of the country, we've managed to finally separate the judiciary from Parliament by getting rid of the Law Lords and creating the Supreme Court, now we just have to work on getting rid of the bishops.

Whilst I can understand how inherited power might not be seen as fair something like the Lords serves a very valuable purpose - the people in there aren't worried about getting elected, they're not worried about pissing off the PM if they think something's a good idea and they're relatively free of party politics. It's not perfect but it's the system and for the most part it works, where it doesn't it just needs fine tuning.

Er, hereditary peers were abolished some time ago.

Probably because everyone could see what an anachronistic nonsense inherited power was in the 21st century.

It escapes me how this same argument doesn't apply to the queen.

"the queen has less power than a president would have"

Why? Why can't we decide how much power to give the president?

Hereditary peers were removed from the Lords, not 'abolished' altogether. And again my point is being misunderstood - I was drawing a parallel that unelected representatives (life peers, albeit mostly chosen by the PM) still have power. As, currently, do the Bishops. That's why I said 'like the Lords' - it's not hereditary (any more) but it's not directly elected (although hereditary peers elected their representatives as they've been unable to vote for the Commons) and it's more stable than a changing Commons therefore taking a longer term view. The Queen has the ultimate long term view IMO. If that makes sense to people despite its technically undemocratic nature then why shouldn't the monarchy?

TBH frakk - I would get rid of all non elected public figures. Starting with the Queen because she is the most visible and expensive

Longfingernails. I know you wrote it a long time ago, but please! Thatcher is a CUNT. Everyone knows it. Let that be a free history lesson to you and don't talk rubbish in future

Have to disagree OK - Thatcher was actually a very good PM, and far better than the tossers Bliar and Brown.

Given that I can remember the labour govts before Thatcher, and Red Robbo spouting from his podium at British Leyland and the unions holding the country to ransom, then Thatcher did well. I note that the incumbents in 10 Downing Street from 97-10 did nothing to repeal any of the legislation regarding the trades unions that Thatcher bought in.....

LFN doesn't need a history lesson, and she isn't talking rubbish.

What does so signify? Agreement that she is a grasping bitch and that you don't care that she and her profligate ilk are getting richer by the second while the rest of us suffer austerity cuts.

63p is way under the correct sum - that figure was provided by the monarchy from a proportion of the published accounts. It doesn't sound all that bad hence the con.

Hereditary Peers were NOT abolished, although Bliar did promise to rid the country of these spongers in his manifesto. There are STILL ninety of the sods in the second chamber. The House of Lords is an anachronism and should be thoroughly reformed. The name Lords and Ladies is 'elitist' and a continuation of class divisiveness, an example of Class War in our mis-named democratic island.

Absolutely! In fact she did not pay tax for at least three decades and reluctantly agreed after public outrage. The point is that our toadying royal government were victims of HER decision to cough up. OK for some! What a democracy. Do not forget that she also interfered in a trial when revealing stuff was due to be released into the public domain - deplorable facts that allegedly would have damaged one of her offspring, and the profligate monarch that gullible tax-payers maintain.

Not true - she has enormous power, equivalent or even greater than some ELECTED Presidents. There are many examples but these will suffice for now. The oath of allegiance which is directed solely to her and her successors. So let us have a coup and see what happens. The military would opt to save these royal spongers rather than its people. Moreover, just look at the Saxe Coburg, oops German oath which is directed at serving the people, i.e. family, and nation NOT a single unelected dynasty. Secondly the deplorable current national anthem. So unrepresentative. Oh God Sod the Queen.

Frannkkiinnstein. For goodness sake fink will you. Don't avoid the issue of royal payment of tax. She did NOT pay tax for three decades, only coughing up when SHE decided to after public outrage. Don't keep making asinine apologies for this dreadful woman and the rest of her spongers - ALL on State Hand-outs - no cuts there!!

'The military would opt to save these royal spongers rather than its people'

Don't think so; have just read my dh's Commission, and nowhere does it say that he has to save the Royal family.

The Military would obey the orders passed down from senior officers which come from HMG; anything else is mutiny.

If you really believe that then you should as a safeguard nevertheless do your utmost to get the appalling unrepresentative oath of allegiance changed so that it states. and defend the people of this country, and not some bloody awful dynasty of Teutonic ancestry who changed the name to Windsor in 1917 when we were slaughtering Germans and they were slaughtering Tommies. In fact as an ex. British military man I can assure you that these wankers at the MOD and top brass etc. would act on HER behalf first and not in the interest of the people.It illustrates how entrenched this dreadful institution of Monarchy is.

PS. Out of ignorance you confirm my point with the sentence: "...orders passed down from senior officers which come from HMG." Note that you are em phasing the awful undemocratic fact that it is HMG - HER MAJESTIES GOVERNMENT,exactly my point. Why not a more representative Peoples Government. And NO, before you comment, the Crown is not the people.

'The Crown' is the state, and last time I looked the people elected the Government - it is therefore representative.

It is actually Her Majesty's Government, as Her Majesty is singular, not plural.

Having a monarchy works for the UK - it was tried without, and the Monarchy invited back. I would far rather a monarchy than President Blair, Mandelson, Harman, or Booth. In fact the 'presidency' that rules us (with Van Rompuy and Barosso in the driving seat) amply demonstrates why a constitutional monarchy without any influence in parliament works much better.