The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained

Submitted by: ruthless1990 5 years ago Misc

What do you think IAB? Should the United Kingdom have a monarchy?
There are 109 comments:
Male 12,365
[quote]@Angillion
so basically according to your looting money is OK.[/quote]

Even you can`t be stupid enough to believe that.

You`re vacillating between calling for complete communism and arguing that what you call looting is fine as long as the people doing it don`t call themselves "king" or "queen".

Your posts aren`t even internally consistent, let alone consistent with the real world.
0
Reply
Male 42
@Aedran

Geordie Shore is made by the same people who made Jersey Shore.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@valtes

They`re called casinos.......I`d take one damn good money.
0
Reply
Male 35
ok i tried reading all the arguments and gave up lol but i do want to add my two cents about giving the land back to the people it was stolen from. for those "yanks" that made that argument does that mean your going to give your land if you own any back to the American Indian and leave the united states?
0
Reply
Male 233
@Angillion
so basically according to your looting money is OK.
May be you are on the payroll by royal family to sell this bullpoo everywhere.
why were royal families all over the world were stripped down from their treasure?think on that.
0
Reply
Female 295
@dreddfan
Two words:
Geordi Shore.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
In any case, I can void your argument in yet another way by pointing at King Alfred the Great. He worked very hard and was extremely productive, which is why he`s the only king of England to be labelled "the Great".

So, by the latest amendment to your argument, every monarch since then is allowed by you to retain their inheritance since it was gained by an ancestor who worked hard and was productive.

But you won`t agree because you don`t agree with your own arguments. You`re just changing them on the fly to try to continue hiding your actual position.

Your stated position so far is communism, but I suspect you`re just anti-royalist for the sake of it.

Couple of things:

The English constitution and inalienable rights for all was put into place by a group of noblemen. Your bill of rights is based on it.

The last use of royal power in the UK was to force the foundation of universal suffrage into law.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]you can inherit a wealth many time down the family tree ,if it was earned by any ancestor by hardwork and productivity.[/quote]

You can make any arbritrary distinction you like and change it as often as you like, but it won`t change the fact that your argument is based solely on your completely incorrect view of history and of the present.

What about money earned by other people`s hard work and productivity, i.e. capitalism? Are you going to steal the assets of every successful business owner and share them amongst their employees?

[quote]And yes the crown estate was earned by looting people by the ancestors of royal family.[/quote]

Throughout recorded history (and very likely before then) rulers took land off other rulers when they conquered them.

Your entire country was taken that way and in much more recent history. Are you going to advocate taking all the land and money from everyone in the USA who can`t prove that their ancesto
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]How can I according to you I can`t count :-p. Even if they did make the UK more money can`t you see the rest of the world sees it as a dated and useless system giving money to people because of their family lines.[/quote]

As has already been repeated many times:

We don`t give them money.

We take money off them.

Even the £40M quoted in the video is misleading because most of that is operating expenses for a head of state and maintainence on some public buildings, both of which would remain expenses in a republic. Of the £7.9M which is actually "given" to the queen, the great majority is spent on employing people.

We`d save buttons by becoming a republic and it would cost us a fortune. It`s a stupid idea even if you ignore the political and heritage value.
0
Reply
Male 42
@jwhalerfan Not as embarrassing as a country that produced `Jersey Shore`.

Hang your head in shame.
0
Reply
Male 233
@Angillo
you can inherit a wealth many time down the family tree ,if it was earned by any ancestor by hardwork and productivity.
Money earned through looting can not be inherited even single time.


And yes the crown estate was earned by looting people by the ancestors of royal family.so its not rightfully belongs to queen.

there is reason that all the countries of the world abolished their so called royal families, and stripped down most of their wealth and give it back to civilians.

0
Reply
Male 63
Good for the U.K.!

I wish we had castles and not minimalls!
0
Reply
Male 220
"ROYALTY" hahahahahahaha what an embarrassing country hahahahahahahaha
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Your argument is bullpoo and you`re not willing and able to put enough money behind it anyway.[/quote]

How can I according to you I can`t count :-p. Even if they did make the UK more money can`t you see the rest of the world sees it as a dated and useless system giving money to people because of their family lines.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Damned fake character limit gets me every time.

Many of those buildings are tourist attractions because of the royal connection.

Also, all of the royalty-related tourism merchandising is tourism related to royalty.

Your argument is bullpoo and you`re not willing and able to put enough money behind it anyway.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]So according to the Royal family the Royal famliy makes money?[/quote]

No, according to anyone who can think and count even a little.

[quote]What a dated system "Hey everyone lets give a family of inbreds some of our tax money to sit on their asses because of their name YAY!!"[/quote]

Are you generally this irrational or is it just a fit of insanity triggered by the word "royal"?

They pay 100% on most of their income and we give a small part of it back to them. Your statement bears no resemblence to reality.

[quote]I`d bet the UK would make the same amount from tourism without the family it`s not like anyone gets to see them it`s the buildings and sights that make money.[/quote]

If you`re willing and able to back your bet with the billion or more a year the UK would lose if you`re wrong, then your raving would be less bullpoo than it is now. But you aren`t.

Many of those buildings are tourist at
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So you`d steal all the money after one generation, since the generation that inherited it didn`t produce it.

Your arguments apply to capitalism better than monarchy.

Do you realise that you are advocating communism? I`m just trying to ascertain how disconnected from reality you are.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Again you are assuming the royal family deserves the "crown estate".[/quote]

Yes, because it belongs to them. Specifically, to the queen. It`s all hers.

[quote]First of all...all the land the royal families inherited was looted from the common people.[/quote]

Not in the real world. You`re living a nice simple fantasy of good and evil. It doesn`t exist outside of your mind and children`s stories.

"the common people" (i.e. whatever people you approve of) have never owned the land. That only happens in perfect communism, which doesn`t exist.

[quote]Royal families have never done any productive work in past for the society to deserve the treasure.[/quote]

Past and present, actually.

[quote]Only rightfully earned treasure by hardwork and productivity should be allowed to be inherited to heirs.[/quote]

So you`d steal all the money after one generation, since the generation that inherited i
0
Reply
Male 14,330
So according to the Royal family the Royal famliy makes money?? What a dated system "Hey everyone lets give a family of inbreds some of our tax money to sit on their asses because of their name YAY!!" I`d bet the UK would make the same amount from tourism without the family it`s not like anyone gets to see them it`s the buildings and sights that make money.
0
Reply
Male 233
@puppies04
Again you are assuming the royal family deserves the "crown estate".First of all...all the land the royal families inherited was looted from the common people.Royal families have never done any productive work in past for the society to deserve the treasure.
Only rightfully earned treasure by hardwork and productivity should be allowed to be inherited to heirs.The money earned by looting peoples should be returned to peoples themselves.
0
Reply
Male 260
@Angilion inheriting land... The land is from who ever buys it imo, the royal family got it from inheritance idd. But look at the very beginning, how did they get the land? Point is, you buy the land, it`s yours, not the royal families
0
Reply
Male 686
Jamesboxy - I can understand British people wants to relive and remember their glorious days, but stop insulting the hardworking and productive people all over the world, by pampering these royal crooks who have been looting and killing people for centuries.

If you are somehow trying to say that because other royal families acted in this way that it means that the Windsors must be tarred with the same brush perhaps I should just assume that all people called James are retards just because I had the misfortune of reading that drivel....
0
Reply
Male 260
imo no country should have a monarchy. They have become obsolete in so many ways. And ok England has a financial reason, not all countries do. Besides, money isn`t everything.
0
Reply
Male 686
Lazyme484 - The problem with the `crown estate rent` argument is that if there was no crown, the land wouldn`t belong it it. You`d have that money anyway.

No.... let me try to explain this for you as simply as i can. If you dethroned the queen and made all the "royals" non royal all of a sudden then they would still own the land and could do what the heck they wanted to with it. For all the people who think this is somehow unfair, how about when your relatives die and you inherit something i come kick you in the balls and tell you that you can`t have it.... retards.

Back to my original point, nobody gives a damn what you think IAB if you aren`t British you have absolutly no right to expect anyone to listen to a thing you say on this topic. It impacts you in no way at all, hence the fact I don`t moan about the price of "gas" going up in America, because *SHOCK HORROR* it doesn`t effect me in any measurable way.
0
Reply
Male 67
AAAAhahahah: "hva faen?"
0
Reply
Male 233
<i>Bill Gates is very rich.
Do you advocate having your government steal all of his money in order to prevent anyone inheriting, since you`re so strongly arguing against inheritance?
Or are you just talking ignorant babble even you don`t believe? </i>

If your ancestor has earned money by hardwork and by doing something productive for society then inheriting their wealth is OK.
For centuries royal families have been sitting on their ass,getting free share from other people`s hardwork.Executing anyone who raise their voice against them.Insulting and disregarding the common people.

<i>You are obviously unfamiliar with London and with British tourism in general. </i>


I can understand British people wants to relive and remember their glorious days, but stop insulting the hardworking and productive people all over the world, by pampering these royal crooks who have been looting and killing people for centuries.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
As an aside, I`m wondering if the person who made this video confused St Michael`s Mount (France) with St Michael`s Mount (England), mistakenly thinking that the buildings on the French one were on the English one.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The problem with the `crown estate rent` argument is that if there was no crown, the land wouldn`t belong it it. You`d have that money anyway.[/quote]

Yes, if there was no crown then the land wouldn`t belong to it. Ownership would therefore remain in the hands of the person who currently owns it, having inherited it through the usual inheritance laws. That would be the queen.

If you want to argue that the state should seize all assets from anyone you define as being too rich, well, that`s a different argument entirely and has nothing to do with monarchy.

[quote]You should rely on the tourism... it`s probably enough to cover everything.[/quote]

At least a hundred times over, maybe two hundred.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
A constitutional monarchy has absolutely no effect on that.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]And what did royal family did anything useful to held ownership of "crown estate".
just give crown estate to government and it will still gives the same revenue.[/quote]

Bill Gates is very rich.

Do you advocate having your government steal all of his money in order to prevent anyone inheriting, since you`re so strongly arguing against inheritance?

Or are you just talking ignorant babble even you don`t believe?

[quote]As far as tourism is concerned people comes to see castle and all the historical buildings.[/quote]

You are obviously unfamiliar with London and with British tourism in general.

[quote]Isn`t democracy all about having the same opportunities to all people.[/quote]

No, that`s communism.

If you think everyone in the USA has the same opportunities, you are truly insane. Some people are born into great privilege, some into brutal deprivation, most somewhere in between. A constitutio
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The royal family took the land from the people. Then they made a deal NOT to charge rent for the land, and this you call "earning"??[/quote]

Since your initial premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong.

The royal family inherited the land from their ancestors.

Are you really opposed to inheritance?

"the people" is an entirely fictitious concept and they never owned all of the land anyway. Way back in prehistory, some people walked here from Europe and settled. They probably had some sort of leader, who probably owned more than the other people in the tribe. But you can go back maybe as far as 700,000 years with that (with pre-human hominids). Even if you just look at recent times, you`ve got 14,000 years of immigration, invasion, conquest, rulers and a general lack of the communism you`re advocating.
0
Reply
Male 173
As the alternative to an apolitical constitutional monarchy would be an elected head of state - i.e. politician - you`d be surprised just how many Brits support the current system. Way better value for the money.
0
Reply
Male 2,390
you lost me at pence and pound, but nothing beats any Monty Python cameo from GOD!
0
Reply
Male 173
The royal family took the land from the people. Then they made a deal NOT to charge rent for the land, and this you call "earning"??

How bout I steal 100 pounds from your pocket every year. Then I make you a deal not to rob you your 100 pounds every year, in return you give me 20 pounds?

It`s a great deal! You earn 80 pounds! YAY!

W T F ?
0
Reply
Male 1,360
the picture of the awesome castle was the mont Saint Michel and it`s french!
0
Reply
Male 2,220
The best castles are built by nature, crowned by man. Regardless of who put them up (or took them down)



0
Reply
Female 512
Huge tracts of land!
0
Reply
Male 1,010
Royalties TOOK sh*t from the population, when ever they felt like it. If someone objected, they cut off their heads. From a historical perspective, common property law should not apply to the royals. If a parliament wants to take the property away from royals, the should do it with the stroke of a pen and a FU.

However, i am positive to royals, because they can convey positive values. Our king makes an annual speech and the subject is usually anti- racism, a better sharing of our shared values, a responsible enviroment politics etc. and - moreover, in wartime or during a national crisis the royal king will be a common leader, symbolicly, who can summmon the nation in a manner that the parliament can`t. And, the king is a person with little practical power, so he does not become a tyrant or dictator. He is a representative of our values.
0
Reply
Male 302
@ LazyMe484

He did point out that the family would still own the lands anyway, but then with no responsibility towards the nation they could take 100% of the profits for themselves instead of just the £40m.
0
Reply
Male 233
And what did royal family did anything useful to held ownership of "crown estate".
just give crown estate to government and it will still gives the same revenue.

As far as tourism is concerned people comes to see castle and all the historical buildings. and not the royal family members who doesn`t look better than any average Britisher.

if you make the royal family live in a ordinary home and with expenses of a average British family , no tourist will a give a damn about them.

Isn`t democracy all about having the same opportunities to all people. The royal family gives a different idea ...that if you are born in royal and rich family..you are above the rest of the peoples and deserve extra privileges.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] The income from the crown estate was £210M [/quote]
The problem with the `crown estate rent` argument is that if there was no crown, the land wouldn`t belong it it. You`d have that money anyway.

You should rely on the tourism... it`s probably enough to cover everything.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote]Should the United Kingdom have a monarchy?[/quote]

No, but my reasons have been whittled down to that a monarchy is fundamentally obsolete.

Financially speaking, keep the monarchy, so long as it keeps bringing in a profit. Then again, IMO it`s hard to guess how much of that tourist money is directly as a result of actually having the monarchy there. If I wanted to visit the UK, which I do BTW, I wouldn`t give a f*ck about any queen.

Also, I believe Canada pays a miniscule part of that `upkeep`, but I`m not 100% sure.

Finally, I`m sure there are a lot of obsolete monarchy-related laws that still get in the way. I don`t think your system is perfectly monarchy-streamlined for tourism.

In the end though, the billions in profit might outweigh everything. I don`t think it will last long though.
0
Reply
Male 802
Did they really have to get a queen to narrate this?
0
Reply
Male 3,418
As a American Civil War reenactor, I am angered by the insult on the reenactors.
Period correct glasses just plain don`t exist. Authentic glasses do exist but to find lenses with the same prescription as you do is very rare. The guy probably just had those glasses that change in the light. Now an easy solution would be contacts, but not everyone can wear them and even still then everyone would wear them and that would portray that everyone back then had perfect vision.
0
Reply
Male 875
slow couple days on IAB
0
Reply
Male 1,311
And how much do we waste on our US government as it stands?
0
Reply
Female 180
MINECRAFT AND CORGIS IN ONE VIDEO :O <33
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I`m totally in favour of the Royals. I was hoping the video would get to the point of how much indirect revenue they bring in from tourism, especially from Americans (though also Japanese), which otherwise would be lost. Ask any average American (I said average American, not American I-A-Bers who are generally smarter than average IMO) to name what immediately pops into their head when you mention the UK, or Great Britain, or England - most times one of the top three answers will be something like "The Queen". And most American tourists go there (in part, at least), to see Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London, the Crown Jewels etc. How many million people watched the Royal wedding recently between William and Kate (I hasten to add, I was not one of them)? This kind of thing is something that people enjoy, and flock to. The idea of heritage, of history, and a little bit of "how the other half live".

To disband the Royals would be an exceedingly stupid mov
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@Angillion: I thought I read that the Royal Family costs each citizen about 15 pounds a year.[/quote]

I read that aliens from Mars invaded Earth and were killed by disease.

That was fiction too.
0
Reply
Male 1,744
Any irony in brits who didn`t know this watching this vid via an american website? No? Ok, didn`t think so.
0
Reply
Female 779
Monarchies are an honorary title nowadays and secondly they bring MASSIVE amounts of tourism. You`d be an idiot to try and get rid of that.
0
Reply
Male 954
Mont St. Michel isn`t in the UK... why did he bring it up with rays of awesome when he made his point about UK castles being better?
0
Reply
Male 2,085
@Angillion: I thought I read that the Royal Family costs each citizen about 15 pounds a year.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I`ve just looked it up and my last post is also somewhat wrong.

The first structures were built there before the more impressive English rebuild (that was later replaced by an even more impressive French rebuild).
0
Reply
Male 229
I hate that queen, why do we still have her ugly face on our money??
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I love how when he disses France`s castles and then shows a picture of an "awesome UK castle", the picture he`s showing is actually of a castle in Normandy, France.[/quote]

The original was built by England.

But that`s not the original.

So yeah, he was wrong on that bit.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]whats the point of them anymore? they dont do a damn thing. there a waist of money kick em to the curb and give their poo to the poor.[/quote]

You`re trolling or you`re an ignorant semiliterate fool. Either way, your post is pointless.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
In case anyone is wondering:

The £40M cost mentioned includes all costs pertaining to the head of state. So we`d still be paying almost all of it anyway if we had a different head of state.

The salary cost of the royal family is £7.9M. Almost all of that goes on employing other people, so we wouldn`t even save that £7.9M.

The income from the crown estate was £210M last year, a little more than the £200M mentioned.

So we`re still over £200M up even ignoring tourism. Which is well over £500M a year just in royalty-related entrance fees (easily counted). Overall, the monarchy easily accounts for at least £1B of that £7B tourism income.

It`s pure stupidity to want to throw that money away and destroy part of our heritage for...what? We gain nothing in return.
0
Reply
Male 182
whats the point of them anymore? they dont do a damn thing. there a waist of money kick em to the curb and give their poo to the poor.
0
Reply
Male 551
MINECRAFT!!!

Yeah, I had to say it and I didn`t even checked if
somebody said if first
0
Reply
Male 49
Minecraft! Yeah!
0
Reply
Male 2,593
I think all Americans should have the legal right to give the queen (and all future monarchs) one swift kick to butt. You know, for old times sake.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
@Buiadh
:D
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Also loving the butthurt Americans. xD

And,

"what an informative video this is"

Yeah, the person that submitted must be awesome. ;D
0
Reply
Male 521
It`s probably not a good thing to be learning things from I-A-B, but regardless this was pretty interesting.

Nice post.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
wow, learning is fun
0
Reply
Male 6,737
I`m pro monarchy, but I don`t like the hangers on. Those so distantly related to the current king/queen/princes etc but still do well for no effort.
0
Reply
Female 2,027
i like this, but yes, our castles arent the best, i prefer germanys :)
0
Reply
Female 2,415
Lovely! both funny and informative.
0
Reply
Female 4,349
thanks, that was interesting. but now I`m confused as what to think....
0
Reply
Male 541
I love how when he disses France`s castles and then shows a picture of an "awesome UK castle", the picture he`s showing is actually of a castle in Normandy, France.

On a more related note, as an Irish-American living in the UK, I personally quite like the Royal Family, because they`re good fodder for comedians.
0
Reply
Male 3,472
I read the Horatio Hornblower series.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
what an informative video this is
0
Reply
Male 773
Flaming hipster detected.
If you move to a different country, don`t bitch about their rules.
That is all.
0
Reply
Male 1,204
It`s not like we don`t have close to the same thing here in the States. Kardashian, Hilton, and their ilk. All rich and famous simply for being lucky to be born with the right last name. At least the British royals provide some value to their society. Can the same be said about Kim, Khloe, and Paris?
0
Reply
Male 1,929
I certainly don`t understand why people would want to get rid of the monarchy.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Getting paid for being born under a certain name is retarded. That is all.[/quote]

i) I`m interested in how you would run your country in which inheritance was impossible. After all, if someone inherits anything valuable from a relative, they are in your terms being paid for their name.

ii) The royal family aren`t being paid for their name. They are given back a small part of the money the state takes off them as 100% income tax.

If I took £210 off you and gave you £7.90 back, would I be paying you?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]i don`t think every country should return war spoils. But if they belong to someone, it should be to the descendants of the soldiers, which are the people.[/quote]

So...we get the USA back then?

If you actually applied your argument, the UK and probably everywhere else would have to become pure communist states (which is impossible in itself) because if you go back far enough everywhere has been warred over, usually repeatedly, so everything would have to be owned by everyone.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]There should be an special extra tax for the people who want a Royal family. If you want something pointless, then you f-ucking pay for it.[/quote]

There should be a special extra tax for the people who want to get depose them, to offset the loss of income to the country that would result from deposing them.

Then another special extra tax for pointless destruction of our heritage.

Why should the rest of us pay for your pointless ignorance?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]And england`s a nice place to visit on itself, i don`t think the tourism industry would suffer so much without a royal family.[/quote]

Considering how much of the tourism industry is related to the monarchy, I`m confident that you`re wrong. There`s direct income, in the form of entrance fees to monarchy-related places. There`s merchandising, which is particular big in London. Then there`s the less direct factor of attracting tourists (who then spend money on other things, such as accomodation and food). Tourists don`t usually go to see Buckingham Palace because it`s pretty.

Besides, the UK makes a clear profit from exploiting the royal family even if their effect on tourism is completely ignored.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
So the monarchy is good because it whored out its last shred of dignity for tourist dollars?
0
Reply
Male 438
This actually proves the royal family is a worthwhile expendature. By comparison to how expensive the 4th of july is in the USA they`re a total bargain.
0
Reply
Male 266
iSagacious: It`s just a matter of principle to me. And england`s a nice place to visit on itself, i don`t think the tourism industry would suffer so much without a royal family. Still, If you as a country wanna have some people in your country which are "legally better" than you, fine by me. I just say i would oppose to that if it were so in my country.
0
Reply
Male 302
@ paddy215

There would be no rent because the royal family would still own the lands. Did you even watch the video? The royals own the land but allow the government to collect all the revenue.
0
Reply
Male 51
Yeah the "great english castle" is Mont St. Michel in France. As there were not enough english castles to show in the vid...
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Would the land, castles etc.. just vanish if there was no royal family? No they`d still be there, the rent would still be collected, and the tourists would still visit. Not a single point is made in this video. Don`t give me that bullpoo about people only visiting because theres an actual royal family. Most of the castles are unoccupied in the first place and if having an actual royal family was the main reason for visitors wouldn`t Norway etc.. also be crawling with yank tourists?
0
Reply
Male 302
I am pretty sure at one point he refers to Mt. St Michel as a UK castle. Is that castle not in France?
0
Reply
Female 50
@yoda141
It sounds like you didn`t even watch the video. The Royal Family is actually a strong source of income for the UK, through tourism etc. You don`t seem to understand the system at all.
0
Reply
Male 605
Also, at 3:00, he shows a picture of a British castle and a stinky french one... except the `British` one is actually a FRENCH castle. Fail.
0
Reply
Male 639
I`m sorry randomxnp, but I fail to see how Nixon, Obama, Clinton, and Carter got elected because of the family they were born into. And FDR pretty much proved himself to be one of the best leaders of all time with that whole ending the Depression and being the deciding factor of WWII. Same with Kennedy and his handling of US-USSR relations, unless you`re a big fan of nuclear holocausts. Even so, all of them were elected because of their perceived value as leaders not because they won the genetic lottery.
0
Reply
Female 50
Dear guy who made this video, dissolving and devolving parliament are entirely different. Please make your mind up which you mean and match speech and subtitles accordingly. So far he`s just come across as a bit of an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 266
Randommxnp: i don`t think every country should return war spoils. But if they belong to someone, it should be to the descendants of the soldiers, which are the people. Didn`t mean to imply anything about england, at least anything that other countries hadn`t done too
And i understand about the rule of law. I just believe laws could be made exceptions. If a law in my country made it possible for a family to be insanely rich and also make me pay, half a million euros? for their heating system, i`d go and demand some change.
0
Reply
Male 605
TL;DW? The royals bring in far more money than they cost to maintain. Simple.
0
Reply
Male 2,332
Well that`s my point. There`s at least a vote.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
There should be an special extra tax for the people who want a Royal family. If you want something pointless, then you f-ucking pay for it.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
tedgp

Once you get to cousins it ain`t incest, at least here.

It is legal in the UK for first cousins to marry, and there is no strict genetic reason that it they should not. In a large gene pool the optimum genetic coupling is around second or third cousins.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
reignblazer

And electing President Obama is not retarded? President Bush (either)? President Clinton? President Carter? President Kennedy? President Nixon? FDR four times! That is just the Americans, you should see what idiots the French, Irish, Germans or the Italians have voted in as head of state.
0
Reply
Male 118
T`is a fine Kingdom we live in... Now time to go watch some American TV.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
yoda141

What war spoils? What war? How did the previous owners come by them? How far back should we go? Should Germany take back part of Poland and Poland take back part of Russia (after all that spoil of war is only from 1945)? Should England take back parts of France, or should the Norse be given Normandy? Should I, an Anglo-Saxon, get my ancestral lands from its Norman conquerors? Should Ireland be given back to Britain, or the whole island to the descendants of its Celtic lords? Or descendants of its English lords?

Those lands legally belong to the monarch. To forcibly transfer them to the state would be illicit. The rule of law is the fundamental basis of stability and prosperity, so should not be lightly broken.
0
Reply
Male 2,332
Getting paid for being born under a certain name is retarded. That is all.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
What WOULD the UK be called if it suddenly became un-royal? Hmmmmm.
0
Reply
Male 302
@ yoda141

All the lands mentioned are places inside the UK, he is not referring to the overseas territories.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
I think its funny that people say keep the monarchy. They must like incest. After all, The "king and queen" are 3rd cousins. Both having the same grandmother.
0
Reply
Male 758
I think it`s a country outside my own, so it`s not my business.
Interesting, to a degree, but it`s still largely celebrity bullsh-t that people care about for NO freaking reason.
0
Reply
Male 686
Voda141 unless you can prove your lineage back to the dawn of time and show that you are directly descended from the indigenous people of your country then the land you and your family own is stolen please give it back before you start recomending what other people should do with their "war spoils"
0
Reply
Male 3,894
*shrugs* i`m just opposed to the principle of the thing.
0
Reply
Male 686
Unless you live in or were born in the UK i don`t care what you think IAB. Keep your noses out
0
Reply
Male 266
While it`s true that keeping them pampered gives the U.K`s real government rights over the possesions of the crown, those possesions are all the product of war spoils. Some may argue that they should be returned to the conquered nation. I argue that if Britain is to keep them, they should belong to the state and not the crown.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
Link: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained [Rate Link] - What do you think IAB? Should the United Kingdom have a monarchy?
0
Reply