Queen to receive £6 million pay rise

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Scones.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: AgarthaSeed


I am no Republican but - ouch!

Perhaps we could save quite a bit by not paying any more taxpayers' money to the likes of Prince Andrew.

Being that the Royal family has no active role in government, pays no taxes and sits on a fortune I cannot see a reason why the Queen would recieve such a payment.

Thats not Republican or Democrat. That's logic.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The monarch's role in the British Government is subtle, complex, and fascinating. It's a pet topic of mine, so don't encourage me to start blabbering on about it!

The Queen does pay taxes (has done since the 1990s) and pays tax on her income from the Crown estates and the Duchy of Lancaster.

There's evidently a bit of confusion slipped in, because in the UK the word "Republican" means "in favour of abolishing the monarchy" rather than denoting the US political party of that name.

Raise? I could never figure out what she does.

Walk around with a big hat on her head

Most of that money will go in wages, to workers, who pay tax on their wages, tax on their transport, tax on their clothing, tax on their footwear, tax on their beer, cigarettes, entertainment, water, electricity, airport tax, the government gets most of that money back, a really 'nice' merrygoround...

I won't shed any tears when the old hag finally dies.

originally posted by: sapien82
why are we paying her when she reportedly has £340 million in her private holdings

I think the problem is "low interest rates". Nobody is earning anything on their assets today.

A lot of people who are rich "on paper", have all their assets tied up in things that don't earn any interest, so they need a bail out, or they'll have to sell their assets.

No matter how rich you are, you still need "cash flow" to support your lifestyle.

If the Queen started to sell her assets to get the cash for daily expenses, there'd be nothing left to inherit when the next monarch sits on the throne. Then the monarchy would become "bankrupt".

It would be really weird to have the "Face of the Monarch" decorating the currency, if that monarch declared bankruptcy.

a reply to: AMPTAH

I'd find that #ing hilarious actually , good riddance (actually that would be terrible because who'd bail them out , the UK public thats who!

@willtell aye she walks around with a big hat that has diamonds the size of your fist on it !

like really why do we continue to support these clowns because of #ing tourism , like I said we'd be cheaper getting rid of the monarchy and sticking a bunch of holograms in a museum job done
no more expensive planes everywhere for diplomatic meetings no staff waiting on their hand and foot

im sure they can all just retire happily to one of their stately homes and leave them to it
send harry and william out for jobs at the pound shop
kate can work in a greasy spoon cafe.

death to the monarchy , long live the republic

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
We should get rid of the monarchy once and for all.

"We should get rid of Muslims once and for all"

Sounds insane innit?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Bend over and take it
that's right
Take it TAKE IT

I can f#ck anyone of you at anytime and you will have to take it
your mine
I own you insect

who am I?
your QUEEN bitches

a reply to: sapien82

I am a monarchist at heart but I dont think anyone should be funding any of the old monarchs to live out their "divine right" of rule.

The palace, sure, that stays in the country and is there for future use.

Their holdings no. A salary a diplomat gets would suffice and all luxury should be brought to a minimum if paid for with public money.

You dont want the family to look weak and broken. They are a representation of the country to the world.

They dont need millions for that.

It is your country though, just a thought.

Good luck.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Bend over and take it
that's right
Take it TAKE IT

I can f#ck anyone of you at anytime and you will have to take it
your mine
I own you insect

who am I?
your QUEEN bitches

Human institutions and control systems aye?

That's a fairly triggered post there mate - are you OK? Are you able to discuss this?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

triggered ?

I love the queen

I eat insects with her

are you OK? Are you able to discuss this?

believe me
what I wrote is what she thinks...

a big hug to you
sublimecraft you handsome fellow

you remind me of John Calvin

a reply to: Sublimecraft

not at all !

there is nothing at all wrong with abolishing the monarchy and telling them to step down because they are nothing more than a relic we cling to them like the death grip of the empire

the monarchy is a foul reminder of an empire that enslaved the world

Id be happier if they were abolished and their estates kept as property of the people of the UK
we create a museum stick in some holograms and boom
no more monarchy .

it's only total assholes who claim they are better than everyone else and they are just a family of people who claim they are our rulers and betters

a reply to: tadaman

what does a monarchist at heart mean to you ?

like what does it do for you ?

Just curious

a reply to: sapien82

I think the rule of a single mind brings clarity to a governments purpose and eliminates obsitcles that are created by selfish interests on the part of the ruling class.

I find the notion of a king /queen whose crown is placed upon them by the people choosing his or her direction as the ultimate expression of democracy.

Made kings from any social stock are the only valid form of monarchy to me.

Hereditary titles are absurd. Merit is not.

I would choose an absolute ruler whose power is limited only by their humanity and whose role checks the power of a centralized government.

The monarchy would be concerned with empowering regional administrations with autonomy in return for compliance in certain domains in the name of protecting national interests. This as an opposition to an existant but limited central government.

To me, a title of king or queen should be given sparingly and in special circumstances like war, or the need of global representation for the nation in an emergency situation.

These monarchs would be such for set times. Once expired the title is sede vacante.

That would be my ideal system. An honest mix of democracy and absolute rule.

Its probably my most unamerican trait.

But you have to remember guys, The royal family got where they are today by getting up a 4 in't morn and gan doon ti't pitface till 10 o'clock in't evenin all with awt tea break and shoes on ones feet.




Sorry guys, quick EDIT: That twas ti't Doyle family. My mistake.

a reply to: Soloprotocol


And you try and tell the young people of today that ....and they won't believe you.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Sublimecraft

believe me
what I wrote is what she thinks...

a big hug to you
sublimecraft you handsome fellow

you remind me of John Calvin

Believe you me, the House of Windsor will get no sympathy from me - bloodlines in positions of power around the planet are half the bloody problem, and do indeed conspire - we have the CFR, Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission & royal bloodlines & bankster bloodlines & religious institutions (Western and Middle East) - all of which are very much involved in determining the economic future of the planet - we are the means to their end - we work, they live a life of unfathomable luxury - it's been this way for a very long time.

You know me - everything is a bloody conspiracy, until proven otherwise

a reply to: sapien82

There is a reason you and I (in Australia) are called subjects

wiki subject, verb,
bring (a person or country) under one's control or jurisdiction, typically by using force.


fortune.com...

But that's what she inherited. As monarch, the true windfall for her and her family comes in vast amounts of property kept in trust for herwhich generate significant income. Last year her 15% share of the income was valued at approximately $54.5 million. The trust is called the Crown Estate and includes the Crown Jewels and Buckingham Palace. But also in the trust are major sections of central London, including nearly all of Regent Street and half the buildings in St. James. The Crown Estate has 263,000 farmed acres; billions of dollars in industrial, office, and retail properties; about half of the U.K.'s shoreline, and almost all the seabed to the 12-mile territorial limit.

The total value is about $16.5 billion. Queen Elizabeth and family receive 15% of all the money — $363 million annually — made from the rents, lumber, agricultural products, minerals, renewable energy production, licensing of rights to run undersea cables, and more.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies", the company rose to account for half of the world's trade, particularly in basic commodities including cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt, saltpetre, tea and opium.

The company also ruled the beginnings of the British Empire in India.[3] The company received a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600, making it the oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies. Wealthy merchants and aristocrats owned the company's shares.[4] Initially the government owned no shares and had only indirect control.