You Can Stick Your "Royal" Wedding Where the Sun Don't Shine.

reply to post by Lynda101


Did some research and i still don't understand the point that they may be/are related. The Royal family is probably related to many people in the united states and in england. Just cos they are extremely distantly related has no relevance to any point that could be made?

reply to post by ironsjack


Although its a long article I think it shows the psyche behind the thinking of those in power.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

reply to post by ironsjack


Sorry I am just cracking how to post a link and had intended to edit it and finish my reply but it suddenly escaped before I had finished it and its imcomplete. Sorry I will reply when back on the blog as I have to dash off.

reply to post by budski


Amen! Thanks for posting this so I didn't have to. With the state of the world the way it is, I find the "Royal" wedding to be an insult. I don't know why anyone is expected to care about it in any capacity. I'm glad it's over.

So alot here seems to hate the Royals but they do bring in a hell of a lot of revenue from Tourists. The Americans alone number 13-14 million persons per year. This amounts to nearly 7 Billion pounds they spend. So while everyone moans and whines about the the Royals using 40 million Pounds (plus civil list about 7 million pounds). There Estates generate revenue of close to 160 Million pounds. Which they by choice give to the Government.

This choice was agreed on buy parliament and George III. The king knew how to rack up huge debts and his estates income failed to meet these debts. So he did a deal with parliament to give them his estates income in return for a fixed salary. The reason why today queenie gets 40 million + other sundries. So they may cost 65 pence per person but in return the income from the estates returns just over 2 pound 60 pence per person not a bad deal. As to how much return in tourist dollar is huge.

In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer.

The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis.

The Royal family really are the golden goose. Under the agreement that George the III did if the government stops paying the fixed salary then the profits from the estates then go back to the reigning Monarch.

I can see it now the republican movement complaining about taxes increasing because someone didn't like some money being spent on some impotent royal system that really has no power.

They really are a profitable tourist attraction, People don't just visit the castles etc they like to live the fantasy of royalty. Even if only for a few days.

I like to think of the British Royals as living museum pieces who's principle function is to produce an occasional salivating scandal or some morale lifting high pomp & circumstance occasions for the folks of the United Kingdom. It is also fun to watch Queen Liz II go after Queen Vickie's record as the longest reigning British monarch. By the way in a few months Liz II will pass King George III to move into second place. Then in a few years Liz II will have beat them all. I'm rooting for her.

As for the royal wedding itself my reaction was that both of them except for the duds & surroundings looked about like all young couples: happy and hopeful.

I would like to see a King William II some day.

the royal wedding ha give me a break what makes these people think that they are any better than anyone else just because they have power they are nothing but a bunch of tyrannical scum

99% of the people in england dont care what so ever about the royals or any weddings.

while i agree its a waste of time and money, its still news, we dont need every news story to be about violence and natural disasters.

Time and time again, I see people saying that it cost the world and the money could have been used somewhere else.

Well, no, it couldn't. £10 million pounds spent anywhere in any area would make no impact what so ever. Yes, for an individual, that would be life changing...but for a nation, then its nothing.

The additional boost to the economy, that everyone still seems to be saying is a myth, has ALREADY had a positive impact. The potteries around Stoke-On-Trent, which are traditionally the basis of the economy of the region, have double in size compared to the same period last year making all the pottery that goes along with a royal wedding.

This all doesn't include the amount of tourism that was and will be generated from people coming to see where it all happened.

And where are these people getting numbers like "99% of people in the UK don't care about the royals"? According to the lastest anwsers, over 80% are in favor of the royals. I happen to be one of the 20% who don't think we need the full royal family before people start moaning.

reply to post by budski




One picture is worth a thousand words..............this picture are my words.

And now baby makes three. Yes add another little dragon to HRH's lair.