The Royal Family (GB and Commonwealth)

She costs loads of money to preserve.

Originally posted by Syren
She costs loads of money to preserve.

Hmm, how much money exactly?

Originally posted by KidRock
Yes deano..yes..we're not judgeing you here..we are all friends here deano.. 😉

gdgd friends forever

Deano's cool!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, how much money exactly?

Is this relevant?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page433.asp

Originally posted by Syren
Is this relevant?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page433.asp

It looks like most money goes to charitable things. Although I still see why you are upset, I can't find the Institution such a horrible thing after all. There are of course other reasons I know. Just...well..I don't know. I will leave now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well yeah, I'd like to know to jusge for myself.

It looks like most money goes to charitable things.

Exactly. MOST money, and none of the money is earned. It's tax money. People tend to say 'they give money to the treasury'. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for giving it back.

The Royal Family is a bunch of inhumanly inbred, no good, low down, useless worthless trailor park trash that's a drain on society unlike any other. Yep, they're the embodiment of everything British.

Originally posted by Uberking Robert
The Royal Family is a bunch of inhumanly inbred, no good, low down, useless worthless trailor park trash that's a drain on society unlike any other. Yep, they're the embodiment of everything British.

Although they're not British, so the joke falls a bit flat.

I may as well say it before anyone else does, as is ever the case when a poster of amoebic cranial capacity starts posting.

...Spelljammer?

The Queen's golden jubilee tour will see her carry out 142 public engagements by the end of July, many of them accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh.

Princess Anne will continue to be the hardest working member of the Firm with 172 engagements during the same period.

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester will clock up 34 official duties in the next two months, while the Duke and Duchess of Kent have committed to 61 engagements by July.

The Duke of York will carry out 21 domestic engagements in between trips to Guatemala, Peru, Belize, Germany and Switzerland in his role as an unpaid trade ambassador.

it seems the queen "works" quite a bit harder than the vast majority of the royals...not bad going for a 77 year old...

Public engagements as in showing up? Hardly much.

My Grandfather is 86 and still walks around every single day. Replaced hip and all.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Public engagements as in showing up? Hardly much.

My Grandfather is 86 and still walks around every single day. Replaced hip and all.

-AC

thats unfair...she does have to do a bit of waving and, god forbid, smiling at the little people

and at least she knows when to keep her mouth shut...unlike her "this fuse box looks like its been put in by an indian" and "do you still throw spears at each other" husband

I found the first one funny, just because it's so damn stupid (no, racism isn't funny).

A) Indian is one of the least offensive "racist" terms you could use, as he might actually refer to people from India.

B) How does an Indian put a fuse box in anyway? As if there's a specific way they do it.

The man is an idiot.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I found the first one funny, just because it's so damn stupid (no, racism isn't funny).

A) Indian is one of the least offensive "racist" terms you could use, as he might actually refer to people from India.

B) How does an Indian put a fuse box in anyway? As if there's a specific way they do it.

The man is an idiot.

New to all this, aren't you.

Yeah, don't come rahnd 'ere.

-AC

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
What is KMC's opinion towards the Royal Family?

To me the Royal Family is an embodyment of being British, however many others feel differently. What is your opinion?

Meh. As an Australian with strong English/Irish family ties I'll say I'm a staunch monarchist. Now I'll agree, they don't really serve any purpose, they cost a lot of money when they visit and all that, but it doesn't matter. I like the odd bit of pomp and pageantry, the history and all that. It's all about the image, I'm just happy having the Royal Family lurking about.

That said, at the same time if we one day get rid of them, it wont destroy me or anything. It's not really that important, not on my top 1000 most important thing list at any rate (maybe even lower.)

Still, I don't like progress for progresses sake. Sure, Australia could become a republic, but it would change nothing really, except on a cosmetic basis. Being part of the commonwealth doesn't harm us in any way, there are no real benefits in going through all that separation.

And if they are super smart lizards, well, probably even better to stay in their good books, no need to alienate them by getting rid of them. And besides, I like lizards. Combining lizards and the monarchy gets my approval.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Now I'll agree, they don't really serve any purpose, they cost a lot of money when they visit and all that, but it doesn't matter. I like the odd bit of pomp and pageantry, the history and all that. It's all about the image, I'm just happy having the Royal Family lurking about.

Possibly the most blind comment I've read on these boards. It does actually matter doesn't it? Because they do nothing and they cost money of people who give no shit. People who couldn't careless about the monarchy are paying for it.

History? What history? They're German, you said you have British ties. At least love the country, not those who claim to be a cornerstone of it, but in actual fact do f*ck all. London and England in general DO have an amazingly rich history, but it's because of attitudes like yours that it all gets overlooked in favour of some old crone in a crappy building (because Buckingham Palace is actually shit).

I think that's an extroadinarily ignorant comment.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Possibly the most blind comment I've read on these boards. It does actually matter doesn't it? Because they do nothing and they cost money of people who give no shit. People who couldn't careless about the monarchy are playing for it.

History? What history? They're German. You said you have British ties. At least love the country, not those who claim to be a cornerstone of it, but in actual fact do f*ck all.

I think that's an extroadinarily ignorant comment.

-AC

True, true, and I know all that, and how it sounds. But I'm looking at it from an Australian point of view, and Australian with English ties. It serves no purpose here. It's purely symbolic, and I like the symbolism. It costs us nothing, except when they visit. But then it cost a great deal more when George W. Bush visited, as far more people hate him then the Queen, ergo far more security. Of course his visit was all about diplomacy, the Queens visit honorary.

If I lived in England, well, my answer might be different, but then again it might very well be the same. There are plenty of things in society that offer little in ways of practical return for money invested, but we keep them around for historical, cultural, social purposes. The Royal Family costs money, but hardly enough to bring the nation to it's knees, and it's gone on for much of England's history, and people have gotten by fine without complaining for much of that time.

So yes, it was kind of a cop out answer. They don't bother me in the slightest, and I would vote in any referendum on the question to retain them, if only for the symbolic and historical purposes (and just because they came from Germany doesn't mean they can't have some historical relevance.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, true, and I know all that, and how it sounds. But I'm looking at it from an Australian point of view, and Australian with English ties. It serves no purpose here. It's purely symbolic, and I like the symbolism. It costs us nothing, except when they visit. But then it cost a great deal more when George W. Bush visited, as far more people hate him then the Queen, ergo far more security. Of course his visit was all about diplomacy, the Queens visit honorary.

I'll get to that little "I have English ties" part later. Firstly, it costs you nothing. So basically you'd vote to keep something just because you like it from a distance, for no justifiable reason, even though it costs a lot to people who don't give a shit? You see how bad a view that is, right? Not popping at you personally, infact I'm surprised you hold such a dreadful view, because most of your posts I enjoy reading.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
If I lived in England, well, my answer might be different, but then again it might very well be the same. There are plenty of things in society that offer little in ways of practical return for money invested, but we keep them around for historical, cultural, social purposes. The Royal Family costs money, but hardly enough to bring the nation to it's knees, and it's gone on for much of England's history, and people have gotten by fine without complaining for much of that time.

About history: All the true great history of this country, my city, it's all overlooked in favour of a stupid building that a pointless old woman lives in. People would rather go see Buckingham Palace because they think that's as good as it gets. There's a church down the road from me that has way more historical significance and interest than that place. Nobody will ever really know because people have your kind of attitude.

If you're gonna love the history, love the right stuff. Not the stuff that doesn't matter and doesn't represent England in a way it deserves to be represented. This is all coming from me, someone who hates patriotism. I love my city because I've GROWN to love it. Not because I feel I have to.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So yes, it was kind of a cop out answer. They don't bother me in the slightest, and I would vote in any referendum on the question to retain them, if only for the symbolic and historical purposes (and just because they came from Germany doesn't mean they can't have some historical relevance.)

They don't have any relevance to the history that matters. The fact that they are from Germany does matter, though. Why? Because if your blood ties are why you claim you love them, then you're being silly. They're not Australian or English. Nor have they done anything that truly matters, they've just been around DURING important times. They didn't do anything during them.

"The Queen's Mother lead our country through world wars." No she didn't. She was around at the time shouting "Go us! I hope we win!" just like every other person.

-AC

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

If I lived in England, well, my answer might be different, but then again it might very well be the same. There are plenty of things in society that offer little in ways of practical return for money invested, but we keep them around for historical, cultural, social purposes.

Do you think the Tower of London is no longer 'historical', now that it houses no royals?

A quick question- what's more historical? Something still sitting around doing nothing much of note, or something that has gone?

John Lennon or Paul McCartney?