FARK.com: (6928976) Twitter troll learns the hard way that you shouldn't call the Queen of England a "benefits scrounger" if you're on the public payroll yourself

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Twitter troll learns the hard way that you shouldn't call the Queen of England a "benefits scrounger" if you're on the public payroll yourself (express.co.uk)		104
		More: Dumbass, Queen of England, Maggie Smith, Downton Abbey, commons, Ed Miliband, Labour MPs, Shirley MacLaine, vote of confidence

• • •

13187 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2012 at 11:34 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6928976

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

104 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

Mugato		2012-02-08 08:44:19 AM

Yeah but he works for a living right? So it's kind of different.

Snarfangel		2012-02-08 09:25:56 AM

But if you aren't on the public payroll, feel free to point out she's an inbred figurehead.

ArkAngel		2012-02-08 09:56:27 AM

I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

Friskya		2012-02-08 10:00:36 AM

Is he saying she's nothing but a Welfare Queen?

/I thought those didn't exist.

Mugato		2012-02-08 10:06:43 AM

ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Rusty Shackleford		2012-02-08 10:25:54 AM

Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Protip: you gotta slip the corgis £5.

Mugato		2012-02-08 10:27:33 AM

Rusty Shackleford: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Protip: you gotta slip the corgis £5.

WTF is a "£"? Is that gold pressed latinum?

ArkAngel		2012-02-08 10:36:17 AM

thomps		2012-02-08 10:48:37 AM

how embarrassing for him. you'd think he would realize the hypocrisy of him also living for free in state-funded mansions throughout the country by virtue of whose vagina he first popped out from. WHAT AN IDIOT

thomps		2012-02-08 10:55:52 AM

ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

ArkAngel		2012-02-08 11:02:22 AM

thomps: ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

The Taj Mahal is owned by the state. The castles in England are owned by the Royal Family.

Rusty Shackleford		2012-02-08 11:06:41 AM

Mugato: Rusty Shackleford: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Protip: you gotta slip the corgis £5.

WTF is a "£"? Is that gold pressed latinum?

newsimg.ngfiles.com

thomps		2012-02-08 11:06:56 AM

ArkAngel: thomps: ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

The Taj Mahal is owned by the state. The castles in England are owned by the Royal Family.

interesting, i did not know that. but they are financially supported almost completely by the state (and presumably entrance fees), right?

proteus_b		2012-02-08 11:39:42 AM

it is absurd to claim that she's been living off the taxpayer dime for sixty years. it's not like she did any work before her coronation either.

Sarah Palin's Conscience		2012-02-08 11:41:29 AM

If this were about that silly tart with the Eye of Sauron hat, I would agree.

However, the Queen has done a lot for the country. Her work isn't measured by hours clocked in, but by mere existence.

thomps		2012-02-08 11:44:20 AM

Sarah Palin's Conscience: Her work isn't measured by hours clocked in, but by mere existence.

can't the same be said for the silly tart with the eye of sauron hat?

cgraves67		2012-02-08 11:44:42 AM

thomps: ArkAngel: thomps: ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

The Taj Mahal is owned by the state. The castles in England are owned by the Royal Family.

interesting, i did not know that. but they are financially supported almost completely by the state (and presumably entrance fees), right?

according to a quick Google search, the Royal Family and its holdings costs the UK about 40 million pounds per annum, but brings in 176 million pounds in tourist dollars. So the UK makes 136 million pounds in profits on them.

nytmare		2012-02-08 11:46:28 AM

Wait isn't she also the Queen of Australia and Canada? What does the throne do for those countries?

Mugato		2012-02-08 11:50:14 AM

Sarah Palin's Conscience: However, the Queen has done a lot for the country. Her work isn't measured by hours clocked in, but by mere existence.

Nice work if you can get it. Hey, it's not my country. If you chaps are happy with that situation then jolly good for you.

thomps		2012-02-08 11:51:04 AM

cgraves67: thomps: ArkAngel: thomps: ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

The Taj Mahal is owned by the state. The castles in England are owned by the Royal Family.

interesting, i did not know that. but they are financially supported almost completely by the state (and presumably entrance fees), right?

according to a quick Google search, the Royal Family and its holdings costs the UK about 40 million pounds per annum, but brings in 176 million pounds in tourist dollars. So the UK makes 136 million pounds in profits on them.

but again, i think that's spurious reasoning because those buildings would still be there even if the royals weren't, and for the most part, people are going to visit them for their historical and architectural value, not for the people who hold the deed to them.

Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel		2012-02-08 11:51:24 AM

cgraves67: according to a quick Google search, the Royal Family and its holdings costs the UK about 40 million pounds per annum, but brings in 176 million pounds in tourist dollars. So the UK makes 136 million pounds in profits on them.

Their private holdings also bring in large amounts of money - trade and taxes, mainly.

Opposition to inherited privilege is less impressive when it has its roots in ignorance and stupidity.

Rich Cream		2012-02-08 11:53:16 AM

Mugato: WTF is a "£"? Is that gold pressed latinum?

Mugato: I've been to England twice

Orly?

/the hook, take it out

Iniamyen1		2012-02-08 11:53:23 AM

So does the queen, like, give birth to all British people or something? How does that work?

1derful		2012-02-08 11:55:28 AM

Mugato		2012-02-08 11:56:25 AM

Rich Cream: Mugato: WTF is a "£"? Is that gold pressed latinum?

Mugato: I've been to England twice

Orly?

/the hook, take it out

Yes, it's not possible that I was joking about not recognizing the symbol for the yen. I thought Brits were supposed
to have a dry sense of humor.

Doctor_TeethMD		2012-02-08 11:56:44 AM

Iniamyen1: So does the queen, like, give birth to all British people or something? How does that work?

Just the ones that want to get married to each other.

BorgiaGinz		2012-02-08 12:01:05 PM

ArkAngel: thomps: ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

The Taj Mahal is owned by the state. The castles in England are owned by the Royal Family.

Nope, some of them (Windsor and Buckingham Palace) are owned by the state, too, although the Queen has the use of the residences, but she cannot sell them. Ditto for the Crown Jewels and so forth.

The Queen does own Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House outright.

MisterLoki		2012-02-08 12:03:23 PM

thomps: cgraves67: thomps: ArkAngel: thomps: ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

The Taj Mahal is owned by the state. The castles in England are owned by the Royal Family.

interesting, i did not know that. but they are financially supported almost completely by the state (and presumably entrance fees), right?

according to a quick Google search, the Royal Family and its holdings costs the UK about 40 million pounds per annum, but brings in 176 million pounds in tourist dollars. So the UK makes 136 million pounds in profits on them.

but again, i think that's spurious reasoning because those buildings would still be there even if the royals weren't, and for the most part, people are going to visit them for their historical and architectural value, not for the people who hold the deed to them.

"Well, I would have traveled to England, as I always wanted to see Buckingham Palace, but now that it isn't full of inbred gits I'm just going to Branson instead."

seanmcd51		2012-02-08 12:11:40 PM

I saw a documentary on this. In addition to the monarch's holdings that actually produce a profit to the government, they did calculate the tourist dollars. Toward the argument about landmarks being the draw the documentary pointed to the castles of France. Yes they receive visitors, but only a slight fraction of england because England has royalty living in them. The royal family are the
first celebrities. The queen is like jennifer aniston, but old and has lost her sex appeal...but I repeat myself.

Thudfark		2012-02-08 12:11:56 PM

Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl but she doesn't have a lot to say.

Rusty Shackleford		2012-02-08 12:16:41 PM

it is absurd to claim that she's been living off the taxpayer dime for sixty years. it's not like she did any work before her coronation either.

farm3.staticflickr.com

FACT: If you're a member of the British AA and get a flat tyre, Her Majesty has to repond and fix the flat, 24/7.

Inflatable Rhetoric		2012-02-08 12:18:17 PM

Mugato: Sarah Palin's Conscience: However, the Queen has done a lot for the country. Her work isn't measured by hours clocked in, but by mere existence.

Nice work if you can get it. Hey, it's not my country. If you chaps are happy with that situation then jolly good for you.

At least she hasn't raped any altar boys. I'm pretty sure.

The First Four Katy Perry Albums		2012-02-08 12:20:02 PM

Anyone who think the Queen doesn't work and just lounges around eating bon-bons is a farking moron.

IXI Jim IXI		2012-02-08 12:24:40 PM

Mugato: Yeah but he works for a living right? So it's kind of different.

Well, he's a researcher. That seems like it could go either way...

Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel		2012-02-08 12:24:51 PM

1derful: Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel:

Opposition to inherited privilege is less impressive when it has its roots in ignorance and stupidity.

Wow, Progressive Flow brings in more money than Britain's inbred German pretend-ruler.

U.S.A!!!

My point exactly. Her family has been British since George III (born in Britain, 1760), consanguinity has never been an issue (mainly a Spanish problem, IIRC), and only an ignorant moron would confuse a head of state with a head of government.

footshot		2012-02-08 12:27:11 PM

No queen would mean no Prince Philip, and we have to keep him around since he's not only comedy gold, but a worshipped deity to boot!

wumpus		2012-02-08 12:28:47 PM

ArkAngel: thomps: ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

The Taj Mahal is owned by the state. The castles in England are owned by the Royal Family.

If the state stops paying the royal family, I'm sure the castles will quickly become the property of the state. Rightfully so, taxpayers paid for and built them.

Rohasman		2012-02-08 12:32:27 PM

wumpus: ArkAngel: thomps: ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

The Taj Mahal is owned by the state. The castles in England are owned by the Royal Family.

If the state stops paying the royal family, I'm sure the castles will quickly become the property of the state. Rightfully so, taxpayers paid for and built them.

Asked and answered, Herr Trollheim.

DarkVader		2012-02-08 12:36:33 PM

ArkAngel: thomps: ArkAngel: Mugato: ArkAngel: I wonder how many tourist dollars he brings to the country

I've been to England twice and I took a lot of pictures of the structures and artifacts. Never saw the Queen out signing autographs and posing for pictures.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)
Link (new window)

right, but people would still visit all of those historical places even if the royal family wasn't around. i mean, the taj mahal would probably not see an uptick in visitors if india stuck a live princess in there instead of a dead one, right?

The Taj Mahal is owned by the state. The castles in England are owned by the Royal Family.

That's not really true.

The royals only "own" those castles because they keep being allowed to be royals.

If the monarchy were to be shut down and replaced with a proper democracy, all of the "royal" property would be property of the state. That's how it works when you dismantle a monarchy.

DarkVader		2012-02-08 12:42:19 PM

Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel: cgraves67: according to a quick Google search, the Royal Family and its holdings costs the UK about 40 million pounds per annum, but brings in 176 million pounds in tourist dollars. So the UK makes 136 million pounds in profits on them.

Their private holdings also bring in large amounts of money - trade and taxes, mainly.

Opposition to inherited privilege is less impressive when it has its roots in ignorance and stupidity.

They don't HAVE any "private" holdings. ALL of their ill-gotten gains were taken from the people by violence and threat of violence. Without their royal status, they're destitute, only entitled to basic welfare payments and basic public housing.

Support of inherited privilege is completely ridiculous when it has its roots in ignorance and stupidity.

Resolute		2012-02-08 12:42:34 PM

nytmare: Wait isn't she also the Queen of Australia and Canada? What does the throne do for those countries?

She visits, waves and we name things after her. What we get back out of the deal, I've never known.

The_Original_Roxtar		2012-02-08 12:47:04 PM

Hey, anti-royal people... watch this video! (new window)

Mugato		2012-02-08 12:55:00 PM

IXI Jim IXI: Mugato: Yeah but he works for a living right? So it's kind of different.

Well, he's a researcher. That seems like it could go either way...

Well I didn't say that he was doing entirely important work. But someone somewhere thinks that he's doing something worth paying him for.

Im In Love With Americans		2012-02-08 12:55:47 PM

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: Anyone who think the Queen doesn't work and just lounges around eating bon-bons is a farking moron.

Two different things.

1) Does she work? No.
2) Does she lounge around? No. She rides/walks/grins and waves.

In terms of tangible benefits that she or her brood personally bring in to us, the UK populace, she costs us money. Fark the monarchy.

xria		2012-02-08 01:01:05 PM

Resolute: nytmare: Wait isn't she also the Queen of Australia and Canada? What does the throne do for those countries?

She visits, waves and we name things after her. What we get back out of the deal, I've never known.

You have no risk of someone like Bush becoming your head of State?

meanmutton		2012-02-08 01:05:13 PM

vento		2012-02-08 01:05:38 PM

She queens...and sweeps...

patrick767		2012-02-08 01:06:04 PM

How dare he accurately describe the outdated, disgustingly wealthy figurehead that has no place in a modern democratic state! How dare he!

radiovox		2012-02-08 01:06:31 PM

/and they're not even British

Mugato		2012-02-08 01:10:07 PM

xria: You have no risk of someone like Bush becoming your head of State?

Well Bush only became head of state because he belonged to our own sort of royalty. And even though it's wrong that we do still have a sort of royalty in the US...he's not here anymore, is he?

Displayed 50 of 104 comments