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

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.

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: 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.

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

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

Mugato: I've been to England twice


Orly?

/the hook, take it out

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

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.

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

U.S.A!!!

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

If the state stops paying the royal family then the royal family will stop turning over rents and profits from their land to the UK government. This would turn out very poorly for the UK government because they make vastly more from the land that the royal family is leasing them than they pay the family for the land to begin with.

She queens...and sweeps...

How dare he accurately describe the outdated, disgustingly wealthy figurehead that has no place in a modern democratic state!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