200K for holiday
06 June 2008, 01:27 PM
#1
200K for holiday
It would appear that the good old tax payers are footing the bill for that w@nker Charles and that stupid cow of a wife of his Camilla as they went on a Caribbean cruise.
It's nothing but a joke.
I don't really understand the need for a royal family anyway.
What purpose do they actually serve - seriously though.
Shaun
It's nothing but a joke.
I don't really understand the need for a royal family anyway.
What purpose do they actually serve - seriously though.
Shaun
06 June 2008, 01:31 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
What purpose do they actually serve - seriously though.
Long live the Queen
06 June 2008, 02:48 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 June 2008, 03:38 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
06 June 2008, 03:41 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No they don't. I did a whole project at school on this admittedly a few years ago before the Queen started to pay tax but financially we would be much better off wothout them.
06 June 2008, 03:44 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royalty and a class free society cannot go together.
06 June 2008, 03:53 PM
#10
It was in the papers today.
Some breakdowns were also given.
Basically they hired a 50 million pounds yaught
Spent 10K+ on either first class or business class flight
Huge spend of food
I don't agree with it, there's absolutely no need for a royal family.
Charlie boy is basically thick and his **** clearly rules his brain.
Seriously - which one of the 2 would you rather have banged Diana or Camilla?
Harry is a renegade, William - doesn't know what he wants to do.
Apart from fly helicopters all over the place taking his gingus brother to parties.
Some breakdowns were also given.
Basically they hired a 50 million pounds yaught
Spent 10K+ on either first class or business class flight
Huge spend of food
I don't agree with it, there's absolutely no need for a royal family.
Charlie boy is basically thick and his **** clearly rules his brain.
Seriously - which one of the 2 would you rather have banged Diana or Camilla?
Harry is a renegade, William - doesn't know what he wants to do.
Apart from fly helicopters all over the place taking his gingus brother to parties.
Last edited by urban; 09 June 2008 at 08:53 AM.
06 June 2008, 07:20 PM
#11
now that can't be true - even viagra wouldn't help in that department with cammy 
"They give the feckin tourists something to look at in London and thus keeps them away from the rest of us"
Hmm - do they actually come out of hiding to greet the tourists? the tourists just visit the palace, etc so even if the royals were aboilished the tourists would still visit
"They give the feckin tourists something to look at in London and thus keeps them away from the rest of us"
Hmm - do they actually come out of hiding to greet the tourists? the tourists just visit the palace, etc so even if the royals were aboilished the tourists would still visit
07 June 2008, 09:00 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arborfield, Berkshire
Posts: 12,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 June 2008, 09:56 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
IMHO, it's all a matter of respect. I support the Royal family - in fact reverting back to Royal rule wouldn't be a bad thing. Government to support and then uphold the laws that the Queen/King decides upon.
Worked before in this country, and works around the world.
There is no such thing as a classless society and whist humans think that they are better than others, there never will be. And that is a good thing - why work and "better yourself" for it not to actually mean anything?
all imho of course
Worked before in this country, and works around the world.
There is no such thing as a classless society and whist humans think that they are better than others, there never will be. And that is a good thing - why work and "better yourself" for it not to actually mean anything?
all imho of course
07 June 2008, 11:44 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admitedly a school project at 15 isn't the greatest reference but I did alot of research and there wasn't a single source who managed to make a case for the Royal family being a good thing financially apart from the government itself who completely ignored the fact that becoming a republic would actually allow us to make more money from Royalty realated tourism.
07 June 2008, 04:55 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it costs the tax payer just over 60p per year to keep them
From http://www.royal.gov/uk
"Head of State expenditure has reduced significantly over the past decade, from £87.3 million in 1991-92 to £37.3 million in 2006-07. In the year 2006-07 The Queen cost the taxpayer just 62 pence per person.
Head of State expenditure is the official expenditure relating to The Queen's duties as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth.
Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In the financial year to 31 March 2006 the revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury amounted to £190.8 million.
Head of State expenditure for 2006-07 was £37.4 million. This was 0.03% less than in the previous year (decrease of 2.7% in real terms).
Head of State expenditure has reduced significantly over the past decade, from £87.3 million (expressed in current pounds) in 1991-92.
Head of State expenditure excludes the costs of Police and Army security and of Armed Services ceremonial, as figures are not available.
Every year the Royal Household publishes an Annual Summary of Head of State expenditure, together a full report on Royal public finances. The two-page Annual Summary and full Royal Public Finances report can be downloaded as Acrobat pdf files at the bottom of this page.
A summary of Head of State expenditure met from public funds in the year to 31 March 2007 reads as follows:
2007 2006
£m £m
The Queen's Civil List (figures are for calendar years 2007 and 2006) 12.2 11.2
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 0.4
Grants-in-aid 20.6 20.3
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate 4.1 5.5 "
From the above website you can download a two-page annual summary of expenditure 2006-07 (pdf, 165kB)
From http://www.royal.gov/uk
"Head of State expenditure has reduced significantly over the past decade, from £87.3 million in 1991-92 to £37.3 million in 2006-07. In the year 2006-07 The Queen cost the taxpayer just 62 pence per person.
Head of State expenditure is the official expenditure relating to The Queen's duties as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth.
Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In the financial year to 31 March 2006 the revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury amounted to £190.8 million.
Head of State expenditure for 2006-07 was £37.4 million. This was 0.03% less than in the previous year (decrease of 2.7% in real terms).
Head of State expenditure has reduced significantly over the past decade, from £87.3 million (expressed in current pounds) in 1991-92.
Head of State expenditure excludes the costs of Police and Army security and of Armed Services ceremonial, as figures are not available.
Every year the Royal Household publishes an Annual Summary of Head of State expenditure, together a full report on Royal public finances. The two-page Annual Summary and full Royal Public Finances report can be downloaded as Acrobat pdf files at the bottom of this page.
A summary of Head of State expenditure met from public funds in the year to 31 March 2007 reads as follows:
2007 2006
£m £m
The Queen's Civil List (figures are for calendar years 2007 and 2006) 12.2 11.2
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 0.4
Grants-in-aid 20.6 20.3
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate 4.1 5.5 "
From the above website you can download a two-page annual summary of expenditure 2006-07 (pdf, 165kB)
07 June 2008, 10:32 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as well as cost being the least inportant of the reasons to ditch the queen.
08 June 2008, 04:57 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reason to keep the Royal family.
(i)They "operate aat a profit"
(ii)They bring in companies business that would not ordinarily come to the UK
(iii)They promote Britain and British companies all over the world, to the most poerful people in the world
(iv)If you go republic, that means an elected head of state. That means party politics, that means short termism, that means self interest (you wouldn't "apply" to be head of state for anything other than personal gain).
The advantage that a Royal family gives you that no other system can, is that the people in it are born into it. They have no choice, whether they want it or not (and I suspect on more than one occasion, they haven't wanted it).
(i)They "operate aat a profit"
(ii)They bring in companies business that would not ordinarily come to the UK
(iii)They promote Britain and British companies all over the world, to the most poerful people in the world
(iv)If you go republic, that means an elected head of state. That means party politics, that means short termism, that means self interest (you wouldn't "apply" to be head of state for anything other than personal gain).
The advantage that a Royal family gives you that no other system can, is that the people in it are born into it. They have no choice, whether they want it or not (and I suspect on more than one occasion, they haven't wanted it).
08 June 2008, 08:18 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Long live the Queen.
09 June 2008, 10:42 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was in the papers today.
Some breakdowns were also given.
Basically they hired a 50 million pounds yaught
Spent 10K+ on either first class or business class flight
Huge spend of food
I don't agree with it, there's absolutely no need for a royal family.
Charlie boy is basically thick and his **** clearly rules his brain.
Seriously - which one of the 2 would you rather have banged Diana or Camilla?
Harry is a renegade, William - doesn't know what he wants to do.
Apart from fly helicopters all over the place taking his gingus brother to parties.
Some breakdowns were also given.
Basically they hired a 50 million pounds yaught
Spent 10K+ on either first class or business class flight
Huge spend of food
I don't agree with it, there's absolutely no need for a royal family.
Charlie boy is basically thick and his **** clearly rules his brain.
Seriously - which one of the 2 would you rather have banged Diana or Camilla?
Harry is a renegade, William - doesn't know what he wants to do.
Apart from fly helicopters all over the place taking his gingus brother to parties.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Uncle Creepy
Other Marques
43
27 December 2015 04:02 PM
Brun
Non Scooby Related
16
16 September 2015 12:53 PM