General Chat

I see the point jac and surf, as a family who struggle i agree but id rather we had a Queen to be proud of than pay our taxes to keep' men' who preach hatred and incite death for our people, they certainly should not have £4oo,ooo houses!!


Caz xx

do you know people in this country are completely bonkers when it comes to royalty what do they do
jet around on expensive plane journies
why not get the train sail on big ships or if your charlie use the airforce chopper to get to scotland.

what a waist of money

their are better things in this country that need it.

the NHS (moor nurses and better hospital)

the old age pensioner for instance what does he/she get a poxy heating allowance that doeasnt cover the winter fuel bill so he/she has to go with out food coz the gov wont pay them a resanable pension.If it wasn`t for the old age pensioner today we would probably be speeking german.

i could go on

finnished rant
:O)

surf

Caz - we are not discussing racist bigots as I understand it - merely the cost of the monarchy.

BTW, as I understand it you were at a royal garden party recently - do you know exactly how much a royal garden party costs the country? And, dare I ask, how much did it cost your family to attend? new clothes I imagine, train fares/petrol etc. I should think quite a bit. When pensioners are struggling to pay their next winter's fuel bills, perhaps you'll think on it?

Jac

Royalty features often on these pages, and it is almost a waste of time discussing it, other than to feel indignant or let off steam.

As with Charles/ Diana, people have fixed views and no amount of argument will change opinions.

Happy days

jac as ive seen and heard some pensioners spend there 200-300 pound fuel allowance on other things than heating
and get nearly 200.00 per week for food etc
whilst specky and i get 95.00 per week income support to live on with no heating allowance , wish we had a pension i would feel rich, a lot of pensiors are a lot fitter than me too i cant afford by bills i use blankets in the winter to keep warm.
as for the queen ive not time for them what so ever .

Hi all,

Jac, I was not at a Royal Garden party.I was at Fulwood barracks watching my husband and his collegues give up the old colours of the regiment to accept the new ones to form the Duke of Lancasters regiment.

Most of those soldiers there were veterans of campaigns, some had been injured and could not march. The Queen is Colonel in Chief of the regiment.It was a lovely day and the families were treated well but not over the top.

We travelled down by coach and my outfit and 1 of the childrens came from the charity shop.

My parents, who are pensioners came and really enjoyed it. It was a mark of respect to all the troops their and families who have supported them.

Caz xx

Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody.

Its only gone up 2million to 40 million this year to keep herself and sundry.!

40 million,,wow a new hosptial,all purpose built old peoples home,adequate care for for many,

£40,000000 dont sound alot when you say it fast.

but their figures work out at est,66p per head per year each from Tax payers,those who dont pay it wont be swelling the coffer,

I'd rather be paying for the Monarchy who attract tourists than be paying for a President.

Jac , think you should apologise to Caz ,
Ros xx

I`ve nudged Caz`s thread so you can read it , jac

Thankyou Ros,

Thursday was a wonderful time for my little ones, me and my parents and was about honouring people, the Queen was immensely popular there.

The Queen is one area in our country where money is spent, there are many other areas where it may be seen that are taxes are wasted.

Caz xx

The 66p per year we pay as taxpayers helps to maintain the palaces and castles which we would have to maintain anyway if we had no monarchy.

State Banquets for visiting dignitaries would still have to be paid for if we had no monarchy as they would still need to go ahead.

We would have an equivalent of the garden parties with a President or equivalent if we had no Monarchy.

If we had a President, we would have to pay for the electing of a President every few years and all that is associated with it. At least we only have a Coronation once in a Monarch's lifetime. The President's security would also have to be paid for.

We would have to pay for a President's "Royal visits abroad" if we had no monarchy.

People visit this country for our heritage including the Royal family. I cannot see how a President or equivalent would be that much of a draw for them.

I cannot really see how getting rid of the Monarchy saves us that much money. As others have said, we find lots of ways to waste our money on in this country. I don't think the Royal family is one.

~~~waves to Caz and Harry and everyone else~~

I think the Queen is worth the money but I am not quite so sure about the rest of the Royals. I am not sure Charlie & the boys are going to get the same respect (kinda proved that one by referring to him as Charlie, didnt I??)

I love the hundreds of years of history behind it all and feel quite proud and I adore all the pomp that goes with the occasions but to be honest, apart form being an abassador for the country I cant understand what pupose they serve apart from being a tourist attraction.

If you were in your 80's could you manage what the Queen does, day in day out? I know I couldn't.

I'm not a wild flag-waving monarchist but I think she an exceptional national asset.

How much per head of population does she bring in in the form of tourist income? Have no idea, but it has to be more than any elected president would attract.

Lass - they stop us from having a President - that's surely got to be a good thing lol ;)

Excellent value. Probably because Indiana Brown, doesn't have anything to do with the way the royal budget is run.

It is 66 pence per year per person, not 66 pence per week. 66pence x 60 million of us equates to around £40million in total. I would willingly double my contribution to 132 pence per year.

Thanks for nudging this - I truly did not see it last night, and have only just logged on.

I have pm's Caz and apologised - I hope she accepts and understands my reasons for the statement I made - I hope so.

I still however think that 66p per person could be spent more wisely on the poor, the ill and the dying.

Jac

Thank you --her hubby has served abroad,
Ros xxx