ECCOnoob Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 The Crown Estate isn't hers. It belongs to the abstract entity of "The Crown". She has no claim to land stolen by William the Conqueror. However, my problem is not with her wealth. It is with her getting a job based on which womb she popped out of. She's very qualified of coming out of a womb. I never said that she owned it. But the Crown i.e. the Queen and the relevant organistaiton are the ones who manage and generate the relevant income which goes in to the Treasury. They also generate a hell of a lot more income than they take out by the Civil List. As for your rather blunt objection to her or anyone else being in place doing the job - all I can say is get over it. Britain has a monarch ruling. Its been that way on and off since the year 907. We had a Parliament State before and us people did not like it very much. We demanded the kings and queens back. What do you want instead? President Cameron or some other horror Get rid of her and/or the system and/or the establishment and then what? Whether you like it or not someone has always got to be steering the boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 i wonder what she feels about starbucks paying less than her and the way things are going we will all be working till we are 86 thanks mr cameron Could you explain how it's Cameroons fault. Are we living in the same Country here, we went bust when NEW LIEbour were in power. Or have I missed something?. Angel. ps, not a Tory either, Ukip for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Having an elected head of state makes sense if it's a political position, but do people really want a political head of state? I don't. I'd keep the royal family, but scale back their operation to something more acceptable and open up the royal collections for everyone to see. And for free too. I can't believe we are charged to visit the royal palaces. They should be free for any UK passport holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Yes, the Queen is heavily involved in 'Save the Sycophants.' :hihi::hihi: Charles is struggling under the weight of those medals....................................I heard he got an extra big one for tackling Camilla, a very brave man indeed. ---------- Post added 07-01-2013 at 01:14 ---------- Could you explain how it's Cameroons fault. Are we living in the same Country here, we went bust when NEW LIEbour were in power. Or have I missed something?. Angel. ps, not a Tory either, Ukip for me. Never had you down as a Ukipper Angel, they just appear to be the 'posh' branch of the BNP. [They own a biro but have to share it] ---------- Post added 07-01-2013 at 01:17 ---------- I never said that she owned it. But the Crown i.e. the Queen and the relevant organistaiton are the ones who manage and generate the relevant income which goes in to the Treasury. They also generate a hell of a lot more income than they take out by the Civil List. As for your rather blunt objection to her or anyone else being in place doing the job - all I can say is get over it. Britain has a monarch ruling. Its been that way on and off since the year 907. We had a Parliament State before and us people did not like it very much. We demanded the kings and queens back. What do you want instead? President Cameron or some other horror Get rid of her and/or the system and/or the establishment and then what? Whether you like it or not someone has always got to be steering the boat. You mean to say someone is actually steering it ?? Well I never... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTWOOD141 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I never said that she owned it. But the Crown i.e. the Queen and the relevant organistaiton are the ones who manage and generate the relevant income which goes in to the Treasury. They also generate a hell of a lot more income than they take out by the Civil List. As for your rather blunt objection to her or anyone else being in place doing the job - all I can say is get over it. Britain has a monarch ruling. Its been that way on and off since the year 907. We had a Parliament State before and us people did not like it very much. We demanded the kings and queens back. What do you want instead? President Cameron or some other horror Get rid of her and/or the system and/or the establishment and then what? Whether you like it or not someone has always got to be steering the boat. What's the name of the boat/ship, THE TITANIC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Having an elected head of state makes sense if it's a political position, but do people really want a political head of state? I don't. I'd keep the royal family, but scale back their operation to something more acceptable and open up the royal collections for everyone to see. And for free too. I can't believe we are charged to visit the royal palaces. They should be free for any UK passport holder. Yes but the elected head of state will be selected voted and if they dont do the job they promised kicked out. Trouble is we cant kick out our royal family. Its a caste system whereby they are royals because of their bloodline not earning their jobs like the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddysbuddy Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Should the Royal family pay Inheritance tax? If us plebs must pay it, and were all in it together... my feeling is that no one should have to pay inheritance tax. but until we get rid of the " hes got something that I dont have" attitude I am on a loser with that thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 my feeling is that no one should have to pay inheritance tax. but until we get rid of the " hes got something that I dont have" attitude I am on a loser with that thought. Yes but this person and persons get money from us to be a shes got something I dont have. I dont mind if people earn money themselves but being paid by us they should be accountable unlike the queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivetide Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 No - because they can't get rid of their assets like us plebs, and they don't get the chance at a free choice in life like us plebs and they perform a fundamentally important (and beautifully unique) function in our society - unlike us plebs. Pick on someone who DOESN'T protect me from tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Yes but the elected head of state will be selected voted and if they dont do the job they promised kicked out. Trouble is we cant kick out our royal family. Its a caste system whereby they are royals because of their bloodline not earning their jobs like the rest of us. When was the last monarch who didn't fulfil their duties? Edward VIII and he left straight away with a substitute waiting in the sidelines ready to step in. My only objection to the hereditary system it's somewhat cruel on the people involved that they should be selected for just one job from birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.