and Im not bringing this up to try and step on any toes or anything like that,I just find it so hard to understand..
These Royals - the King,Queen,Prince,Princess et al...what do they do for your country?
If I understand right - and correct me if im wrong here - they all live off the tax payers money.All their riches,their mansions,estates,assets,clothing,cars, everything is paid for by the British taxpayer....and they do nothing more than just hold their title?
Are they really nothing but figure heads?
On top of that,this wedding practically puts your whole country to a halt,everyone gets a day off costing the country billions of dollars..not to mention what the actual wedding cost was.
Again, billions of dollars in money over 2 people getting married..
Please correct this if its wrong.Im hoping that it IS wrong because I just cant see how this is logical at all really..
Im really not trying to rub anything in here,it just really blows my mind if it is true..
Again not trying to start any thing here, but one or two points to keep in mind,
1) The Royals use to.. Or still do own the country.
2) When they agreed to signing the Magna Carta, (which let the British people rule themselves, instead of the Royals), yes they became no more than a figure heads, that and the invention of public radio.
3) The only real thing the Britts have left to give the world is there past, ...that and Doctor Who.
@Tardcore, it is really none of your business how other people spend their money.
Is English not your primary language?
It is not their money.
The queen has half a billion dollars of her own, and who is paying for 23 million of this wedding? Certainly not the Queen. Not at all. The tax payers.
What else do the tax payers get? Their beloved programs and funding cut from useful things.
So the Queen and all her "royalty" are spending next to nothing on this wedding and hoarding her half a billion dollars, while cutting public funding and saying "We can't afford to help you." to the tax payers who are directly paying for this wedding.
It is really ALL of his business how other people spend tax payer money on themselves while simultaneously telling those tax payers "No. We can't afford it." all while not spending a dime of the Queen's $500,000,000 to compensate for her "royal" wedding so that tax money doesn't have to be spent on it, or at the very least give funding for some of the neglected programs.
Fivoroth, how can you even say that sentence to him? Are you truly that ignorant of what is REALLY going on in the world?
Did not watch it it came on at the time I was in bed. I felt no special need to get up to watch somebody I don't know, don't care about and could care less about, that is if I even had power at the time. I was to worried about the aftermath of tornado that blew through Tuscaloosa and Alberta city that killed 44 folks and took 4 days to get power back. We still have the national guard out actually shooting looters now in Alberta city. Instead of worrying about a bunch of rich folks who think they are better than the rest of of us.
We actually had the president come down here to see how bad it was, and I can say living through Katrina it is worse than that. Now if those royals want to come over here and donate to the relief fund, and give cash to those who are less fortunate than me, I might actually give a rats rear end. I know there is at least 900 folks who don't have a house now. All the relief centers are full of folks who have nowhere else to go.
Sorry I had more real life pressing matters going on. Like I said Im lucky I still have a place to live, and power and cable.
I find every western democracy that still has a monarchy embarassing. And what's even more embarassing is that peoples lives are so boring that they care and cheer for them.
Welcome in 2011.
And people use facebook and twitter like crack fiends. I find that even more appauling than someone sitting down to watch a royal wedding for a few hours. The way I look at this is it is no different than like Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. But this itself is a once In a lifetime thing for many people so why not spend your time especially if you live in the UK and like others said its a national pride thing seeing as it was broadcast all over and mentioned on every news network basically.
and Im not bringing this up to try and step on any toes or anything like that,I just find it so hard to understand..
These Royals - the King,Queen,Prince,Princess et al...what do they do for your country?
If I understand right - and correct me if im wrong here - they all live off the tax payers money.All their riches,their mansions,estates,assets,clothing,cars, everything is paid for by the British taxpayer....and they do nothing more than just hold their title?
Are they really nothing but figure heads?
On top of that,this wedding practically puts your whole country to a halt,everyone gets a day off costing the country billions of dollars..not to mention what the actual wedding cost was.
Again, billions of dollars in money over 2 people getting married..
Please correct this if its wrong.Im hoping that it IS wrong because I just cant see how this is logical at all really..
Im really not trying to rub anything in here,it just really blows my mind if it is true..
Sorry but your right lol. That's all I can say.
Besides being a figurehead I "think" there are some powers that they can use if the elected government is not acting according to their constitution.
I believe the monarchy does have some powers though they are usually used in conjunction with the wishes of the elected government.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I'd kind of already covered this in my previous post but I'll mention it again, however I will say that if someone is fundamentally opposed to a Monarchy under any circumstances (quite within their rights) then it doesn't matter what the balance sheet says. But if your more like me and just don't particularly care one way or the other then it does matter. With that in mind the very short version is that Britain earns more money from the Royal family than it costs to keep them.
As for the issue over the cost of the wedding, yes it has cost the taxpayer somewhere between 20 - 40 million from the little bit of research I've done (i.e. google 'Royal wedding cost' lol), the vast majority of that is the cost of security. I doubt many of us will ever know the full costs, but the most expensive estimates seem to have it at 80 million at the most. Now, take into account the estimates that some retail researchers have come up with as follows:
£26 million made on wedding merchandise.
£360 million on food and grocery sales as people stock up on party foods.
£500 million + in tourism (an average year sees 500 million in revenue from tourism associated with the monarchy but they estimate an increase due to the wedding).
So for the wedding they have come up with a potential income of £900 million.
The cost to the tax payer on Head of state expenditure for 2009 was £41.5 million (meaning each person in the country paid 62 pence that year), in 2010 it was £38.2 million.
If a surplus is made in some areas of the Royal Finances it goes back into the treasury, for example in 2006-2007 the Crown estates made a surplus of £200 million which went back into the treasury.
The Queen pays tax, she volunteered to pay income and capitol gains tax and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable.
I haven't even touched on the work the Royals do for small and medium British business, so the next time someone gets a job at a plant manufacturing ball bearing in Sheffield to be exported to Saudi Arabia, that deal could have been done with the help of a Royal family member. They do a lot of work promoting business to generate Jobs and economic growth for our country.
The point is, we as a nation make a profit from the Royal family. So sure, if we want to save ourselves a few million quid lets get rid of them, but we're gonna lose out on hundreds of millions as a result. Oh and getting rid of the Royal family is not going to magically lower the cost of going to University, or solve the nations immigration issue or whatever other political hot potato someone wants to lay at the feet of the Royals.
These Royals - the King,Queen,Prince,Princess et al...what do they do for your country?
If I understand right - and correct me if im wrong here - they all live off the tax payers money.All their riches,their mansions,estates,assets,clothing,cars, everything is paid for by the British taxpayer....and they do nothing more than just hold their title?
Are they really nothing but figure heads?
...
.....
Besides being a figurehead I "think" there are some powers that they can use if the elected government is not acting according to their constitution.
I believe the monarchy does have some powers though they are usually used in conjunction with the wishes of the elected government.
The Question should not just be directed at "the Brits".
Queen Elizabeth II is in fact the Head of State of a number of countries which operate as Constitutional Monarchies.
In nearly all cases, the monarch is still the nominal chief executive, but is bound by constitutional convention to act on the advice of the Cabinet. Only a few monarchies (most notably Japan and Sweden) have amended their constitutions so that the monarch is no longer even the nominal chief executive.
The most significant family of constitutional monarchies in the world today are the sixteen Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II.[5] Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Monarch and her Governors-General in the Commonwealth realms hold significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises usually to uphold parliamentary government. An instance of a Governor General exercising his power was during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, when the Australian Prime Minister of the time, Gough Whitlam, was dismissed by the Governor-General. The Australian senate had threatened to block the Government's budget by refusing to pass the associated appropriation bills. On 11 November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he went to seek the Governor-General's approval of the election, the Governor-General instead dismissed him as Prime Minister, and shortly thereafter installed leader of the opposition Malcolm Fraser in his place. Acting quickly before all parliamentarians became aware of the change of government, Fraser and his allies were able to secure passage of the appropriation bills, and the Governor-General dissolved Parliament for a double dissolution election. Fraser and his government were returned with a massive majority. This led to much speculation among Whitlam's supporters as to whether this use of the Governor-General's reserve powers was appropriate, and whether Australia should become a republic. Among supporters of constitutional monarchy however, the experience confirmed the value of the monarchy as a source of checks and balances against elected politicians who might seek powers in excess of those conferred by their respective constitutions, and ultimately as a safeguard against dictatorship.
One point which is important to note is that Queen Elizabeth II is head of those countries NOT as the Queen of England - but as queen of each country.
This may seem like a moot point - but in fact it is quite important.
It happens that at the moment it is the same 'person' - but it doesn't have to be. The successor to Queen Elizabeth in each country is chosen from a list which is maintained by Parliamentary statute.
What that means is that each country is free to choose its own line of succession. So, next time you hear a Canadian or an Australian complain that they are ruled by "a Brit" - remind them that their parliment has the power to change that!
So why don't they?
Well - there is the issue.
As an Australian I can tell you that while many Australians might complain about the Monarchy - they accept it.
Yet if we were to appoint an Australian and the successor to Queen Elizabeth II - who would it be? I can think of many Australians who would put themselves forward for the role; Eddie Mcguire?, Paul Keating?, John Howard?, Ray Martin? Warrick Kappa?
And you know what... not one of those people doesn't make me throw up a little in my mouth at the thought.
So, tank017, one of the best things the Monachy does is give us a ready made Head of State without the fuss.
Oh... and there is no need to argue about Birth Certificates either :-P
Comments
Didn't watch it, could care less as they cared less about the people and spent all that money on a sham wedding. It is what it is.
Again not trying to start any thing here, but one or two points to keep in mind,
1) The Royals use to.. Or still do own the country.
2) When they agreed to signing the Magna Carta, (which let the British people rule themselves, instead of the Royals), yes they became no more than a figure heads, that and the invention of public radio.
3) The only real thing the Britts have left to give the world is there past, ...that and Doctor Who.
Is English not your primary language?
It is not their money.
The queen has half a billion dollars of her own, and who is paying for 23 million of this wedding? Certainly not the Queen. Not at all. The tax payers.
What else do the tax payers get? Their beloved programs and funding cut from useful things.
So the Queen and all her "royalty" are spending next to nothing on this wedding and hoarding her half a billion dollars, while cutting public funding and saying "We can't afford to help you." to the tax payers who are directly paying for this wedding.
It is really ALL of his business how other people spend tax payer money on themselves while simultaneously telling those tax payers "No. We can't afford it." all while not spending a dime of the Queen's $500,000,000 to compensate for her "royal" wedding so that tax money doesn't have to be spent on it, or at the very least give funding for some of the neglected programs.
Fivoroth, how can you even say that sentence to him? Are you truly that ignorant of what is REALLY going on in the world?
Did not watch it it came on at the time I was in bed. I felt no special need to get up to watch somebody I don't know, don't care about and could care less about, that is if I even had power at the time. I was to worried about the aftermath of tornado that blew through Tuscaloosa and Alberta city that killed 44 folks and took 4 days to get power back. We still have the national guard out actually shooting looters now in Alberta city. Instead of worrying about a bunch of rich folks who think they are better than the rest of of us.
We actually had the president come down here to see how bad it was, and I can say living through Katrina it is worse than that. Now if those royals want to come over here and donate to the relief fund, and give cash to those who are less fortunate than me, I might actually give a rats rear end. I know there is at least 900 folks who don't have a house now. All the relief centers are full of folks who have nowhere else to go.
Sorry I had more real life pressing matters going on. Like I said Im lucky I still have a place to live, and power and cable.
Games are more important. People get married everyday, who cares?
And people use facebook and twitter like crack fiends. I find that even more appauling than someone sitting down to watch a royal wedding for a few hours. The way I look at this is it is no different than like Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. But this itself is a once In a lifetime thing for many people so why not spend your time especially if you live in the UK and like others said its a national pride thing seeing as it was broadcast all over and mentioned on every news network basically.
Besides being a figurehead I "think" there are some powers that they can use if the elected government is not acting according to their constitution.
I believe the monarchy does have some powers though they are usually used in conjunction with the wishes of the elected government.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I'd kind of already covered this in my previous post but I'll mention it again, however I will say that if someone is fundamentally opposed to a Monarchy under any circumstances (quite within their rights) then it doesn't matter what the balance sheet says. But if your more like me and just don't particularly care one way or the other then it does matter. With that in mind the very short version is that Britain earns more money from the Royal family than it costs to keep them.
As for the issue over the cost of the wedding, yes it has cost the taxpayer somewhere between 20 - 40 million from the little bit of research I've done (i.e. google 'Royal wedding cost' lol), the vast majority of that is the cost of security. I doubt many of us will ever know the full costs, but the most expensive estimates seem to have it at 80 million at the most. Now, take into account the estimates that some retail researchers have come up with as follows:
£26 million made on wedding merchandise.
£360 million on food and grocery sales as people stock up on party foods.
£500 million + in tourism (an average year sees 500 million in revenue from tourism associated with the monarchy but they estimate an increase due to the wedding).
So for the wedding they have come up with a potential income of £900 million.
Source: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/The-Royal-Wedding-Balance-Sheet-Will-Taxpayers-Be-Left-Out-Of-Pocket/Article/201011315814370?lpos=Business_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15814370_The_Royal_Wedding_Balance_Sheet:_Will_Taxpayers_Be_Left_Out_Of_Pocket
Some other interesting facts:
The cost to the tax payer on Head of state expenditure for 2009 was £41.5 million (meaning each person in the country paid 62 pence that year), in 2010 it was £38.2 million.
If a surplus is made in some areas of the Royal Finances it goes back into the treasury, for example in 2006-2007 the Crown estates made a surplus of £200 million which went back into the treasury.
The Queen pays tax, she volunteered to pay income and capitol gains tax and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable.
Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/HeadofStateexpenditure.aspx
I haven't even touched on the work the Royals do for small and medium British business, so the next time someone gets a job at a plant manufacturing ball bearing in Sheffield to be exported to Saudi Arabia, that deal could have been done with the help of a Royal family member. They do a lot of work promoting business to generate Jobs and economic growth for our country.
The point is, we as a nation make a profit from the Royal family. So sure, if we want to save ourselves a few million quid lets get rid of them, but we're gonna lose out on hundreds of millions as a result. Oh and getting rid of the Royal family is not going to magically lower the cost of going to University, or solve the nations immigration issue or whatever other political hot potato someone wants to lay at the feet of the Royals.
W0t? Unfortunately, it is my mother tongue! Why?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
The Question should not just be directed at "the Brits".
Queen Elizabeth II is in fact the Head of State of a number of countries which operate as Constitutional Monarchies.
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy) has this to say:
In nearly all cases, the monarch is still the nominal chief executive, but is bound by constitutional convention to act on the advice of the Cabinet. Only a few monarchies (most notably Japan and Sweden) have amended their constitutions so that the monarch is no longer even the nominal chief executive.
The most significant family of constitutional monarchies in the world today are the sixteen Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II.[5] Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Monarch and her Governors-General in the Commonwealth realms hold significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises usually to uphold parliamentary government. An instance of a Governor General exercising his power was during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, when the Australian Prime Minister of the time, Gough Whitlam, was dismissed by the Governor-General. The Australian senate had threatened to block the Government's budget by refusing to pass the associated appropriation bills. On 11 November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he went to seek the Governor-General's approval of the election, the Governor-General instead dismissed him as Prime Minister, and shortly thereafter installed leader of the opposition Malcolm Fraser in his place. Acting quickly before all parliamentarians became aware of the change of government, Fraser and his allies were able to secure passage of the appropriation bills, and the Governor-General dissolved Parliament for a double dissolution election. Fraser and his government were returned with a massive majority. This led to much speculation among Whitlam's supporters as to whether this use of the Governor-General's reserve powers was appropriate, and whether Australia should become a republic. Among supporters of constitutional monarchy however, the experience confirmed the value of the monarchy as a source of checks and balances against elected politicians who might seek powers in excess of those conferred by their respective constitutions, and ultimately as a safeguard against dictatorship.
One point which is important to note is that Queen Elizabeth II is head of those countries NOT as the Queen of England - but as queen of each country.
For example Canada is ruled by the Queen of Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Personal_Canadian_Flag and Australia is ruled by the Queen of Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Personal_Australian_Flag
This may seem like a moot point - but in fact it is quite important.
It happens that at the moment it is the same 'person' - but it doesn't have to be. The successor to Queen Elizabeth in each country is chosen from a list which is maintained by Parliamentary statute.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx
What that means is that each country is free to choose its own line of succession. So, next time you hear a Canadian or an Australian complain that they are ruled by "a Brit" - remind them that their parliment has the power to change that!
So why don't they?
Well - there is the issue.
As an Australian I can tell you that while many Australians might complain about the Monarchy - they accept it.
Yet if we were to appoint an Australian and the successor to Queen Elizabeth II - who would it be? I can think of many Australians who would put themselves forward for the role; Eddie Mcguire?, Paul Keating?, John Howard?, Ray Martin? Warrick Kappa?
And you know what... not one of those people doesn't make me throw up a little in my mouth at the thought.
So, tank017, one of the best things the Monachy does is give us a ready made Head of State without the fuss.
Oh... and there is no need to argue about Birth Certificates either :-P
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
why should i watch a wedding to which i am not invited
no beer, no me!
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"