POLL - Should the UK monarchy now be abolished ? Y/N - all ATS members please contribute

a reply to: aboutface

As you would for any other visiting Head of State, many of whom are damn site less palatable than some blue rinse octogenarian and her humorous, if somewhat racist, husband

Plenty of Brits, for whatever reason (I suspect some cousin of Stockholm Syndrome), genuinely seem to believe that their celebrated inbred unemployed welfare family should persist for eternity. Every other welfare recipient in England gets eviscerated in the tabloids - what a con they've pulled! For centuries!

I've often seen the claim that they're good for the country - bringing in tourist dollars, etc. What I've not seen is any evidence for this whatsoever. No tourist visits the UK so look at the dried up old Queen, maybe to look at the palaces and the guards in the silly hats (who mostly hate their jobs).

As a citizen of Canada, and therefore a subject of Her Majesty the Welfare Queen, I vote YES. I'd like to see people of actual note on my money, important Canadians rather than foreign inbreds who may as well be from another planet.

originally posted by: Monger
Plenty of Brits, for whatever reason (I suspect some cousin of Stockholm Syndrome), genuinely seem to believe that their celebrated inbred unemployed welfare family should persist for eternity. Every other welfare recipient in England gets eviscerated in the tabloids - what a con they've pulled! For centuries!

See, another one pops along even though I must have gone over this a million times..

Welfare? They don't get a penny of taxpayer money.

Next silly statement...

originally posted by: Monger
I've often seen the claim that they're good for the country - bringing in tourist dollars, etc. What I've not seen is any evidence for this whatsoever. No tourist visits the UK so look at the dried up old Queen, maybe to look at the palaces and the guards in the silly hats (who mostly hate their jobs).

Why would they be Palaces if no one lived there? It would lose it's appeal.

And those "guards" you speak of are serving members of the British Army, Queen's Guard and consist of some of the best Infantry Regiments in the Army. I doubt very much that they "mostly hate their jobs".

originally posted by: Monger
As a citizen of Canada, and therefore a subject of Her Majesty the Welfare Queen, I vote YES. I'd like to see people of actual note on my money, important Canadians rather than foreign inbreds who may as well be from another planet.

Silence, you Colonial devil!

a reply to: stumason

So their living expenses + salaries + upkeep on all those palaces is magic, coming from nowhere like Manna from heaven?

No. It's one of the few tourist attractions Great Britain has. The monarchy pays for itself many times every year because of the tourism it attracts.

Besides, we all know it's a monarchy in name only. The Queen doesn't rule anything meaningful.

originally posted by: stumason


Welfare? They don't get a penny of taxpayer money.

Prove it then.....
Meanwhile:
www.centreforcitizenship.org...
www.telegraph.co.uk...

I'll throw this in for a giggle, bet you have it bookmarked you forelock tugger.
www.royal.gov.uk...

And he just bought a nice little chalet in Verbiers rumoured to cost anything from 8-13 million, where does an unemployed sex pest get that sort of money? Oh, yes,mummy via the crown estate, our land appropriated by this foul nest of inbreeders and their lackeys.

As for the palaces? rent them to Russian oligarchs the same way this country has rented and sold London to them, old Queenie didn't do much to stop that did she?

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Not unless you're actually being harmed by the monarchy.
It's the traditional form of government for England. Changing forms of government willy-nilly without cause is bad for cultural heritage and also usually expensive, one way or another.

originally posted by: stumason

Welfare? They don't get a penny of taxpayer money.

Er...pardon?

The British Royal Family is financed mainly by public money, but there are also a number of private sources of income. The British Parliament meets the cost of the Sovereign's official expenditure from public funds. This includes the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment

Finances of British Royal Family

A poll by a troll,and class warfare


Nice!

Absolutely yes...

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Monger
Plenty of Brits, for whatever reason (I suspect some cousin of Stockholm Syndrome), genuinely seem to believe that their celebrated inbred unemployed welfare family should persist for eternity. Every other welfare recipient in England gets eviscerated in the tabloids - what a con they've pulled! For centuries!

See, another one pops along even though I must have gone over this a million times..

Welfare? They don't get a penny of taxpayer money.

That's a straight lie.

Last year the Queen collected 36.1million pounds of taxpayer money and this year she will collect 37.9 million pounds of taxpayer money. The amount can NEVER go down. This is the Sovereign grant and a huge burden on the treasury. This amount continues to grow and will soon cost taxpayers nearly half a billion pounds per decade.

originally posted by: Fermy

originally posted by: stumason


Welfare? They don't get a penny of taxpayer money.

Prove it then.....
Meanwhile:
www.centreforcitizenship.org...
www.telegraph.co.uk...

I'll throw this in for a giggle, bet you have it bookmarked you forelock tugger.
www.royal.gov.uk...

And he just bought a nice little chalet in Verbiers rumoured to cost anything from 8-13 million, where does an unemployed sex pest get that sort of money? Oh, yes,mummy via the crown estate, our land appropriated by this foul nest of inbreeders and their lackeys.

As for the palaces? rent them to Russian oligarchs the same way this country has rented and sold London to them, old Queenie didn't do much to stop that did she?

I learned a new idiom today! "Forelock-Tugger". I looked up the meaning. Yay for expanding vocabularies!

Here's a petition on the UK Government website:
Abolish the Monarchy and Replace with a Republic Closing date is 30th of March so act fast...so far 20 votes lol.

Here's a petition on the same site which has 2782 votes supporting it:
Stop Removal of Royal Crest from British Birth Certificates in Favour of EU Flag As I said earlier I couldn't give a toss about either really, just putting it out there. Change won't be coming anytime soon no matter how much bitching about it is carried out on ATS.

NO BUT/ only if it is stripped down to the minimum 1 palace and all the free loaders of family made to work no more grace and favour for all

No !

And because there are so many none Brits voting yes, I think even more the reason to keep them

YES. There is no place for them in our democracy, they perpetuate elitsm and the class system and fly in the face of position by merit. And no I do not think it's OK to let all this slide for the ££££ they bring in tourism.

a reply to: grainofsand

Rich to poor and back again!!!
People with titles, lawyers, bankers, engineers, scientists, miners, builders, directors and senior managers across industries, oh and lets not forget the forces and poor!

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Absolutely not!

To understand the origin of the Throne in England (stone of scone/coronation stone/Jacob's stone etc.)is the understand the current residence of David's thrown from ancient Israel.... which cannot be "abolished" until after the return of Jesus Christ to claim ruler ship.

For that reason alone the monarchy must remain in place for just a short period of time longer.

God Bless,

originally posted by: Scouse100
YES. There is no place for them in our democracy, they perpetuate elitsm and the class system and fly in the face of position by merit. And no I do not think it's OK to let all this slide for the ££££ they bring in tourism.

Every country will have their elites/celebrities/royalty.

Honestly, I'd prefer if Britain kept their harmless old biddy as "top dog". Better than Cameron or any other of the political mud-slingers that would reign in the absence of a monarchy.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite
Same, I've got a couple of millionaire mates, a few on Jobseekers Allowance, and everything in between.
It still doesn't make your anecdotal evidence anywhere near as reliable as a well sampled national poll.

...perhaps you should add your support to the republic e-petition on the .gov.uk website as I mentioned above, go on, you can make it 21 people who give a toss enough to cast a digital vote about it, lol.