It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rejected: Queen's plea for more cash

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:36 PM
well i would rather queenie have 50-60p off me every year and have her as head of state rather than president brown! im embarrassed every time i see the bumbling fool on tv.
also, in reply to an earlier thread about the powers she still has, the armed forces over here are hers-the government has to ask her for permission to use them.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:11 PM
The attitude of saying that we can justify the expense of keeping the Monarchy going simply because our 'money gets wasted on so many other things through the government', is the exact reason we the British public are rinsed year in, year out, all through various taxes and so on. They know they can get away with it, we're simply so used to having money taken away from us and wasted on rubbish.

IF we got rid of the queen and her motley crew of a family, the buildings and palaces will still stand. Tourists can still go see them and take photos. After all, if the royal family are apparently caught up with so many diplomatic missions every year, its not like they'd be available for the general public to see that often anyway.

Its down right hypocritical for us to go off into other countries, fighting wars for democracy, under the flag of a know, the queen who we didn't elect...and don't get me started about the house of lords.

I'm a strong patriot of Britain, and I'm proud to be British. But not because I get the well being of dishing out money to keep some fat cats in good health and luxuary. They are so out of touch, its an embarrassment to have that represent this country.

Heres a crazy idea, we update this country, clear out all the crap ie the Royal family, house of lords, cut down MP's pay packets, put in stronger laws to prevent corruption, ditch council tax, and nationalize important services like British gas and water to prevent greedy corporations from making their billion pound a year profits, at the expense of someone who struggles to afford some of the bare essentials for day to day living.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:20 PM
The royals are the national pets. They entertain. If you wanted a great reality TV show you should cut the queen loose and have her live on what the typical retired window gets and do her own shopping and scrub out her own toilet. It would be an interesting adjustment to watch.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:35 PM
the chances of an elected party helping out the population of this country of ours is nil, as soon as they sit in parliament they get greedy themselves! as such, id rather stick with queenie and not presidents brown, bliar or cameron et al.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by mighty_quinn

This guy should be Prime Minister

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by RealityisanIllusion

spot on realityisanillusion we brits need to wise up to these parasites i bet most americans find the whole thing baffling i know i do

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:21 PM
There are some very good historical and political truths on this thread,

and so its not a one or three liner, all i have to say is;




If they are not happy send them some mice from the pet shop a couple ot times a month, some crickets and stuff :=)

Kind Regards,


Tongue in cheek,
however do Lizards have cheeks? :-)

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:41 PM
Belgians also have a Royalty and when dealing with certain countrys, it gives somewhat of a psychological advantage.. Many Americans for example are 'charmed' by the quaintness of it.

We also have to pay a bit to support them, and there's also a lot of ruckus here because of it but the people who want to abolish it seem to think Presidents or whatever are free..

Consider this:

Every 4 years, another guy gets the chance of being elected.

If every time another guy gets elected, that's 5 guys in two decades. (or ladys offcourse, just historically speaking chances are higher for males)

These guys all get 'retirement' funds at a Presidential level..

My guess is, it would actually cost more in the long run to pay all these, then it is to support our Royals.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:10 PM
To believe the queen and her staff need more money from their "subjects" is darn right arrogant!

These people live privaleged lifestyles and probably make more money sitting on the toilet each day than most of us in a year.


I may be english and she may be the queen, but I never voted for her.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in