The Royal Family.
Isn't it about time we rid ourselves of these useless spoilt twats and their extended inbred families? I feel guilty if I take the car to Tesco's yet that ginger twunt uses a Chinook to pick up his horsey bint. How's that for leaving a footprint?

Shoot the fucking lot of them!

And before any Mail reading wanker says 'ooh they do so much for charity and tourism' DO THEY FUCK! Have them stuffed and on display in Madame Tussauds and the income of this green and pleasant land will increase.

Thank you and goodnight.
(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 13:39, 36 replies)

Yawn.
I bet you still think Ben Elton's funny.
( Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...", Wed 15 Oct 2008, 13:44, closed)

Still?
Never.
(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 20:43, closed)

I think shooting them is going a bit far
But they are a bloated waste of space. It's about time we moved on.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 13:46, closed)

Tourism
I remember reading that the taxes generated through tourism industry related directly to the royal family (mugs with the Queen's mug on, etc) more than pays for the taxes spent supporting the royal family.

As long as they're providing an overall profit to the taxpayer's purse, I'm all for letting them stay. I'd rather have the Royals and a little more money in my pocket, then get rid of them and have my income tax rise by the amount needed to compensate for the lost revenue.
(Musuko, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 13:47, closed)

People do not come here for the weather.
.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 13:49, closed)

This is true.
And if they did go, I'd miss Prince Philip for his hilarious inability to go to a foreign country without offending people - he is at a level of comedic gold that Boris Bloody Johnson can only dream of.

But I agree with the Dr's point about picking up your girlfriend in a Chinook.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 13:58, closed)

To be fair though
If you had the oppertunity to do that, you would, wouldn't you?
(Potty Jag har smör i min rumpspringa, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 14:05, closed)

Yeah, probably.
At least it would make a change from "shall we take the bus or the tube?"
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 14:16, closed)

...
About them in particular I care not a jot.

But I do not trust electoral democracy as a rule. A head of state who doesn't have to crawl to the half-baked bigotry of the quarter-educated British population seems like less of a bad thing than an elected one.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 14:10, closed)

It's a wonderful paradox, really
Because the best thing about democracy is that everybody is entitled to a vote.

The biggest problem with democracy is that everybody is entitled to a vote.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 14:17, closed)

Depends on your account of democracy.
I kinda head along Rousseau's lines - treat the demos as an agent that's more than the sum of its parts. What's in the demos' interests needn't coincide with any individual's desires. That's just too bad for their desires.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 14:28, closed)

Erm, they are good for tourism...
...they generate loads of money for our country, you plank. Let's get this straight, I am certainly no Royalist, but at least hate them for a real reason.

Oh, and it's Tesco- that's TESCO- not Tesco's.
(Otter as serious as cancer, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 14:45, closed)

?
How do they as individuals help tourism as opposed to the stuff they own? Bucky Pal would still be swamped by tourists if they were dumped and it belonged to the populace.

Obviously the odd birth, death or wedding helps the cause but other than that it is fuck all other than commemorative plates.

And sorry about Tesco - do you work there?
(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 20:48, closed)

I agree...

With whatever PJM says on the matter.

(I know he hasn't commented yet, but when he does it will be spot on)

So in advance...'Hear Hear!'
( Pooflake braces for an onslaught..., Wed 15 Oct 2008, 14:49, closed)

I'm
awaiting PJM's response as we speak to be honest, although only for a bit longer...
(Fuckarma was masturbating into your handbag, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 15:13, closed)

100% disagree
What would you have instead of the monarchy? A dreadful republic?

* Having a "president" would cost just as much, if not more than the monarchy.

* Most of the royal family's income comes from rent from land ownership: the taxpayer does not pay for most of it. And when it's worked out, it's a matter of just a few pence per head of population - so don't think that by abolishing the monarchy, you'd suddenly find thousands of extra pounds per year in your pocket due to the savings. No way.

* It's great to have a head of state who is virtually uncorruptable. While politicians all bow to special interests and party donors, Her Majesty the Queen needs no favours given by any company. The fact that she's so rich means that she can be impartial.

* Most of the anti-monarchist rants which come from uneducated people are nothing but thinly-disguised sour grapes at the fact that some (lucky) people have been born into wealth and luxury, whereas the person doing the complaining hasn't. I bet that the moaners wouldn't say no if they were to be offered all that wealth themselves.

* Regarding the personal lives of the individuals concerned - what do you want them to do? Some people have historically complained that the royals are too aloof, and "not like the rest of us". Yet when their family problems and misbehaviour is made known, people then start complaining about all that! C'mon - they're only human.

* Despite the problems of the rest of her family, Her Majesty the Queen has not put a foot wrong in all her reign. That's a fantastic achievement. You might envy her because of all the luxury and pampering which she undoubtedly receives, but she pays a high price for it. She is severely restricted in her life - she has very little privacy. She is forcibly silenced politically, and she is not allowed to express her views. She actually has a lot less freedom to do what she wants than you or I do.

* And last, but not least - don't you even feel one iota of pride in living in a country where we have Kings and Queens; princes and princesses? There's something special about it. If you don't feel that, then it's a great shame because you're missing out on one of the fundamental things which makes us all British.

Stop bashing the monarchy. Long live the Queen.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 15:13, closed)

what would we have instead?
possibly someone who's got to their station in life by hard work and achievements, rather than accident of birth?

But hey, carry on defering to your 'social betters' if it makes you feel better..
( Finite "Aardvark sorted out my shit!" on, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 17:17, closed)

Read my post below about Somalia
I got to my own station by accident of birth - way luckier than poverty-stricken Somalians. And my guess is that so did you - merely because you were born in the Western world.

As for "social betters" - no way. I never said that the royals were my social betters. Just that it's nice to have them.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 18:59, closed)

Feed the World
Maybe the Royals could fund Somalia and we would all be happy - especially the Somalians.
(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 20:51, closed)

With regards to tourism...
... Without the Royal Family we'd lose all the tourists!

Just look at France! They must be kicking themselves since the revolution. They get fuck all foreign visitors since they sharpened the guillotine. Poor sods. Living off bread and water.
(tweebianmonkey Should be known as Widget, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 15:46, closed)

Olympics
The money we're spending on that would pay for the Royals for the next 300 years.

To put it another way: they don't cost us much.
( stopmeandslapme Cometh the hour, cometh your mum, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 16:28, closed)

Exactly
The amounf of public money spent on them is a tiny drop in the ocean in comparison to other public-funded projects. Doing away with the royals isn't going to improve the finances of the common man one bit.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 16:39, closed)

Keep the Royals...
and shoot anyone to do with the Labour Cabinet. Mandleson - flees to EEC when facing charges of fraud and ambezzlement regarding dodgy mortgages. Yet is returned to corridors of power by that one-eyed slack-jawed fucktard and put in charge of...that's right - fixing our economic woes. Lard-Arse Prescott - where to begin? The made-up jobs? The dodgy mortgages? The lack of tax-paying?

Then we have Blair and his clown-faced harpy of a wife - property scandals, kids so fucked-up that one tries to top herself and the other steals an army landrover and tries to drive it through the doors of Chequers to kill his dad (true story that an ex's friend was one of the guards that almost shot Euan Blair that evening..).

Given the damage that bunch of fuckers has done to this country - raping the middle-classes, giving every jumped-up chav an idea that they have a right to anything they want, raping Education and the NHS...I say wipe those fuckers out and keep the Queen any day of the week. Zero-personal liability, benefit scrounging, claims-direct-loving, PC-friendly thought-controlling wankers the lot of them.

It's a Recession, not a "credit crunch" you monocular twat....grr

/rant
(Chad, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 16:41, closed)

you what?
Where did you read that about the Blair children? It sounds...dubious, to say the least.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 18:05, closed)

blair brats...
Ok, ex-missus was an army brat - her best mate was an MP - he was there when the landrover driven by a very drunken Euan was stopped at the front steps of Chequers.

Blair's daughter tried to off herself (remember the time he looked like he'd had a heart attack? That's when she did that) and the whole lot are dysfunctional.

Then again, if you'd had to crawl your way out of Cherie's twat, you'd want to die, too...
(Chad, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 14:26, closed)

Trafalgar Square...
I also recall Euan being picked up by the cops face down in the street pissed out of his mind not long after his father gave another lovely speech on teh subject of teenage binge drinking...
(Chad, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 14:41, closed)

linky-poos...
drunken Euan here

kathryn blair tries to off herself...the press supress the story because it's deemed in the interest of national security not to let people know Blair and his family are nuts...
(Chad, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 14:51, closed)

Hunt them down and cull them
So! Their income is mostly from land ownership eh? And from whence did this ownership come I ask.
They inherited it.
And from Whence did that inheritance come?
Inheritance.

Go back FAR enough and the inheritance comes from theft, murder, double-dealing, incest, annexation etc etc. JUST the kind of people that we should all look up to.

On another note, does anyone have any idea why the Charles/Anne generation DIDN'T marry into the crowned families of Europe?

That's right! They were too closely related and the haemophilia (Romanov through the Victoria/Albert line), Inherited Lupus (Bourbon also through the Victoria/Albert line) and other congenital disorders caused by consanguinity were almost certain to manifest had they done so.

BTW they've only been the "Windsors" since the early 20th century.

Before that they were the Saxe-Coburg Gothas.

Gotta love the English, we love being servile.
(Captain Placid 24/7 ball gags, brownie mix and clown porn, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 17:07, closed)

But but but
If they gave back the land, what would happen to it?

It would be stripped of all food and fuel bearing plants and covered in forgotten rusting Ford Cortina restoration projects, dog crap and decking.
( stopmeandslapme Cometh the hour, cometh your mum, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 17:25, closed)

By your argument...
ALL people who have a line of inheritance, aren't entitled to it.

If you go back far enough, you'll find vile acts throughout history which have been committed in order to take possession of land. And this goes for just about all land on Earth.

Are you English? Anglo-Saxon? Chances are that the land upon which your family home stands once belonged to a Celt. Who stole it from someone else (I can't be bothered to look up the history of land ownership over the millennia - but you get the picture).

Is it unfair that some people are lucky, by accident of birth, to be able to inherit huge estates and vast fortunes - while others have nothing? Maybe. But what are you going to do about it?

By that argument, one may as well say that by accident of your birth, you were born in England and not in Somalia. But do the Somalians therefore have cause to despise you - simply because you were "lucky" enought to have been born with a better lot in life than they were?

Come on! Unless you're advocating some form of extreme communism, in which everyone on Earth should be allocated one six-billionth of the available land area, and in which it is not possible to inherit, then your argument is flawed.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 18:57, closed)

Actually...
my argument isn't about the inheritance per se but about the way these descendants of murdering warmongering genocidal bastards have the temerity to EXPECT respect precisely BECAUSE of their heritage.
And the sad fact that there are people outside their bloodlines that actually do think they deserve respect, even servility.
(Captain Placid 24/7 ball gags, brownie mix and clown porn, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 0:11, closed)

Royal Cash
Want to know where 'the crown' gets most of its ready-cash from? EEC subsidies, that's where.

Farming subsidies flow into most European countries in one form or another to support farming communities and ensure their survival. These subsidies are paid to the 'land-owners'.

Who 'owns' most of the arable land in the UK? Ah yes, that'd be the crown then....!

And we wonder why we go through periods where farmers (whilst trying to meet EEC targets for which they are supposed to be subsidised) occasionally shoot themselves in despair.

It's because Queenie there has kept the cash they're meant to receive so she can hold another state banquet.

On the other hand, if I had access to a helicopter I'd *love* to see the missus' face when I turned up in it!

Ah yes, if I had a big chopper the things I could do....
(EffinDoubt is breaking glass on, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 11:47, closed)

*applauds*
fucking right, shoot the lot of them and declare a republic
( Finite "Aardvark sorted out my shit!" on, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 17:13, closed)

Thanks for the support..
...and then we can start on all religions!
(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Wed 15 Oct 2008, 20:55, closed)

Why oh why ...
do we still have a royal family?

Cromwell chopped the head of that useless prat Charles I and installed a little known military dictatorship in the mid-1600s. But instead of preceeding our Gallic cousins into the brave new world of democracy 400 fucking years ago, what did we do when Cromwell died?

Installed the equally useless but more comfy fit glove puppet Charles II on the throne.

Do they teach that at Skank Comprehensives up and down the country? No. I wonder why.

And why the shivering fuck did 'Er Bloody Majestic Arse name her firstborn son and heir Charles? Third time lucky perhaps?

I'm with the Russians. Round em up, shoot em all, bury em, dig em up 100 years later and say 'oops'.
(Que?, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 7:39, closed)