Why is there a Queen of England??

[redux]

It's been all over the news about Obama's meeting with the queen. My question is why England has a Queen in 2009 and why there is zero movement to abolish that preposterous position.

[scarletghoul]

A lot of people agree that the monarchy is pointless, but there is no significant mass movement to abolish it because to be honest there are worse things going on (war, capitalism, etc).

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm a bit mixed when it comes to the Queen.
On one hand she's a living piece of history and undoubtitbly brings in extra revenue through tourism and the British taxpayer only pays something like 40p a year to reap those benefits.
On the other hand, she's been born into this life of wealth and celebrity unfairly. Even that time she spent in REME during the war doesnt justify that. The history side of things could just as easily be achieved through making Buckingham Palace into a museum and tourism revenue is something that only exists under capitalism too.
She does perform a very small administrative role too. Like the President of the United States has the power to refuse to pass what the Senate votes on, the Queen has the power to refuse to pass what Parliment votes on. That power hasnt been excersised in over a century though, ever since Queen Victoria refused to criminalise the act of two women having sex (albiet that was down to her ignorance, not any form of tollerance).
So, what are my feelings overall? It may be unfair, but workers benefit more right now with her on the throne than if there wasnt anyone on the throne. After capitalism falls, there will no longer be any excuse to have them in that kind of position.

[brigadista]

royal family are parasites

[Pawn Power]

Yeah, there are royal families left in a few countries and still hold office, like the King of Spain. Obviously, they don't wield the influence of power they did before bourgeois democracy arose but they still live in splendor while the masses toil daily. They are living relics from the past, like a walking museum, and people like to preserve artifacts... so they remain.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The monarchy is pretty much pointless. Well in Canada anyway. She's considered our "queen". The Governor General represents her. The queen doesn't actually do anything in our politics. The Governor General gives the final consent for new laws and such, but it's not like the queen can step in and stop a law she doesn't like.

[Rjevan]

I agree, the monarchy is pointless why should, they be better than anybody else, just because one of their ancesors ruled the country centuries ago? And I don't want to know what they cost the average tax payer, but somehow... England without the Queen... oh, I guess I'm too sentimental. :(


since Queen Victoria refused to criminalise the act of two women having sex (albiet that was down to her ignorance, not any form of tollerance).
Haha, yes, I read about this. She just couldn't imagine how two women could have sex and nobody had the heart to illuminate her. :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

This is my solution for the royal family-


http://image64.webshots.com/64/6/74/51/402367451BQfKCW_fs.jpg


They could generate 10 times more tourism without any of the associated upkeeping expenses!

:laugh:

[jake williams]

The monarchy is pretty much pointless. Well in Canada anyway. She's considered our "queen". The Governor General represents her. The queen doesn't actually do anything in our politics. The Governor General gives the final consent for new laws and such, but it's not like the queen can step in and stop a law she doesn't like.
The monarchy in Canada's proroguing parliament is the reason we still have a Harper government.

[teenagebricks]

She hasn't done a single day of work in her life, it would seem that her primary responsibility is to make one short televised speech every Christmas. She should be out there collecting her pension every week like every other 82 year old in this country. Naturally I'm unsupportive of her.

[bellyscratch]

I think the Royal family have more power than people realise, and although they don't appear to use that power its still quite dangerous. They own vast amounts of land and have significant ties with the military and could well use their influence if they felt necessary. Just look at what supposedly happened to Harold Wilson...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I think the Royal family have more power than people realise, and although they don't appear to use that power its still quite dangerous. They own vast amounts of land and have significant ties with the military and could well use their influence if they felt necessary. Just look at what supposedly happened to Harold Wilson...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm

I agree. I think we're kidding ourselves when we say that modern monarchs like the Queen are only "symbolic figureheads." Monarchy is dangerous and stupid and it needs to be abolished.

[Bitter Ashes]

She hasn't done a single day of work in her life, it would seem that her primary responsibility is to make one short televised speech every Christmas.
I dont mean to defend her position too much, but, she was actualy a driver and mechanic for the Women's Auxillary during WW2. So, she did actualy do work at some point and was activly involved in fighting facism.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Lizwar.JPG

[LOLseph Stalin]

I dont mean to defend her position too much, but, she was actualy a driver and mechanic for the Women's Auxillary during WW2. So, she did actualy do work at some point and was activly involved in fighting facism.

We can give her that then. At least she's Anti-Fascist.

[Hit The North]

I don't agree that the Queen has never done a days work in her life. Apart from meetings with the Prime Minister, her ceremonial function (which has been transformed into a cheer-leading mission for British business by the bourgeoisie) means she has to travel the globe, attending functions with the leaders of other states, when she'd rather be at home with her feet up, watching The Wire.


Originally posted by bellyscratch
I think the Royal family have more power than people realise, and although they don't appear to use that power its still quite dangerous. They own vast amounts of land and have significant ties with the military and could well use their influence if they felt necessary. Just look at what supposedly happened to Harold Wilson...As major land and property owners, the royal family's interests are fused with those of British capital, so it's no wonder they supported a provisional coup against what they perceived as being a threat to the capitalist system (mistakenly, it must be added).

Personally, I wish they'd gone for it. The idea that the British working class in the mid-seventies would have accepted the undemocratic leadership of arch-imperialist Lord Louis Mountbatten, is a pure fantasy. There would have been massive resistance. Fortunately for the bourgeoisie, Margaret Thatcher stepped up to plate instead.

Incidentally, Mountbatten, the former Viceroy of India, was assassinated by the IRA in 1979, blown up in his boat in County Sligo. This gave rise to the hilarious and popular (at least among my friends) joke: "How do they know Lord Mountbatten had dandruff? They found his head and shouders on the beach."

In order to answer the question by the OP. The bourgeois revolution in Britain was the first of its kind and the bourgeoisie was theoretically immature. There were no clear republican models available to them and once the first generation of revolutionaries had passed from the historical stage, the momentum was to return to monarchical models of government - albeit, a monarchy whose power for the first time was subordinate to that of the bourgeoisie, who were in essence, if not in name, now the true rulers of Britain.

This has continued to the present time, with the monarch retaining the nominal title of Head of State but holding very little legislative power.

[teenagebricks]

I dont mean to defend her position too much, but, she was actualy a driver and mechanic for the Women's Auxillary during WW2. So, she did actualy do work at some point and was activly involved in fighting facism.
That's true, and while that may not be nearly enough work to justify her luxury life, I suppose she isn't entirely worthless.

[Mike Morin]

Why is there a Queen of England?

Because Fred Brian May
still likes to play
and they know that "What's Going On"
was written by Marvin Gaye?

[Iowa656]

The reason there's no mass movement is because too many people are attached to the Queen. Her and her cronies daily life is reported in the press to the point that everyone admires her. It's traditional people say.

But don't assume we are all sat here worshipping her. There is a movement to attempt to oust the biggest parasite in the UK.

Here's a website of a great organisation, simply named, Republic, who fight for a democratic head of state; http://www.republic.org.uk/ Check it out. Many people are surprised to learn that they actually have the approval of many MPs.

[Invader Zim]

The monarchy is nothing more than a spectacle for foreign dignitories and tourists.

[redux]

How can anyone who considers themself a revolutionary support a monarch?

Yes it is a relic of the past but it still preserves today. It must be abolished. How can you move beyond capitalism when you still haven't remove the vestage of feudalism? Why is there no movement against this? Was their any ever?

Do the British have no will or desire for democracy? I often wonder if it is not a wide desire there. For example no rights for own arms and entire country covered with cameras with no right for privacy.

Could you give me your perspective?

[Pawn Power]

The monarchy is nothing more than a spectacle for foreign dignitories and tourists.

Come on, some of the locals engage in the spectacle as well. I'm sure it is pretty dominant in the British tabloids- which are read by working class nationals.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How can anyone who considers themself a revolutionary support a monarch?

Yes it is a relic of the past but it still preserves today. It must be abolished. How can you move beyond capitalism when you still haven't remove the vestage of feudalism? Why is there no movement against this? Was their any ever?

Do the British have no will or desire for democracy? I often wonder if it is not a wide desire there. For example no rights for own arms and entire country covered with cameras with no right for privacy.

Could you give me your perspective?

The formality of having a titular monarch having ownership of all the means of production in society and commanding the loyalty of "subjects" is quite absurd. If for some weird reason the workers wish to retain feudal figureheads, they should institute some toothless, ceremonial, and perhaps hereditary President-For-Life position (like the weirdo "Eternal President" Kim Il-Sung in North Korea), thus detaching ownership and loyalty.

[Bitter Ashes]

How can anyone who considers themself a revolutionary support a monarch?

Yes it is a relic of the past but it still preserves today. It must be abolished. How can you move beyond capitalism when you still haven't remove the vestage of feudalism? Why is there no movement against this? Was their any ever?
I've not heard anyone supporting the monach here actualy. I've said we've benefitted from thier presence and also dispelled a very minor myth surrounding them. Nobody's said that they want the monarchy to remain after the revolution.


Do the British have no will or desire for democracy? I often wonder if it is not a wide desire there. For example no rights for own arms and entire country covered with cameras with no right for privacy.

Could you give me your perspective?
There really isnt. The "stiff upper lip" prevails. It does take quite a lot to rouse the British, but once they're set on a path we're about as stubborn as it gets. I must admit I'm not fond of racial sterotyping, but it is seeming very accurate. Maybe it's all of what's drilled into us in schools and stuff to accept the status quo.

[Brother No. 1]

Why is because they have had a useless monarchy for centries. Monarchy is pointless and has been very,very opressive to all people. the English have been opressed by their kings and queens for much too long.

[Rosa Provokateur]

She's there for sentimental value, my theory anyway.

[jake williams]

She's there for sentimental value, my theory anyway.
What exactly is the sentiment? Inbred fuckups are hereditarily much, much more important than you?

[Rosa Provokateur]

I dont know, nostalgia maybe?

[Bitter Ashes]

Oh jeez. You just walked into that one Green Apostle.
Before any more hormonal teenagers start foaming at the mouth again, it's worth pointing out AGAIN, that nobody here has said that they would agree to the Royal Family's position bieng maintained after the revolution.

[Angry Young Man]

I'm a bit mixed when it comes to the Queen.
On one hand she's a living piece of history and undoubtitbly brings in extra revenue through tourism and the British taxpayer only pays something like 40p a year to reap those benefits.


It's 64p for the queen alone, and I'd thankyou not to use the term 'British taxpayer'. It's not that it's individualistic; it's just tedious, like there's this one guy who keeps handing over several billion pounds to the inland revenue being all like 'Aww ffs, man! It's bad enough that you're sending a huge portion to the wars, but ffs you're using it to pay Adam Hart Davies!'

Anyway, the 64p that everyone pays the queen for sitting on her velvet arse could go to much more socially useful things like gurt load of johnnies to Uganda. You know, they have tourists at Versailles.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Oh jeez. You just walked into that one Green Apostle.

I'm sorry :crying:

[an apple]

Why is because they have had a useless monarchy for centries. Monarchy is pointless and has been very,very opressive to all people. the English have been opressed by their kings and queens for much too long.

Well the problem with the British royal family is that all they do is bugger all other than soak up shitloads of taxpayers' money and provide material for trash mags, while having no redeeming qualities.

[Lynx]

There are all sorts of patronage positions in modern society. Elitists need 'jobs' too!

[JohannGE]

I agree that it might apear that the crown no longer holds significant power, and the establishment are very happy for that apearence to prevail. They have no reason to rock the boat unecissarily as they still hold onto their wealth and influence even without attempting to exersize their still extant powers. However the areas where the crown can still theoreticaly wield considerable power are particurlaly dangerous should they ever be a situation where they might be dusted off and used.

For example the crown is the commander in chief of the armed forces, has the power to call elections and the assent of the crown is required for every bill passed by parliment. While these powers have not been used without the will of parliment for centuries there is nothing in the constitution to prevent them being used in the future. For example, in a hung parliment the crown would likely hold the balance of power should an agreement between the parties not be reached.

So long as parliment maintains a semblence of control and functionality it is difficult to imagine any threat. However in times of instability (which we all work towards and would welcome I presume) it is imo that there would be strong and wealthy factions who would be in favour of a return to the crown reasserting these powers. In our own "best interests" of course. In other words, the nearer we might get to our goals, the more likely it woud become that the monarchists would seek to reassert the power of the crown. I think it likely that they might have considerable support in this from senior members of the armed forces and large sections of the public.

The secrecy allowed to the actions of the monarchy make it difficult to assertain the more recent aspects of the insidious use/abuse of their privilage as information on their actions are granted more protection than those of parliment. Significant information regarding their nazi sympathies in the lead up to WW2 has only recently been reavealed and much still remains classified. Due to this incomparable ability to hide their activities there is much we might never know but there is enough in the public domain to indicate we should not simply write them of as a politicaly irrelevant anacronism too easily.

[an apple]

Excellent post Johann :)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well the problem with the British royal family is that all they do is bugger all other than soak up shitloads of taxpayers' money and provide material for trash mags, while having no redeeming qualities.

Maybe if they actually did something it wouldn't be as bad, but so far all I see happening is the Royal Family sucking up taxpayer money to provide for their luxuries.

[an apple]

Exactly. It doesn't matter one bit how much power they 'COULD' have. They are pointless all round. It's like paying Paris Hilton to create scandals.

[Yazman]

Oh jeez. You just walked into that one Green Apostle.
Before any more hormonal teenagers start foaming at the mouth again, it's worth pointing out AGAIN, that nobody here has said that they would agree to the Royal Family's position bieng maintained after the revolution.

Herein lies a fundamental problem for me. You seem to be ok with the monarchy "for now", only opposing it "after the revolution." Why not abolish monarchy NOW? Lets not leave everything until "after the revolution." There is an existing movement for republicanism in the UK just as there is in some of the other commonwealth nations, australia has a particularly strong one.

Monarchy is old shit that we need to move past ASAP.

[Invader Zim]

Maybe if they actually did something it wouldn't be as bad, but so far all I see happening is the Royal Family sucking up taxpayer money to provide for their luxuries.

Well, actually, the idea hat they do nothing is something of a myth. From what I understand, those on the tax payer payrole have a rather gruelling schedual.

[ibn Bruce]

She does perform a very small administrative role too. Like the President of the United States has the power to refuse to pass what the Senate votes on, the Queen has the power to refuse to pass what Parliment votes on. That power hasnt been excersised in over a century though, ever since Queen Victoria refused to criminalise the act of two women having sex (albiet that was down to her ignorance, not any form of tollerance).
The queen doesn't actually do anything in our politics. The Governor General gives the final consent for new laws and such, but it's not like the queen can step in and stop a law she doesn't like. __________________
She fired our (Australia's) elected PM, probably the best we ever had (Gough Whitlam). The GG gave him the sack.

[Yazman]

She fired our (Australia's) elected PM, probably the best we ever had (Gough Whitlam). The GG gave him the sack.

Yes, the one time australia had a socialist (albeit a reformist like Chavez and Morales), the ***** stepped in and removed him.

But yeah, this fucking stupid monarchy is not just a British concern. It concerns all the commonwealth nations and if the British would just remove their fucking monarchy it would remove the need for a whole lot of fucking struggle in other countries. I do not like the monarchy, it is a symbol of foreign domination and harkens back to the colonial era. It surprises me that some of those in the UK do not seem to notice this.

[ibn Bruce]

Yes, the one time australia had a socialist (albeit a reformist like Chavez and Morales), the ***** stepped in and removed him.

But yeah, this fucking stupid monarchy is not just a British concern. It concerns all the commonwealth nations and if the British would just remove their fucking monarchy it would remove the need for a whole lot of fucking struggle in other countries. I do not like the monarchy, it is a symbol of foreign domination and harkens back to the colonial era. It surprises me that some of those in the UK do not seem to notice this. __________________

Most of the arguments for it are not for the functionality of the Queen, but rather for the value of the tradition. I do not hold this opinion, when it comes to hereditary monarchies I'm down with the frogs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Guillotinemodels.jpg

[Yazman]

Yeah, the french and russians had the right idea. Off with their heads!

[JohannGE]

Well, actually, the idea hat they do nothing is something of a myth. From what I understand, those on the tax payer payrole have a rather gruelling schedual.

Eh! Gruelling?

Where do you get that (miss) understanding from?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Anybody see the Daily Show's coverage of the Michelle Obama/Queen of UK incident. Apparently the Queen is poison.

[fabiansocialist]

I don't agree that the Queen has never done a days work in her life. Apart from meetings with the Prime Minister, her ceremonial function (which has been transformed into a cheer-leading mission for British business by the bourgeoisie) means she has to travel the globe, attending functions with the leaders of other states, when she'd rather be at home with her feet up, watching The Wire.

She and her family (particularly Prince Andrew) act as good will salesmen for British industry, particularly for things like fighter planes and armaments. Plus they bring in a few quid as tourist attractions (e.g., they'd have to abolish the changing of the guard if they did away with the monarchy). The family is comfortable but not filthy rich.

[Pogue]

Most of the arguments for it are not for the functionality of the Queen, but rather for the value of the tradition. I do not hold this opinion, when it comes to hereditary monarchies I'm down with the frogs.


Best use of slur agaisnt national group ever??? :confused:

[JohannGE]

If their wealth is not filthy, I don't know what is.

I do not think the promotion of the sale of weapons used to kill and oppress people all over the world is any sort of justification for our subjugation to a totaly undeserving, uninspiring and mendacious family of parasites.

Auschwitz brings in tourist revenue without keeping it stocked with victims. The Somme battlefields bring in increasing amounts of tourist without maintaining the slaughter. The Jacobite tours of Scotland bring in millions from guilable tourists claiming clan decendancy without any need for an ongoing rebellion.

In my opinion the revenue benefits of an active monachy are vastly overstated. I am convinced that the income from tourists would be greatly increased if we could show them some bloodstains on the priceless carpets of buck house. The 600 rooms would also be very usefull in reducing the homeless problems of London.

Abolish the changing of the guard? Oh what a shame. We could replace it with daily recreations of the storming of the palace.

It is impossible to acurately estimate the wealth of the uk royals because we are simply not permited to know and they deliberately shroud their dealings in secrecy.

"Fortune conservatively estimates the Queen's wealth at $10.7 billion, not including the five palaces, which can't be appraised in any meaningful way. But that figure is deceptive because only $860 million is the Queen's to do with as she pleases."
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1991/03/25/74805/index.htm

The con is in the fact that the royals, supported by their establishment cronies and those who wish to support fuedalism and keep us as aquiesent subjects rather than free citizens, claim that the soverign's assets should not be counted as personal! Well who benefits from those resorces and who else can access them? Untill we finaly get rid of them it is theirs as far as I am concerned.

The idea of them having a grueling schedule of work is nothing less than ludicrous. How many hours a week and in what conditions do they work?

There are many richer people in the world and in the uk but comfortable? I should bloody well think so. The paradox of RevLefters taking on the task of volutary appologist's for the Saxe-Coburg Gotha's is an embarassment to the cause and shows ignorance beyond belief!

[Sarah Palin]

I'm a bit mixed when it comes to the Queen.
On one hand she's a living piece of history and undoubtitbly brings in extra revenue through tourism and the British taxpayer only pays something like 40p a year to reap those benefits.
On the other hand, she's been born into this life of wealth and celebrity unfairly. Even that time she spent in REME during the war doesnt justify that. The history side of things could just as easily be achieved through making Buckingham Palace into a museum and tourism revenue is something that only exists under capitalism too.
She does perform a very small administrative role too. Like the President of the United States has the power to refuse to pass what the Senate votes on, the Queen has the power to refuse to pass what Parliment votes on. That power hasnt been excersised in over a century though, ever since Queen Victoria refused to criminalise the act of two women having sex (albiet that was down to her ignorance, not any form of tollerance).
So, what are my feelings overall? It may be unfair, but workers benefit more right now with her on the throne than if there wasnt anyone on the throne. After capitalism falls, there will no longer be any excuse to have them in that kind of position.


I think the fact that she was born into such incredible wealth and power, and hasn't had to do any work in her entire life out weighs the tourism argument.

I'd support a movement against the position.

[DancingLarry]

I believe it was established some time ago by a leading social critic as to why the Biritish monarchy continues: Because tourists are money.

MeP220xx7Bs

[fabiansocialist]

If their wealth is not filthy, I don't know what is.

I do not think the promotion of the sale of weapons used to kill and oppress people all over the world is any sort of justification for our subjugation to a totaly undeserving, uninspiring and mendacious family of parasites.

Abolish the changing of the guard? Oh what a shame. We could replace it with daily recreations of the storming of the palace.

It is impossible to acurately estimate the wealth of the uk royals because we are simply not permited to know and they deliberately shroud their dealings in secrecy.

"Fortune conservatively estimates the Queen's wealth at $10.7 billion, not including the five palaces, which can't be appraised in any meaningful way. But that figure is deceptive because only $860 million is the Queen's to do with as she pleases."
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1991/03/25/74805/index.htm


I'm not supporting the monarchy nor claiming they're socially productive -- merely pointing out they do serve the interests of British capitalism.

I am sick unto death of claims that the Queen is one of the richest women in the world. She cannot sell the crown jewels, she cannot sell her palaces. Fortune has its head up its a$$. Some years back the London Times estimated the Queen's fortune at $5bn -- which was also hogwash. If I had to make an estimate of her personal wealth,it would be in the region of $200m -- comfortable but not exactly in the multi-billionaire league.

The English monarchy is an anachronism. It serves to perpetuate an outdated class system which hinders meaningful change in the United Kingdom. Get rid of the monarchy and the peers and honours list and the British class system
will have changed for the better. It is also an anachronism in that it provides a fake symbol of national unity. There is no national unity in the UK -- it's a complete farce. Another capitalist con. These are the reasons I'm against the monarchy -- but I'm not exactly frothing at the mouth in fury.

[fabiansocialist]

I believe it was established some time ago by a leading social critic as to why the Biritish monarchy continues: Because tourists are money.

Tourists are money. The UK survives to a large extent on "services," i.e., tourism, finance and insurance, weapons sales, prostitution, entertainment, and other such parasitical activities. The Royal Family fits snugly into this structure

[JohannGE]

If I had to make an estimate of her personal wealth,it would be in the region of $200m -- comfortable but not exactly in the multi-billionaire league.

Who said she was one of the richest women in the world?

Curious to know what information you have access to which enables you to make a clearer estimate than anyone else?

They doesn't need to sell those assets, they have exclusive access and rights to them and those rights will be passed on to their inbred offspring. What is the difference? It's a simple con trick.

[fabiansocialist]

Who said she was one of the richest women in the world?

The Times, Forbes, and other sensationalist pro-rich publications.


Curious to know what information you have access to which enables you to make a clearer estimate than anyone else?

One of the British papers -- or was it a weekly like New Statesman? -- went through her assets with a toothcomb about fifteen years back and came up with an estimate of about $50m-100m. I'm just taking inflation into account.


They doesn't need to sell those assets, they have exclusive access and rights to them and those rights will be passed on to their inbred offspring. What is the difference? It's a simple con trick.

*Sigh* Get your facts right before you start arguing -- an argument, by the way, which I have no interest in as I consider the Royals parasitical and anachronistic like everyone else here. No, they do NOT have exclusive rights. The royal yacht belongs to the the Royal Navy and has to be specially requisitioned each time. The royal prerogatives -- e.g. on taxation, and on which royal parasites are supported by the British state -- change with shifts in public mood (as it did about 18 years ago, during the last recession). These shifts the Royals are very attuned to because an anachronism like British royalty survives only because of fickle public whim.

The Royals are parsimonious. Once the Queen was passing a fruit vendor in her Rolls when she saw the price of apples; she was so shocked all apple purchases were stopped for some months. Visitors to Balmoral who claim of the cold are told to put on another cardigan. Charles has discussions with his housekeeper on what combination of leftovers to eat on a particular day. The curtains and carpets in the royal residences are not exactly in sterling condition -- some are frayed.

Again, don't get me wrong -- I'm not sympathetic to the Windsors. But there are bigger fish for socialists to fry and I'm not going to get hysterical about the Royals.

[Atrus]

I like to believe that if the Queen or any sort of Monarchy genuinely held power over the country, then there would be many strong movements against it.
As it stands, however, she is simply a tourist attraction and a symbol of "national identity".
The second is a load of shit, and the first could be sorted in much cheaper ways, but ultimately it simply comes down to a waste of money and poses no major problem for anyone, so people focus on the larger issues.

[Sasha]

didn't classwar have an sticker wich read "the real royal debate; do we hang them or do we shoot them?" :lol:

[Revy]

The problem is they get their wealth from the taxpayers. Moving toward a Republic would be best.

Nobody is saying she still can't be Queen to those who would like to think of her that way. She just wouldn't be the head of state.

Ranma mentioned that she helped the war effort. How does this equate to "anti-fascism"? Unless you think that was the motive of the Allies?

[Andropov]

Well, actually, the idea hat they do nothing is something of a myth. From what I understand, those on the tax payer payrole have a rather gruelling schedual.

It boggles the mind how you will defend anything remotely "British".
Apparently those who support National Liberation struggles are Nationalistic but your latent Nationalism is evident for all to see.
First be an apologetic mouthpiece for British Imperialism jackbooting around the world and then half heartedly defend the Queen.
If we are looking for ideas on what to do with the Royal Family parasites just look at the Romanovs.
Like how it has been pointed out earlier, if we want to progress from the Bourgeois epoch surely we must destroy the last vestiges of Fuedalism.

[fabiansocialist]

didn't classwar have an sticker wich read "the real royal debate; do we hang them or do we shoot them?"

Something more humiliating; give them an old person's basic pension, a small one-bedroom council flat, and see them trying to make ends meet.

[Invader Zim]

It boggles the mind how you will defend anything remotely "British".

Pointing out that the Royal family actually don't sit around all day does not equate support for the institution of the monarchy or a defence of 'all things British'.



Apparently those who support National Liberation struggles are Nationalistic but your latent Nationalism is evident for all to see.Unlike you who fetishises the notion of the State, I don't even accept the existance of 'nationality' beyond the confines of the imagination.

I also don't spout obvious lies to tarnish the character of those with whom I disagree.

Oh, and if my alleged nationalism were 'latent' it wouldn't be there for all to see; if a characteristic is latent it is hidden or dormant.

Do you need anything else explained to you? We can organise some remedial politics lessons (as well as basic comprehension lessons) for you, if you want.

[h0m0revolutionary]

You know im always taken by this 'tourism' debate. Especiaslly when advocated by leftists. Britain is one of the richest countries in the world, it would not miss the revenue generated by a few inbred parasites in Buckingham Palace

Infact i'd go as far as to say if we *really* wanted more tourism revenue, then locking them in a zoo or better still, the Tower of London would bring alot more people!

To be serious for a minute, this really is a non-debate. Leftists should not be supporting an instituion that exists primarily to promote the myth that the nuclear family is the most stable and ideal family unit. :cursing:

[JohannGE]

The Times, Forbes, and other sensationalist pro-rich publications.

What was that about getting facts right...

The Times:-

"In her personal capacity the Queen has an investment portfolio we reckon to be worth £120m."
"How she must rue the day in 1760 when George III took an income from the state in return for giving up the profits and control of the crown estate."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/person/0,,48222,00.html

Forbes:-

"Her lands may date back to the reign of William the Conqueror, but when it comes to comparing the riches of the world's monarchs the Queen has been trumped by new money."

"Queen Elizabeth II may live in Buckingham Palace and enjoy one of the world's most stunning jewelry and art collections, but she falls far short of making the Forbes Billionaires list."

http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/26/0626queens.html

Hardly worth getting "sick unto death of" or even "hysterical" about. But no need to appologise!


One of the British papers -- or was it a weekly like New Statesman? -- went through her assets with a toothcomb about fifteen years back and came up with an estimate of about $50m-100m. I'm just taking inflation into account.

Too vauge to have any relevance whatsoever.
The fact remains that due to secrecy it is impossible to make anything other than a best guess and there is certainly not enough evidence released for anyone to require a finetooth comb. In the absence of evidence these guesses tend to be based on the agenda of those making them and those quoting them.


*Sigh* Get your facts right before you start arguing.

No argument started by me. You responded dissmisively to my post with a load of nonsence, I questioned your nonsence and and you got stroppy about it. I suggest you get your facts right and refrain from arguing about topics you either know little about or that you wish to peddle missinformation about.


*-- an argument, by the way, which I have no interest in as I consider the Royals parasitical and anachronistic like everyone else here. No, they do NOT have exclusive rights. The royal yacht belongs to the the Royal Navy and has to be specially requisitioned each time. The royal prerogatives -- e.g. on taxation, and on which royal parasites are supported by the British state -- change with shifts in public mood (as it did about 18 years ago, during the last recession). These shifts the Royals are very attuned to because an anachronism like British royalty survives only because of fickle public whim..

If you have no interest in an argument which you have created I wonder why you did so. The royal yacht is hardly an adequate point to refute the obvious fact that the royals have many other soverign assets worth £billions which they do have exclusive rights too and will stay with the family.

On taxation...Crown Immunity legally exempts the queen and Phillip from taxation. You are correct (for once) that public and political pressure has in recent years encouraged the royals to pay taxes on some of their assets. These payments are not assesed as yours or mine are and could be withdrawn should they wish to do so. Obviously their secret hoards and off shore accounts are not taxed.


The Royals are parsimonious.
<snip> more sympathetic hand wringing for the poor old queen<snip>


My heart bleeds!


But there are bigger fish for socialists to fry and I'm not going to get hysterical about the Royals.

There most certainly are. That doesn't explain why you would choose to regurgetate royalist propoganda here.

[fabiansocialist]

No argument started by me. You responded dissmisively to my post with a load of nonsence, I questioned your nonsence and and you got stroppy about it. I suggest you get your facts right and refrain from arguing about topics you either know little about or that you wish to peddle missinformation about.

If you have no interest in an argument which you have created I wonder why you did so. The royal yacht is hardly an adequate point to refute the obvious fact that the royals have many other soverign assets worth £billions which they do have exclusive rights too and will stay with the family.

What assets precisely?


Obviously their secret hoards and off shore accounts are not taxed.

Well, since you're after me for accuracy, have you got sources for this or is this just more empty talk and supposition?


There most certainly are. That doesn't explain why you would choose to regurgetate royalist propoganda here.

Well, I've tried this many times already but let's try again. This time read slowly, make sure you understand: I'm in favor of the abolition of the British monarchy. Capiche? And I'm curious about what royalist propaganda I'm spouting, which apparently only you seem to notice on this thread.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Yeah, the french and russians had the right idea. Off with their heads!
But not for Prince William:wub:

[apathy maybe]

You know, the person who said, they have tourists at Versaille got it right. The person who said that they would have to get rid of the changing of the guard got it wrong (there would be nothing preventing them from maintaining that tradition).

Any revolutionary leftist or socialist who defends any sort of hereditary system of rule or power (even if it is only a "figure head"), well, maybe should think about what being a socialist and a leftist really means.

You might be a state socialist, and thus desire continued hierarchy, but for that hierarchy to be hereditary? That's crazy.

So, why is there a Queen of England? (Queen, also, of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and a number of small island nations; Paramount Chief of the Fijian Islands; Commander-in-Chief of various armed forces; Sovereign of various Orders; etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II))
'Cause of history, and the fact that she hasn't yet been abolished. However, it is only a matter of time.

[Andropov]

Pointing out that the Royal family actually don't sit around all day does not equate support for the institution of the monarchy or a defence of 'all things British'.

The fact that you say apologist crap like this.
Highlights where your loyaltys lie.


From what I understand, those on the tax payer payrole have a rather gruelling schedual.

A gruelling scheduel, FFS?
Try working two jobs on minimum wage just to keep your family fed and have a roof over their head.
That is a gruelling scheduel, not shaking hands and staying in 5 star hotels around the world.
Ohh what a victim the Queen is.



Unlike you who fetishises the notion of the State, I don't even accept the existance of 'nationality' beyond the confines of the imagination.
Im glad we both agree on the flaws in a state because believe it or not I dont fetish about states.
Now can we both agree on a peoples right to self determination free from foreign imperialism.
Ohh wait werent the Brits just their to try and put some "law and order" on us paddys.
That is why we welcomed them with open arms, freshly baked buns and daisey chains.


I also don't spout obvious lies to tarnish the character of those with whom I disagree.
All I know of you is what you write here.
And from what you write here you seem to constantly defend Brit Imperialism and now you are even defending the Monarchy.
If in fact you do detest Brit Imperialism as much as me and the Monarchy, then I apologise.


Oh, and if my alleged nationalism were 'latent' it wouldn't be there for all to see; if a characteristic is latent it is hidden or dormant.
How very smart.
BUT as you said latent can mean dormant, as in your nationalism is hidden while you wave the red flag and scream class politics but when that comes into conflict with your Latent Nationalism we see where your loyaltys lie. As in your Latent Nationalism is mostly slumbering but when its provoked it will awaken from that slumber and minfest itself into drivel about how The Queen has a gruelling scheduel and how us paddys welcomed the Brits with open arms, etc.


Do you need anything else explained to you? We can organise some remedial politics lessons (as well as basic comprehension lessons) for you, if you want.

Funny stuff.
Did you get that sense of humour while you were rapeing and pilliging foreign countrys?

[apathy maybe]

But not for Prince William:wub:

Why the fuck not? OK, if the fucker denounces the monarchy, renounces all rights to the throne and other hereditary positions, all rights to all the privileges of royalty, including government payments, all rights to the personal property of the royal family, etc., then I say let him live.

Otherwise, what's another dead royal?

[Andropov]

Why the fuck not? OK, if the fucker denounces the monarchy, renounces all rights to the throne and other hereditary positions, all rights to all the privileges of royalty, including government payments, all rights to the personal property of the royal family, etc., then I say let him live.

Otherwise, what's another dead royal?

An exceptionally racist and bigoted one at that.

[rednordman]

Monarchy is not a good thing, but the abolision of it without a socialist revolution poses a dillema. Who would you rather have in total power? Some monarch who doesnt really interfere, or the BNP?-This is why to realise a republic, it would have to be on socialist or anarchist terms or else it could end up in the wrong hands. Not that I am for royal familly (not a chance) just this is something my nan mentioned to me which has stuck ever since.

[Lord Testicles]

For all of you making the tourism argument, The republic website that someone linked to does a good job of refuting that argument.

http://www.republic.org.uk/tourism/index.php


Tourists come to see the sights and to pay for experiences while on their holidays.
In so far as the monarchy provides any tourism value it is in the shape of palaces and castles.
Buckingham palace is closed to tourists for most of the year. When it is open the visiting public are only allowed to see a small fraction of the rooms. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that if the palace were open all year round, and if the entire palace and gardens were open to the public, tourist visits would increase considerably.
Why wouldn't they? It would be a far better bang for the tourist buck.

[Invader Zim]

The fact that you say apologist crap like this.

The statement that it is a myth that the Royal family do nothing all day does not equate apologism for the monarchy. Repeat that until it sinks in.


Highlights where your loyaltys lie.What loyalties? Unlike you I don't maintain 'loyalty' to abstract concepts that unnecessarily divide humanity.



A gruelling scheduel, FFS?Certainly. While naturally they live in pampered luxury which they do not diserve, it is manifestly false to proclaim that they do nothing.



Try working two jobs on minimum wage just to keep your family fed and have a roof over their head.
That is a gruelling scheduel, not shaking hands and staying in 5 star hotels around the world.Firstly, nobody is saying that the the Royal family do work hard enough for their vast income. Secondly nobody is saying that the royal family work as hard as a single parent working two jobs. Thirdly, I am not a member of the royal family, so drawing comparison with my life and that of a parent working two minimum wage jobs isn't at all relevent. Fourthly, your 'prolier than thou' bullshit is nothing more than tedious when you know fuck all about me and my life.


Ohh what a victim the Queen is.Nobody has claimed that the Queen is a victim. As I have said to others on this board before: try addressing what is said, not some fictional position you have invented in your overactive imagination and attributed to your opponents.


Im glad we both agree on the flaws in a state because believe it or not I dont fetish about states.No, we clearly don't agree. I want to demolish the very notion of the 'state', you seek to protect and nurture it.


Ohh wait werent the Brits just their to try and put some "law and order" on us paddys.
That is why we welcomed them with open arms, freshly baked buns and daisey chains.Your politics really don't extend any further than the six counties, do they?


All I know of you is what you write here.Not even that RR, you seem whole incapable of decyphering the meaning of the most simple of statements without drawing some entirely alien conclusions.


BUT as you said latent can mean dormant, as in your nationalism is hidden while you wave the red flag and scream class politics but when that comes into conflict with your Latent Nationalism we see where your loyaltys lie.If my alleged nationalistic sentiments are not active, then how can they come into conflict with my class politics? In order to be in conflict with class politics, these nationalistic sentiments would have to be 'active'. You obviously haven't thought this through.


As in your Latent Nationalism is mostly slumbering but when its provoked it will awaken from that slumber and minfest itself into drivel about how The Queen has a gruelling scheduel and how us paddys welcomed the Brits with open arms, etc.A massive misrepresentation of what I said of the arrival of British troops to Ireland in 1969. In fact, it isn't just a misrepresentation, but flat out dishonesty. And you have yet to show how proclaiming, accurately, that the Royals paid by the public purse have a gruelling schedule translates to support for the monarchy.



Did you get that sense of humour while you were rapeing and pilliging foreign countrys?I guess you don't think my nationalism is dormant after all. Indeed the implication seems to be that it is highly active.

Anyway, I grow bored of watching you make a fool of yourself. Later.

[Patchd]

^ lol, pwned.

There's not much need for the left to make a move towards a "Republic", simply because it'll get rid of the Monarchy. The Monarchy will be abolished post-revolution anyway, and life under a bourgeois Republic won't be less exploitative because we no longer have a Monarchy.

[Andropov]

The statement that it is a myth that the Royal family do nothing all day does not equate apologism for the monarchy. Repeat that until it sinks in.
Where did I say that they do nothing?


What loyalties? Unlike you I don't maintain 'loyalty' to abstract concepts that unnecessarily divide humanity.
Yet again Zim you misunderstand the concept of National Liberation.
A peoples right to self determination free from the Imeprialist yolk does not equate to dividing humanity.
Its an absurd conclusion.


Certainly. While naturally they live in pampered luxury which they do not diserve, it is manifestly false to proclaim that they do nothing.
Yet again you claim I said they "do nothing".
Where?
Your not to bad with the false allegations yourself.



Firstly, nobody is saying that the the Royal family do work hard enough for their vast income.
They have no right to that income, plain and simple, no matter how many hands they shake or how many ribbons they cut.
No matter how gruelling a schedule it is.
They simply have no right.
I hope we cana t least agree on that.


Secondly nobody is saying that the royal family work as hard as a single parent working two jobs.
You missed my point.
I would equate that scenario "gruelling", not the pampered lifestyle of the Monarchy.


Thirdly, I am not a member of the royal family, so drawing comparison with my life and that of a parent working two minimum wage jobs isn't at all relevent.
Yet again you make false allegations.
I never said you were a member of the royal family or drew a comaprison to your life.
I was drawing a contrast between a "greulling" schedulee and what you deemed a "gruelling" schedule in Britain.


Fourthly, your 'prolier than thou' bullshit is nothing more than tedious when you know fuck all about me and my life.
What are raving about now.
I never assumed anything or claimed anything about your life.


Nobody has claimed that the Queen is a victim. As I have said to others on this board before: try addressing what is said, not some fictional position you have invented in your overactive imagination and attributed to your opponents.
Thats true you didnt call her a victim.
Just as I pointed out before I would call such a gruelling schedule, working two jobs etc, as that person being a victim of the system and I merely concluded that if her schedule was as "gruelling" as you say it is then she must be a victim also.
Simple logic really.


No, we clearly don't agree. I want to demolish the very notion of the 'state', you seek to protect and nurture it.
Wrong again their champ.
I merely believe in giving a people the right of self determination free from Imeprialism.


Not even that RR, you seem whole incapable of decyphering the meaning of the most simple of statements without drawing some entirely alien conclusions.
Interesting.
Yet you totally misrepresent my views claiming that I said that "the monarchy did nothing". I never once claimed that.
Also stating that I want to "protect and nurture" the state.
Yet again misrepresenting my views.
Hypocricy at its finest.


If my alleged nationalistic sentiments are not active, then how can they come into conflict with my class politics? In order to be in conflict with class politics, these nationalistic sentiments would have to be 'active'. You obviously haven't thought this through.
You obviously dont understand.
Read my point again, I have fully addressed how latent nationalist sentiments exist and how they manifest.


A massive misrepresentation of what I said of the arrival of British troops to Ireland in 1969. In fact, it isn't just a misrepresentation, but flat out dishonesty.
You may be right there, to be frank I dont remember the wording you used.
But claiming that the brits were welcomed with open arms by Nationalist communities is just Brit propaganda bullshit.
Propaganda you certainly did say, of that I am sure.


And you have yet to show how proclaiming, accurately, that the Royals paid by the public purse have a gruelling schedule translates to support for the monarchy.
The wording of the "gruelling schedule" was what got me.
Like I said when put in comaprison to other British people who are far less privilidged it seems absurd.
And it certainly came across as an attempt to defend the monarchy.


I guess you don't think my nationalism is dormant after all. Indeed the implication seems to be that it is highly active.
You dont have to be a Nationalist to serve in her majestys army.
Maybe just out of economic incentives, I dont know tbh.
But to claim every member of the Brit Army is Nationalist is wrong.

[JohannGE]

What assets precisely?

Just to remind you we are talking about sovereign assets here. The ones which you futily attempted to claim were not exclusively for the benefit of current and future royals. It is impossible to be "precise" about them due to the wholly uncodified nature of our constitution and not least due to the sheer scale and quantity of them.

"The briefest foray into royal finances reveals only that nothing is straightforward, and much is obscured."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/30/politics.jubilee

See also:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/30/jubilee.education


The convenient fiction of who owns priceless treasure

Art and jewels: a very private collection
"the Duke of Edinburgh, in a TV interview in 2000 speaking about the Royal Collection's masterpieces, said that the Queen is, "technically, perfectly at liberty to sell them""
(The Royal Collection) "Traditionally valued as "priceless", the few who have tried to make a market valuation have, in the past year alone, estimated that it is worth between £10bn and £12.7bn"

"The government also has a final say over the fate of British Museum items with controversial provenance such as the Parthenon Marbles. It couldn't, however, officially decide the fate of similarly controversial crown assets, such as the Koh-i-Noor diamond. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/30/jubilee.education

Whose wealth - the grey areas

The Queen exerts no control but her successor has the right to reclaim these lands and property. It forms a highly profitable portfolio of real estate and investments. In London, there is the whole of Regent Street, as well as Millbank Tower, property in Trafalgar Square, the Strand Palace Hotel and offices and shops in New Oxford Street and Wardour Street. There are offices in Holborn Viaduct, the Intercontinental and Four Seasons hotels on Park Lane, Regency villas near Regent's Park and various properties in Hackney and Victoria Park. There are estates in and near cities – Ascot racecourse, Cambridge Business Park, Richmond Park, Worcester Crown Gate shopping centre and many rural estates including the 18,574-hectare (46,000-acre) Glenlivet estate. The portfolio also includes various foreshore and seabed and mineral rights.

Crown lands, stamps, wine and medals
The Queen exerts no control but her successor has the right to reclaim these lands and property. It forms a highly profitable portfolio of real estate and investments. In London, there is the whole of Regent Street, as well as Millbank Tower, property in Trafalgar Square, the Strand Palace Hotel and offices and shops in New Oxford Street and Wardour Street. There are offices in Holborn Viaduct, the Intercontinental and Four Seasons hotels on Park Lane, Regency villas near Regent's Park and various properties in Hackney and Victoria Park. There are estates in and near cities – Ascot racecourse, Cambridge Business Park, Richmond Park, Worcester Crown Gate shopping centre and many rural estates including the 18,574-hectare (46,000-acre) Glenlivet estate. The portfolio also includes various foreshore and seabed and mineral rights.

Duchy of Lancaster estate: £204m
Last year it provided an income of £7.3m. Includes a massive property portfolio – from pubs in the Peak District to an airfield in Staffordshire and castles at Pontefract, Tutbury, Pickering and Lancaster. There is also the Manor of Savoy in central London including 111 The Strand and parts of Embankment. Under the Crown Lands Act of 1702, the sovereign is barred from controlling the 48,000 acres, which must be passed on. Assets include 17,594 acres in Yorkshire and 11,710 in Lancashire.
Some profits are used to pay the Queen's official costs but the bulk is for private use. Palace officials describe it as a private estate but Sir Michael Peat, Keeper of the Privy Purse, states it belongs to the Queen in her sovereign role.
Some have observed that when the private wealth is discussed, the Duchy acquires a public status but, when ownership is queried, it is classed primarily as a private estate.
Until 1989, the Queen received money left by anyone who died in Lancashire without drawing up a will or those without any traceable heirs.

Crown Jewellery: incalculable
has the same legal status as the Crown Jewels but is treated as private property even though it must be passed on. Much of the Crown Jewellery was documented by Queen Victoria and the ledger is now maintained by the Crown Jeweller, David Thomas of Asprey & Garrard. It includes a diamond diadem worth £3.6m that the Queen is shown wearing in the portrait on postage stamps.

Queen Mother's jewels: £16m
Which of these precious items, which include jewelled eggs by Fabergé, will be passed on to the Queen's private collection and which will be officially owned by the state is to be decided by a team of experts.

Medals: £2m
Ownership never been specifically defined. The medals are managed by the Royal Collection but they probably have the same status as the Queen's private stamp collection. There are about 800 medals kept in the Grand Corridor apartments at Windsor, which are never shown. The collection is displayed in four large cabinets, each containing six trays of about 30 medals on satin cloth. The earliest known is the Waterloo Medal. The first Victoria Cross alone is worth £100,000. The first Military Cross in 1914, also valued at £100,000, the first Distinguished Service Cross, valued at £25,000, and the first Distinguished Flying Cross from 1918 and worth £75,000, also feature. As with many of the Queen's possessions, the medals are not insured.

Gifts: £50m
These exclude art and jewels. Differentiating between whether her gifts are state-owned or private is an impossible task.
While some were received by Queen Elizabeth when she was still a princess, others were given to her as the head of state. The gifts vary from the highly precious to the outlandish, including a pair of human skulls from Papua New Guinea and two gold cups dating from 1500BC given by the King and Queen of Hellenes.
After the Queen came to the throne, the Palace said she would accept gifts only in exceptional circumstances. Every state visit sees exchanges of gifts, which are given to her as a sovereign so they do not officially belong to her.
Her wedding presents, 1,347 in total and valued at £2m in 1947, included a cinema given by Lord and Lady Mountbatten and silverware worth £1m.

Jewellery: £72m
Makes up part of the Queen's jewellery collection, in three vaults in Buckingham Palace. Includes family heirlooms. The most valuable are the Cullinan diamonds – 105 gems including a brooch cut from the world's biggest diamond, a stone weighing 1.5lb discovered in South Africa in 1905, which are valued at £29m
The private collection includes pieces that might seem more like public symbols of majesty, such as a diamond circle tiara smuggled out of Russia and worth £2.8m, bought by Queen Mary, the Queen's grandmother.
Gifts of jewellery could also be regarded as personal possessions, such as the 21st birthday present of diamonds, worth between £2m and £3m, she received from South Africa and the diamond producer, De Beers, who gave her 21 stones. Dr John Williamson, a mine owner, once gave her a pink diamond, which she had made into a brooch worth £6.6m.

Wine collection: £2m
Because some of the wines and spirits are used for "official" entertainment, the cost is met by Treasury funds. However, the Queen's own private stock is worth about £2m. She is believed to hold Krug champagne worth £100,000. The 1969 vintage was used at the wedding breakfast of Charles and Diana in 1981.
The most expensive items are 12 brandy bottles from the time of the Battle of Waterloo. Each is believed to be worth £10,000. A bottle was opened for the Queen's Jubilee on 6 February 2002. At Buckingham Palace, there is a permanent stock of about 15,000 bottles of wine. There are a further 10,000 bottles at Windsor with 5,000 in each of the cellars at Sandringham and Balmoral. The majority of the wine stock is stored at bonded warehouses.

Stamp collection: £100m
The collection is kept in 300 colour-coded, leather bound albums and 200 boxes. It is reputed to be the biggest in the world.
Whether the stamps, stored in a vault in St James's Palace, belong to the Queen or the nation is unclear. She is the fifth monarch to inherit and contribute. She has added 20 albums bound in green. Prince Alfred started the collection in 1864 and sold it to his brother, King Edward VII. During the abdication crisis of 1936 Edward VIII was barred from selling it. The Queen's father, King George VI, also added to it.
In May last year, almost 200 items fetched £750,000, three times more than expected, at auction. A twopenny Mauritian bought for £1,450 in 1904 is now insured for £2m. Another Mauritian stamp is worth £1.5m and four albums containing essays and designs created before postage stamps were introduced are worth up to £5m.
One album is believed to have belonged to the Tsarevich Alexis of Russia, murdered with his family in 1918."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-special-whose-wealth--the-grey-areas-746666.html



Well, since you're after me for accuracy, have you got sources for this or is this just more empty talk and supposition??.

While on the subject of accuracy, First of all, the accusation of inaccuracy was initially from you:-

post #54 - "*Sigh* Get your facts right before you start arguing"

I then pointed out that it was your facts that were inaccurate and posted evidence, with links to show that mine were accurate. You haven't acknowledged those corrections and now you come back and accuse me of "empty talk and supposition". This sort of behavior spoils the thread and adds nothing to the debate, please stop it. :cursing:

However:- We are now considering the Royal families personal holdings. I did mention earlier that "due to secrecy it is impossible to make anything other than a best guess and there is certainly not enough evidence released for anyone to require a finetooth comb." This is not just my opinion and is certainly not mere supposition. Anyone attempting to make an accurate assessment is prevented by "royal privilege" denying access to the necessary information.

"A precise valuation of Queen Elizabeth’s assets is difficult because she is secretive about her personal holdings. It is also complicated by a blurring of lines between her personal wealth and assets
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/yourmoney/15windsor.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ei=5087&em&en=a2888ff5d3cb7345&ex=1184731200

The queen’s private property primarily includes two homes and estates, Balmoral in Scotland (50,000 acres) and Sandringham in eastern England (21,000 acres), and, on a smaller scale, such things as her prized stamp collection. She also has a private investment portfolio of undisclosed size.

Income from the Duchy of Cornwall goes to the heir apparent. Revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster go to the Queen.

Finally onto their secret hoards and off shore accounts:-

By definition neither I nor anyone else can possibly have access to "sources" of proof regarding these. A silly question really! Are you suggesting though that you think that the royal family (comfortable my arse :) are likely to be any less willing to use every trick in the book to maximise their wealth and protect it from scrutiny than the rest of the self obsessed aristocracy? Especially as they have the unique protection of the royal prerogative to hide their dirty tricks behind. Everything we do know about them suggests that they aren't.


Well, I've tried this many times already but let's try again. This time read slowly, make sure you understand: I'm in favor of the abolition of the British monarchy..

Please don't patronise me, I read and understood your declared opposition to the monarchy perfectly well. Unfortunately, coupled with your ongoing inaccurate claims in their defense, it makes you sound like those people who start a sentence with, "I am not a racist but". I don't seriously believe that you are a closet royalist but your opposition to the truth about them being exposed is totally baffling.


And I'm curious about what royalist propaganda I'm spouting, which apparently only you seem to notice on this thread.

I actually used the word "regurgitating" and used it quite specifically (although I spelt it wrong). I meant to indicate that you are simply repeating the same worn out defenses of their blatant excesses that their cronies and apologists have used for years.

"what royalist propaganda"... Here you go:-




"She and her family (particularly Prince Andrew) act as good will salesmen for British industry"

"they bring in a few quid as tourist attractions "

"The family is comfortable but not filthy rich"

"I am sick unto death of claims that the Queen is one of the richest women in the world."

"She cannot sell the crown jewels"

"If I had to make an estimate of her personal wealth,it would be in the region of $200m -- comfortable"

[Lynx]

But not for Prince William:wub:
Prince William will be pleased to know you have other plans for him :ohmy:

[Invader Zim]

Where did I say that they do nothing?

Considering your near apoplectic responce to the statement that it is a myth that they do nothing, and that they have a gruelling schedule, it is an entirely logical conclusion to assume that you agree with the post I was refuting. And even if they do fuck all, you have still yet to show how stating that this is entirely mistaken equates apologism for the monarchy, which is what you have claimed. Nor have you come good on your claim that I 'will defend anything remotely "British".'

But, I grow bored of going back and forth over your sophomoric drivel. I guess I'm going to have to take your ducking and diving in this thread as an unspoken admission that you can't substanciate your claims.

IZ

PS. A couple of things from your drivel stood out:


Yet again you make false allegations.
I never said you were a member of the royal family or drew a comaprison to your life.Actually, you did. You employed the term 'your' which is the possessive determiner of the second person singular pronoun 'you'. As a result you (second person singular pronoun) asked me (first person singular pronoun) to "Try working two jobs on minimum wage just to keep your [my] family fed and have a roof over their head."

In other words you demanded experience on my part, to draw a parallel with my life and that of those working two minimum wage jobs. Which is of course without relevence because I am not a member of the royal family. What you should have said is: -

"They should try working two jobs on minimum wage just to keep their family fed and have a roof over their heads."

But I'm being pedantic.


But claiming that the brits were welcomed with open arms by Nationalist communities is just Brit propaganda bullshit.Actually, I quoted oral history sources proving my point. You provided fuck all, and that is because what I was saying was true, while your unsubstanciated claims are a steaming pile of nationalistic bullshit.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Why the fuck not? OK, if the fucker denounces the monarchy, renounces all rights to the throne and other hereditary positions, all rights to all the privileges of royalty, including government payments, all rights to the personal property of the royal family, etc., then I say let him live.

Otherwise, what's another dead royal?
Umm... I have a crush on him:blushing:

[Andropov]

Considering your near apoplectic responce to the statement that it is a myth that they do nothing, and that they have a gruelling schedule, it is an entirely logical conclusion to assume that you agree with the post I was refuting.'
I disagree.
There is a middle ground between doing nothing and having a "gruelling schedule".
It is not a logical conlcusion to assume just because I refute that they have what I perceive as a "gruelling schedule" that I automatically assume they do nothing.
You are jumping to assumptions, just as you have berated me earlier on jumping to assumptions.
Pure hypocricy.


And even if they do fuck all, you have still yet to show how stating that this is entirely mistaken equates apologism for the monarchy, which is what you have claimed. Nor have you come good on your claim that I 'will defend anything remotely "British".
I have pointed out in the previous post how it equates to apologism of the monarchy.
Re-read it because im not posting it again.


But, I grow bored of going back and forth over your sophomoric drivel. I guess I'm going to have to take your ducking and diving in this thread as an unspoken admission that you can't substanciate your claims.
Ducking and diving?
That is odd since I have addressed every question you have put to me.
You are the one trying to deflect from the issue at hand with your pedantic grammer combing, not me.
TBH I would equate that with ducking and diving.


Actually, I quoted oral history sources proving my point. You provided fuck all, and that is because what I was saying was true,
That is absurd.
A few isolated quotes which cannot be verified prove nothing.
If Nationalists did indeed welcome the Brits as their protectors, riddle me this, how come the areas where Nationalists had complete control from Crown Interferance refused to permit the Brits entry?
Eg, Look at Free Derry.


while your unsubstanciated claims are a steaming pile of nationalistic bullshit.
Yet again with the sheer hypocricy.
You berate me for pulling you on defending the Monarchy or defending the Brits in Ireland but yet you make unsubstantiated accusations like this.
Time and again you have attempted to slur me with the old "Nationalistic" card but yet you seem incapable of either understanding the National Liberation struggle or just simply discarding it as "Nationalistic".
You are a hypocrit.