BS: Her Majesty The Queen

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 01:45 PM

"...he can easily manage 3 or 4 jobs in one day eg a hospital in Sheffield, a Town Hall in Leeds, a School in Nottingham etc."

Bet those "jobs" didn't involve cleaning the bogs...

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 12:02 PM

The best way for us humans to get things done is via cooperation and FAIR competition so, as said above, capitalism is a bad system and monarchism even worse. Or, in WalkaboutsVerse, "Global Regulationism"

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Captain Swing
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 12:00 PM

So William's doing 220 jobs a year.

So, lets say he has 6 weeks holiday a year. That gives him 46 weeks to carry out 220 jobs. If he works 5 days a week then he has 5 x 46 days in which to work = 230. So he's not even managing 1 job a day on average!

And don't forget that he can easily manage 3 or 4 jobs in one day eg a hospital in Sheffield, a Town Hall in Leeds, a School in Nottingham etc. So at a rate of 3 jobs a day, he's really only at work 73 days a year. So I would say he's slacking a bit, by at least 70% in comparison to the rest of the working population.

His granny is doing a bit better but given that she could cover at least 2 jobs a day, given her age, she still falls 27% short.

And remember, these jobs don't take a great deal of skill or knowledge. It's about the same level as a Corrie actor opening a supermarket; walking, chatting, smiling, waving and reading a pre-prepared speech. But the Corrie actors have to provide their own transport, clothing and food.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 11:08 AM

Were a lot of these engagements waving across barriers to flag-waving piccaninnies with watermelon smiles? How many engagements did they travel to in a J-reg Astra? Did they stay in Travelodges after noshing on KFCs on the hoof?

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 10:56 AM

Well I sit in front of a screen but that is because I am working. I think most people would snap up the chance to do these engagements, to travel a bit at least, to get wined and dined at times, and to be treated as they are - for the fortune they get paid. One thing they ain't is hard done by.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 09:25 AM

Despite being 93-years-old, the Queen attended 295 engagements in 2019, while Prince William carried out 220 and the Duchess of Cambridge went to 126.

Harry and Meghan also managed an incredible figure, considering they welcomed their son, Archie, this year. Prince Harry carried out 201 royal engagements and Meghan - who was on maternity leave for much of the year - still attended 83.

And what did you lefties do - sit in front of a computer screen!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:58 AM

"The girl wasn’t that good looking? I don’t think her face was at the forefront of his mind..he couldn’t even see it! ;-)"

Huh, it's easy for you to say that whilst resorting to hindsight....

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:56 AM

The thing is, John, that the arguments about privilege, its legitimisation, and the unearned trappings, etc., are THE arguments as to why we shouldn't have the royals. The "politics of envy" comeback, whilst inevitable, needs confronting. It's an easy and sneery riposte - and saying that it is should be the starting point in countering it. It's possible to give chapter and verse on the gross inequalities in society, the unemployment, the low pay, the disgraceful treatment of the disabled, the NHS waiting lists, the humiliation of the benefits-claiming process, the food banks, the homeless, all in stark contrast with those cosseted royals, whilst sidestepping the "jealousy" jibes, as most of those things don't apply to me. And don't forget that that arch-communist, Jesus Christ, told us not to store our wealth here on Earth, but to give it away... Well, I've even seen that stolid Christian Queen Croesus of ours making sure she's been filmed going to church of a Sunday...

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:51 AM

The girl wasn’t that good looking? I don’t think her face was at the forefront of his mind..he couldn’t even see it! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:29 AM

Politics of envy? The girl wasn't that good-looking...   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Thompson
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:29 AM

What do the royals actually do? I keep reading about how some are "particularly hard-working", but I've never seen any pictures of them actually… well… working.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:27 AM

Well I only mentioned ‘the money’ because Steve has gone on about ‘tens of millions per annum to an already super-rich woman’, ‘privilege and trappings’, ‘entitlement and unearned privilege’, etc., etc., etc.

FWIW, I’m not disagreeing with you, Steve, but I simply wanted to raise the point that there will still be considerable cost, no matter whether we have a hereditary monarchy or an elected HoS. I’d very much like to see a comparison between the full cost to US taxpayers of the US President and his family, and the cost to UK taxpayers of the Royal List plus other costs covered out of public funds. I’ve tried to find such a comparison but have had no luck. I’m in complete agreement about the hangers-on (by which I mean in particular the wider royal family, rather than the queen’s immediate family or her employees) and I’m certain there’s room for a sizeable contraction there, with a resultant cost-saving.

I have to say that I regard it a mistake of the republicans and those on the political Left to witter on about ‘privilege and trappings’, ‘tens of millions’, ‘unearned income’, ‘thick grandsons having knee-tremblers’ yadda yadda, because that kind of rhetoric plays straight into the hands of the Monarchists and Political Right who simply airily dismiss those arguments as the politics of envy, even though they contain undeniable truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 05:59 AM

Yes, I remembered that one! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Captain Swing
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 05:51 AM

I agree Steve Shaw, it's not about the money, it's about the principle!



(Yes, I know Tommy Cooper had his own take on that phrase!)

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 05:16 AM

"I’m not sure that the anti-monarchist ‘cost’ argument holds a great deal of water because, whatever the type of HoS we have, there will be considerable cost involved."

Well there certainly wouldn't be a whole army of hangers-on, raking it in for doing next to nothing (no bleating about their "charitable works," please... Not you, John!) or huge estates with regal names surreptitiously funnelling millions per annum to the head of state. Aside from that, there are much wider arguments than just "the money." Let's talk matters of principle...

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 04:33 AM

QUOTE FROM PHILIP HALL and TheIndependen
ichael Portillo's decision to spend pounds 60m of government money on replacing the royal yacht Britannia really touched a nerve - the public do not want to pay out for a new luxury yacht. This is why Labour opposition to the plan, a rare event these days, had stiffened by the weekend. Telephone polls are not trustworthy, but the fact that all five did show overwhelming rejection seems to have convinced Blair and co.

Nor is the issue of public money one which attaches to the royal yacht alone. Much of the flak which the royal family has received has always concerned the cost of hangers-on. For many this definitely included Princess Margaret, the subject of a documentary tonight on Channel 4, in its Secret Lives series. She has never been the most productive of royals - she always came near the bottom of the league table of royal activity. Even when the monarchy was much more popular than today, Margaret attracted Fergie- style attention for her holidays in the Caribbean, leading the former republican MP, Willie Hamilton, to ask: what is Princess Margaret for?

One gets a feeling of deja vu. As with the 1992 Windsor fire, the Government has shown great enthusiasm to meet the costs from the public purse, whereas the majority of people think otherwise.

Then, attention was focused on the Queen's tax-exemption and the number of royals paid for by the Government from the Civil List. Within days of the Windsor fire, the Queen finally and reluctantly - after 40 years - agreed to pay taxes, except for inheritance tax, and to take Margaret, Andrew, Edward, Anne and the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester off the Civil List. Everyone nowadays seems to accept that the Queen pays pounds 890,000 a year for these minor royals out of her own pocket.

Of this, pounds 219,000 is for Princess Margaret. So the Queen may be thought to have skirted around Willie Hamilton's question: what is Princess Margaret for? She is the Queen's sister and she, not the public purse, helps support her.

However, the pounds 890,000 for these royals comes not from the Queens private pocket but from somewhere very different - the Duchy of Lancaster.

There is much confusion over the status of the Duchy, whose annual income of pounds 5.35m goes to the Queen. That she draws this revenue suggests that it is her private property, yet when the Palace calculate her private wealth they never include the 51,150 acres of land and pounds 32m of investments from the Duchy. Also, the Duchy, if not on a day-to-day basis, is in the charge of a government minister.

At the moment it is Roger Freeman who carries the title of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (his main job is Minister for Public Service in charge of Civil Service Reform and the Citizens Charter). So it seems strange that the money does not go to the Government, as is the case with the profits of the Crown Estate.

Over the last 200 years, all manner of leading politicians have maintained that the Duchy and its revenues really belong to the public. These include Edmund Burke, Lord Palmerston, Lord Brougham, Sir Charles Dilke, Clement Attlee and many more.

The Duchy of Lancaster's origins go back to 1265, even further in time than the Duchy of Cornwall, a higher-profile organisation, whose income goes to Prince Charles. Monarchs had for hundreds of years treated the Duchy of Lancaster's rents, along with tax revenue, as money for the business of government, not as a fund for personal expenses. So it is an anomaly, now that government finance is totally detached from the monarchy, that its profits did not pass to the Treasury.

The Duchy revenues would have been transferred to the public purse in the last century, if William IV in 1830 had not dug in his heels and simply refused to hand over the income. The government of the day gave in, vainly hoping to get William not to use the royal prerogative to block the Reform Bill to extend the vote from its then extremely narrow base. They were unconvinced of his case, but acted out of expediency. He did not return the favour, and in the end did his best to block the Bill.

A government attempt at taking back the Duchy in 1860 came to nothing. It probably backed down in face of opposition from the recently widowed Queen Victoria.

Yet the ties to government remain. The Duchy, whose headquarters are close to Waterloo Bridge in London, requires Treasury approval for many of its financial decisions. In this respect it has the same relationship with the Treasury as other government departments. It also has to submit accounts to Parliament, again showing that it is hardly a private possession of the Queen.

Even Kenneth Clarke, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy in the late Eighties, confessed that a "private estate" which was regulated like a government department, "puzzles me". The solution to the puzzle is that this is not money that should legally and constitutionally go to the monarch.

Princess Margaret also lives rent free at Kensington Palace, which is maintained at public expense. Other perks, such as her clothing allowance for official royal tours abroad, are paid for by the Foreign Office. In June 1995, a one-week visit to San Francisco seemed to require a clothing account for that visit alone of pounds 7,200 - more than those at the bottom end of the income scale might spend on clothes in a lifetime.

However, it is the Duchy revenue which is the biggest loss to the taxpayer. If Margaret and co plus the Queen's cousins - who from an earlier date were put on the Duchy payroll - cannot make do on their own, the Queen might pay for them from her own pocket. This is, in any case, what people think already happens

Estimates of the Queen's wealth in stocks and shares vary, from the Palace's own pounds 70m to mine of more than pounds 400m. Even on the lower figure she can afford to keep them above the poverty line, especially as some of these royals are hardly urgently in need, when they or their spouses already earn an income as company directors, and also have inherited wealth,

If our prospective iron chancellor, Gordon Brown, can show some resolve towards the royal yacht, he should do likewise and make plans to take back the Duchy of Lancaster.

Phillip Hall is author of `Royal Fortune: Tax, Money and the Monarchy' (Bloomsbury

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 04:22 AM

EX LABOUR MP Willie Hamilton R I P   is best remembered for his stridently anti-royalist views, which he set out in detail in his book My Queen and I. He branded the Queen "a clockwork doll", Princess Margaret "a floozy", and Prince Charles "a twerp". However, he admired the Queen Mother, declaring on her 80th birthday: "I am glad to salute a remarkable old lady. May she live to be the pride of the family
but quote from Guardian
he described Princess Margaret as "this expensive kept woman" for her £82,000 allowance. He then said of the Queen Mother, "It is obscene that this House should be spending its time giving an old lady like that £95,000." In 1981 he demanded that the Windsors and the Spencers pay for the "disgusting display of conspicuous wealth" - the wedding of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana - instead of the taxpayer. He introduced a bill to abolish hereditary peerages. In 1983 he said the Queen should have her inflation-geared overpayment clawed back like that of old-age pensioners.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 03:23 AM

I suspect you’re right, Allan. I’m not strongly ‘for’ the monarchy, but then I’m not strongly ‘against’ the monarchy either. I don’t believe we need a monarchy, but I do believe we need a benign, benevolent, non-political HoS. I would **somewhat** prefer an elected HoS - someone who has at least some grasp of the kind of world that the vast majority of us live in - but I’m not sure how the candidates for such an election should be chosen.

But what I am sure of is that a US-style President, a political position with all the power such a position endows, would be the worst of all options.

I’m not sure that the anti-monarchist ‘cost’ argument holds a great deal of water because, whatever the type of HoS we have, there will be considerable cost involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 02:53 AM

It is always difficult telling what folks think from the occassional survey but Scotland is seemingly less supportive of the monarchy than the rest of GB. In 2018 a survey found 41% in support of the monarchy; 28% were against the monarchy - but a whopping 27% didn't much care one way or the other.

I suspect even among those who support it or are against it - for many they may think that way in general but it may not be a burning issue. Way down the list of priorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:31 PM

I've even got the right song for it, "Tiara Boom-de-ay"...

Am I in...?

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:27 PM

I'll do it... Though I'm usually a bit pissed by 3pm on Christmas Day...Does that rule me out...?

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:20 PM

Bonz, you seem to forget not all tories are royalists...

Privatise the queen, cut off all state aid, and put her job out to tender...

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:16 PM

A legless list, Bonzo.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Captain Swing
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:07 PM

What a load of drivel!

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 05:39 PM

It really gets the lefties!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 05:32 PM

quite apt, since the throne is a slang term for the W C, AND EVEN THE QUEEN HAS TO SIT ON THE THRONE AND DO HER DOO DOOS.
so bonzo has kindly provide us with athe order of who are the biggest squits,let us hope some of them are constipated and do not mind waiting their turn to sit on the throne.
The Prince of Wales, Charles, has a very unlucky name as far as Monarchs go the first one lost his heasd the second one couldnot poduce a legitimate heir of course
Charles Prince of Wales frequently loses his head generally when talking to plants

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 05:00 PM

Here is the new succession to the throne!!
1. The Prince of Wales
2. The Duke of Cambridge
3. Prince George of Cambridge
4. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
5. Prince Louis of Cambridge
6. The Duke of Sussex
7. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
8. The Duke of York
9. Princess Beatrice of York
10. Princess Eugenie of York
11. Eugenie's baby son
12. The Earl of Wessex

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 10:42 AM

based on lack of intelligenceand lack of facts

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 09:23 AM

"I don't do evidence"

..fair enough..


I don't do licking royal arses...

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Captain Swing
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:34 AM

"I don't do evidence"

Well Bonz, I must say it's refreshingly honest of you to admit that your arguments are based on a lack of intelligence!

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 04:36 AM

What, you mean like Charles Darwin?

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 04:24 AM

I don't do evidence, that is for people with nothing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 03:29 AM

Bonzo, what is your evidence to support your claim that Captain Swing is in a "very very tiny minority"

You and your ilk absorb the nonsense that is put out about the royal family day after day, week after week, month after month.

If you just stopped once to question it you may realise it yourself. For example today on the MSN news feed 4 of the top 21 articles were about one family, wonder if you can guess which one.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 01:46 AM

Well captain swing you are in a very very tiny minority!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 08:56 PM

It doesn't offend me, Bill. I just relish the idea of dissing brainless sycophancy. I've never said she was evil or anything like that. But she has cheerfully embraced the privilege and the trappings that you could hardly say she's earned. And that egregiously dysfunctional family of hers...

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Captain Swing
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 08:42 PM

Her service in WW2 was no more than any other woman at the time and most likely less so as she didn't have full child care considerations or a proper day job - many women were fulfilling a day job, bringing up kids single handed and going out on fire watch.

Her actual contribution to the war effort was negligible. But that's not the point! It's not about individuals, it's about the fact that some individuals are more important than others in this country.

She could have dropped the bouncing bomb as far as I'm concerned and she still wouldn't deserve my respect as a monarch.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 08:25 PM

Being queen, of course she's rich and waited on much of the time... but she doesn't have 'everything' done for her. She did serve in WWII and I'd forgive her a lot just for this story:
driving Abdullah

I am in no position to have an opinion about the monarchy, but I do see why the pageantry and history fascinate some... and why the whole system offends others, like Steve S.

Oh.. and it supports a bunch of photographers.. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 06:06 PM

I'm not sneering. I'm telling you like it is in order to counter the gushings of one or two sycophants around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Captain Swing
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 05:55 PM

I've no personal grouse against Elizabeth Windsor but I can't see that she has worked particularly hard. What has she actually done to deserve the "faithful service to our nation and an unwavering commitment" stuff?

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Raedwulf
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 05:48 PM

Yes, I pretty much thought the thread would descend into this sort of pettiness... Oh, and sneering. Of course there will be sneering. Shaw is involved...

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 04:52 PM

"Those years have been marked by faithful service to our nation and an unwavering commitment to the vows she made when she was crowned."

Those years have been marked by much faithful service to the Queen and her bloated and feckless entourage by the public, who have unwaveringly donated tens of millions per annum to an already super-rich woman who repays us by hiding in huge, guarded mansions or fenced-off estates except for when she's doing dainty little white-gloved waves from a strangely golden carriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 03:31 PM

no bonzo?

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 02:50 PM

...Alex or me?

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 02:47 PM

Stupid boy

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 02:41 PM

Just tweeted - To #AlexSalmond, #NicolaSturgeon & the #SNP: PLEASE soon come to your senses as, before kicking the bucket, I'd like to live in a Republic of England and make VISITS "To Scotland, Again"

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 01:24 PM

As for the tourist argument, I'm quite sure Paris, within the French REPUBLIC, is the most-visited city in our world.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 12:57 PM

I don't do evidence in case you couldn't tell!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Captain Swing
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 12:50 PM

Bonzo - If you want to be considered as a worthwhile contributor, you will need to provide some evidence or explanation to support your response to my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 12:23 PM

On this day in 1952, The Queen acceded to the throne on the death of her father King George VI. Her Majesty has now been Sovereign for 69 years.
Those years have been marked by faithful service to our nation and an unwavering commitment to the vows she made when she was crowned.

Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 11:33 AM

My slightly tongue in cheek remark about the Palaces in St Petersburg was to point out that the palaces can be attractions irrespective of whether royalty in in them.

So that Buckingham Palaces has a lot of visitors does not really demonstrate they are coming because we have a Royal Family. Neither of us could say how the visitor numbers to Buckingham Palace would change without the family, but it is at least plausible that being able to see more of it would actually increase the numbers.

(I should perhaps point out that not all the palaces of St Petersburg are royal palaces, just in case, you know.)