Are you if the opinion that if we dissolved the monarchy tourists would go elsewhere?
I think France has shown that even if you chop their heads off people still come.
The money generated by the Royals is hard to define as it assumes all of the revenue is garnered by tourists hoping to catch a glimpse of them through Buck House Windows.
I think that's bollocks.
I have a real problem with this need to grovel and think these people are majestic and better. A look at the trainwreck family of Liz, Anne apart possibly, you wouldn't send the cunts to the shop for a loaf.
If they are worth as much as is claimed they should pay their own way and the civil list for the lesser royals needs ending.
They are benefit scrounges in every sense and we can't afford the chinless wonders getting a bung simply because they are inbred thick toffs.
Tourists definitely don't come to see these parasites. The Queen, Will and Harry ok, the rest? They couldn't even name them.
Why is it 'their' crown estate?That's fine, they can just take back their Crown Estate instead and they'll be worth a fucking sight more.
Because they fucking owned the land, and gave it to the state in return for their allowance. Its profits go directly to HMRC (so effectively 100% tax) and it's hugely beneficial to the tax payers (that seem to be moaning like fuck on this thread).Why is it 'their' crown estate?
Now you'll get 'But why do they own the land, it's ours!'Because they fucking owned the land, and gave it to the state in return for their allowance. Its profits go directly to HMRC (so effectively 100% tax) and it's hugely beneficial to the tax payers (that seem to be moaning like fuck on this thread).
If the State wished to stop the Royal grants then the Monarchy would be well within its right to take their Crown Estate back.
How the fuck are they going to take anything back with their heads on spikes, this is the revolution thread isn't it ?Because they fucking owned the land, and gave it to the state in return for their allowance. Its profits go directly to HMRC (so effectively 100% tax) and it's hugely beneficial to the tax payers (that seem to be moaning like fuck on this thread).
If the State wished to stop the Royal grants then the Monarchy would be well within its right to take their Crown Estate back.
Same way anyone owns land, especially if their family were good on a horse whilst holding a lance.Now you'll get 'But why do they own the land, it's ours!'
I'll leave you to explain why and how, I'm trembling with anticipation ;)
Because they fucking owned the land, and gave it to the state in return for their allowance. Its profits go directly to HMRC (so effectively 100% tax) and it's hugely beneficial to the tax payers (that seem to be moaning like fuck on this thread).
If the State wished to stop the Royal grants then the Monarchy would be well within its right to take their Crown Estate back.
Absolutely it is yes.I think the Crown Estate is actually not operated by the Crown or the Government but by trustees - it's a middle ground which isn't private or government
Ooh you love a good 'royals' dust up innit swp....Because they fucking owned the land, and gave it to the state in return for their allowance. Its profits go directly to HMRC (so effectively 100% tax) and it's hugely beneficial to the tax payers (that seem to be moaning like fuck on this thread).
If the State wished to stop the Royal grants then the Monarchy would be well within its right to take their Crown Estate back.
Absolutely it is yes.
My point is that the agreement to pay the profits to the state was in return for their annual stipend. If the revolting peasants want to tear up a centuries old contract then the Monarchy could rightfully say 'well bollocks then, we'll take back control of this'.