Queen down to her last million quid

[01RedDX]

.

[Kloubek]

Hmm... let's see how many shits I give the British Monarchy.

Zero.

[snowcat]

"typo in this report:



"The boiler in Buckingham Palace is 60 years old"



Camilla is actually 66."

bahahaha

[FraserB]

Don't let Arash see this thread.

[BigMass]

[cam_wmh]

I thought i read somewhere, that the amount of tourism dollars spent far overweighs what they put into the ol blue bloods.

[btimbit]

Originally posted by cam_wmh
I thought i read somewhere, that the amount of tourism dollars spent far overweighs what they put into the ol blue bloods.

Yup. Plus the profit from the crown owned lands goes to parliament in exchange for paying off the royal families debt. This profit far outweighs the cost of subsidizing the royal family. Tourist money is the big one though

[ZenOps]

Its all falling according to plan.

The world fiat dollar system will collapse and become worthless just as the Queen is spending her last pound.

Then they can start over fresh through a worldwide bankruptcy. British peeps have overspending and placing debt on colonies, never to be repaid - in their blood.

Then they can subjugate land in California and be paid $500/acre/year to grow nothing.

As for the Queen herself. Perfect financial planning. Try to get to zero by the time you are 90 or so (because you can't take it with you, and its more like 80 for the rest of us because of bad eating and lifestyle habits.)

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by cam_wmh
I thought i read somewhere, that the amount of tourism dollars spent far overweighs what they put into the ol blue bloods.

The tourism dollars are a lot (a really, really big lot), but is hard to point directly to the monarchs. Their land (not Crown land that people would argue belongs to 'the people' rather than the crown, but what is actually their own land) pays for the monarchy five times over.

[01RedDX]

.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Tourism is a weak argument at best.

First of all, it accounts for less that 1% of Britain's tourism revenue. Buckingham palace is closed to tourists for most of the year and most tourists don't go there because of the Royals anyway.

Second, you are arguing that they should maintain a monarchy for purely commercial reasons. Well then you'd be wrong again, as nationalizing their properties and opening them up to tourists year round would bring in 1000X more revenue.

Maybe it's time to realize that abolition would not only be good for public funds, it would be good for tourism too.

I think you would find that most British people love the Monarchy and would not want to be rid of it, whether it would be beneficial finacially or not... They do like their traditions.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by BigMass

Ewww.... That's icke....

[01RedDX]

.

[jdmXSI]

Originally posted by LollerBrader


Ewww.... That's icke....

Thats the queen not Icke... He looks oddly like a lizzard, lol. its a conspiracy.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Tourism is a weak argument at best.

First of all, it accounts for less that 1% of Britain's tourism revenue. Buckingham palace is closed to tourists for most of the year and most tourists don't go there because of the Royals anyway.

Second, you are arguing that they should maintain a monarchy for purely commercial reasons. Well then you'd be wrong again, as nationalizing their properties and opening them up to tourists year round would bring in 1000X more revenue.

Maybe it's time to realize that abolition would not only be good for public funds, it would be good for tourism too.

So not only abolition but also nationalization of a multi-billion pound real estate portfolio even though the revenue has been given to the government for over 300 years?

This is some communist wet dream shit right here.

[01RedDX]

.

[ExtraSlow]

Actually, depending on which member of the family rises to teh throne, it could really help revivie the monarchy. Wills is very popular. I know it "should" be Charles, but he's 65 or so, and there's a good chance they'll skip him and throw wills in there.

[kertejud2]

The desire to nationalize private real estate is communism. You seem to be confusing Crown Land (as it applies here in Canada) and the Crown Estate. However republicans always feel they have claim to the latter just because.

[01RedDX]

.

[hassanb]

meh