the queen

[stevewool]

just having a little debate with someone, the queens wealth, i dont think somehow he likes her or anything to do with the royals or govement and so on, any way hes saying she alone could stop world poverty alone with her 17 trillion assets, news to me, yes a very rich lady but theres rich and then theres rich, me well i am rich but not rich enough, just to put the records straight that was, so my em cannot have her new iphone she is wanting:)

[grahamw48]

Most of her 'assets' are owned by the state.

She'll be a billionaire in her own right, but is far from being even the richest woman in the UK...though I wouldn't mind her being, because I'm a staunch Royalist. :)

[stevewool]

me to, just got my goat up, calling her

[grahamw48]

Well, whoever told you that was talking :censored: anyway. :)

[Iani]

The anti-royals always trot out the same things, and they are boring like a stuck record.

They are rich.
Well they are, but not THAT rich.

All their assets were siezed off us peasants.
Yes again, many were. Then again, can those criticising really trace their ancestry back that far? then look at places like Sandringham - bought by a monarch.

They cost us millions.
Yes they sure do. They also bring in revenue, tourism and the assets they own are self proficient and earn money for the state.

Ahh but those assets they own, if we had a revolution they would be owned by the state.
Yes, right again. Would they be as well run? Maybe.

They aren't democratic, the head of state should be elected by us like.
Yes, the idea of having an elected head of state is great. Or it could be argued that having the royals is MORE democratic. This is because in this case, the head of state represents everyone - as opposed to a president who you can be absolutely sure, would be tory or labour or some other party toady.

Yes but they aren't one of uz lot innit.
Well would you prefer the head of state to be Shaz from Che Guavara estate in Peckham? Well it just wouldn't happen, firstly because the head of state would be some career politician whose never known what it's like to be part of reality and working for a living, and secondly because it just wouldn't work. Imagine Shaz trying to give the Christmas speech? She'd be out of her head by then on bacardi breezers.

But what have the royals ever done for us.
Sigh - try google. Is preventing wars for years good enough? Try looking up Edward VII peacemaking

But come on, have they ever given a rousing speech? The only thing the current one is remembered for is that annus horribulus one.
Well fine - name a famous prime ministers speech in recent years.

Yes but abolish the royals and you save money
Erm, and exactly how much would an elected president cost again?

But they absolutely annoy the hell out of the right-ons.
Yes, and that is a bloody good reason to keep them :icon_lol:

[Iani]

Meh, double post

[grahamw48]

They still give us something to be proud of in a nation that is otherwise in tatters. :NoNo:

The Yanks and a lot of other countries would give their eye teeth to have a Royal Family, and spend a fortune here coming to look at ours. :)

[bigmarco]

The Queens perosnal fortune is estimated at about $500 according to Forbes. All the Palaces are owned by Crown Estates which is effectively the property of the country. So yes the person is talking :censored:.

[stevewool]

i know all this but try telling your sisters son whos never worked a day in his life and the world owns him something, thats the kids of today

[grahamw48]

Not all of them Steve. ;)