The Royal Wedding

[RabidMongoose]

The inbred family has not been very transparent on their true costs. They have consistently denied the disclosure of their security expenses. However, there are lots of estimates on the security costs of the royal family. Here's one source claiming that it's $180 million just for security costs alone.http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/the-noreaster-long-live-the-queen-55772.html
I believe that Republic estimates the costs to be $280 million/year.

This does not include the $10 billion cost to the economy for the wedding. Nor does it include its security costs.

Estimates for the wedding alone have ranged from $16 to $64 million. For one day of a wedding. I think that $280 million just in security costs for the entire year may actually be a conservative estimate.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So as long as I don't start trying to logically debate you, you can understand me?

I still find it completely hilarious that you had no idea that I was just acting like you.

 

[CanOWorms]

So you don't have the numbers? Just guesses?

Those are numbers. Nobody has an exact number because the royal family considers itself to be beyond mankind. However, there are many educated estimates on their true costs. Much are probably based on the Scotland Yard chief's claim that it costs £50 million/year just to provide security for 22 "B-List" royals.

 

[CanOWorms]

Estimates for the wedding alone have ranged from $16 to $64 million. For one day of a wedding. I think that $280 million just in security costs for the entire year may actually be a conservative estimate.

It's a time of austerity for everyone but the monarchy.

Why can't the monarch be paid a salary and the entire department be accountable and budgeted just like any other governmental office? Is it because she is supposed to be a God? Her being a functional human despite the severe inbreeding is amazing, but it doesn't mean that she's a God.

 

[HAL9000]

Those are numbers. Nobody has an exact number because the royal family considers itself to be beyond mankind. However, there are many educated estimates on their true costs. Much are probably based on the Scotland Yard chief's claim that it costs £50 million/year just to provide security for 22 "B-List" royals.

OK then let me rephrase for you.

The number that we have at the moment, the figure -security is: 41.5m which works out at 69p per tax payer per year

Now let's assume that the figure with security is 10x that (which I doubt it is, but we don't have the figures so let's guess) 415m, that would work out at £6.90 per tax payer per year, Wow.... £7... Oh no. I've lost that much down the back of the sofa this year. I spent 10x that on chocolate this year, That's about the equivalent of two pints and a packet of crisps in London. That being said this is a completely arbitrary estimate, chances are (according to you) the figure is half that, so about £3.50 per tax payer per year. That is not very much money at all.

I'm fine with that, as are most people.

So, I'm still back to: There are no downsides to having a royal family, given that £7 a year is not a downside to anyone being paid the minimum wage.

I still find it completely hilarious that you had no idea that I was just acting like you.

You weren't acting like me, I was refusing to respond to you until you stopped trying to insult me or stop trying to degrade my position by redefining a word to meet your means, you have no idea what a peasant is so I stopped responding to you until you figured it out. What I didn't do is pretend I didn't understand you. "Wha?" "What are you saying" "herp derp a derp a derp"...

 

[RabidMongoose]

You weren't acting like me, I was refusing to respond to you until you stopped trying to insult me or stop trying to degrade my position by redefining a word to meet your means, you have no idea what a peasant is so I stopped responding to you until you figured it out. What I didn't do is pretend I didn't understand you. "Wha?" "What are you saying" "herp derp a derp a derp"...

No, I was acting like you. I'll go back to not understanding your peasant drivel if needed.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It's a time of austerity for everyone but the monarchy.

Why can't the monarch be paid a salary and the entire department be accountable and budgeted just like any other governmental office? Is it because she is supposed to be a God? Her being a functional human despite the severe inbreeding is amazing, but it doesn't mean that she's a God.

Yeah, it's pretty pathetic. The peasants must suffer such that the royals may live in luxury.

Good point about the auditing as well. What are these royals hiding? It is just ridiculous that this one family is so far above the people.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if royal related costs or lost revenue this year alone were around $15 billion, if not more.

 

[actuarial]

Yeah, it's pretty pathetic. The peasants must suffer such that the royals may live in luxury.

You're so right. Everyone in the commonwealth is suffering dearly.

Can you please explain to us how we can apply your American concepts to ensure that there's isn't a massive wealth gap that is heavily dictated based on lineage?

 

[CLite]

You're so right. Everyone in the commonwealth is suffering dearly.

Can you please explain to us how we can apply your American concepts to ensure that there's isn't a massive wealth gap that is heavily dictated based on lineage?

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/gallery
Richest people in USA
1 - 3 self-made
4 - 9 Father or Father-in-law was self made
10 -18 - self made
Around the mid 20's you hit a 3rd generation wealth with the Mars family.

Pretty obvious any gap we have is unrelated to lineage.

 

[CanOWorms]

OK then let me rephrase for you.

The number that we have at the moment, the figure -security is: 41.5m which works out at 69p per tax payer per year

Now let's assume that the figure with security is 10x that (which I doubt it is, but we don't have the figures so let's guess) 415m, that would work out at £6.90 per tax payer per year, Wow.... £7... Oh no. I've lost that much down the back of the sofa this year. I spent 10x that on chocolate this year, That's about the equivalent of two pints and a packet of crisps in London. That being said this is a completely arbitrary estimate, chances are (according to you) the figure is half that, so about £3.50 per tax payer per year. That is not very much money at all.

I'm fine with that, as are most people.

The monarchy doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can take any program or item from a budget and try to split it among the population in that way.

Instead of the government forcing the people to recognize a particular inbred family as being chosen by God and being forced to fund their lifestyles, perhaps the people should individually donate £7/year to the inbreds if they want to. That seems like the best option. People who are fine with donating, such as yourself, can do it, but those who wish to join the modern world don't have to be forced to prostate themselves to inbreds.

So, I'm still back to: There are no downsides to having a royal family, given that £7 a year is not a downside to anyone being paid the minimum wage.

There are lots of downsides to the royal family. It is a symbol of discrimination. To others in the world, it is a symbol of genocide. It costs a lot of money. It brings ridicule to the British people. The role of head of state is not fully utilized. Resources and historical items/estates are locked up.

 

[CanOWorms]

You're so right. Everyone in the commonwealth is suffering dearly.

Can you please explain to us how we can apply your American concepts to ensure that there's isn't a massive wealth gap that is heavily dictated based on lineage?

The UK doesn't have to follow any American concepts.

Removing barbaric practices such as monarchy from a society is not an American concept. If Nepal can do it, why can't the UK? Is the UK really that backwards? What the fuck is wrong with them to be so socially backwards? A dirt poor developing country thought their monarch was a God but still deposed them.

 

[actuarial]

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/gallery
Richest people in USA
1 - 3 self-made
4 - 9 Father or Father-in-law was self made
10 -18 - self made
Around the mid 20's you hit a 3rd generation wealth with the Mars family.

Pretty obvious any gap we have is unrelated to lineage.

Most of the top 10 richest people on your list are their due to lineage, and where is the Rockefeller family?

 

[actuarial]

The UK doesn't have to follow any American concepts.

Removing barbaric practices such as monarchy from a society is not an American concept. If Nepal can do it, why can't the UK? Is the UK really that backwards? What the fuck is wrong with them to be so socially backwards? A dirt poor developing country thought their monarch was a God but still deposed them.

Why do you care so much? If the people there don't care, then the only reason is symbolism to the rest of the world. Seems like a pretty petty reason to change something.

The only thing you can ever come up with is hypothetical/symbolic reasons why it's bad. You've never given anyone who actually lives in those countries any reason why they should 'depose' these people like you think they should. Here's a hint: the people who live in those countries have a better understanding of how it impacts their life than you do. And a the majority of the people who live in those countries don't think it needs urgent attention. Are you against democracy?

 

[RabidMongoose]

You're so right. Everyone in the commonwealth is suffering dearly.

Can you please explain to us how we can apply your American concepts to ensure that there's isn't a massive wealth gap that is heavily dictated based on lineage?

You can implement almost anything that doesn't mandate one specific lineage to forever be wealthy and supported by the people. Moreover, you don't have to be discriminatory against women and religious minorities. There are lots of things that you can do.

 

[HAL9000]

No, I was acting like you. I'll go back to not understanding your peasant drivel if needed.

Please quote me where I was saying I don't understand you.

 

[HAL9000]

The monarchy doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can take any program or item from a budget and try to split it among the population in that way.

Instead of the government forcing the people to recognize a particular inbred family as being chosen by God and being forced to fund their lifestyles, perhaps the people should individually donate £7/year to the inbreds if they want to. That seems like the best option. People who are fine with donating, such as yourself, can do it, but those who wish to join the modern world don't have to be forced to prostate themselves to inbreds.



There are lots of downsides to the royal family. It is a symbol of discrimination. To others in the world, it is a symbol of genocide. It costs a lot of money. It brings ridicule to the British people. The role of head of state is not fully utilized. Resources and historical items/estates are locked up.

It doesn't cost that much, as we've established, it's a symbol of unity, and royalty, of ancient rights that we stand behind, they are ambassadors for our country that do huge good to charity. The role of the true head of state is utilised as is needed the royal family are there because we as a democracy choose to keep them, the moment we don't they are gone. There are no downsides, they are less of a symbol for genocide than the american president is.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Please quote me where I was saying I don't understand you.

No, I was just generally behaving like you, not with the same words.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It doesn't cost that much, as we've established, it's a symbol of unity, and royalty, of ancient rights that we stand behind, they are ambassadors for our country that do huge good to charity. The role of the true head of state is utilised as is needed the royal family are there because we as a democracy choose to keep them, the moment we don't they are gone. There are no downsides, they are less of a symbol for genocide than the american president is.

Yes, it is a symbol of unity - of the majority of the UK against the minority groups.

Adopt a head of state that doesn't mandate discriminatory gender and religious minority practices, at the very least.

Honestly, I don't think that anyone can be more of a symbol of genocide and bloodshed than a British Head of State, the society responsible for the most bloodshed in the history of the universe.

 

[HAL9000]

No, I was just generally behaving like you, not with the same words.

I wasn't claiming not to understand, I was outright saying you did not understand the word you were using, you were doing it wrong.

Yes, it is a symbol of unity - of the majority of the UK against the minority groups.

Source?

Adopt a head of state that doesn't mandate discriminatory gender and religious minority practices, at the very least.

We have a queen currently, how does that discriminate against gender?

Honestly, I don't think that anyone can be more of a symbol of genocide and bloodshed than a British Head of State, the society responsible for the most bloodshed in the history of the universe.

Definitely, like the symbol that dropped the bomb on hiroshima or nagasaki, or the Pope, responsible for more deaths than almost anyone through history.

But that's the point, we are not defined by our history, neither is anyone by their ancestors, just like America isn't defined by it's lack of history.

P.S Look how I replied to two posts with a single post, stop trying to boost your post count.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Source?



We have a queen currently, how does that discriminate against gender?

The UK Monarch must be the head of the Church of England and thus must be of one particular religion. That's religious discrimination. Why can't your head of state be a Muslim?

Although you currently have a Queen, the line of succession actually favors males over females. That's gender discrimination that is completely unnecessary for a modern society.

Definitely, like the symbol that dropped the bomb on hiroshima or nagasaki, or the Pope, responsible for more deaths than almost anyone through history.

But that's the point, we are not defined by our history, neither is anyone by their ancestors, just like America isn't defined by it's lack of history.

P.S Look how I replied to two posts with a single post, stop trying to boost your post count.

The US most definitely has bloodshed on its hands, but nobody can compare to the British Empire. Unfortunately, many British people still talk about the glory days of their disgusting Empire, when they would run around the world and rape and pillage everyone.

And I don't care about a 'post count.'

 

[HAL9000]

The UK Monarch must be the head of the Church of England and thus must be of one particular religion. That's religious discrimination. Why can't your head of state be a Muslim?

The same reason the Pope can't be Sikh

Although you currently have a Queen, the line of succession actually favors males over females. That's gender discrimination that is completely unnecessary for a modern society.

Not any more it doesn't.

The US most definitely has bloodshed on its hands, but nobody can compare to the British Empire. Unfortunately, many British people still talk about the glory days of their disgusting Empire, when they would run around the world and rape and pillage everyone.

It's a good thing that our history doesn't define us then isn't it?

 

[RabidMongoose]

The same reason the Pope can't be Sikh

Why does your head of state have to be the head of one specific religious sect?

Stop supporting such a blatant institution of religious discrimination. Hell, it's not that big of a deal to change it. Stop mandating the belief of a fairy tale onto your people. Let them decide for themselves.

Not any more it doesn't.

Yes, it does. The line of succession prefers males over females. Stop lying.

 

[HAL9000]

Why does your head of state have to be the head of one specific religious sect?

Stop supporting such a blatant institution of religious discrimination. Hell, it's not that big of a deal to change it. Stop mandating the belief of a fairy tale onto your people. Let them decide for themselves.

The head of state is born into being head of the church, if they don't like it, they can abdicate, it's their choice.

Yes, it does. The line of succession prefers males over females. Stop lying.

The same as the name is passed down through the male side of the family, it's not sexism, it's the way the world works.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The head of state is born into being head of the church, if they don't like it, they can abdicate, it's their choice.

But the head of state doesn't have to be the head of a church. Look at your post. You even say that if anyone isn't happy with that then they can abdicate. That it's a choice. Fine. But it's not a choice for a Roman Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, etc. to ever be the head of state of their own country.

It's discrimination against religious groups. Plain and simple.

Separate your head of state from a specific religious institution would solve one problem.

The same as the name is passed down through the male side of the family, it's not sexism, it's the way the world works.

There should be no government mandate that a name must be passed through the male side of a family.

This isn't the way the world works. This is the way sexism works.

 

[HAL9000]

But the head of state doesn't have to be the head of a church. Look at your post. You even say that if anyone isn't happy with that then they can abdicate. That it's a choice. Fine. But it's not a choice for a Roman Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, etc. to ever be the head of state of their own country.

The head of state does have to be the head of church in the UK, it's called the church of England, you're the head of England, you're the head of the church.

It's discrimination against religious groups. Plain and simple.

No it's not, the church of England is part of England, it doesn't mean that other religions have less rights.

Separate your head of state from a specific religious institution would solve one problem.

We don't have that, and neither do you.

"In God we trust"

There should be no government mandate that a name must be passed through the male side of a family.

OK?

This isn't the way the world works. This is the way sexism works.

Actually it is the way most western societies work.