LETS GET RID OF THE ROYAL FAMILY

I say get rid of the queen and all these expensive castles,ships and planes,and save a few bob.

So you'd rather have the likes of Cameron as your president would you....how much revenue would he bring in? Not as much as her Maj I don't think

Considering the old bird is still working at 85 I don`t think thats a good idea really.

Every country has a head of state, whether they be King or Queen, Sheikh, President or Chairman and these heads of state cost money, because they have to be paid and have to live in a certain amount of pomp and splendour. Does anybody really believe that a President would cost this country any less than the current monarchy? It is right, also, that the present monarchy bring in billions in revenue to this country from tourists who come here because we have a Queen, and changing the guard and The Beefeaters and The Crown Jewels and histry pouring out of our ears. Get real, Steve, I think we get a pretty brilliant deal from HM and Nick The Greek. As for her workload, well, I very much doubt if many of the younger members of the Royal Family could do it and she is 85 for God's sake. She should be sitting in Windsor with her feet up playing with the corgis and spoiling her grandchildren, not pampering to a load of whinging politicians. God Save The Queen and Long May She Reign

:cheers:Hear, hear Alan Well said

Well i think there is room for big big cuts from racehorses to corgis,rolls,and jewels,ill bet they could throw fifty million out of their back pockets at cancer research and not even notice its gone,and as for the billions in revenue to this country from tourists,how much goes to them? and wasnt it the queen that refused to tell the taxman how much she gets,anyone else would be jailed.

If thats the case then Steve, is it fair that someone on benefits, for whatever reason, can afford a luxury caravan?

I really do hate to say this, Steve, but I am afraid you are talking through the wrong end of your body. You are just trotting out a load of unsubstantiated rubbish and bleating on about millions and billions and racehorses and jewels. If HM is not allowed to own corgis because she is "kept" by The State then we can no doubt look forward to the news that you have got rid of your two small pooches? Please, Steve, stop trotting out things that you believe to be true and research before you write. Good morning to you.

This issue keeps cropping up. I've said before on the YourMail forum - and elsewhere - that the Queen and the Royal Family don't actually cost us anything. If you look into the finances you will see that an agreement was made at some point (I've forgotten when it was although I did dig up the information a couple of years ago) that all the revenue from Crown lands would be ceded to Parliament, in return for the allowance of the Civil List. We get about 10 times more out of this than if the monarchy kept their own income for themselves. I don't know why this is never explained whenever people start shouting about the cost of the monarchy.

I have great respect for Her Majesty but I wouldn't give Prince Charles the time of day. It would be nice if we could just go straight on to William.

Truth is i like the royal family well i got a few rants i got to keep you all on the winder,i cant decide if its tiger.or alan, so ill call it a tie, well after all we havent got aggi now have we,and if your reading this aggi come and join us, as your so very better at it than me,but thank you clocks you just been wound up

Steve, I sincerely hope that you are not equating either Tiger or myself with that boorish no-hoper who called himself The Agravator. I like to think that my argument is a little more reasoned than that person's ever was. As for your invitation to him to come and join us, I think he might not last very long under the watchful eye of our current moderators. He would soon find that he didn't get an easy ride as he seemed to on YourMail.

Hmm. Thought we'd gone beyond this.

Come on guys you know that if you disagree with Steve he sulks and says he’s being bullied. He likes to feel sorry for himself.

Well, if the best that Steve can do is try to play a very third rate devil's advocate with childish, unreasoned semi-argument, then I, for one, would rather he kept his mostly ludicrous opinions to himself, so that they will remain where they are appreciated. I, too thought that we had got a fair way past the childish attempts to wind things up that we used to have to put up with on YourMail and to be honest, Steve, if the rubbish you spouted out on this occasion is your idea of reasoned argument then I would suggest you return to the Primary School debating societyand try to learn what they failed to teach you the first time around. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, buddy, but you are not cutting the mustard as a debater on this forum.

Wow-Weee, i wonder how "theagitator" lasted so long with alan and kals sharp tongues there to keep him in line,but unlike aggi i will say im sorry to the people that found my post more malice than a bit of fun,but still think it a little unfair to compare it to "your say"and perhaps you are correct,i just dont cut the mustard on here as a debater i shall have to think on that one.

No one minds you having an opinion Steve but please don`t come back with " it`s only a wind up" routine when the majority go against you. All that achieves is to make you look silly. If you have a strong view on something, stick to it.

Will these tongue lashings ever end,anyone else?

If you think those are 'tongue-lashings', you've clearly never been on the receiving end of a real one. The whole point of debate is that opposing views are aired - but without descending to childishness.

Nicely put, Medsec. I think it is rather important that people who post on here don't do so just to wind others up and force a reaction in order to to get a discussion going. Strength of feeling is to be admired and encouraged, obviously, but only genuinely held views are valid, really.

Anyone else ?

You talk about agi too much steve my psychology background would tell me you miss the attention he’d lavish upon you.


Just try and have a debate with out straying from the subject into personal areas, even when everyone is against you, and then you might gain some respect.

Well if thats what your psychology background tells you,then i will have to bow to your superior knowledge,and think it better not to mention what my niece who has been a psychologist for eight years thinks,but said to ask your oppinion, if a person suffering from anxiety with up to fifty panic attacks daily,what would you prescribe?

I pressed my overalls against my cheek, to check for dampness as I walked down the length of the washing line. My dog barked. Distracted, I looked down at her. The howls from the nearby busload of alighting passengers caused me my one and only ever panic attack. Apparently to the casual observer there is not much difference between men's white trunks and ladies knickers

I`m confused. Does the Queen have panic attacks? 50 a day, thats a lot for a woman of her age. Maybe she should be taking things a bit easier now. Mind you when you`ve got people wanting to take everything off her, even her poor little pooches, it`s not surprising.

Perhaps you should read it again,only this time with your glasses on,or may i suggest a visit to specsavers perhaps.