Queen's new £3M golden carriage! Ridiculous!

RuthnJasper

paddyrg wrote: »

How would you feel if you were not in fact 'paying for toffs' but by having those 'toffs' estate generating a *profit* and *subsidising the taxpayer*?

Would you prefer to pay more tax to get rid of them? I wouldn't. And on top of the straight financial side of things, they work as ambassadors which brings tourism and frankly business and global profile. Nobody gives a toss if Gordon Brown/another ex-PM visits a country on a diplomatic mission, but send the Queen or Wills and Kate and it's big news. This is important for our world standing and the knock-on for a tiny country such as ourselves.

I agree. I'm not a raving Royalist, but it IS true to say that they are one of the best assets this country has. Particularly in the eyes tourists (and especially US tourists).

The Queen herself is notably frugal (her formative years having been spent during WWII and after, during strict rationing), much preferring an informal meal of leftovers to lavish banquets (I used to work with someone whose daughter was good friends with Princess Anne). Plus the respect and goodwill towards us as a nation generated, most especially by William and Kate and baby George, is priceless.

There are plenty of scrounging parasites in the corridors of power - but none of them are Royal.

dizzie

Quote by Paddyrg: How would you feel if you were not in fact 'paying for toffs' but by having those 'toffs' estate generating a *profit* and *subsidising the taxpayer*?

Hmmm, but where did the Royal Estates come from in the first place? Ooof.....just go back to the middle ages, with its Feudal system and the monarch ruling the roost - above the law and taking whatever he or she wanted. If you look at both the Monarchy and at the Church and question where either of these organisations obtained their vast wealth from....I think you'll find that it was either by brute force or putting the fear of God into people.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the Queen does fulfil a role which many people do appreciate....and that's fair enough. And I think she fulfils her role seriously and with conviction.....and for a lady in her 80's, it is difficult not to at least have some respect and admiration for her. However, I can't decide whether it is her desire to continue to fulfil her role and provide stability which keeps her going, or her fear that her son (who has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth) will make a bit of a bodge of it. Perhaps both reasons are equally laudible.

But just as when the Pope came to Britain and we were told of the cost of the Pope-mobile....I can also understand people's dismay at the spending of millions of pounds on any frivolous display of status when so many in the world struggle to get enough to eat each day.

Maybe it's because I've never quite subscribed to the need to show status through symbols (Ha ha, I love my Skoda Fabia)....but frankly no, glitter and gold and pompous displays really don't do anything for me, and I'm always left thinking about how money spent on extremely extravagant affairs could perhaps have been better spent.

And before anyone jumps on me, no I wouldn't expect the Queen to downsize to a two up two down terraced house. I'd just like to see things done a little more modestly sometimes that's all.

mountainofdebt

dizzie wrote: »

Well, I'm having a day off work today and have just watched the opening ceremony of parliament. I wonder how people can keep a straight face when performing this expensive pantomine! All this "Hat's off stranger" and slamming doors business.....some bloke waving a white wand (or a whitewashed piece of dowel or something), and some other geezer with a black rod who did actually look like he was trying to suppress a smirk. And finally Cameron and Milliband pretending to look like best buddies and making interesting conversation with each other complete with hand gestures for the benefit of the cameras.

.....Blime.....would rather watch paint dry!! Why can't they save some money, just open the doors to Parliament....go in....and get to work?

I guess it's a case of personal preference whether you consider the "pomp" to be a nice British thing or not.

Obviously don't know the history behind the pantomime then!

Basically it all harks back to the time of Charles I and his relationship with Parliament.

As for Cameron & Milliband being mates - I think alot of the arguing is done for the sake of the cameras .....wouldn't mind betting alot of them share a drink or two in the bar.

btw anyone think how frail the Duke of Edinburgh looked?

George_Michael

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It was, and I'm sure that whitegoods_engineer will be along shortly to admit that he made a mistake with his comment:

Or maybe not!

dizzie

Hi Mountain of Debt...

Yes, I do know what it all symbolises. I just can's see the point of acting it out? And actually, if you want to talk about symbolism and the fact that the slamming door signifies that the Queen has no right to enter into the House of Commons (i.e. independence from the House of Commons from the Monarchy), then....as pantomimes go, it was a pretty poor act. I mean, the door was not so much slammed as just closed. And then when Black Rod sternly belted the door with his rod three times, they opened it immediately again....ha ha, not much show of resistance in the pantomime then.

Did you actually watch the ceremony? Even the commentators were going on about the MPs making a big thing of wondering what they were going to talk about for the show of the cameras. For goodness sake! Then we see Ed and Dave talking with each other with Ed making enthusiastic twisting movements with his hands whilst Dave replied and formed his hands into two "O"s. Ha ha, I think they were just trying to make people wonder what on earth they were going on about.....

Sorry, still can't see the point of all the pomp. I think we can remember history without making a pantomine out of it all.

barmonkey

Azari wrote: »

It's basically an investment in the tourist industry.

Snigger, I always find it funny when people say that as a justification for keeping those pointless people.

mountainofdebt

dizzie wrote: »

Sorry, still can't see the point of all the pomp. I think we can remember history without making a pantomine out of it all.

Actually all the pomp is one of the things I like about the UK.....at least it has meaning.

paddyrg

dizzie wrote: »

Hmmm, but where did the Royal Estates come from in the first place? Ooof.....just go back to the middle ages, with its Feudal system and the monarch ruling the roost - above the law and taking whatever he or she wanted. If you look at both the Monarchy and at the Church and question where either of these organisations obtained their vast wealth from....I think you'll find that it was either by brute force or putting the fear of God into people.

Oh absolutely, and I'm quite glad our relationship has rebalanced somewhat, and have no wish for it to return to battles between feudal local (war) lords. Just now, in 2014, pragmatically, I see the marketing value in it

Bantex_2

kaya wrote: »

What an absurd post' there is absolutley no proof that the royal family do anything for tourism over and above the estimated £200,000,000 they cost us annually with all the " free" security we provide , the only way to " prove" beyond doubt that they benefit us in any way financially is to remove them , which won't happen . The royals benefitting tourism is just unsubstantiated garbage used by royalists to attempt to justify the expense these parasites cost the taxpayer

You sound rather jealous.

Prothet_of_Doom

I think they planned it for the Diamond Jubilee, but like everything done by "tradesmen" it was a bit late.