I want my money back!
Apparently the Queen/Royal Family only costs each person in Britian 62p a year. Not a lot, I hear you say. Well, I don't care. It is my 62p and I want it back.
It is not often that you hear the Nameless Tory express a left wing opinion, just as (thankfully) you don't often hear the Nameless Tory refer to himself in the third person. But here it is - I don't like the Royal family. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Queen, aside from the fact that she appears to be strikingly dull. Her husband is a boorish loudmouthed racist, but I guess with his background you can't expect anything else. Likewise Prince Charles - a wet, unrealistic toff - but what else could he be when he is the heir to the throne? No, my problem lies with the concept of the Royal Family.
I mean, for Christ's sake, we live in the twentieth century people! Why are we still funding a family whose sole qualification for their immensely priviliged position is that they were born to it? Why should we this family command £37.4m of public funds owing to an accident of birth?
The argument you often hear is that the Royal Family are good for tourism. Well, you could have opened up 25 Cromwell Street to the public, and I am sure that people with a love of the macabre would have flocked to it. Being good for tourism is not enough of a reason to spend public funds on something.
And here is the fundamental question - if the Royals are so good for tourism, and if they are so cheap to the public, why can't they fund themselves?
Because with the increasing problems in the NHS, the failing education system, the poorly equipped troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the multitude of other problems in the UK, I really think we could find something else to spend that £37m on.
Anyway, that is my red moment over with. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 9:02 pm
3 Comments
3 Comments:
The French lopped their toffs' heads off, to a man, and people still flock to Versailles.
I personally *love* the idea that they hold works of art and priceless antiques 'in trust for the nation.' Right in that case, I'll be around later Charlie, I want to see my Ming vases and Turners please, and then I might stick a few on eBay.
There is usually a Big Issue seller just outside Buckingham Palace. A lovely image for the twenty first century.
I mean, for Christ's sake, we live in the twentieth century people!
No, we don't. We are living in the 21st century...
As for the Royals, the amount that they bring into the economy far exceeds what they cost.
I'd rather pay for them than our sodding MPs. I'd also much rather concentrate on getting back the net £6.5billion that the EU costs us (plus the £9 billion trade deficit with the EU countries).
I have no problem with the Royal Family; they do a deeply boring job -- for life -- and generally do it well. Plus, Phillip makes me laugh like a drain: I consider him good value entertainment.
DK
Lots of other people do boring jobs for life, and are not kept in the lap of luxury for doing so. In what is nominally a meritocratic society it is a complete contradiction to have the Head of State born into the role.
I am increasingly favouring an elected Head of State. Perhaps we could have a Pop Idol style contest - "King Idol", if you will.
I will have to concede that we are in the 21st century though...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home