The Government says there's no money...but Gove says get a £60m yacht for the Queen?

Source?



Wrong. The Queen is a decent Head of State (at best - we've got nothing to compare her to in the modern era). You really think Charles will be? THAT is precisely why the monarchy is broken. We could, under an electative system, decide that we wanted Elizabeth Windsor, and then when she'd finished, we could skip right over Charles, onto a David Attenborough or a Steven Fry.



Obama would probably have respect for my Nan as well. Should she be Head of State?



Yes. Just by virtue of being Head of State of Britain.



Great point. It's been there for ages, so we should keep it. Bring back slavery! Bring back hanging!

Jamaica is only the latest to be getting rid. The Australian PM has said she will get rid after Liz has died. The rest will follow.



Feel free to expand...



Not going to tell people what to do with their own money, but why not donate £60,000,000 to worthwhile charities, which you reliably inform me the Windsor family do so much for?





Don't be an idiot. I look at those starving African children and feel a little sad, I look at people at home losing jobs and livelihoods and feel slight remorse... But all that pales into insignificance when I imagine Liz's face when she opens her yacht!

I actually agree with this. I am a Royalist, I think things like the Diamond Jubilee can be good for the country, its a time people can relax and enjoy the celebrations as the week goes on. (If thats if you are a royalist, many on TSR obviously won't be)

Fair enough the Country is in debt, but If you are going to moan about a £60 million Yacht, you might as well add the Olympics, the Royal Wedding, things like that. But personally, I'd rather be couple of quid a worse of a week to enjoy occasions like the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee. Like I said, I'll obviously getting negged for my views but I would appreciate if you could quote me.

I actually agree with this. I am a Royalist, I think things like the Diamond Jubilee can be good for the country, its a time people can relax and enjoy the celebrations as the week goes on. (If thats if you are a royalist, many on TSR obviously won't be)

Fair enough the Country is in debt, but If you are going to moan about a £60 million Yacht, you might as well add the Olympics, the Royal Wedding, things like that. But personally, I'd rather be couple of quid a worse of a week to enjoy occasions like the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee. Like I said, I'll obviously getting negged for my views but I would appreciate if you could quote me.

I actually agree with this. I am a Royalist, I think things like the Diamond Jubilee can be good for the country, its a time people can relax and enjoy the celebrations as the week goes on. (If thats if you are a royalist, many on TSR obviously won't be)

Fair enough the Country is in debt, but If you are going to moan about a £60 million Yacht, you might as well add the Olympics, the Royal Wedding, things like that. But personally, I'd rather be couple of quid a worse of a week to enjoy occasions like the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee. Like I said, I'll obviously getting negged for my views but I would appreciate if you could quote me.

You can't compare the Olympics to the Diamond Jubilee.

Celebrate what? An old women successfully sitting on her ass for sixty years, in luxury?

Celebrate what? An old women successfully sitting on her ass for sixty years, in luxury?

The Olympics is an event that everyone in the country can enjoy and be proud of. Is the Queen going to let everyone in the country go for a ride on her yacht?

Fair enough the Country is in debt, but If you are going to moan about a £60 million Yacht, you might as well add the Olympics, the Royal Wedding.

Celebrate what? An old women successfully sitting on her ass for sixty years, in luxury?

The Olympics is an event that everyone in the country can enjoy and be proud of. Is the Queen going to let everyone in the country go for a ride on her yacht?

Will never neg a post from someone who seems to be being rational enough about it!

We committed to the Olympics in 2005 (off the top of my head), right in the economic Boom phase. Spending was going up, we had money to spare.

We're in 2012 now. People are losing their jobs and their homes. We've lost Sure Start. We're reducing spending in just about ever single area that matters.

And then Gove comes out saying that we, who are suffering from all of this, are expected to pay up to buy a lady with an amount of money beyond reasonable comprehension in her bank account a yacht. A bloody yacht.

To me, this just seems like a huge kick in the nads. The Guardian has a little list of ways the money could be better spend. Do you really want a huge bloody yacht that you'll perhaps see on the TV every couple of years, or 2,200 extra nurses, police etc? Perhaps use it as an economic stimulus, to try to get a little bit more growth going (or use it to plug a bit of the deficit, it you subscribe to Osbourne's Plan A!)? Keep a few Sure Start centres open?

Beautiful quote in a Guardian piece,

"Michael Gove could of course pay for the, um, Gove Boat himself. It needn't be onerous: just a graduate-style tax of 9% of anything he earned above £21,000 for the rest of his life – and it would only be fair. In the words of his colleagues, it's wrong for the taxpayer to fund something from which only he derives a benefit."

"For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas reported parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period."

Royal wedding alone boosted UK economy by over £600 million

The royal family passes knowledge on being a head of state to the next generation and learn from mistakes. All Presidents would be thrown in the deep end without any previous experience, making the royal family a stronger head by means of their collective knowledge of being in that position and growing up in it.

I disagree, Americans always bang on about the Queen of England. Since when have they gone on about the President of France or Chancellor of Germany (ahead of UK in GDP.

It is nothing to do with slavery but mutual relations, you really think that the Commonwealth is still equal to slavery??

People can spend their money on what they want, you are right. You can donate to charity AND the project. By your logic the most worthwhile charity would be the only one people should donate money to. Who needs free sports in communities when people are dying?

You didn't address the Olympic question. £80 million on showing the UK off in 2 days. The yacht would help become a worldwide emblem of the UK (like airforce one) and would do multitudes of good in helping train people etc, as the article suggested. You can hardly be for one and not the other based on your demonisation and fanciful vision of the Queen as a money grabbing parasite who sits on a gold throne all day watching Jeremy Kyle and swimming in pools of cash..oh wait, I may have got confused with a chav lottery winner.

If it wasn't for the History (Not all of that is something to be proud of, however..) behind the Queen Britain wouldn't half of the country it is today.

Oh yes, because the Queen has lots of free time on her hands.. She is 85 and almost definitely doing more work than you

It's a shame she committed high treason by breaking her coronation oath when she signed our country away to the EU. The Lisbon Treaty abolished Britain on 1st January 2009, therefore Elizabeth is no longer queen, just a very rich criminal.

So why we buying her a yacht?

I disagree, Americans always bang on about the Queen of England. Since when have they gone on about the President of France or Chancellor of Germany (ahead of UK in GDP.

Gove probably fancies her.

The Crown Estate belongs to the Crown (ie the country as a whole), not Elizabeth or Charles Windsor, but do try again!



Estimates vary hugely. Some say it didn't quite manage to break even, CBI said about a £5bn loss, and, at the very top range of estimates, A cool £50,000,000,000 cost to the economy.



But you'd argue that Kate Middleton has been doing a good job? This being a girl who'd had exactly... no training whatsoever for the role...



We should write our Constitution to please the Yanks. Great idea. Maybe the PM should be legally obliged to drink tea at 1500 every day, and wear a morning suit everywhere he goes?



Not even close to what I said. You said that we should keep it because of its history, which is a shocking argument. As I already pointed out, the number of countries with Charles as Head of State will fall faster than a very fast thing.



All charities are worthwhile. What in hell is this going to do for anyone?



As I already said, we bid for the Olympics in a time when we had money. Now we don't have money. Anyway, we'll have to see regarding the Olympics, it's possible that we'll make a net profit seeing as nobody's been stupid enough to declare a Bank Holiday around them.

I have nothing against Elizabeth Windsor, I'm sure she does the best she can. I have everything against the institution which she symbolises and inhabits.

Pfft. Work as in travelling to different nations in first class, speaking a few paragraphs written for her and staying in the most world class accomodations in the world. Work as in having to attend functions and meetings which are merely ceremonial.

Oh yes, forget the millions in the country having to deal with great financial difficulties; the Queen must have such a hard life, poor her

As a dual-citizen of the US, thus with over half my family from the country, your statement above is nonsense; heck most people don't even know the role of the queen in the UK (or rather England as its known here). But more to the point however is, so what? We in the US idolise someone like Kim Kardashian too for goodness sake (i.e. a women who is famous purely for having a sex-tape) and indeed her wedding generated more interest than the royal wedding in the UK. Hell, more people watch American Idol than watched the royal wedding itself. But I digress.

How the perception of America, or Americans, should shape British constitutionality is a moot point; it shouldn't matter in the slightest.

But you seem to associate any costs with the Queen being head of state. So if we have a President they wouldn't get any form of security? The land the Queen owns is being used productively for the country already, so there would be no difference there. All you would get is a huge bill for changing the countries image, time spent changing the entire constitutional make-up and structure of the country, huge surveys, referendums, and finally expensive voting processes that would take place every X number of years. For what exactly, seeing as the costs of any Head of State won't be massively different?

On top of all those costs and nuisances, we will lose massive amounts due to tourism and huge events. Finally we will lose a massive part of our culture, identity, tradition and history. Instead we would end up with some whiny, faceless, set-type country. I suppose whilst we are at it we should destroy all historical sites in favour of 1960's style concrete blocks?

It was more about her having a more prominent position in the worlds knowledge than a President ever would. For example even you would have to admit that someone as far as China would know that an honorary knighthood is a big deal..what would the President give out? Gold stickers? It wasn't purely targeted at America, more using it as an example

It was more about her having a more prominent position in the worlds knowledge than a President ever would. For example even you would have to admit that someone as far as China would know that an honorary knighthood is a big deal..what would the President give out? Gold stickers? It wasn't purely targeted at America, more using it as an example