[gladders]

(Original post by WillowSummers)
And yet it often seems the case they spend more money for strictly unnecessary things than an elected head of state does (such as going on an elephant hunting trip, as I mentioned) probably 'cause they know they won't have to get re-voted during the next elections.

I can't comment on how Spain's monarchy is financed, but the UK's monarchy does not receive public money for hunting trips. As I have said, any personal activity they wish to undertake comes out of their own money. They only get money for conducting activities which have a public benefit.

I don't think it's quite true that republics are cheaper, either. I have linked to the French presidency which is bloated and costly, and I have heard tell (uncited unfortunately) that the Italian presidency is similar. The German presidency seems to be roughly equivalent in cost to the British monarchy.

Incidentally, it's amusing that you completely ignored my other statements.

Sorry, was it relating to the elephant hunting? If there were others, I may have missed them in the fray. I'd be interested if there was something else.

[WillowSummers]

(Original post by gladders)
I can't comment on how Spain's monarchy is financed, but the UK's monarchy does not receive public money for hunting trips. As I have said, any personal activity they wish to undertake comes out of their own money. They only get money for conducting activities which have a public benefit.

I believe (I don't have a link proving this right now, but it should be fairly easy to find) that one of the scions of house Windsor, whose name escapes me at this moment, chartered a plane to go on holiday using taxpayers money?

Also, I'm sure someone mentioned earlier that Ireland spends considerably less than our monarchy does, and was shot down 'cause it's much smaller than the UK. However, if Germany spends an equal amount to us, but is considerably bigger, does that not invalidate that argument?

[gladders]

(Original post by WillowSummers)
I believe (I don't have a link proving this right now, but it should be fairly easy to find) that one of the scions of house Windsor, whose name escapes me at this moment, chartered a plane to go on holiday using taxpayers money?

If you could supply a link I would appreciate it, as it doesn't ring a bell. Sometimes the press (as they tend to do) cites as a 'holiday' something which is actually an officially-sanctioned foreign visit which the government has sent them on. To the press, any trip abroad is a holiday. It also gets my goat when they claim MPs are going on 'holiday' during the summer, as if they're not doing anything while Parliament's in recess.

Also, I'm sure someone mentioned earlier that Ireland spends considerably less than our monarchy does, and was shot down 'cause it's much smaller than the UK. However, if Germany spends an equal amount to us, but is considerably bigger, does that not invalidate that argument?

Germany isn't 'considerably' bigger; it's slightly bigger. Ireland's Head of State isn't Head of State of a major European and world power and economic powerhouse. Germany and Britain's Heads of State are going to be undertaking much more far-flung and extensive public duties.

[DaveSmith99]

This shouldn't be just about money. I bet the Monarch could run the entire government for significantly less money than parliament costs, we should do that then?

[Psyk]

(Original post by gladders)
A fair criticism, but again, this is something only peripheral to the central issue of the monarchy. You can disestablish the Church without removing the monarchy, and you can even have religious republics, such as Ireland.

I agree with that. I'm also a secularist, but I don't think having a head of state who is also the head of a church is fundamentally incompatible with secularism. As far as I'm concerned, the monarch can do what they like when they're not representing the state. If they want to be head of a church, they can be. If they want to be head of another state, they can be. If they want to be head of their kid's school's PTA they can be.

Just because the head of state also holds a position in a religious organisation it doesn't necessarily mean that religious organisation has to be constitutionally linked to the state.

I suppose it's not ideal for a secular state (which of course the UK officially isn't), but I don't think it's a deal breaker either.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by gladders)
I can't comment on how Spain's monarchy is financed, but the UK's monarchy does not receive public money for hunting trips. As I have said, any personal activity they wish to undertake comes out of their own money. They only get money for conducting activities which have a public benefit.

I don't think it's quite true that republics are cheaper, either. I have linked to the French presidency which is bloated and costly, and I have heard tell (uncited unfortunately) that the Italian presidency is similar. The German presidency seems to be roughly equivalent in cost to the British monarchy.



Sorry, was it relating to the elephant hunting? If there were others, I may have missed them in the fray. I'd be interested if there was something else.

Genuine question: if none of them take salaries, where do they get 'their own money' from?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Genuine question: if none of them take salaries, where do they get 'their own money' from?

They have personally inherited investment portfolios, and the Privy Purse. While the income is private, the Queen uses the larger part of it to meet official expenses incurred by other members of the British Royal Family.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by gladders)
They have personally inherited investment portfolios, and the Privy Purse. While the income is private, the Queen uses the larger part of it to meet official expenses incurred by other members of the British Royal Family.

They also get nice big tax breaks dont forget! http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/ma...inheritancetax

[Pindar]

(Original post by gladders)
Ireland is considerably smaller than the UK. If you want to make a comparison, try to avoid a crooked one, yeah? How about Germany? Their presidency costs roughly the same as ours PLUS received a salary. I have heard tell Italy's costs about £200 million in all.

And theirs are just as corrupt and useless. What exactly is the relation with size of a country and how much their unelected monarch should cost?

The UK is 244,820 sq km
Ireland is 84,421 square kilometres

Yet the Queen requires 100 times more of taxpayers hard earned money. People who are finding it hard to make ends meet shouldn't be forced to fund this massive waste of money. The monarchy should be dissolved and all the Royal family's assets liquidated and shared amongst the people.

(Original post by gladders)
The Duchies are personal property of the Queen and the Prince of Wales. What business is it of yours?

They were built off the blood and sweat of our ancestors at swordpoint rather than being in any way earned.

(Original post by gladders)
The security costs would remain under a republic.

No... if we didn't have a Queen, she wouldn't need security costs. If people want to assassinate her and her family they can pay their own security costs. It shouldn't have anything to do with everyone else and the common man.

(Original post by gladders)
Royal finances are presented to Parliament annually for consideration.

Crown Estate

Civil List

Privy Purse

Grant-in-Aid for Transport

Grant-in-Aid for buildings

There is also a sum supplied by Government Departments for specific duties which are also supplied to Parliament.

Total

Are you going to bury this tired old claim for good?

From your own link.

"It excludes the costs of security provided by the Police and Army and Armed Services ceremonial."

From your source aswell "Figures are not audited".

40 million, 200 million a YEAR. It's all money we shouldn't have to pay. Especially to some inbred snobs who think they're better than us. That money could be much better spent each year on something else.

(Original post by gladders)
You have no evidence to back up your claim it would be cheaper to employ someone else. I have already said the German and Italian presidents cost similar to our monarchy.

Cheaper to employ someone else? Here's a great idea. How about employ no one? She serves no useful purpose.

It's not an argument to say "this other country wastes money like this, so should we."

(Original post by gladders)
If the office is so pointless, why does every other country in the world have a head of state too?

How about making the PM the head of state, his role already pretty much resembles it. We've got two heads of state when we only need one. What an unjustifiable waste.

(Original post by gladders)
Do you think other heads of state do their job for free? That their security staff don't get paid? That their presidential staff are also unpaid?

Other heads of state are elected. As in, they actually deserve to do the job they're doing as it's on someones behalf and they are accountable. Watching someone trying to justify having an unaccountable monarch as head of state is like someone trying to argue that the world is flat I can't believe people like you seriously exist.

(Original post by gladders)
More inferiority complex from a tired olf republican. Most of the rest of the world is fascinated, even envious of our rich history. 'The rest of the world' consists of a mixture of both republics and monarchies.

Yes, history. As it should be.

(Original post by gladders)
You wonder why republicanism is such a marginal issue in this country? Because there is nothing for the ordinary person to gain from the monarchy's abolition.

There is nothing to gain? Apart everyone's hundreds of millions of pounds richer each year? Apart from not having an unelected tyrant as head of state and someone we actually want with political power?

(Original post by gladders)
You mean *gasp* like any other head of state?

Why should heads of state be frivolously wasting taxpayers money on meals which cost thousands of pounds, 5 star hotels and free holidays? Just because other corrupt heads of state waste their taxpayers money is not a justification that because of that we should aswell

(Original post by gladders)
The office of head of state is like diplomat, entertainer, psychiatrist, historian, civil servant and cultural icon rolled into one. Don't think that's hard? Why do you think so many musicians and artists succumb to drink and drugs? And if it's so easy, why do other countries still have presidents?

We already have diplomats, they cost much less. Why would you want some self-righteous self-appointed upstart dictating British diplomacy when they're completely unelected and unaccountable?

Psychiatrist? Historian? No. We have psychiatrists and historians. They are not heads of state. They don't cost £200 million a year.
Are you trolling?

(Original post by gladders)
Their luxury is not 'decadent'. The monarchy is comparatively frugal. Compared to other countries our head of state does not have their own plane, and there are anecdotes of royals doing the washing up and storing food in tupperwares

Looks pretty "frugal"

In particular the part when she's riding around being paraded around in a carriage made of solid gold.

You actually think that we should be wowed by the frugality of these unelected thieving parasites because WOW they DON'T have their OWN private jet costing millions to run? WOW THAT'S FRUGAL. WHAT HONEST MODEST PEOPLE. An anecdote about how they sometimes do their own washing up? WOW JUST LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE. Of course they should do their own ****ing washing up, why should anyone else have to pay for their lazy arses? This really amazes me.

(Original post by gladders)
Then why do 80% of the people still enjoy the monarchy? Ironically, in making your claim that the most intelligent agree with you, you're being astonishingly snotty and elitist.

I don't claim I deserve taxpayers hard earned money to fund my lavish lifestyle.

(Original post by gladders)
And when do you think was the last time the monarch removed an elected minister?

1976.

(Original post by gladders)
Parliament doesn't need those powers written down - they are inherent in its sovereign power. It has removed numerous monarchs in the past, and it can do it again. With the people behind Parliament, what do you think the monarchy could do?

Yes the laws don't need to be written down anymore

The monarch is command-in-chief of the army, as in they have ultimate control over it. Unless the army commits treason and mutiny there is very little the "people" or Parliament could do.

(Original post by gladders)
The royal wedding was paid for by the Duchy of Cornwall, and received no taxpayer money. The only excepting was policing and security, and you can't seriously expect me to believe you think this should be paid for privately. It was a public occasion, whether the monarchy wanted it to be or not. The police have a duty to keep the public safe.

Are you braindead? The Royal Wedding cost the taxpayer over £30 million. Most people couldn't dream of a multi-million pound wedding but the good old Royal family gets theirs partly paid for by the taxpayer to the tune of millions. Not to mention it costed our economy billions of pounds. Something we all had to pay for. Except guess who? The Royal family.

(Original post by gladders)
The Jubilee is another public event, and one which is genuinely popular. It's the British equivalent of the 4th of July. Do you think the 4th of July is paying for parasites in America?

The 4th of July is meant to celebrate independence and freedom, not the reign of an unelected monarch over us The 4th of July doesn't involve parading your ruler down the Thames on an elaborate Royal boat for people to worship her.



"THANKS YOUR ROYAL MAJESTY!!! THANKS SO MUCH FOR SPENDING ALL OUR MONEY ON SOLID GOLD BOATS SO WE CAN ALL BASK IN YOUR MAJESTY O PURE BLOODED ONE!

[rmpr97]

(Original post by gladders)
Nonexistent? So are the presidents of Germany and Italy conducting nonexistent jobs too?

They do much more, and they're elected. Plus they don't think they're above their people. I've actually met my president (Well former one). Fair that one may be a bit anecdotal but I'm not his subject. I'm a citizen of the country he rules.

The £150 million is not for their personal enjoyment (if that figure is at all accurate), but the base cost of the head of state, regardless of whether it were a monarchy or a president.

Really, its not? So I'm guessing their palace isn't for enjoyment. Nor are their various trips. Nor are them going cherry picking. Yes, it is for personal enjoyment.

And why do they need so much? The Spanish Monarchy costs £7.4 million. And Spain is much large. Thats a big difference is it not?

Whatever occupies that post will cost the same amount of money.

No, it wont. Again, read above post about Spanish Monarchy. And how about we have no replacement? Why do we need it? How about we just have our parliament, thats ELECTED.

Anecdotal.

Well ofcourse its gonna be flipping anecdotal. What, how are you going to measure how many people will want to visit it? By formulating an estimate based on how many people enter the country on holiday and then making a graph?

Oh and I've seen Buckingham Palace/Surrounding areas on weekends, its actually quite bare. Marble Arch which is only down the road has more tourists.

Although Picadilly is much more of a tourist attraction than the monarchy, have you seen it? You can't walk past it without someone taking a picture of you.

Not possible - Buckingham Palace would become the president's residence.

Why would we have a president? Whats the need? And if so, how about a nice house for them. Everyone else has to live in houses.

You're projecting your opinions onto the country. Most of the country likes the monarchy.

Now, you're projecting your opinion on the country. Where is your proof?

The taxpayer only paid for security - which would be standard for an event of great public interest. Next time we have a big football match I'll say we shouldn't pay for football fans' interests, yes?

Not to mention the £5bn it cost to the economy.

What on earth are you talking about?

That was a bit of a rant but I read it somewhere, not sure if it was 100% true, but if it was made me think even less of her.

[gladders]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
And theirs are just as corrupt and useless. What exactly is the relation with size of a country and how much their unelected monarch should cost?

The UK is 244,820 sq km
Ireland is 84,421 square kilometres

Yet the Queen requires 100 times more of taxpayers hard earned money. People who are finding it hard to make ends meet shouldn't be forced to fund this massive waste of money. The monarchy should be dissolved and all the Royal family's assets liquidated and shared amongst the people.

Does not follow, just because the land area is greater than the cost must be greater; look at the population, the size of the economies, and the functions of the Head of State. Britain is a world power; Ireland isn't. Therefore the Head of State will travel more and conduct more meetings.

They were built off the blood and sweat of our ancestors at swordpoint rather than being in any way earned.

Actually I think you'll find most were paid and and constructed by paid workers.

No... if we didn't have a Queen, she wouldn't need security costs. If people want to assassinate her and her family they can pay their own security costs. It shouldn't have anything to do with everyone else and the common man.

Read it again, genius. The president and his family would continue to draw cost for security.

From your own link.

"It excludes the costs of security provided by the Police and Army and Armed Services ceremonial."

From your source aswell "Figures are not audited".

Security costs are not counted or audited under republics either. The US President's certainly isn't. For the reason that if you state the number then you give terrorists an idea of their security coverage.

40 million, 200 million a YEAR. It's all money we shouldn't have to pay. Especially to some inbred snobs who think they're better than us. That money could be much better spent each year on something else.

I can see you're too dense for this to get through to you, so I'll type this slowly: The. Cost. Would. Remain. Under. A. Republic. Do you think the President will do the job for free? Or that he doesn't need to hold meetings and receive VIPs, or that his official accomodation doesn't need routine maintenance?

Cheaper to employ someone else? Here's a great idea. How about employ no one? She serves no useful purpose.

I think you'll find that every other country needs one because the job is irreplacable. How come you are able ot make such ignorant statements?

It's not an argument to say "this other country wastes money like this, so should we."

How about making the PM the head of state, his role already pretty much resembles it. We've got two heads of state when we only need one. What an unjustifiable waste.

The PM does not act as Head of State. Again: if this is so obvious, why has no other country done this? Why do you feel you are able to make pronouncements that have stumped centuries of constitutional lawyers?

Other heads of state are elected. As in, they actually deserve to do the job they're doing as it's on someones behalf and they are accountable. Watching someone trying to justify having an unaccountable monarch as head of state is like someone trying to argue that the world is flat I can't believe people like you seriously exist.

No they're not. Germany's and Italy's, for example, are not elected. Others are elected because they also exercise governmental functions. Ours is ceremonial, and therefore does not need to be elected.

Yes, I can't believe people like me exist either - people like me who aren't ignorant!

Yes, history. As it should be.

Living history. Do you think we should tear down every old building as well as unnecessary?

There is nothing to gain? Apart everyone's hundreds of millions of pounds richer each year? Apart from not having an unelected tyrant as head of state and someone we actually want with political power?

I have already shown how there would be absolutely zero regained money from replacing the monarch with a president, and your claim we can do without a head of state reveals how few brain cells you have.

Why should heads of state be frivolously wasting taxpayers money on meals which cost thousands of pounds, 5 star hotels and free holidays? Just because other corrupt heads of state waste their taxpayers money is not a justification that because of that we should aswell

It's part of the job. Their job is partly diplomatic, receiving and entertaining visiting governments and presidents and ambassadors, making them feel welcome and making them more amenable to business deals and treaties with the host country. They also entertain groups of members of the public. You think the Queen likes those endless garden parties?

We already have diplomats, they cost much less. Why would you want some self-righteous self-appointed upstart dictating British diplomacy when they're completely unelected and unaccountable?

Name a single diplomat employed by the UK right now, without going to Wikipedia. Is any one of them suitably charismatic or recognised by the average person? Moreover, they are government officials, paid to do exactly as the government requires them to do in all things. The Head of State is meant to be apart from all that, and also has a much broader range of constitutional duties.

Psychiatrist? Historian? No. We have psychiatrists and historians. They are not heads of state. They don't cost £200 million a year.
Are you trolling?

I see you have a problem with taking things literally. The Head of State is meant to be a mixture of all things so that they can perform their duties. Having a psychiatrist-for-the-government is not what I am proposing.

Again: if it's so obvious, why does every other country have a head of state?

*a bunch of pointless photographs*


"THANKS YOUR ROYAL MAJESTY!!! THANKS SO MUCH FOR SPENDING ALL OUR MONEY ON SOLID GOLD BOATS SO WE CAN ALL BASK IN YOUR MAJESTY O PURE BLOODED ONE!

The buildings you show are a mixture of those personally owned by the Queen or those which were built centuries ago. Do you think any of the latter will cease to exist without the monarchy? I'm afraid the cost of their maintenance will remain under a republic. Do you think the Queen is the only Head of State to live in palaces?

[LETSJaM]

Having a president, could mean having a president Blair.

<3 x

[Раскольников]

(Original post by LETSJaM)
Having a president, could mean having a president Blair.

<3 x

Well currently the head of government essentially exercises all the power of the head of state. If we had had a president with some of the normal powers of a head of state, then Blair as prime minister (or president) would have had less power than he did, not more.

[gladders]

(Original post by rmpr97)
They do much more, and they're elected. Plus they don't think they're above their people. I've actually met my president (Well former one). Fair that one may be a bit anecdotal but I'm not his subject. I'm a citizen of the country he rules.

Please give an example of a duty that your president does that the Queen doesn't. I am not the Queen's subject, either - since 1981 we're all citizens.

Moreover, the word 'subject' has been poisoned over time to mean something it didn't originally mean. It meant 'subject' to the law, which back in the day when there was no concept of the State separate from the King, meant being 'subject' to the King's laws, and under the King's protection.

In the same vein, then, you're still a subject - subject to the laws of your country.

Really, its not? So I'm guessing their palace isn't for enjoyment. Nor are their various trips. Nor are them going cherry picking. Yes, it is for personal enjoyment.

The palace is maintained because otherwise it would fall down. The cost for maintaining the palaces would remain under a republic. If they have any trips for personal enjoyment it's sourced for their own, personal funds. Taxpayer funds are not allowed to be used on them.

And why do they need so much? The Spanish Monarchy costs £7.4 million. And Spain is much large. Thats a big difference is it not?

£7.4 million for the Spanish monarchy is the equivalent of our Civil List - official duties only. The rest of the cost still exists but is tabulated elsewhere, such as within a government department. £7.4 million does not cover the payment of staff, the cost of travel or the maintenance of buildings, or the payment pf staff pensions.

It's the same for Germany - the budget allocated £20m for the Bundespraesident's duties which includes his transport budget, but the maintenance of his public buildings is another £15-20m within the government.

No, it wont. Again, read above post about Spanish Monarchy. And how about we have no replacement? Why do we need it? How about we just have our parliament, thats ELECTED.

Responded. And no, you can't just have the Parliament - every country needs a head of state to fulfill constitutional functions, act as a symbol, and to be the person who hosts visiting heads of state when they visit. 650 men and women can't do that.

Well ofcourse its gonna be flipping anecdotal. What, how are you going to measure how many people will want to visit it? By formulating an estimate based on how many people enter the country on holiday and then making a graph?

Oh and I've seen Buckingham Palace/Surrounding areas on weekends, its actually quite bare. Marble Arch which is only down the road has more tourists.

Although Picadilly is much more of a tourist attraction than the monarchy, have you seen it? You can't walk past it without someone taking a picture of you.

Firstly, I've never argued that tourism is an important consideration of whether or not to maintain the monarchy. I think it's completely unimportant. But nonetheless I can give equally pointless and anecdotal evidence - I have been past Buckingham Palace and seen it rather busy. See?

Why would we have a president? Whats the need? And if so, how about a nice house for them. Everyone else has to live in houses.

Not a public official, they don't. For example, Downing Street is actually a massive office block, and this barely has any room for receiving official guests. Buckingham Palace does.

Here's a quick list of some of the duties of the Head of State:

Symbolic role, Chief diplomatic officer, Chief executive officer, Chief appointments officer, Legislative roles, Military role, Summoning and dissolving the legislature, Granting nobility, knighthood and various titles and other honours, Immunity, Reserve Powers, Right of pardon.

And before you even try, no, you can't just have these duties performed by the PM. His job is distinct. If you had the PM exercising, for example, the signing into law of Bills, or of dissolving the legislature, then he will be tempted to use it for part political advantage; likewise, placing the power within the legislature means it ends up in the PM's hands anyway, or will be likewise used by the legislature to undermine and weaken the government unecessarily.

Now, you're projecting your opinion on the country. Where is your proof?

This was published the other day.

Not to mention the £5bn it cost to the economy.

Yes, it's terrible having a public holiday, isn't it?

Next time there's a football tournament or next time Christmas comes round, I'll patiently wait for your demand that we work on Christmas day or that the police should just go home and not police Wembley.

That was a bit of a rant but I read it somewhere, not sure if it was 100% true, but if it was made me think even less of her.

News to me, although I tend not to be interested in small beer like that.

[gladders]

(Original post by Раскольников)
Well currently the head of government essentially exercises all the power of the head of state. If we had had a president with some of the normal powers of a head of state, then Blair as prime minister (or president) would have had less power than he did, not more.

But at the same time the line of responsibility for the actions of the government would be muddled. Blair might have been less able to get his way but then he would be able to shrug his shoulders and say 'none of what happened while I was PM was my fault - the President stopped it!', and the President would equally claim innocence and blame it on the PM.

I prefer our current system where crap things can happen (they always will), but the person who actually caused them is blamed, and none other.

[Greenlaner]

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
I don't understand.

• Britain makes £200 million pounds from the monarchs, and only costs 40 million to actually have them
• The government get all the monarchs land so we're actual richer
• It encourages tourism therefore money is spent elsewhere like in Bars and Restaurants as tourists come to England. So it's not just monarchy related profits
• It brings pride to our nation
• It costs less than a £1 per person in the country
• And no if we got rid of the Monarchy it wouldn't be as popular. It's exciting to think we have our very own living monarchy in London, if they died out hundreds of years we'd get some tourism but we'd make less.

So, why do you want to get rid of the monarchy? We make money from this, and if we got rid of them profits would be less as it's not as interesting, we may aswell just go to a mueseum in that case.

Don't just neg me and not justify your point.

Because i value principles far above money, and the very concept of monarchism (regardless of how benign it is now) frankly disgusts me.

[LETSJaM]

(Original post by Раскольников)
Well currently the head of government essentially exercises all the power of the head of state. If we had had a president with some of the normal powers of a head of state, then Blair as prime minister (or president) would have had less power than he did, not more.

Still the thought of someone like him as head of state is truly terrifying.

<3 x

[Bellissima]

(Original post by Alofleicester)

• Not at all, the 40m figure is woefully innaccurate - the estimated cost of the monarchy is actually £150m. And where does this £200m figure come from?
• How so? That land would be ours anyway without the Monarchy.
• The Monarchy contributes pretty much nothing to tourism (less than 1% of tourist revenue) - only one Royal residence makes it on to the top 20 tourist attractions: Windsor Castle (17th, well behind, for instance, Legoland). If we look at the Tower Of London (6th), tourism would arguably be better off without the Monarchy.
• That's a matter of opinion, how can you prove that the royals bring pride to our nation? Certainly many people have no pride in them, quite frankly I'm more ashamed of them, given the antics of Prince Phillip when on foreign business.
• Again, a lie spread by the Royal's PR team - that figure is gained by dividing the 40m "cost" by 60m (the population) rather than those that actually pay taxes. Take the estimated cost (£150m) and the number of tax payers (in 04-05, 29.5m - bottom of page 7) and the cost is closer to £5 per year than 67p. It also costs 100 times that of the Irish presidency.
• What wouldn't be as popular? and as I've already said, the tourism idea is a lie.

http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we...ment/index.php

v. nice post

[SoNottingH]

(Original post by LETSJaM)
Still the thought of someone like him as head of state is truly terrifying.

<3 x

Yeah, we want Wills.

[Bellissima]

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
I got those figures from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYg...e_gdata_player

so accurate that he uses a picture of the french mont saint michel as the example of an "amazing british castle".