Brewology

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:32 pm**

I am American so I have a lot of gaps that some of you could fill in for me. I would like to understand if you would like to explain.

So I was on the Yahoo homepage and I cam across this story

Apparently it seems that the Queen is publicly funded. People in the U.K. pay 38.2 million pounds ($57.8 million) per year to "claim" a queen and keep her and her family living in a palace. Is this true?

I also picked up some rumor about Prince William engaged to Kate Middleton and that the wedding will cost 20 Billion dollars. I haven't found a reliable source to confirm that account but to me it seems like an obscene amount of money to spend on anything.

Getting back to my original point, It seems unfair to me that the state would give millions of pounds away to one of it's citizens in the name of tradition. To me it seems like it's money that could be better spent on other things such as the greater public good.

I would really like to hear from the "Royal Subjects" reading this to see how they feel or if they can offer a better understanding for those of us that do not have a queen.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:49 pm**

I, too, wondered this when I saw that same article. Apparently, she gets like 94 cents per person or something like that. Pretty stupid to me since there are starving people in the streets of London everyday.
I am mad that that wedding will cost so much. I would protest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yvonne-yo ... 18666.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/201 ... ding_N.htm
What do you think about Princess Victoria's wedding? $2.5 million. It makes me mad and I don't even live in Sweden.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:08 pm**

que13x wrote:I am American so I have a lot of gaps that some of you could fill in for me. I would like to understand if you would like to explain.

So I was on the Yahoo homepage and I cam across this story

Apparently it seems that the Queen is publicly funded. People in the U.K. pay 38.2 million pounds ($57.8 million) per year to "claim" a queen and keep her and her family living in a palace. Is this true?

I also picked up some rumor about Prince William engaged to Kate Middleton and that the wedding will cost 20 Billion dollars. I haven't found a reliable source to confirm that account but to me it seems like an obscene amount of money to spend on anything.

Getting back to my original point, It seems unfair to me that the state would give millions of pounds away to one of it's citizens in the name of tradition. To me it seems like it's money that could be better spent on other things such as the greater public good.

I would really like to hear from the "Royal Subjects" reading this to see how they feel or if they can offer a better understanding for those of us that do not have a queen.

I don't think the wedding will only cost that much, consider the G8/G20 security in Canada that was $2 Billion dollars, thats a lot of frigging money. I am thinking maybe $20 million.

$2.5 million by the way I don't think is that much in my mind for a high class wedding.

crait wrote:I, too, wondered this when I saw that same article. Apparently, she gets like 94 cents per person or something like that. Pretty stupid to me since there are starving people in the streets of London everyday.
I am mad that that wedding will cost so much. I would protest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yvonne-yo ... 18666.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/201 ... ding_N.htm
What do you think about Princess Victoria's wedding? $2.5 million. It makes me mad and I don't even live in Sweden.

Don't talk to my Queen like that

She just visited Canada and I (L) her

I really don't see anything wrong with paying her. For everything she has done and does. Controlling not only her own country she still has us Canadians and lots of other people. Also with the London Olympics coming up they will make lots of money to cover any major dept.

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:14 am**

.Yunoko wrote:Don't talk to my Queen like that She just visited Canada and I (L) her I really don't see anything wrong with paying her. For everything she has done and does. Controlling not only her own country she still has us Canadians and lots of other people. Also with the London Olympics coming up they will make lots of money to cover any major dept.

I need a few clarifications here.

So far I am with crait. There are people living in poverty that could benefit from some of the money being invested in the queen.

Tony Blair took all the heat for going to war in Iraq with America once he left office. The queen holds no accountability for that even though "Royal marines" and "Royal Air Force" etc. did all the fighting.

The "democratically elected"prime minister handles the day to day affairs of running the country with assistance from the house of lords/commons so what does the queen really do? I hear she "knights" a singer or an actor(or an American politician) on occasion but what good does that do?

The Olympics is little better than a traveling circus. It distracts from major issues that are happening in the world. It's presence causes inflation in the host city and as a result the citizens are worse off for it. I am not anti-Olympics I just feel it should be a private venture instead of a public one.

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:37 pm**

Theres always gonna be the poor. Theres always gonna be the middle class. Theres always gonna be the rich. And theres always gonna be the good for nothing stinkin' rich. Thats our world.

Should everyone pay 94 cents to an individual? No. To a Queen? Yes.

We dont know what she does with that money. Like any average person with that power, she saves some for a rainy day, spends some, and donates some.

Its the same as us paying taxes that funds Obama's wallet.

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:01 pm**

BKFraiders7 wrote:Theres always gonna be the poor. Theres always gonna be the middle class. Theres always gonna be the rich. And theres always gonna be the good for nothing stinkin' rich. Thats our world.

Should everyone pay 94 cents to an individual? No. To a Queen? Yes.

We dont know what she does with that money. Like any average person with that power, she saves some for a rainy day, spends some, and donates some.

Its the same as us paying taxes that funds Obama's wallet.

Obama is an employee of the government, just like many construction workers or police officers. When you pay your taxes, you pay them, too. They use their salary for many personal belongings.
What is The Queen's occupation? Why does she have enough money to buy useless diamond-crested 3D glasses? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/0 ... ses-canada

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:19 pm**

crait wrote:
BKFraiders7 wrote:Theres always gonna be the poor. Theres always gonna be the middle class. Theres always gonna be the rich. And theres always gonna be the good for nothing stinkin' rich. Thats our world.

Should everyone pay 94 cents to an individual? No. To a Queen? Yes.

We dont know what she does with that money. Like any average person with that power, she saves some for a rainy day, spends some, and donates some.

Its the same as us paying taxes that funds Obama's wallet.

Obama is an employee of the government, just like many construction workers or police officers. When you pay your taxes, you pay them, too. They use their salary for many personal belongings.
What is The Queen's occupation? Why does she have enough money to buy useless diamond-crested 3D glasses? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/0 ... ses-canada

The difference is I dont mind paying for police officer and construction workers salaries...but I dont wanna buy Obama a dollar menu chicken sandwich. The queen is also considered a high governmental piece too so I dont see your difference :/

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:38 pm**

BKFraiders7 wrote:The queen is also considered a high governmental piece too so I dont see your difference :/

I think we were trying to figure out what made her a "high governmental piece" and seeing if others thought her salary was justified. What exactly does she do to be so rich?

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:07 pm**

crait wrote:
BKFraiders7 wrote:The queen is also considered a high governmental piece too so I dont see your difference :/

I think we were trying to figure out what made her a "high governmental piece" and seeing if others thought her salary was justified. What exactly does she do to be so rich?

The queen if you don't know, has an incredibly powerful position in canadian government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Act_1982

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:14 pm**

crait wrote:I think we were trying to figure out what made her a "high governmental piece" and seeing if others thought her salary was justified. What exactly does she do to be so rich?

Her DNA makes her a governmental "piece". If her DNA was different she could be cleaning the toilets at the palace instead of soiling them.

But that's the point. Isn't it silly to revere a person so high above others just because of their DNA?

In America when genetic traits are used to distinguish people above others it's called RACISM.

As far as I am concerned all the queen does is "look pretty". I just think it's obscene because it's 2010, her country contributes millions to her, she doesn't lead or withdraw her country in war and she has a solid gold carriage that is pulled by I don't know how many horses for special occasions. Is this necessary?

Britain is in bad economic shape. Couldn't resources be used differently for the greater good? Other countries have Monarchs (Spain, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands etc.)but they aren't revered as much as the British one. Why?

OH and that Canadian act of 1982. Seems to me that Canada got conquered by the Queen of England without a single shot being fired. America should have annexed Canada long ago, naa.

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:05 pm**

no one gives a s**t about the king here... (Saudi Arabia) (except when he forces all schools to give more holidays

)

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:26 pm**

I personally don't believe any citizen should hand over any amount of money to a person that doesn't need it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:44 pm**

AdventWolf wrote:I personally don't believe any citizen should hand over any amount of money to a person that doesn't need it.

Quote of the decade.

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:12 pm**

AdventWolf wrote:I personally don't believe any citizen should hand over any amount of money to a person that doesn't need it.

But.....shes such a nice lady, huh?

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:26 pm**

Mailas wrote:
AdventWolf wrote:I personally don't believe any citizen should hand over any amount of money to a person that doesn't need it.

But.....shes such a nice lady, huh?

Oh then that makes it ok.

Not!

Brewology

Her Royal Majesty

Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty

Re: Her Royal Majesty