Queen's speech today. Splendid stuff. Shame about the weather. When one considers that this speech is essentially irrelevant due to the forthcoming election, I'd like to see the Queen exercise her power as head of state. Why not stretch her sovereign legs and ad-lib a little?
This is an election broadcast on behalf of the Labour party thinly disguised as the Queen's Speech - there's not enough time left before an election has to be called for any of these bills to pass through Parliament. It's only an opportunity for Gordon Brown to hit the ground running with his campaigning and politicking and beating Cameron to the punch. Don't let him Ma'am. Don't let him.
I'd like to see her smuggle in a copy of the Racing Post and read the form for today's meeting at Lingfield before embarking on an epic foul mouthed tirade against those who feel the Monarchy are parasites who don't deserve to have people squeezing toothpaste out for them and a President would be far more preferable.
Queenie: ....and in the 2:00 on the All Weather track at Lingfield one fancies Alfresco.Now then you cunts, about my Royal privileges...
I like the Queen and I'm pro Monarchy. I'd rather enjoy a debate about the irrelevance of the Monarchy and how shockingly parasitical and undemocratic they are especially at this time where we have a non-elected Prime Minister who is second only to Swine Flu in unpopularity and who is shortly to be superseded by a non-elected President of the European Union. Are you listening Ben Elton? Are you? I know you read my blog. I'm glad he's moved to Australia, bloody noisy hypocrite. Progressive, yet moves to a country that still finds golliwogs amusing.
The lefties want rid of the Royals because they represent a link to the past - historical continuity - and this is the nemesis of the average commie pinko. They represent the values that have sculpted our way of life over the centuries. Values that made us the most awesomest nation ever and values they so desperately want to destroy. Bastards.
Rather than being stored away and released only for ceremonial stuff and the pageantry of the opening of Parliament and so on, I actually think the Queen should express her opinions more frequently. She should have a column in the Telegraph at least.
I'm quite looking forward to Charles taking over if the truth be told, I've changed my mind about him - he might have big ears and may or may not talk to his plants - but he won't have a problem with giving his two penneth about the state of the country and expressing a genuinely conservative opinion that has been banned by all parts of the media.
Fair enough he couldn't satisfy Diana, but such an accomplished cocksmith would be a challenge for James Bond let alone an old duffer like him, but there's no doubt in my mind he represents an essential antidote to this sneaky socialist putsch that has turned this country's moral centre into mush. Yeah I said it - I said that shit. MUSH!.
Charles: Couldn't satisfy Diana, but an important figure nonetheless
Let us be clear also that the Monarchy actually cost us next to nothing. Despite what the lefties might have us believe, they cost us something like 70p a year, arguably most tax paying Britons have spent more on Gob Stoppers per year than the maintaining of the Monarchy.
Most people who whine about them being parasites have no idea how they're funded or how much their preferred alternative - a President - would cost. So let's break it down shall we. Some home truths before lunch.
The Crown Estate has an annual income of about £200m - this is the Monarch's property portfolio - all of which goes straight to the treasury. The Civil List is then financed by the Government which is used to maintain the Sovereign - expenses, salaries of her staff, pensions, garden parties and what not.
That Civil List has not increased since 1990. It's £7.9m and has been for twenty years. If our frugal politicians had to cope with a freeze like this they'd still be earning £25,000 a year. Pish-posh - they're on about £70,000 as we speak not including what they've sneakily stolen under fraudulent pretenses.
The Civil List this year cost something like £13m - the deficit was funded out of a surplus the Queen ran up because she lived within her means and spent her time at home frugally turning lights of in rooms that weren't being used and eating super market own brands for breakie.
The entire bill for having a Royal family is £40m a year - most of which is spent on maintaining places like Windsor Castle and Buck Palace - these are all owned by the state not the Monarch and would still be maintained if we had a President - just as the French do with Versailles and they haven't had a Monarch for 200 years - because of the tourist monies they attract.
The Queen and family's income comes from the Privy Purse, which is mostly income from the Duchy of Lancaster - the Prince of Wales income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. None of their private expenses is financed by the tax payer. We don't pay for Charles' Polo weekends and the Duke of Edinburgh's collection of Roy Chubby Brown DVDs.
They may have a yacht and a golden coach, and use helicopters instead of cars on occasions, but none of their comings and goings can match the fraudulent over-indulgences of our elected politicians and none of the Royal family have opportunity of fleecing a dodgy expenses system.
A President would cost far more than a Monarch. See President Obama, the syrup wearing German fella Köhler and that media whore midget Sarkozy for examples.
Now then, it's a fair enough debate to have, alls I ask is before one embarks on an anti-Monarchy campaign, one should at least pay her Majesty the compliment of knowing what the fuck one is talking about before one begins.
Elsewise your Ben Elton style diatribe on one of the few things we have left in this country to feel proud of will sound really quite ignorant - and you won't have the excuse that you have a book to sell to justify your oafishness.
The lefties want rid of the Royals because they represent a link to the past - historical continuity - and this is the nemesis of the average commie pinko. They represent the values that have sculpted our way of life over the centuries. Values that made us the most awesomest nation ever and values they so desperately want to destroy. Bastards.
Rather than being stored away and released only for ceremonial stuff and the pageantry of the opening of Parliament and so on, I actually think the Queen should express her opinions more frequently. She should have a column in the Telegraph at least.
I'm quite looking forward to Charles taking over if the truth be told, I've changed my mind about him - he might have big ears and may or may not talk to his plants - but he won't have a problem with giving his two penneth about the state of the country and expressing a genuinely conservative opinion that has been banned by all parts of the media.
Fair enough he couldn't satisfy Diana, but such an accomplished cocksmith would be a challenge for James Bond let alone an old duffer like him, but there's no doubt in my mind he represents an essential antidote to this sneaky socialist putsch that has turned this country's moral centre into mush. Yeah I said it - I said that shit. MUSH!.
Charles: Couldn't satisfy Diana, but an important figure nonetheless
Let us be clear also that the Monarchy actually cost us next to nothing. Despite what the lefties might have us believe, they cost us something like 70p a year, arguably most tax paying Britons have spent more on Gob Stoppers per year than the maintaining of the Monarchy.Most people who whine about them being parasites have no idea how they're funded or how much their preferred alternative - a President - would cost. So let's break it down shall we. Some home truths before lunch.
The Crown Estate has an annual income of about £200m - this is the Monarch's property portfolio - all of which goes straight to the treasury. The Civil List is then financed by the Government which is used to maintain the Sovereign - expenses, salaries of her staff, pensions, garden parties and what not.
That Civil List has not increased since 1990. It's £7.9m and has been for twenty years. If our frugal politicians had to cope with a freeze like this they'd still be earning £25,000 a year. Pish-posh - they're on about £70,000 as we speak not including what they've sneakily stolen under fraudulent pretenses.
The Civil List this year cost something like £13m - the deficit was funded out of a surplus the Queen ran up because she lived within her means and spent her time at home frugally turning lights of in rooms that weren't being used and eating super market own brands for breakie.
The entire bill for having a Royal family is £40m a year - most of which is spent on maintaining places like Windsor Castle and Buck Palace - these are all owned by the state not the Monarch and would still be maintained if we had a President - just as the French do with Versailles and they haven't had a Monarch for 200 years - because of the tourist monies they attract.
The Queen and family's income comes from the Privy Purse, which is mostly income from the Duchy of Lancaster - the Prince of Wales income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. None of their private expenses is financed by the tax payer. We don't pay for Charles' Polo weekends and the Duke of Edinburgh's collection of Roy Chubby Brown DVDs.
They may have a yacht and a golden coach, and use helicopters instead of cars on occasions, but none of their comings and goings can match the fraudulent over-indulgences of our elected politicians and none of the Royal family have opportunity of fleecing a dodgy expenses system.
A President would cost far more than a Monarch. See President Obama, the syrup wearing German fella Köhler and that media whore midget Sarkozy for examples.Now then, it's a fair enough debate to have, alls I ask is before one embarks on an anti-Monarchy campaign, one should at least pay her Majesty the compliment of knowing what the fuck one is talking about before one begins.
Elsewise your Ben Elton style diatribe on one of the few things we have left in this country to feel proud of will sound really quite ignorant - and you won't have the excuse that you have a book to sell to justify your oafishness.
0 comments:
Post a Comment