. It’s my view that the BBC despises the Royal Family and never misses the chance to put the boot in. Take this headline “Royals ‘cost the taxpayer £40m’ . The report faithfully reports the pro-Republican mantra that the Her Majesty should be paid a salary and the Monarchy treated as if it were just another branch of government. Check out the headings given to each section within this item – more subtle propagandising against our Royal Family. Whilst I accept the imperfections of Monarchy, I sure as hell think it provides better value for the people of this country than the bloated BBC monolith which costs us £££billions.
OFF WITH HER HEAD
Bookmark the permalink.
how hard would it have been to find someone to say what great value they are, rather than quoting republican groups? ironically one of the few remaining things that the Beeb does brilliantly is royal occasions – I can’t imagine watching that sort of stuff in Sky PPV- it would be a real shame if this sort of crap began eating into that.
While checking my e-mails, I noticed Yahoo had covered the story, saying the Royal Family cost each tax payer 66p per annum.
I guess it’s how you present the figures. Not exactly a shock to see the BBC choose the 40 million rather than the 66p.
They actually cost less per head than BBC local radio and I do not see the British Tourism board promoting a trip to see the headquarters of BBC Radio Skelmersdale in the near future so what possible reason, except for the blindingly obvious one, is there for the tone and style of this piece?
That`s certianly a lot less than what we pay for the EU.
Perhaps the Royal Family should offer a soft loan to the BBC, then get better coverage.
We could have 80 royal families for the cost of one BBC.
Might be too much of a good thing, perhaps.
Given the choice of paying for the Queen or the BBC, I’d take the queen any day.
Stuff the BBC. It’s full of rent boys, drug addicts and commie’s.
The BBC, The Royle Family and half the story.
Royals ‘cost the taxpayer £40m’
The Queen and the Royal Family have cost the taxpayer £40m during the last financial year – up £2m on the previous 12 months, official accounts show. The total is equivalent to 66p per person in the UK – an increase of 4p.
Yup those thieving scumbag layabouts the house of Windsor scrounge £40 million a year off of the poor taxpayer in which to live a life of luxury. And here is what the BBc doesn’t tell you;
“Notes to Editors: 1. Head of State Expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen to the Government of the revenue from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues. The Treasury’s gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate were £200 million in 2006-07.”
In otherwords the Queen gives up all the revenue from her estates to the taxman £200 million and gets back £40 million. Now I’ve known about that set-up for a while and the above snippet is on the front page of the ROYAL PUBLIC FINANCES ANNUAL REPORT 2007-2008. (As well as the 66P bit)
Now the BBc doesn’t report the above, but has no problem painting this picture of council estate scum for old liz. Yet anybody here know about any member of parliament who is as open with their finances? Anybody know of any person in the UK who pays £160 million in tax? I won’t even start on the EU.
Shouldn’t the headline actually be the Queen pays £160 Million to the taxman. (And that doesn’t include the money made by tourists)
The BBC, The Royle Family and half the story.
I’m surprised that no one has noted that the Royal Family brings in umpteen millions in tourism.
I’ve been to London, Holyrood, Scone, etc etc. I’ve seen the changing of the guard, I’ve been to Buckingham and numerous other palaces.
London wouldn’t be London without the Queen. I know that hurts liberal sensabilities, but as the SEX PISTOLS said.
“God save the Queen, cause tourists are money”.
They were correct.
It’s my view that the BBC despises the Royal Family and never misses the chance to put the boot in.
I respect the observation however.
It’s my view that the BBC does not in any way despise the Royal Family, and never really puts the boot in. At best all the BBC does is give the royal family a tiny smack with a golden slipper, every few years.
It is more then the BBCs life is worth to REALLY effectively attack the establishment of this country. The only reason why the BBC sometimes has a go at Lizzy and Co for a while, is to throw the lefties off the BBCs very strong establishment smell.
Please at least try to take my advice, by remembering the following when making, what seem to be logical conclusions as to the motivations and agendas driving the BBC.
Trust the BBC at your peril, and that means all of it, without exception or qualification. Except maybe sometimes the sporting results.
The BBC has been doing this for a very long time indeed. I venture well before you were all born.
The BBC is not what it spends nearly all of its real effort almost forcing you to believe it is. In many ways the BBC is the exact opposite, when not being considerably more dishonest and therefore potentially or actually lethal.
The BBC have done a deal with those fish eyed reptiles in Brussels to give uncritical support to the ‘project’ and they will become the Nu ‘ministry of truth’ in the Nu EUSSR! Now in the Nu EUSSR they will have no room for a monarch as they want an EL PRESEDENTE, so the BBC are going to sabotage the Royal family every chance they get! Make no mistake about this, the BBC are all in for the Nu project and they stand to gain complete hegemony in the EUSSR TV media. In pursuit of this goal the Nu comrades will sell us down the river without a second thought and you can almost smell their exitement at the thought of the rebirth of their much loved and cherished USSR, there were many BBC tears shed when the USSR was destroyed by the Thatcher/Reagan alliance and the BBC comrades never forgave either of them!
Cassandra | 27.06.08 – 7:10 pm |
That’s been the ideology since the 60’s but HM is still there.
Gawd bless ‘er.
Better a constitutional monarchy than a repubic any day.
Did I not see posts on your own site Mr Vance calling the Queen a traitor?
Can you explain your double standard?
This is connected to the UN Human Rights Commission IIRC saying Britain should be a republic.BBC “Yes Master”.
I don’t think the £40m tells the full story. I’m not an expert on Royal finances but I understand that the £40 includes the cost of meeting foreign dignitaries at the request of the Government. In other words, if we abolished the Monarchy, these duties would have to be performed by the Government instead.
The way I’m looking at it, this means that the marginal cost of the Monarchy is less than £40m.
If the costs incurred by the civil service in running our major embassies abroad are anything to go by, abolishing the Monarchy would turn out to be a very expensive mistake.
well she did sign away the country by assenting to the Lisbon Treaty, rather than resigning, did she not?
sorry. no sympathy here after that act of treachery happened.
roll on the Republic of England. here’s hoping it happens sooner rather than later.
“Better a constitutional monarchy than a repubic any day.
The Cattle Prod of Destiny | 27.06.08 – 7:18 pm ”
well if you like being shat on by a monarch who clearly doesnt give a damn about her country, and has reigned over the turning of Britain from a global Empire into a mere province of Brussels, then more bully to you – but kindly do it from somewhere far away like Canada.
in other words – grow a brain, and start taking your country back. HRH sure as hell wont help you.
Further to this post, I just caught the tail end of a typically anti-monarchist interview by Robin Lustig on The World Tonight; predictably, the interviewee was not the most articulate or foreceful – no doubt carefully chosen for this very reason.
Sorry, that should have been The World Tonight on R4.
When are they going to do a spot on how much the EU costs us?????
Tony, your freedoms and liberties are priceless. That is what the EU is costing you.
The Irish understand.
The U.K. isn’t run by patriots. Most are liberal sociailists who have cushy jobs and pensions.
They’ve sold you out.
i dont mind giving the head of state 40m quid a year, its peanuts compared to the £3.2 billion Al Beeb gets every year
Whilst the majority on this blog follow the sheep like mantra ‘HRH = value for money’ may I just point out if we truly lived in a democracy we would have the option to pay for the royals or not.
I would rather the money went to some worthwhile cause than given to a bunch of unemployable twats. The civil list is the royal equivelent of the UB40.
Democracy my arse!
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been a republican since my teens and would love a presidential system modelled on the one the US has.
And just how much do you think the US President costs the nation?
Before you burst out with ‘HRH, gawd’ bless er’ at least the president, rightly or wrongly, is elected.
I truly resent paying for the ‘no-ability’.
antony ewing “Whilst the majority on this blog follow the sheep like mantra ‘HRH = value for money’ may I just point out if we truly lived in a democracy we would have the option to pay for the royals or not.”
Believe it or not, people may have genuine reasons for disagreeing with you. And you don’t have to resort to cheap slurs to prove how undeferential you are – we get the gist.
As for democracy, try voting out the decision makers you don’t approve of in the European Commission.
And just how much do you think the US President costs the nation?
Ah, so your own preference rests on cost, rather than democracy, hmm?
I apologise if my quips have been a bit coarse. But the thing that concerns me is not even being given the choice to vote on it. If 99.9 % voted in favour, I would happily accept the majority decision. However, if it were the other way, would the pro lobby be as flexible?
I agree with your comments about the EU but, and this is the key point, these people have got their positions through Government appointments and not by luck of birth.
antony ewing “I agree with your comments about the EU but, and this is the key point, these people have got their positions through Government appointments and not by luck of birth.”
In view of the limited control we seem to have over our MPs, I don’t derive a lot of comfort from the idea of power resting in the hands of appointees. Too far removed. The fact that the Commission President is unelected makes the situation even worse.
At the end of the day, the Monarchy has survived because it has been able to adapt – slowly maybe, but it has adapted. I know that is not democratic in the true sense of the word but, in my view, it makes it more responsive than the bossy EU Commission.
gaping maw | 27.06.08 – 10:40 pm |
Hmmm it seems my typo was rather apt.
The way we are ruked should not be decided by cost alone.
The alternative to an heridatory monarch need not be an unelected European President, it could be an elected British President who would have enough power to enforce a referendum that had been promised or could veto legislation he/she thought damaging to our nation.
The Queen cannot be blamed for the decline of this country over the last ten years but neither hasd she done much to stop it.
If a man in jail dies before he has served his full time would it be fair to compel his eldest son to serve the time left?
How many monarchist would be willing to lose their job in favour of somebody who’s only qualification was being the son of the person that did the job in the past?
But when our monarch dies the eldest son gets the job whatever his qualities or lack of qualities.
“The alternative to an heridatory monarch need not be an unelected European President, it could be an elected British President who would have enough power to enforce a referendum that had been promised or could veto legislation he/she thought damaging to our nation.”
After the ratification of the Lisbon,Constitution? Treaty,not a chance! There is no one who can give such a president powers.
We hold several truths as self-evident:
1. That we look down on undemocratic regimes. Especially those with Communist or Islamic Governments.
2. We deplore the fact that the BBC does not do more to condemn them.
3. We think the BBC could do more to point out that free speech is rare in such places.
4. We also think that the BBC could do more to point out that whatever, their failings, the USA and Israel are democracies where people are free to criticise their leaders without fear.
5. This is especially true of our own country and we abhor those who wish to stifle public debate because it upsets one group of another; people who get wound up too damn easily for our liking.
6. For all these reasons, we welcome the reporting of the views of a rational individual who feels that Britain should be a republic and that money spent on the Royal Family is a waste.
7. Oh, hang on, we don’t. We think that opposing the monarchy in public is putting the boot in., and that anyone who reports these views (at the bottom of a long article) must despise the monarchy.
8. The BBC is to blame. As always.
“We think that opposing the monarchy in public is putting the boot in..”
Unfortunately, rational debate is not helped by the tendency of republicans to insert sneers and insults into their arguments.
Just a general observation – not a dig at this blog in particular.
As a United Statesian, I see no point in a monarchy, constitutional figurehead or not. However, that’s really beside the point.
The BBC isn’t supposed to take sides. If they’re going to report on some Republican group issuing a report, making a statement, etc., that’s one thing. To take it upon themselves to do vary things (both overt and covert) to undermine the Royals’ image is outside or their jurisdiction, so to speak. Of course, the Royals have done enough to screw up their own image that they don’t need any help from the BBC. But the BBC shouldn’t take sides even then.
If reporting what the monarchy costs us every year is impartial, should`nt they also do that about the EU ?
Again, you put forward some good points.
However, as a voter, I feel that the electorate, however misguided (ie Labour 1996) should hold the reigns of power and not the other way about.
To be fair ER II is, globally, well respected, but could anyone see Charles as a good ambassador?
Blimey, why don’t we make Jonathon Ross our king? He comes just a little cheaper and is much more representative of the average Britisher than Prince Charles is. As a morally bankrupt, puerile and shallow nation,we deserve a figurehead of like qualities. And he has the full backing of the BBC. Perfect solution!
The monarchy used to be a harmless farce, but these days Britain is not a sovereign country, so it has no conceivable use for a phoney so-called sovereign. Paying some old woman (or her idiot son) a fortune to go around falsely claiming to be a monarch is not harmless. It is a pernicious and insulting lie, and a disgrace to our country. All these people do is give antidemocratic scum like Brown and his EU masters a veneer of constitutionality. Britain would be a cleaner and more honest place without these so-called Royals (half of whom are rumoured to be illegitimate) pretending to confer legitimacy on a terminally rotten and treacherous establishment.
SmogMonster: As I said above – “Unfortunately, rational debate is not helped by the tendency of republicans to insert sneers and insults into their arguments.”
School holidays again?
Steve: Your own comments make no points at all. You are merely moaning about the tone of other commenters, which apparently offends your delicate sensibilities.
If you were interested in debate you might put a case for the thesis that Prince Charles is not an idiot, or attempt to explain rationally how one can sign away a country’s sovereignty and still claim to be its ‘sovereign’.
“School holidays again?”
– was that a sneer, or just what passes for rational argument in royalist circles?
SmogMonster: I am interested in debate, but not in this playpen.
Past your bedtime.
Steve: If your Majesty feels he is too grown-up and aristocratic to lower himself to debate in our ‘playpen’, then what is such an august personage doing in a playpen demanding rational debate? I’m surprised you can spare the time from your official engagements.
Looks like Nanny tucked him in for the night. I’m orf to play the grahhnd piahhno.
Smogmonster. Given that the army currently reports to her maj, she and her son and grandson may be our only hope of escape from the clutches of the EU and its acolytes in the UK establishment. Personally, I don’t think we make as much use of the Royals as we should. They are extremely wealthy, which makes them difficult to bribe. We should put them in charge of watching over the organs of the state to root out corruption and ensure that the highest standards of integrity are maintained within them. And that includes within the state broadcaster.
“It’s my view that the BBC despises the Royal Family”
It’s my view that the BBC absolutely adores the Royal family. Why else do they waste airtime on rubbish like “trooping the colour” and other such pointless ceremonies? If they hated the royals, they’d ignore them like the rest of us.
If we abolished the Monarchy, we’d get the Crown Estates and their income for nothing. Sounds like a no-brainer.
“If we abolished the Monarchy, we’d get the Crown Estates and their income for nothing. Sounds like a no-brainer.
Teleplasm | 01.07.08 – 8:29 pm”
If we privatised the BBC, we’d get their assets, capital from the sale of shares, tax from their future profits, and an end to the current licence fee poll tax. Sounds like a no-brainer.
Hi, sorry to be so late replying, haven’t looked in for a few days.
I think what you are saying is that the Royal Family should be there to safeguard the constitution? I quite like that idea (and I certainly think an overweening tax-funded 4th estate in the shape of the BBC is a serious constitutional abuse that needs to brought under control by somebody), but we have a serious problem in that we cannot point to a written constitution and say “this is being violated”. The people may feel the establishment is behaving in a highly treacherous and dictatorial fashion, but without a written constitution it’s only our subjective opinion, and the politicians seem able to do as they please with or without our consent.
Don’t get me wrong – I may have been harsh in my earlier comments, but I have in fact been content to live in a a constitutional monarchy most of my life. I just think it’s fairly obvious we no longer have one, so it would be better not to delude ourselves.
I wish the Queen would make clear her attitude towards the alienation of our independence and of the supreme legislative power within our borders. That’s a radical constitutional change, and frankly she doesn’t seem to be doing much ‘safeguarding’ when it comes to the crunch. Traditionally the Queen doesn’t speak about normal politics, but this touches directly on her constitutional role (if she still has any), and the country needs to know whether she has a view on it. Maybe she just doesn’t care, or perhaps she yearns to become a minion of the great Euro-dictatorship. You mentioned the Queen’s (symbolic) role with respect to the Armed Forces, but again it’s only a matter of time before the EU wants control of defence policy. They have already started on that tack, so if her Maj is ever going to say anything about this relentless piecemeal takeover, it had better be soon or the military will be reporting to the EU president instead.
Re the BBC’s attitude towards the Royals, I reckon they have always been quite ambivalent. On the one hand they like to identify themselves with the soul of the nation, so they will happily attach themselves to the Royal coat-tails for solemn ceremonial occasions. On the other hand they tend to think they are the ultimate arbiters of all things, so the Royals are as subordinate to the BBC’s collective wisdom as anyone else, and are in that sense looked down upon.