Jokes0 min ago
Another couple given free home
33 Answers
After the recent row about the couple with 12 children given an 8 bedroom home, it seems another couple have been given a free home in London.
It is a Mrs Elizabeth Windsor and her husband Phillip.
It seems the whole family live on benefits and hand-outs and none of them have a job.
What is worse is that he is an immigrant, and it was an arranged marriage !.
All their children have grown up and left home so it is a surprise they need such a large house.
The couple live in the house rent free, and in fact the government pays them to live there.
Because of their age they have been given live-in staff who do everything for them, cook their food, clean up for them and so on.
So many people come to stand outside and stare into the house that armed guards have been placed around the house.
What is worse, it also turns out that the couple already rent a large house in Windsor and own other houses in Norfolk and Scotland.
Many people feel they should give up some of their homes, and perhaps the family should not rely so much on benefits.
Mrs Windsor refused to comment.
It is a Mrs Elizabeth Windsor and her husband Phillip.
It seems the whole family live on benefits and hand-outs and none of them have a job.
What is worse is that he is an immigrant, and it was an arranged marriage !.
All their children have grown up and left home so it is a surprise they need such a large house.
The couple live in the house rent free, and in fact the government pays them to live there.
Because of their age they have been given live-in staff who do everything for them, cook their food, clean up for them and so on.
So many people come to stand outside and stare into the house that armed guards have been placed around the house.
What is worse, it also turns out that the couple already rent a large house in Windsor and own other houses in Norfolk and Scotland.
Many people feel they should give up some of their homes, and perhaps the family should not rely so much on benefits.
Mrs Windsor refused to comment.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vehelpfulguy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Are you being cynical? If you think changing to a republic will make any difference think again. The present set up has been in operation for hundreds of years and any change would not make the slightest difference to the general public."
Oooh - have you done an in-depth survey then?
I would have thought the dismantelling of an insitution which has been in place for hundreds of years would be of great interest to a lot of people, either for or against, but apparently apathy has never been greater.
Oooh - have you done an in-depth survey then?
I would have thought the dismantelling of an insitution which has been in place for hundreds of years would be of great interest to a lot of people, either for or against, but apparently apathy has never been greater.
Whilst vhg's points are valid ( I dislike the Monarchy and all its hangers on), the Royal Family bring in an enormous amount of money from tourism alone. Princess Diana (in particular) generated millions of revenue for charities, dress designers and anything she touched turned to gold. However, the immediate royal family I agree with keeping for these reasons, but the civil list should be clipped right back and not include cousins, etc.
I hate pomp and ceremony myself and all the curtesying and ma'am business turns my stomach.
I hate pomp and ceremony myself and all the curtesying and ma'am business turns my stomach.
Le Chat makes some good points, but I do think the tourism argument is over-egged.
Apart from a few souvenir shops in Windsor, I can't see the economy suffering that greatly. People will continue to London in their droves.
And anyway - and this may sound like cutting off the nation's nose to spite its face - I don't think tourist revenue justifies monarchy. I'd rather we take the financial hit and promote equality and merit rather than grotesque privelege.
And I applaud what Diana did. But David Beckham does loads for charity too and is an effortless fundraiser. But I doubt people would be happy buying him a house and paying his way.
Apart from a few souvenir shops in Windsor, I can't see the economy suffering that greatly. People will continue to London in their droves.
And anyway - and this may sound like cutting off the nation's nose to spite its face - I don't think tourist revenue justifies monarchy. I'd rather we take the financial hit and promote equality and merit rather than grotesque privelege.
And I applaud what Diana did. But David Beckham does loads for charity too and is an effortless fundraiser. But I doubt people would be happy buying him a house and paying his way.
I'm not from the UK, nor do I live there, and the British Royalty has about the same influence on my life as the Dutch Royal family, the planet Jupiter, and Oatibix.
But let's look at this objectively. Leaving aside the arguments for and against monarchy - If pushed I'd be against the idea - and let's look at finances alone.
The civil list is paid to run the royal court in return for the state getting the revenues from the crown estates. At �36.7million in 2006, the civil list is dwarfed by the �125million the crown estates paid to the exchequer (and that figure is 7 years old from 2000 - increases year on year). It seems that you can add a few million in tourism too. If Charles (when his day comes) refuses to sign this over, and tells the state to keep the civil list, the royals will be quids in.
As far as I can see, they're subsidising the lot of you......!
But let's look at this objectively. Leaving aside the arguments for and against monarchy - If pushed I'd be against the idea - and let's look at finances alone.
The civil list is paid to run the royal court in return for the state getting the revenues from the crown estates. At �36.7million in 2006, the civil list is dwarfed by the �125million the crown estates paid to the exchequer (and that figure is 7 years old from 2000 - increases year on year). It seems that you can add a few million in tourism too. If Charles (when his day comes) refuses to sign this over, and tells the state to keep the civil list, the royals will be quids in.
As far as I can see, they're subsidising the lot of you......!
Republicans and anti royalists are all for getting rid of the Monarchy but never explain how things would be different if we had a President or Dictator at the helm.
On paper the Royals may seem to be an outdated institution but it is a system that has worked in this country for hundreds of years, and creates a calming force over the politicians.
Does not Bush, Putin, or Sarkozy live in favourable accommodation with all the trappings that go with it? Our Royal Family are the envy of the world.
Not one Anti Royalist's life styles would change if they became republicans.
Apart from a few souvenir shops in Windsor, I can't see the economy suffering that greatly. People will continue to London in their droves... says NJOK, A few souvenir shops that are 21 miles from London is that all? try looking at the whole picture, before making silly knee-jerk responses.
I don't think tourist revenue justifies monarchy. I'd rather we take the financial hit and promote equality and merit rather than grotesque privelege... Another gem by NJOK, Utopia or Cloud-Cuckoo Land springs to mind.
' God save the Queen ' and ' Rule Britannia '
On paper the Royals may seem to be an outdated institution but it is a system that has worked in this country for hundreds of years, and creates a calming force over the politicians.
Does not Bush, Putin, or Sarkozy live in favourable accommodation with all the trappings that go with it? Our Royal Family are the envy of the world.
Not one Anti Royalist's life styles would change if they became republicans.
Apart from a few souvenir shops in Windsor, I can't see the economy suffering that greatly. People will continue to London in their droves... says NJOK, A few souvenir shops that are 21 miles from London is that all? try looking at the whole picture, before making silly knee-jerk responses.
I don't think tourist revenue justifies monarchy. I'd rather we take the financial hit and promote equality and merit rather than grotesque privelege... Another gem by NJOK, Utopia or Cloud-Cuckoo Land springs to mind.
' God save the Queen ' and ' Rule Britannia '
The Royal Family is a major industry and employer and a hige asset to this country. They are patrons of many many charities, i have seen Princess michael of kent on pet rescue at battersea this morning and she devotes so much time to animal charities, he hubby is tha patron of battersea DH and has made a huge difference. I think they all know their duty and they are no longer embarrassed to be human either.
I'm not a staunch royalist as such, but Whickerman has provided the figures proving that they are a net asset to this country. Yes, I'm paying attention Whickerman, even if others are choosing to ignore your arguement.
I'm sorry VHG but your satirical, cynical comparison to the scrounging family does not stand up. The Queen and Prince Phillip are 80 plus and still working. I know some on here won't consider what they do as work. I don't think I would like to have to get out of bed at their age and attend some mind numbing boring event that I'm not really interested in and to make polite conversation with a load of people I don't know. May not be the hardest work in the world but a darn sight more than that couple of breeders do who it seems have spent too much time in bed.
I'm sorry VHG but your satirical, cynical comparison to the scrounging family does not stand up. The Queen and Prince Phillip are 80 plus and still working. I know some on here won't consider what they do as work. I don't think I would like to have to get out of bed at their age and attend some mind numbing boring event that I'm not really interested in and to make polite conversation with a load of people I don't know. May not be the hardest work in the world but a darn sight more than that couple of breeders do who it seems have spent too much time in bed.
I don't really give a stuff whether they are a net asset or not, they have no place in a modern, progressive, democratic counrty in the 21st Century.
1. There is no alternative whinge some. - There are plenty of modern countries that do not have a monachy.
2. What will the tourists gawp at, whinge others. - Castles, countryside, architecture, punks, us...etc.
3. We have had them for thousands of years. - We also had Cholera and typhoid but we got rid of them. It is called progress.
4. Who will be the patron of our pet charities - Jeremy Fcuking Beadle, Jimmy Tarbuck, anyone.
5. They employ a lot of people. - So did the shipyards and coalmines. I'm sure the lackys can re-skill.
And I'm sure Barry Humphies would pose for the postage stamps.
1. There is no alternative whinge some. - There are plenty of modern countries that do not have a monachy.
2. What will the tourists gawp at, whinge others. - Castles, countryside, architecture, punks, us...etc.
3. We have had them for thousands of years. - We also had Cholera and typhoid but we got rid of them. It is called progress.
4. Who will be the patron of our pet charities - Jeremy Fcuking Beadle, Jimmy Tarbuck, anyone.
5. They employ a lot of people. - So did the shipyards and coalmines. I'm sure the lackys can re-skill.
And I'm sure Barry Humphies would pose for the postage stamps.
anotheoldgit, I don't really care if a president drinks champagne all day and wipes his ar$e with 50 pound notes. At least he or she has been elected by the people.
Yeah, it is a bit utopian isn't it? But then I happen to think that utopia is something to at least aim for.
Hang on, AOG, isn't there a racial angle to this??
Yeah, it is a bit utopian isn't it? But then I happen to think that utopia is something to at least aim for.
Hang on, AOG, isn't there a racial angle to this??
