THE BRITS AND THE ROYALS
A report from the “Keeper of the Privy Purse” claims that Britain’s Royal Family costs the average citizen only $1.12 a year. First, who grows up wanting to be, “Keeper of the Privy Purse”? Do you go to University to study for it? What courses prepare you to be Keeper? “Purse #101”? “Advanced Pocket Book”?
Dya think the poor guy has to walk around carrying the Privy Purse on his arm?
Back to the Royals. Britain’s Royal Family are poster kids for Dysfunctional- R-Us. They are living proof that cousins must not marry. Off- springs run the risk of looking like the banjo player from Deliverance. I’m not talking about Camilla Parker, although the poor dear does look like his twin.
In the past the royals have often been criticized for excessive spending. They are, of course, subsidized by the citizens of Britain. At last count the Queen spent less than $3.20 on wardrobe in the last thirty years. She seems to think the shmatas she wears looks good. Lasik surgery would do her the world of good. Elizabeth looks like a bag lady, who was thrown out of her dumpster by Murray the cat.
The annual report, which details public spending on the monarchy’s property and travel, said Queen Elizabeth’s household costs taxpayers 36.7 million pounds in 2004-2005, a 100.000 pound saving from the previous year. 36.7 million pounds for what? The only thing the citizen’s get out of it is a weak/fish/hand wave once in a while, pictures of the young prince in a Nazi uniform and Prince Charles’s collection of handcuffs and whips that he and Camilla like to use. Why in the hell is the average Britain paying for the royals anyway? The Queen is the richest woman in the world – not counting Elton John. Why doesn’t she pay for her and her family’s life style? What does she do with her billions? Buy string bikinis?
The greatest criticism of royal spending is usually reserved for high transportation costs. This year’s report showed that chartering a flight for heir-to-be-the throne Prince Charles’s trip to Sri Lanka, Australia and Fiji had cost taxpayers over 292,000 pounds. Who cares if “beagle-ears” Charlie decided to take a vacation? Let him pay for it himself. The report said that the largest area of public funding was the 20 million pound Property Grant which meets the costs of maintenance, utilities, telephones, porno flicks, butt cream and related services of the royal palaces. Is there any purpose in the royals owning all those palaces? How many do they actually live in? They have more palaces than Saddam did. Why can’t they downsize and move into a nice condo? Sell the damn things and give the money back to the citizens. Donald Trump would probably buy a few just to keep his hair spray in.
Let’s reject the royals claim that their life style only costs each taxpayer 61 pence, or $1.12 a year, the same as a loaf of bread. Most Britain’s have more to do with their money than buy bread for Princess Anne to stuff in her horse face.
Dya think the poor guy has to walk around carrying the Privy Purse on his arm?
Back to the Royals. Britain’s Royal Family are poster kids for Dysfunctional- R-Us. They are living proof that cousins must not marry. Off- springs run the risk of looking like the banjo player from Deliverance. I’m not talking about Camilla Parker, although the poor dear does look like his twin.
In the past the royals have often been criticized for excessive spending. They are, of course, subsidized by the citizens of Britain. At last count the Queen spent less than $3.20 on wardrobe in the last thirty years. She seems to think the shmatas she wears looks good. Lasik surgery would do her the world of good. Elizabeth looks like a bag lady, who was thrown out of her dumpster by Murray the cat.
The annual report, which details public spending on the monarchy’s property and travel, said Queen Elizabeth’s household costs taxpayers 36.7 million pounds in 2004-2005, a 100.000 pound saving from the previous year. 36.7 million pounds for what? The only thing the citizen’s get out of it is a weak/fish/hand wave once in a while, pictures of the young prince in a Nazi uniform and Prince Charles’s collection of handcuffs and whips that he and Camilla like to use. Why in the hell is the average Britain paying for the royals anyway? The Queen is the richest woman in the world – not counting Elton John. Why doesn’t she pay for her and her family’s life style? What does she do with her billions? Buy string bikinis?
The greatest criticism of royal spending is usually reserved for high transportation costs. This year’s report showed that chartering a flight for heir-to-be-the throne Prince Charles’s trip to Sri Lanka, Australia and Fiji had cost taxpayers over 292,000 pounds. Who cares if “beagle-ears” Charlie decided to take a vacation? Let him pay for it himself. The report said that the largest area of public funding was the 20 million pound Property Grant which meets the costs of maintenance, utilities, telephones, porno flicks, butt cream and related services of the royal palaces. Is there any purpose in the royals owning all those palaces? How many do they actually live in? They have more palaces than Saddam did. Why can’t they downsize and move into a nice condo? Sell the damn things and give the money back to the citizens. Donald Trump would probably buy a few just to keep his hair spray in.
Let’s reject the royals claim that their life style only costs each taxpayer 61 pence, or $1.12 a year, the same as a loaf of bread. Most Britain’s have more to do with their money than buy bread for Princess Anne to stuff in her horse face.
posted by THE RANTING OLD GEEZER at 6:27 AM
<< Home