Queen's Guard Has A Wardrobe Malfunction (4 pics)

It's ridiculous that one person has to stand in the same position for hours. Why? Only because it looks nice?

radical_ed,
Because it makes more sense that having a royal family which has no political involvment and is a huge drain on the economy. The queen spending over 100million on a tea party for her duke and lord friends is not unusual (saw a documentary on it before).

That fella is basically there for their amusement.

Aindy, That is completely untrue. Plus, the chin strap is meant to rest on the soldiers chin.

Well, of course. Her Majesty spent a hundred million on a tea party. It must be true because someone on the internet said he'd seen it in a documentary once... :09:

Complete and utter nonsense.

The Royal Family cost British taxpayers around 30m-150m per annum (that's a wide range, but the annual cost can be hard to quantify - it's difficult to say which of their costs, such as entertaining foreign dignitaries, would disappear completely if the monarchy were abolished, and which costs would continue - fully or partly).
All in all it works out at around 0.50-2.00 per person.
I don't want to sound like I'm bragging, here, but I can spare 0.50-2.00 per annum. Flash, aren't I...
And they're a very prudent investment - as people from all around the world flock over here to see them. They're widely recognised as drawing in significantly more money than they cost.

If you want to look for heads of state that cost significant amounts to the taxpayer perhaps look at the American president instead? I read recently that the Obama family cost the American taxpayers $1.4 billion last year...

A couple of articles you might find interesting, Aindy:

http://www.theatlantic.com/int
ernational/archive/2013/07/is-
the-british-royal-family-worth
-the-money/278052/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new
s/article-2210323/Obama-family
-costs-taxpayers-1-4BILLION-ye
ar.html

As for that fella basically being there for the queen's amusement - that's about as accurate as everything else in your post (I.e. complete nonsense).
He's there more for foreigners' amusement than anything else.
If it helps bring the tourists to Britain, to spend lots of money, then it's all good.



Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of the Royal Family, personally. But they serve a purpose.

Late,
Well, I was trying to prove you wrong, but I must admit defeat. It was a documentary before the google and all that, so i coudnt find it online. Then i tried to find how much the royal family spend, but they do an extremely good job of hiding where it comes from.

They recieved 38m pounds from taxpayers money this year, and 13m pounds and 18m pounds from 2 different dukes. Finding more information is hard as the figures get smaller and seem to appear from all sorts of places, some out of own pocket some unknown. From what I could find thats 69m pounds ($114m), which matches what you said.

However, I disagree with the common statement that they bring in more money than they cost in tourism, because even if the royal family was dead, tourists would still travel to england and visit buckingham palace, the tower, the crown jewels etc.

(edit: on a side note, rather surprised AC doesnt support the pound symbol)

As a foreigner, visiting UK (on average) once a year since 2003 (I have very good friends, currently living in London), I can assure you, that Royal Family is something, that gives UK extra attractiveness. Your country would be somewhat poor without them, less "British", at least in my eyes ;-)
God save the Queen :-)

Its 2014. Maintaining and financing those people just because they happen to be born in certain family, is just some fucking medieval shit. And some people idolizing this "Royal" family? I mean wow. I'm happy I'm not british.

Lack of self love. :04:

Aindy,
It's not just tourisum...they bring in massive amounts of money by meeting heads of states and world leaders helping push through trade agreements etc.

One recent example is the chinese prime minister

http://www.lillooetnews.net/en

tertainment/horoscopes/chinese

-premier-li-signs-business-dea

ls-during-visit-to-uk-meets-qu

een-at-windsor-castle-1.113290

6

They also do a huge amount of work for charities

thughugger,
The article says 'Chinese premier Li signs business deals during visit to UK, meets queen at Windsor Castle'.

Notice the punctuation.

Royal figures are not politically active, at least not in countries which hold elections (makes sense). They do name ships and entertain foreign dignitaries, open schools and show their face at charity events, but that is it. However, no income is created by any of those activities, rather the opposite.

I just think it amusing that you brits think its acceptable for a person to be born in a more priviliged class because generations ago they ruled the country. And you defend the idea aswell.

Are you going to give tony blairs kids millions a year because he ruled the country for a while?

Aindy,
Karma added.

Is impossible to say how much the Royal Family increase British tourism (bear in mind any mention of them raises awareness of the country and keeps the UK prominent in many folks' holiday and business plans) but they're widely recognised as having a very positive effect.

Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not actually a fan of the Royal Family - and I can't understand those who are obsessed with them - which seems to mainly be Americans. People lap them up, keeping scrap books etc. and don't get me started on the ridiculous reality programmes where ditzy lasses compete to marry a British prince, lol. But the royals are definitely a draw. Likewise anything associated with them (such as castles, royal guards, etc.)


Comparing the hereditary fortunes of politicians' children to those of the royals makes no sense - they're a completely different phenomenon. Blair's kids are going to make a fortune in their chosen careers largely because of their profiles and their political connections - but the same can be said of the children of former leaders of pretty much any first world leaders. Nobody thinks they deserve annuities from the taxpayer.

A better comparison would be to high profile politically neutral ambassadors, if such a thing exists.
Actually, scratch that. They're a tourist attraction. They're Britain's answer to Disney Land.

Probably a bit of both... ;)

Late,
Firstly, this is great, people usually never look back and see what people are commenting, and replying with words that make sense rather than the usual vocabulary that any parrot can memorise.

I see what you mean with regards of the duties. In Ireland we have a president who does nothing politically but does open libraries and entertain foreingers and such. However, our prime minister, other ministers, and lesser politicians all do the same thing. Add to the fact that our president earns over 250k a year, on top of a healthy pension and the best house in Ireland, I think it is a position that should be scrapped immeadiately (and 0 tourism from our president).

Similar with the royal family. Although my opinion of the queen has changed (slightly) since trying to find some figures to prove you wrong. For example, there was an annual grant which paid several million to the 'lesser' royals in the family, the ones you never hear about. The queen paid back the money they took out of her own pocket, and now the grant is no more.

Maybe times are changing, but still, its not like they accomplished anything to become famous or earned what they have through hard work, rather by generations of stabbing, poisoning, forgery, exploitation and murder (thats where they differ from people like the hilton sisters etc). I think there was a program on a few years back where they found the person who should be king (by birthright), when the line was wrongly changed, so to speak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Britain's_Real_Monarch). He wasnt living a life of luxury.

Maybe the problem lies more with society than with the royals, I see you cant just scratch them from one day to the next, and england isnt the only one with a royal family (spain, holland, sweden etc.). However, for society to advance and fully commit to the human rights such as all people are equal, the idea of a monarchy should be abolished.

Im probably giving out to the wrong person, so sorry about that, no offence meant or intended, if taken.

Looks like the lad got it right just by using facial muscles and his tongue. .

Aindy,
Heh - yes, it's rare to get a good discussion on here sometimes. Probably partly due to posts quickly disappearing from the front page and partly due to the site's average subject matter (let's be honest - semi-naked women).

Unless we get some massive social change along the lines of Marxism I'm pretty sure there'll always be families born with massive wealth and privileges and others who will eternally struggle. Somehow I find the royals much easier to tolerate than the Hilton's and Kardassians of this world - though you're right in your comparison.

And of course they all beat those detestable nonentities who were horrible talentless wastes of space before becoming contestants on reality TV shows - and progressing to "celebrity" reality TV shows.

Pet hate. I've totally gone off topic now, haven't I!

i clicked on the link hoping that the wardrobe malfunction resulted in his man bits popping out. why must you disappoint me?!?!?