Why are bongs so obsessed and in love with the royal family...

Loving and respecting your royalty is a mark of patriotism and civilization
Only cuck nation have no monarchy

>my master doesn't exploit me, he brings me two meals a day and he doesn't tighten the shackles that much

Noones being exploited though, the royals are public servants

>when you were a third of the world
>but then you became the third world
this is so, so sad.

Couldn’t give less of a fuck about royals but this. They bring in so much money

>the royals are public servants

Attached: 29CCE704-47A3-4AC2-AA57-CF6C8E04A971.png (600x400, 261.07K)

Why yes we are

They are, anime poster. What do you think they do all day, drive around shooting peasants?

i which they do that

absolutely delusional

once the queen is gone, their popularity will drop like a rock.

hopefully we'll get a referendum on whether to get rid of them once charles gets in. i think even if we held one now it would be pretty close to a 50/50 split.

Honestly what do you think they do? The queen is patron of hundreds of charities and she spent her whole life meeting diplomats and stuff, only slowing down now because she's ancient. Do you think they sit in a castle siphoning off peoples money?

why is Charles so hate?

Not even close

Attached: Screenshot_20200324-131821_Chrome.jpg (1080x1062, 187.82K)

dianna was popular and he cheated on her then married his mistress when she died

he's also meddlesome and often pokes his nose into political issues to lobby for this cause or that

I'm pretty sure the state could patronise charities and meet diplomats without the need to give their civil servants literal castles to live in

>They don't take money by the way
but they do

if you take £10 off me, then some pajeet comes and pays me £15 if i show him where your castle is so he can take some photos of it, it doesn't change the fact that you took £10 off of me

Cant you just pass the throne to William?
You already allowed older female to inherited the throne despite the existence of male heir anyway

I seriously wonder how many babies the queen has to slay daily in order to still be alive at 150 or however old she is

They already own the castles, they've been there hundreds of years, just like most of their personal wealth. Besides, the legal definitions of 'owning' things are different to your country. If you went to court in England, it would be 'the crown v italian user', 'crown' land is land owned by the country and any profit the royals make from anything they own goes into government coffers

No they make actual profit, all profit from land they own goes to the government, which pays for their allowance hundreds of times over

hope you guys realise the monarchy's financial gradient is a function of a number of corellated variables and as such is highly disputed
Hope you also realise worshipping a monarch due to his financial benefit is a highly cuckeous behaviour.

Noone wants to keep them around because it lowers taxes, people like having them because of tradition. It's always foreigners that bring up the finncial aspect, see OP. Even if the money is 'disputed' it definitely pays for itself so it's a stupid argument

>The royal family turns a profit because the state gives them free castles for being the royal family and those castles are tourist attractions.

>everyone likes them, also tradition
so essentially, being unapologetically cucks

>The royal family turns a profit because they 'own' stuff that was paid for by peasants 700 years ago that now has all profit go to the government because of deal made centuries ago

Fixed. I'm not talking about tourism money that's another thing entirely

Do you even have traditions? How old is your country, 1950s?

no, my entire nation and culture sprang into existence 30 years ago, into what was previously completely uninhabited and cultureless land, and as such, we simply don't have any traditions

forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/07/01/the-royal-family-is-getting-increasingly-expensive-for-uk-taxpayers-infographic/#1cb57df714a4
It's still a lot of money. Our President of the Republic has basically the same role and is orders of magnitude cheaper (€624k vs £67M)

Lol, the "Wessex" royal are Germans. They anglicised their names to appeal to the british people during the first world war.

Noone knows who the president if the republic is in Italy though, no offence. The royal family travelling the world and doing their duty to represent the UK and visit all the countries that have them as a monarch is going to be expensive, and although you don't want that bill to be massive, I think most people here would view that figure as chump change compared with what they provide. Besides again, they directly make WAY more money than that through their land, and also it's a tradition you can't put a price on. Most people like having them outside of the pragmatic reasons, it's a nice bit of living history that brings the country together

Wow never heard this before, mad!!! Wonder if this came about because of the constant inter marriage between royals families in europe that has gone on for centuries hmm

Why do retards always use this same argument? It doesn't even make sense. France makes billions in tourism and plenty of people tour the multiple palaces there, and they dont have a leeching royal family.

>Noone knows who the president if the republic is in Italy though, no offence
No offence taken, but after all his job his literally the same. I doubt it is much different for Trump or whoever to meet the Queen or our President
>Besides again, they directly make WAY more money than that through their land
We still make money out of "royal" buildings and land here, even if our actual royal family fucked off after WWII
>Most people like having them outside of the pragmatic reasons, it's a nice bit of living history that brings the country together
I guess that makes sense but it's way too expensive. In Sweden for example the royal family only gets money from the government if being a royal is their job. Other members of the royal family have normal jobs and don't live in a palace
bbc.com/news/world-europe-49958085

I've said multiple times in this thread that I'm not talking about tourist money. All profit made on crown land (which is a huge area) goes to the government. If you don't like the idea of monarchy then fine but saying we should get rid of it because of money is a stupid arguement because it doesn't make sense, we'd be worse off without them no matter what way you look at it

How does it work with royal land in italy? Who owns it now? If its owned by the government then fair enough but if its privately owned then it's not the same. Plus I'm not just talking about the land the palaces sit on they own much more than that

Our royals have the same conditions as sweden by the way, plenty of 'minor' lords who don't get a penny from the government. They just inherit the palaces and have them open to the public

I hate them and would prefer Britain to become a republic

It's owned directly by the state, you can visit it as a tourist and stuff

Attached: 1582642610794.png (1020x600, 1.29M)

fpbp

Seething.

I love her so much, lads

Attached: 1568460361494.jpg (2410x3307, 1.12M)

I get it, they are a symbol of their country and remind them of the Empire and stuff. But as a Brit, I'd be annoyed by the fact that it's a German family.

It depends: some of it is owned directly by the President of the Republic, e.g. the Quirinale Palace in Rome, San Rossore park near Pisa, etc. for his representative duties.

Some other parts of it are open to the public, e.g. Royal Villa in Monza, Caserta, etc.
Some of these palaces host collections of art, e.g. Palazzo Reale in Milan which hosts the collection of modern art.

The modern brits strong suit is delusion

>remind them of the Empire
There are far more important monarchs from before the empire than there are from during it. You are just trying to paint the British as people awash in nostalgia because that's what every butthurt Anglophobe does.

>as a Brit, I'd be annoyed by the fact that it's a German family.
If you have zero idea how European monarchies actually work, and understand absolutely nothing about European history, then yes I suppose you would.

Okay, please enlighten me on both positions.

>He thinks he's Anglo
Cringe and seething

>Why do they love the people who are living off their tax money
Most of the money spent on the Royal Family is spent on historic properties that would have to be maintained anyway. It isn't like they just sit around collecting money, they're quite busy with lots of diplomatic, military, ceremonial, and constitutional roles. Their livestyles aren't even particularly lavish compared to bourgeois millionaire/billionaire types who make far more money while doing practically nothing and who actually do increase the tax burdon on middle and lower-class people.

Then there is of course how they rightfully inhereted their positions, and how God chose Elizabeth II to be queen, but anyway.

Our media is obsessed with them too.

People legitimately could not care less, if anything it's a reminder of a more romantic time in european history

>I get it, they are a symbol of their country
they're a symbol of everything wrong with it, a rich pampered class of nonces who are only in their position through the privilege of birth

I'm waiting...

>the UK is still a monarchy
LOL

What both positions? He just did

look up queen victoria mother of europe

He said I'm wrong, that's not exactly high-class discourse level. I expect to hear why I'm wrong. You can certainly argue about why the British people cherish their royal family, but I don't think their heritage is up to debate, we're talking about the Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha family here that succeeded the House of Hannover/Welfen family. You've been ruled by German dynasties for >300 years now. It's fine, they speak English and are born in England, but the families are still German. They can rename themselves as often as they like.

Think he was saying you were wrong in assuming that people would be 'annoyed' that that line came from germany, which would be correct, noone cares or sees it as a bad thing

Monarchy pre-dates your 19th century ideas about nations