But when a footballer's wife spends £5,000 on a Prada handbag noone bats an eyelid. Please don't tell me she "earned" that money!!! (unless shagging a footballer is "earning" it)
Doesn't it seem sick that kids are going hungry, pensioners are freezing to death in winter and families are homeless in this country, whilst people like that can p1ss huge sums of money up the wall on pointless trash, and get featured in the papers because of it like they are some sort of hero?
Wayne Rooney's girlfriend being a case in point.
And yet noone gets pissed off about them. I find people like that way more annoying and offensive than the Royals. At least they are part of our history and culture.
2006-10-14 11:10:18 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Please don't tell me kicking a ball around a muddy field entitles you to earn such ludicrous sums of money.
2006-10-14 11:22:04 · update #1
The Royals are born into a role with a thousand year+ tradition. The monarch is head of state, and, is quite deliberately separate from the government. It is not widely known that the Armed Forces and the Police, technically, report to the Crown. This is to protect our democracy from any rogue government that might wish to take over the country by stealth or by military coup. The Crown has reserve powers to have such a government dissolved. Hitler came to power in a democracy. Also, the Crown brings in considerable sums of money from foreign tourists, and, in any event, do not own the Crown Estates outright, but are merely tenants for life. The cost of the Monarchy is absolute peanuts compared to the sums of money wasted every year by the Public Sector. Blair uses the Queen's transport more than she does.
It is this left wing government, Guardian readers, left wing teachers/lecturers, and lefty TV media that constantly spearhead attacks against the Royals. Their ideal, is a totalitarian state, devoid of any religion, controlled by themselves (left wingers) and certainly no competing force like the Monarchy. They daren't attack the sorts of groups/people you have described in your question because that would upset the people and would be unpopular. They are the idols of ordinary people and they want their votes.
Having read some of your other respondents, I simply cannot abide the ignorance some of then spew out. The Queen does a tireless round of duty every day. The monarchy isn't a 9-5 job, in shouldn't be seen in this way at all. Most of your respondents have been brainwashed by the groups I have listed above. GOD THEY ARE STUPID AND IGNORANT.
2006-10-15 06:27:08 · answer #1 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference is that the footballer's wife may not have earned her money, but she's married to a man who DID earn it. The Queen and the entire royal family did nothing to earn their wealth except squeeze out of a royal vagina.
EDIT: Yes, it does. Because the money is being made through the spectators going to see it. If the players didn't make the money, then the owners would just keep it all. Do THEY deserve it all when the players are the ones making the money? It's not a question of "does their actions on the field equal their paychecks." The question is: "does the revenue accumulated at the stadium because of what each player does on the field earn them their paycheck?"
2006-10-14 11:20:08 · answer #2 · answered by bennyjoe81 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Kings and Queens in history ruled by the sword and took/stole the money.
After that they created the judiciary to protect them by laws and stop anyone else stealing the money the way they did.
Note: the courts, the police, the army all swear allegiance to the King/Queen.
2006-10-14 23:42:08 · answer #3 · answered by ian d 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Queen of England has been beyond reproach,she is not responsible for her family's actions............And brings tourism to Greart Britain,Would everyone prefer "President Blair" ? ?
The same money would be spent on a President as a Queen.
2006-10-14 13:25:08 · answer #4 · answered by Queeny 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Shagging butt ugly Wayne Rooney has got to worth a fair bit....
2006-10-14 11:13:03 · answer #5 · answered by Stevie t 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
see some of my answers and questions for suggestions on this - also a practical free plan to limit fortunes to the just maximum earnable, and end poverty
the complacency with which ppl tolerate superoverpay is the most extraordinary thing to me too - it seems as tho ppl wd rather hav superwealth [for a tiny few] even at the cost of superpoverty, underpay for most, superoverpower [tyranny], and violence [war & crime] [conflict between overpaid & underpaid] than hav fairpay for all & peace, plenty and order
what is simpler to see than that the range of amount of work ppl do is far smaller than the range of pay [wealth, increase of fortune, fortune]?
why do ppl allow the market to decide pay when the market is obviously so unfair, & so dangerously & expensively so?
does it occur to no one that superoverpay has to be paid for by underpay?
99% of ppl wd be better off with a limitation of fortunes to the maximum earnable by own work - why do they not campaign to have such limitation?
is it that they vicariously enjoy others' wealth more than they care about getting better pay?
has it occurred to no one that no one can work more than twice as hard as the average per week, so no one's income shd be more than twice average?
look at the pattern in the golden calf story: ppl making themselves poorer in reality and yet thinking they are better off because they have in front of them an IMAGE of wealth - wd ppl feel poorer if they had better pay & didnt have [others']superoverpay to dazzle their eyes? do ppl think: look at our richest! we are great! altho they have to fund this overpay by underpay for most, and the expense [in money, work, happiness, time, life, peace] of the violence generated by the injustice?
ppl look up to the superrich, altho the superrich have to be overpaid [ ie, legally thieving - both money & peace] and look down on the poor who have to be [broadly speaking] the robbed, the overworked, the slaves & wageslaves - ppl seem to have the most confused, reversed ideas of justice
2006-10-14 15:35:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
How about a laid back drama queen that goes with the flow.
2016-05-22 02:07:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is OK for our glorious queen to rule over us, look down upon us and have stacks of land, property, money, gold and jewels, because god personally told her family they have the right to do that.
If god says it is right, it must be right !
2006-10-14 12:56:11 · answer #8 · answered by Robert Abuse 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Money leads to greed no matter who you are. Greed is the root of sin.
2006-10-14 11:13:32 · answer #9 · answered by tcmoosey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well... most consider two people in a marriage to be almost as one financially... so in that respect... her "family unit", if you will, did earn it...
now should they be paying them that much... that's a different thing altogether...
2006-10-14 11:13:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋