You wrote your post, not me. Your post contained a false statement about money which even a very brief look into the subject shows to be false. So the statement makes you look ignorant of the subject (if you thought it was true) or deceitful (if you knew it wasn't). I've no way of knowing which because I can't read your mind, but it has to be one or the other.
I didn't actually - I said quite clearly we do not know how much the finances net, and I summated that in my opinion it wasn't a net profit. Yet you boldly stipulate I was wrong. You're wrong, and look pretty ignorant yourself.
And being ignorant on the royal family finances is not something I'm strongly embarrassed about. It seems even the pro-royalist don't really justify them through money, but more through a sense of identity and a sense of pride -which in my opinion is a fantastic show of loyalty (blind loyalty, but loyalty nonetheless which is a good trait - but being an honourable trait probably something you'd have look up?)
Had you, dear Angie, replied as such I'd have had a lot more time for your pathetic little jibe at me. But this is the internet where people think they can treat people with contempt and disdain and feel good about yourself, so please carry on, it's no skin off my nose. In fact if it makes you feel better - carry on! It would make me feel better that you're feeling better thanks to me.
Arguing that monarchy is an obsolete concept or that it's wrong in social and/or political terms is one thing. That's debateable. Arguing that the way we currently have it set up is a net financial loss and the country would be financially better off with some other form of head of state is simply wrong unless coupled with advocating that inheritance be severely capped (e.g. 100% inheritance tax over £10M or some such thing). Assuming that tourism is ignored, obviously, as that's much harder to objectively quantify.
No. I stated
my opinion and interpretation on the information set before me. I've said again, it's the concept of monarchy that I do not agree with, I mentioned the money as side issue, which owing to a lot posts not only here but also in the past is shrouded in mystery meaning that none of us can confidently say anything about the financials about the royal family.
It's not really necessary to call people ignorant and/or deceitful simply because they don't have the same knowledge as you however. You probably have some unnecessarily long and convoluted reply to justify yourself, but it's how it came across and was wholly unnecessary.
Facts are that we don't truly know the net costs of the Monarchy. I believe they offer value for money regardless of raw figures as I am inherently a Monarchist. Freefaller doesn't, luckily our constitutional monarchy allows him the freedom to hold this view based on his inherent republican viewpoint...he clarified for you what his fundamental basis was and that he was not basing this solely on a financial value. That should be enough for you to understand his position as being neither ignorant nor deceitful, simply different from yours, and incidentally from mine.
It's okay Angie has a problem with me and has for many years because I dared disagree with something he posted a few decades ago - it seems the internet holds grudges. Which is daft because I'm sure in person we'd probably get on well as we've shared similar opinions on other topics.
As such he doesn't try and understand a post, but picks a point and makes faux show of defiance for some reason.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
