Lazy British Royals Demand 66% Increase In Tax Money For Themselves

Royal Family on Buckingham Palace balcony – YouTube: one of the most useless people on earth, total leeches.
Fresh calls for monarchy to be dissolved after taxpayer funding increases by 66% | The Independent in England reports.  This has got to be the most noxious, stupid, grifters on earth, whose sole function for the last several hundred years has been to be spectators in the front row seats.  I have a grudge with them, my family fought them for a number of years which is why, by 1600, we were in lands held by Holland in the New World and we fought in the Revolutionary war.


Well, the taxpayers of Britain are stuck with these grifters and year after year, they consume vast resources, live in giant palaces, their slice of global warming CO2 is immense like all the Hollywood stars, politicians, ‘scientists’ (sic) and billionaires and dictators on this planet consume and spew and these clowns lecture us about nature, the environment and how we must reduce our lives to that of medieval peasants to please these super rich/super powerful clowns.


What is particularly sad is how a crowd of people are behind these huge iron, spiked gates cheering these clowns for living many years (the queens seem to live forever) which is no surprise, they are pampered pets who don’t have to do a thing for themselves but mostly spend their time being pampered.


Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, said: “This is an absolute disgrace. An indictment on the Queen’s scandalous mismanagement of royal finances over six decades.


“MPs have repeatedly called on the palace to fund repairs by opening up to tourists all year round and they’ve refused. If the royals can’t look after the buildings and raise their own revenue to fund maintenance, it’s time to give them up.


“The royals cost the taxpayer over £334m a year and that keeps going up. We need independent inquiry and full disclosure into their spending. The monarchy’s costs need to be stripped right back, put the institution on a proper budgetary footing and allow parliament to approve the budget each year.”


The Queen is reported to have around £300m in personal wealth, while land owned by the monarchy is thought to be worth more than £7bn. The royals also receive hundreds of millions of pounds from taxpayers each year.


They have multiple palaces.  They have great treasures.  The palaces in Russia are open to tourists.  The palaces in France are open to tourists.  But not the British royals.  I think, since they are all stuffed dummies in the first place, troops of tourists should be allowed to watch them doing their stuff including going into the royal bedchambers to see the dressing and undressing by the servants who do this chore.


There is precedent for this!  Louis XIV did this!  Levée (ceremony) was the daily dressing of this man with many witnesses who assisted and begged him for favors while doing it.


So, no problem opening up the gates of the British royal’s palaces so the peasants can watch the fun.  Otherwise, it may be opened like in the French Revolution when the peasants poured into the palaces and killed the royals.


sunset borger

side picture begging boneEmail:



209 Greenhollow Rd

Petersburgh, NY 12138

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’

Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.


sunset borger


Filed under .money matters

22 responses to “Lazy British Royals Demand 66% Increase In Tax Money For Themselves

  1. Melponeme_k

    I’ve had arguments with Brits over these freeloaders. Almost all of them are convinced the Royal grifters cost them nothing in taxes, that they pay their own way for the most part. NO, THEY DON’T. The shirts off the Brit backs and the sweat off their brows are paying for these ingrates to live lives of luxury.

    At this point it is pointless to argue about it. The Brits have been in the yoke for so long, they love it. If the Age of Revolutions passed them by, so has their bid for freedom. It is a shame though, if they threw these people to curb and into the trashcan of history they would strike a blow for freedom that would set the WORLD free not only themselves.

  2. John F

    Hi Mel_K

    As a Brit I agree with you.

    What is particularly sad is how a crowd of people are behind these huge iron, spiked gates cheering these clowns for living many years


    I am sure many, if not most, Brits have little enthusiasm if not outright hostility to monarchy. However to get rid would involve unpicking the unwritten British constitution and probably creating a head of state / president type role. My attitude is that we have bigger fish to fry.

    Sure they are a distraction, but the sad cases who take an interest in the doings of these freaks are never likely to apply their little minds to anything of any importance.

  3. JimmyJ

    @John F: Bigger fish to fry?

    Throwing off the yoke of fealty would go a long way to dismantling highly autocratic tendencies that give you Brits such treats as decades of supressed child abuse by MPs and current draconian surveillance laws. But by all means, carry on.

  4. emsnews

    I have more claim to the Throne than ANY of the ‘royals’ and like them, I also have German blood too, hahaha.

    UNLIKE these creeps, I can trace my linage to the Norman Conquest only that event was nasty, no? So I give the people of England permission to get rid of their interloper ‘royals’ and I will not replace them, right?

    Yes, go ahead and revolt. It will feel good. At least kick them out of the palaces. I know, the War of the Roses ended long ago but look who lives there today!!!!

  5. tio

    “Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.” – C.S. Lewis

    *quiet chuckle* let the games commence.

  6. Petruchio

    @#5 tio: Good comment….

  7. melponeme_k


    So said the man who wrote an entire children’s book series celebrating the primacy of royal blood.

    There is a difference between Royals and the rest in that quote. Royals actually make claim that they are emissaries of god, their blood is magical and that gives them divine right to rule over us deplorables.

    The rest of them can be banished just by turning off the tv, not attending films or games. The royals are always around, sucking our life’s blood.

  8. Seraphim

    People relish clown shows from time immemorial. Carnival was a sacred time in all societies. Monarchy is not that useless. It provides that entertainment, it is only fair to pay the actors. The public shows are free of charge. People voluntarily pay the cost. For sure, they pay more for the magazines which register every fart of the royals, for the salaries of the really useless journalists and paparazzi, than any direct tax which goes to the royal clowns.

  9. emsnews

    My ancestors helped decapitate a king not to mention overthrowing another one and the Battle of Hastings. Kings are mere humans.

    And NO ONE ‘voluntarily pays’ for these royals, they are all taxed and taxed heavily.

  10. Seraphim

    But they love the circus. In England, people vote what taxes they pay. That’s democracy. That’s why they killed the King.
    Actually, the killing of the King was part of the Carnival also. Celts were notorious head-hunters.

  11. tio


    {Royals actually make claim that they are emissaries of god, their blood is magical and that gives them divine right to rule over us deplorables.}

    The churches here are completely empty, have been for nearly 100 years (apart from a smattering from the ‘old religion’). The natives are godless.

    Charles married his whorse (new job opportunity?), his eldest ‘married’ a deplorable (and even got her preggers – wonders never cease :D), and the ‘spare’ ginger has a righteous hard on for a mixed race colonial. Majik indeed.

    Liz and co. cost me ~£1 per annum, that’s entertainment.

    “The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. ” – Walter Bagehot

    Go on, you know you want to 😀

  12. melponeme_k


    You are so naive. The royals can roll in the muck as much as they want but still be unicorns. Didn’t you read the stories about the Queen treating the baby machine as dirt under her feet? Until the bad press and then they hid it. Believe me, she is still nothing but an incubator and her children are magical not her.

    It doesn’t matter the religious nature of the populace. The royals and the rest of their kind are still religious. And they are the gods. Learn to read the alchemical imagery they dress themselves in.

    Yes, monarchy is such a wonderful government. Where can we all sign up for more of this!

    Believe me, most of the royals and elite are still inbred. Which is why the world is in the shambles it is now.

  13. Lou

    Are the Royals Masons? Elaine, you know a bit about these secret societies.

  14. tio

    I don’t know about the voodoo .. that you do .. so well 😀

  15. emsnews

    The Royals are the Royals…GERMAN royals, not British. After the War of the Roses, the Brit royals were gone and the Welsh royals began and then they were ended by the Protestant revolt and Germans were brought in to fix the void.

    It is hilarious how the Brits are supposed to respect these interlopers.

  16. tio

    “By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle – the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party – to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all.” ~John A. Macdonald, 1st Prime Minister of Canada


  17. Seraphim

    Perhaps the last legitimate King of Britain (i.e. a Celt) was King Arthur (also known as Arviragus and Caractacus), no matter that in reality, he was of Gallic (Belgae – Gallorum fortissime) stock.
    The real story of King Arthur was FUBAR by the ‘Holy Grail’ fiction novels (which actually falsified the real story of the Grail), by the modern pseudo-Druids, as well as by the reluctance of the Brits to admit that for so long they have been an appendage of Continental Powers (from Rome to France). Actually, King Arthur was the first Christian King of Britain (but go and say that loudly if you want to get flayed by the pseudo-Druids and Academia alike). And his son Linus (he is the one mentioned by St. Paul in his 2nd Epistle to Timothy!), the first bishop of Rome (you risk to be quartered for that by the ‘Papists’)!

  18. emsnews

    Yikes! You mean my family invaded? HAHAHAHA. You bet. But then, the Celts invaded, too, you know, driving the Ice Age natives to Wales and Scotland (see the pattern here?).

  19. Seraphim

    Yes, it is exactly what I said. Actually, you said that your family invaded, overthrew the relatively ‘Ice Age native’ king (killing and dismembering him), decapitated another one (incidentally an Ice Age native of Scotland also), before invading the trans-Atlantic shores to overthrow other Ice Age natives, and seem to take much pride in it. I have no reason to disbelieve you or hold any grudge against you for that matter.
    What I find amusing is the extreme fondness of the Brits for knighthoods, baronetcies, collars, badges, garters, feathers (as well as for the show-business – that is again, Carnival). This is a sign of primitive thinking.

  20. emsnews

    Harold was more viking than not.

  21. Seraphim

    Who were really the Vikings?
    ‘Viking’ comes from ‘Old Norse’ and means ‘a pirate raid’. People who went off raiding in ships were said to be ‘going Viking’.
    You see, it might very well be that the name only is ‘Norse’. But the coasts of Britain, Brittany, Normandy, Netherlands, Scandinavia, were teeming with pirates from ancient times. They were called Veneti (in Brittany), related to the Adriatic Veneti, to the Vistula (Baltic) Veneti. They were dominating the waterways, either sea or rivers, combining the lucrative activities of commerce and looting (the first form of tax) and banking. They were certainly the ‘Variag, Varangoi’.
    So, the ‘invasions’ of Britain were really internal affairs of this Pirate Realm. It is not sure that the ‘Saxons’ were not, in fact, the older tribe of the Suessiones who in the time of Caesar ruled a large portion not only of Gallia Belgica, but also of Britain (under the King Divitiacus, whom Caesar described as the most powerful king in Gaul).

  22. emsnews

    Saxons where earlier ‘Vikings’ who then settled down and were conquered by later Vikings who turned them all into semi-slaves called ‘serfs’. And yes, the ‘Vikings’ were ‘raiders’ who were from northern tribes. And were quite nasty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s