The Royal Family

[fightoffyour]

The tourism argument is noncense as well, Buckhingham Palace would bring in far more money as a visitor attraction.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

As it happens I’ve just been reading about Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon.

Now their story isn’t exactly hot off the press and I am now aware that it’s covered in “The Crown”. I was completely unaware of them (I don’t watch the show).

But bloody hell. Perhaps this is just my perception being way off - it probably is -but why isn’t that spoken about more?

Probably the same reason they don't tell you that Prince Phillip and Princess Margaret moved in the same social circles as Profumo, Rice-Davies and Keeler

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

The tourism argument is noncense as well, Buckhingham Palace would bring in far more money as a visitor attraction.

Yep just look at how much Versailles brings in a year

[foreveryoung]

You'll be saying the Royal's knocked off Diana next. 

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

You'll be saying the Royal's knocked off Diana next. 

That would be a conspiracy theory. Nothing I’ve posted about is.

The Bowyes -Lyon kids being locked away is public knowledge 

The connections between Stephen Ward, Phillip and Margaret are also well known, He painted portraits of both of them. This is also public knowledge

Oh did I forget he Queens Master of Paintings being a Russia Spy?

This shit always seems to be forgotten

[Mark Albrighton]

The Diana conspiracy theory has been resolved anyway.

 

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, PaulC said:

Its truly wonderful. We all should be very proud!

I’m not really anti royal, certainly not as much as a lot of people on here. I’m quite ambivalent about the whole thing. 

But genuine questions, why should we be proud? Proud of what? Being able to keep an old lady alive until she’s 96?

[Eligius]

2 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

The tourism argument is noncense as well, Buckhingham Palace would bring in far more money as a visitor attraction.

It already is a tourist attraction and for a few years people have been able to pay to go inside .

[TheAuthority]

12 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

I don’t think I ever said I thought people wanted them executed? I’m just saying it’s not only loons that read the Daily Mail who think the royals might bring in more than £85m of economic benefit each year.

I think the interest in the royals would be reduced to almost zero if they were no longer the head of state. They currently have (effectively) a purely ceremonial role already, and primarily what people are interested in these days is all the pageantry that goes with the role. Nobody would pay to meet Charles if they abolished the monarchy when the Queen dies.

Also, I very much doubt abolishing the monarchy would magically transport us to a society where your abilities are more important that your birthright. A lot of your opportunities in life are defined by your location of birth and the earnings / general attentiveness of your parents. I get the royals are an extreme example but the problem won’t go away.

@TheAuthority @Davkaus so are you guys suggesting the French monarchy (probably the most famous ex-monarchy given how it ended) brings in more money and gives more soft power than ours? I’d definitely have to see some evidence before I believe that.

Personally I’m pretty neutral on the royals. I don’t see many problems that abolishing the monarchy would meaningfully improve, and as I also I don’t think they’re much of a drain on the public purse I’m content to let them chug along as is for now.

Thing is, most anti-monarchy sentiment I’ve encountered seems primarily to come from wanting to take away things enjoyed by groups you don’t like. I’ve got two issues with that. The first is that that’s a bad idea in general - the Welsh language is pointless, expensive and all the Welsh people I currently know are cocks, but that’s hardly a reason to abolish part of our (their) heritage.

The second thing is that most people aren’t actually very into the monarchy. It’s an excuse to have a loosely crown-themed party / day out once in a while. If you asked them to do anything strenuous for the Queen they’d tell you to jog on. It’s just the same as the World Cup campaign or the Olympics. I don’t really see any value to taking that away on a point of principle.

Sure, you wouldn’t want to create a royal family if you didn’t already have one but that’s not the discussion we’re having.

I made no mention of the French monarchy 

[TheAuthority]

4 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

The tourism argument is noncense as well, Buckhingham Palace would bring in far more money as a visitor attraction.

[PaulC]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I’m not really anti royal, certainly not as much as a lot of people on here. I’m quite ambivalent about the whole thing. 

But genuine questions, why should we be proud? Proud of what? Being able to keep an old lady alive until she’s 96?

70 years is amazing. 

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, PaulC said:

70 years is amazing. 

70 years of what? Lives a life of ultra luxury and pampering. It’s a money can’t buy lifestyle. 

[Stevo985]

28 minutes ago, PaulC said:

70 years is amazing. 

Why? What you’re saying is it’s amazing that she’s lived to 96. Lots of people live to 96. 
 

Why should we be proud of a woman living to 96 who also happens to be the Queen?

 

I don’t get it

[Mark Albrighton]

Lady Jane Grey had the right idea.

Don’t outstay your welcome, always leave them wanting more.

[Panto_Villan]

9 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

I made no mention of the French monarchy 

No, but they’re a perfect example of what you did mention, right? The monarchy no longer existing and the royal assets all being transferred to the state.

8 hours ago, Genie said:

70 years of what? Lives a life of ultra luxury and pampering. It’s a money can’t buy lifestyle. 

I think money can quite easily buy that lifestyle. Living in a nice house and getting your needs attended to by others. Anyone worth £5-10m could have that lifestyle without all the bullshit and lack of privacy  that goes with being a royal.

I reckon there’s very few millionaires in this country who would be the next king / queen. Any middling celebrity / influencer or PL footballer or (child of a) wealthy businessman probably has a much more luxurious and less restricted existence.

Theres a reason why the independently wealthy (though hardly A-list) Meghan Markle ran a mile once she realised what being a royal actually entailed.
 

8 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Why? What you’re saying is it’s amazing that she’s lived to 96. Lots of people live to 96. 
 

Why should we be proud of a woman living to 96 who also happens to be the Queen?

 

I don’t get it

I think “proud” might be the wrong word tbh. Appreciative might be better. Whatever word you’d use to describe David Attenborough still working to help the environment in his 90s.

Its the same for the Queen. You only get one life on this planet and she’s spent the entire of it in public service as the nation’s figurehead when she could quite reasonably have retired from the role 30 years ago and spent her time doing things she enjoyed (and, indeed, was wealthy enough that she never actually had to do it in the first place).

I think even a republican could probably admire her lifetime of dedication to the role even if they disagree with the institution she represents.

[chrisp65]

A lifetime’s dedication to living the life of royalty with everything the ring of a little bell away.

People to design you a hat, decide which hat tomorrow, get your hat out, put your hat on your head, issue some PR about the hat, organise which food bank to open in your name, drive you back to your private palace, take the hat off your head, put your hat in its box, put your pj’s out for you, put toothpaste on your brush and read you a story about public duty.

You go to sleep, whilst they decide which hat you’ll wear tomorrow.

 

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

A lifetime’s dedication to living the life of royalty with everything the ring of a little bell away.

People to design you a hat, decide which hat tomorrow, get your hat out, put your hat on your head, issue some PR about the hat, organise which food bank to open in your name, drive you back to your private palace, take the hat off your head, put your hat in its box, put your pj’s out for you, put toothpaste on your brush and read you a story about public duty.

You go to sleep, whilst they decide which hat you’ll wear tomorrow.

 

I think the point being made was that she would have still had all that even if she had abdicated at ‘retirement’ age. 

[The Fun Factory]

I am not a republican and I enjoyed the extra day off but most of the jubilee stuff which I briefly looked at was so utterly cringe I had to turn it off.

Brian May was naff 20 years ago  and they still rebooked him. Chris Eubank and Cliff Richard on a bus- did I dream that from eating too much cheese?

Each to their own but organised fun just makes me feel a bit cold inside.

[chrisp65]

Just now, LondonLax said:

I think the point being made was that she would have still had all that even if she had abdicated at ‘retirement’ age. 

Oh yeah, I get all the points.

I’m just suggesting an intervention for their own good might be in order.

We supply the land and the income that perpetuate this dysfunctional family’s lifestyle. It’s our duty to help them stand on their own two feet, without benefits, and lead a more normal rewarding life. Where they put their own toothpaste on their toothbrush and where they don’t have to run the constant risk of piles from all that sitting down at banquets. 

[markavfc40]

6 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

I think money can quite easily buy that lifestyle. Living in a nice house and getting your needs attended to by others. Anyone worth £5-10m could have that lifestyle without all the bullshit and lack of privacy  that goes with being a royal.

I reckon there’s very few millionaires in this country who would be the next king / queen. Any middling celebrity / influencer or PL footballer or (child of a) wealthy businessman probably has a much more luxurious and less restricted existence.

Theres a reason why the independently wealthy (though hardly A-list) Meghan Markle ran a mile once she realised what being a royal actually entailed.
 

 

If 99% of the Royal family hadn't been born into wealth and privilege there is zero chance they would have earned the kind of money that has given them the ridiculously luxurious lifestyle they have been handed on a plate, and paid for by us, for doing nothing more than coming out of the right womb.

A lot of multi millionaires wouldn't swap with them you are correct. There are billions of other people who would snap your hands off for the riches they have been handed for doing pretty much f all.

Edited June 6, 2022 by markavfc40